Some of the letters were quite emotional and in some cases personal attacks on individual councillors evident: I will not respond to those issues. However, is it any wonder that those who do support the move are not as vocal?

In making a decision, it is the role of councillors to assess the most recent information available and make a determination, which they feel is on balance in the best interest of the community, on the basis of that evidence.

The decision to move the VIC is based upon the findings of three separate consultants’ reports and following considerable and lengthy community consultation.

It has hardly been a rushed decision. If council was immune to ratepayer opinion, it would not have undertaken the consultative process about what is really an operational matter which could have been directly dealt with by staff.

In 1998, an integrated local area plan identified that to “grow the tourism sector and to encourage and support growth in visitation, the plan identified that a new VIC was required and that it should be located on both the Oxley and (now) Kamilaroi Highway”.

In 2004, the Study into the Location of the Gunnedah Visitor Information Centre found that “tourism had outgrown the VIC building and facilities available” and that the Gunnedah VIC “does not adequately promote Gunnedah and its identifying icons due to its location and size”. The report recommended a site located on both highways.

This year - 2014 - consultant Jenny Rand of Jenny Rand and Associates, after a careful analysis of the present situation and options, came to a similar conclusion when she recommended the preferred, and lowest cost, option is to co-locate the VIC to the Civic-Wolseley Park Precinct site provided that provision can be made for parking of long rigs safely and easily close to the VIC.

Findings re the present VIC site included very low usage; low visibility from both highways; poor physical links with CBD and accommodation sites; not multi-faceted functions as required of VICs; and poor signage.

After careful consideration of the report and concerns raised by residents via submissions and public meetings, the clear and strong recommendation of staff who are involved in supervising and conducting the tourist service, was to transfer the VIC to the Civic site.

Council has adopted the general manager’s recommendation in that regard.

Main opposition to the recommendation related to the proposed re-location to the Creative Arts Centre; the movement away from an attractive park site with historic, emotive links; the claims of inadequate parking at the new site; and the perception that signage would solve the problem of falling patronage.

Council believes that they have addressed these concerns within the six recommendations of the adopted resolution. Simply improving signage for an inappropriate location does not address the concerns identified in the three independent reports.

I might also correct a false claim as the parking at Coles, off Bloomfield Street, is public parking not privately owned.

Furthermore, research has revealed that a VIC in its rawest form provides an opportunity to convince and inspire people to stay longer, see more and spend more.

Of those visitors who visit a VIC, 49 per cent of them spent more time in the area and 56 per cent spent extra money in town.

Tourism contributes $44.7 million to the shire’s economy, provides 8.7 per cent of our workforce, and each of the 227,000 visitors to the shire is an opportunity to gain spending in our community. The VIC changes are directed at maximising this tourist dollar in our town.

In relation to allowing verbal presentations at the beginning of our July meeting, council had determined that the speakers would be limited as there were eight people seeking to do so that night - three relating to other items on the agenda, while five wished to speak about the VIC. All but one who were wishing to speak on the VIC, had made previous, lengthy written submissions-in one case, the person had made three submissions!

With a large number of items to deal with at the meeting, council chose to limit the speakers and I ensured that this was adhered to in order to provide equity and fairness to all.

In relation to my use of my casting vote to support the recommendation, may I point out to Mr Angel and Mr Heuston that there is no reference to any such convention in the Code of Meeting Practice which requires the “chairman to use the casting vote to retain the status quo” as Mr Angel suggests.

What the code does say is: “each councillor is entitled to one vote” and “however, the person presiding at a meeting of the council has, in the event of an equality of votes, a second or casting vote”.

As such, I did as I am required to do, used my casting vote in what I perceived to be in the best interest of the Visitor Information Service, the council and this community. I do not resile from that position and you can be assured I will continue to abide by the council’s code of meeting practice in the future.