The proposed relocation of the Animal Shelter has become a hot topic once more.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A notice of rescission sparked a debate over the purchase of land for the relocation of the animal shelter at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on November 25.
The notice of rescission was put up by Councillors Garry Turland, Larry Whipper and Ken Halstead.
The rescission motion concerned the purchase of 1 Bowman Road, Moss Vale which was passed on November 11 in closed council.
The property would be amended for additional use as an animal boarding and training establishment.
The rescission notice intended to move that council engage with FOWAS as a matter of urgency, that council obtains permission to purchase land that does not comply with the Local Environment Plan for an animal shelter and enter a contract subject to rezoning.
Councillor Turland said that council was prepared $1.4 million, plus GST at $140,000 thousand without a cost for a planning proposal to change the zone to allow for an animal boarding house.
"We are assuming that the zoning will be changed. No banks, no lawyer would involve themselves in ending a contract on the possibility that it might get changed," he said.
"It is clear that as a matter of urgency, council engages with FOWAS with the relocation of the animal shelter.
That council obtain the approval of the OLG to purchase the land that doesn't comply with an animal shelter and that if council proceeds with purchasing this land, it will be subject to rezoning as anybody else in rural business would be."
Councillor Whipper said he supported the rescission motion.
"Part of the reason I support this rescission motion is that I've had conversations with stakeholders and there were concerns about the location and a lot of those stakeholders feel that it's not a fit for purpose site," he said.
"I think if we rescind this motion, we enter into meaningful consultation with FOWAS and hear what their concerns are.
"We need to build a fit for purpose site. It needs to come back, have that conversation [with FOWAS] and see what the real needs are and then look at the land that may be appropriate."
Councillor Peter Nelson spoke against the rescission motion.
"We seem to defer, defer, defer, consult and apply the precautionary principle," he said.
"No wonder the residents think we don't get anything done. This is an appropriate land to develop the animal shelter.
"If you're going to spend $5 million on a project then it's best to start with a vacant parcel of land, not with land that has buildings on it, then you can consult with the appropriate people.
"The land will be rezoned, the community members will be consulted and an appropriate animal shelter will be consulted. So let's move on and get on with the animal shelter."
Councillor Halstead said the rescission was based on the legal processes.
"It is a councillor's right to move a rescission motion," he said,
"There are some concerns and I do agree with what Cr Nelson said which is that we need to get on with it but let's not suggest that this rescission motion will defer [the build] in any meaningful time," he said.
"If we are uncomfortable with what we have moved - and I am when it comes to rezoning. I think it's a matter of concern."
Mayor Gair said he believed that the rescission motion would delay the animal shelter by another three months.
"We will have Christmas, then January and then consult in February and then it will come back in March and nobody will want to make a decision," he said.
"Five million dollars is what we are prepared to spend on the animal shelter. It is a dog shelter - not the Hilton hotel.
It is to house displaced animals in a humane and safe environment. So what it is wrong with moving it 200 metres across the road to a greenfield site, specifically located to where everybody wants - high visibility, easy access, close to Moss Vale.
"Let's get on with it and build a state of the art animal shelter, consult with FOWAS with how they want it designed, get it started, and give it to them before this council's end of term."
In his right of reply, Cr Turland said the rezoning of the land was not guaranteed.
"There is no guarantee that this will get through the subdivision process, we are changing the LEP," he said.
"It is not allowed on this site, nobody in the right mind would spend their money on something that doesn't comply.
"It is madness. You're going to waste nine to 12 months to go through a planning proposal by buying a site that doesn't comply.
"This is not good business sense and you haven't had a consultation with FOWAS, you've pushed them aside.
"Like always the animal shelter gets pushed back."
Councillors Turland, Whipper and Halstead voted for the rescission motion.
Councillors against the rescission motion were Ian Scandrett, Grahame McLaughlin, Graham Andrews, Gair and Nelson.
The rescission motion was lost.
President of FOWAS Deborah Barnes said FOWAS had advised Wingecarribee Shire Council senior council management and councillors of their concerns over the purchase of 1 Bowman Road, Moss Vale on September 30, 2020.
Ms Barnes said she hadn't heard from council management in relation to FOWAS' concerns.
"FOWAS is aware the proposed site has limitations very similar to the current animal shelter site and if the new animal shelter were built here this would again be in conflict with Wingecarribee Shire Councils animal welfare and minimal euthanasia principles as well as the expectations of the Southern Highlands community," she said.
"We still have not received any further communication from the Wingecarribee Council Shire Management regarding our concerns pointed out below.
"We find this lack of communication between the two parties unreasonable as any issues FOWAS has previously raised about the animal shelter has been handled with management in a timely efficient manner.
"FOWAS concerns with 1 Bowman Road Moss Vale include:
- Location - This location is surrounded by sensitive industrial land uses. The Resource Recovery Centre, Concrete Pty Ltd and other industries. This environment, again, will not meet industry standards, as the staff, animals, volunteers and the public will still be enduring dust, debris, odour and noise on this site.
- Land size - We feel that this land size will not provide enough room for onsite exercising and enrichment areas and volunteers will still be expected to walk dogs off-site in high traffic areas which are dangerous for both the volunteers and the animals.
- Unusable land - Jemena Gas sub-station is located on this site with signage advising there is a high-level gas line running through this property. What are the potential issues and requirements needed to build around such a sub-station? We note there are also open cement easements which could also encourage vermin and snakes.
- Ongoing fire hazard - if there are future fire issues at the Resource Recovery Centre, the site would more than likely need to be evacuated (as Gubbins and surrounding industries were evacuated when the fire occurred on the 4/1/2020). How would this be avoided?
- If this purchase proceeds, what happens if the Gateway Determination returns as no to rezoning for animal welfare boarding on that land, where does that leave the building of a new animal shelter and the money reserved for the new animal shelter?"
We depend on subscription revenue to support our journalism. If you are able, please subscribe here. If you are already a subscriber, thank you for your support.