Motion to reconsider Maryborough admin site voted down by council

Councillor Daniel Sanderson put a motion to the council asking to suspend further planning work on the construction of the new administration building and to investigate alternative sites.

Maryborough’s new council headquarters will be built in the Kent St location of its original site after councillors voted against exploring other options at the meeting on Wednesday.

Councillor Daniel Sanderson put a motion to the council asking to suspend further planning work on the construction of the new administration building and to investigate alternative sites.

Extensive debate followed but the motion was lost.

Cr Sanderson, along with all but two of his elected colleagues, voted in August in favour of keeping the building at the Kent Street location where the former headquarters were demolished in 2020.

Only Mayor George Seymour and Deputy Mayor Darren Everard voted against the motion, with both raising concerns about the Kent Street site’s location in a flood zone.

Speaking exclusively to the Chronicle this week, Cr Sanderson explained his change of heart.

“The establishment of a new council administration centre in Maryborough is a once-in-a-generation decision, so it’s vital that we get it right,” he said.

“My motion simply asks the council to put a hold on our current decision to allow a final opportunity to explore other options, such as restoring existing buildings within the CBD, that might be a better solution into the future.”

But the majority of councillors were in favour of sticking with the decision that had already been made.

Cr Paul Truscott said the council had already investigated where to place the new administration building twice and questioned what a third time would accomplish.

Former Chronicle editor Nancy Bates, an opponent of keeping the admin building at its original location, expressed her disappointment on Facebook, saying the motion was voted down “despite the evident unhappiness of their citizens”.

It was suggested during the meeting that if an alternative location was proposed, that could be put to a vote, but no alternative to the current site was suggested.

The motion was defeated 3-7, with Councillor Phil Truscott, Cr Seymour and Cr Sanderson voting in favour of investigating other options.