Rescission motion passes, trail delay defeated in council

"It's do something or do nothing, I'm very much on the side of do something," councillor Paul Gaddes said in voting to move the motion.

He cited concerns about timeframes on moving forward with a first stage or losing a $5.4million federal bushfire recovery grant.

"We are on a ticking clock and we need to take full advantage of this as quickly as we can," Cr Gaddes said.

Some councillors had questioned the technicalities of the grant against having a funding deed in the bank, but Cr Gaddes argued the nett result was the same.

"If we delay - the funding goes away," he said.

General Manager James Roncon clarified that a final deadline was March 31, 2025, but that council would need to move forward with tendering prior to the start of construction to meet that project deadline.

Mayor Sam Coupland and deputy Todd Redwood remained largely silent throughout the debate about the motion, but Cr Gaddes took up the torch for pro-trail advocates.

Councillor Jon Galletly seconded the motion and chose some colourful words to make clear he agreed it was a 'do something or do nothing' moment for council.

"We've got more chances of bumping our bum on the moon than trains coming back here," Cr Galletly said.

"I've always been a supporter of it [the trail], we need something like that, all the little communities [between Armidale and Glen Innes] could do well out of it."

Councillors Brad Widders and Margaret O'Connor spoke against the rescission motion and also expressed disgust with a number of emails targeted at councillors who had voted down the previous motion.

"The rescission motion seems to be a response from what can only be described as a condescendingly, pretentiously disgusting attempt to bully councillors with the emails we received," Cr Widders said.

"If you were against it [the motion] you were spoken to rather rudely.

"I want to thank those who had genuine concerns and approached the matter civilly - for those of you who tried to talk down ... I suggest you buy yourself a mirror - some of these emails really are a blight on the community."

Cr O'Connor said that she believed there were no benefits to gain from the rail trail.

"I do not think this mini trail is going to deliver any benefits - I think the report we were faced with is insulting to our intelligence - this is not the project that the $5.4m was for," Cr O'Connor said.

She said the grant had been supplied for a section of trail between Ben Lomond and Black Mountain.

A number of councillors clarified that they had not voted against the rail trail, but to simply source more information and reports.

Cr Gaddes said that council reports had already included many answers to those questions.

Cr Steven Mepham said the trail proposal had been born in Guyra when councils were separate and that he was saddened the first stage would not benefit Guyra, but said it was time for the councillors to let staff move forward with plans and see if the trail could work.

"Reports and answers are important, but I don't think today's decision is going to be the end-state," Cr Mepham said.

"It pains me to think that Guyra gave birth to this originally - nevertheless I think we need council and the GM to put this stuff up and see how it stands up before it dies in the water because of time constraints."

Councillors Brad Widders, Margaret O'Connor, Susan McMichael, Dorothy Robinson and Paul Packham voted against the rescission motion.

Councillors Paul Gaddes, Jon Galletly, Sam Coupland, Todd Redwood and Steven Mepham voted for the motion. Cr Redwood chaired the meeting and his casting ballot passed the motion.

A subsequent motion moved by Cr Robinson was also moved with a 6-4 vote that council should accept a timetable for works and go ahead with construction of stage one of the rail trail once state approvals had been received.

The motion also added the caveat that council should seek expert advice on the practicality of building a rail trail beside the existing tracks, allowing for the retention of the current railway assets.

The carried motion also carried provisions for future discussions and expert panels along with access passages at various points along the trail.