About 100 people filled the Burley Griffin Room at 1pm to listen to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel on Terra Ag’s proposal to build a rural supplies business next to the Sikh temple.

While proponents argued the business was allowed within the ‘B6 industrial zone’, opponents said the development was actually a bulk fertiliser storage facility, prohibited under Griffith’s Local Environment Plan (LEP).

Under the LEP, landscaping material supplies businesses are permitted within a ‘B6’ zone, but heavy industrial storage establishments are not. 

Griffith City Council moved to appoint the external panel on March 15 after it received a letter from Terra Ag offering $10,000 towards an engineering assessment of a bridge while staff were assessing the development application (DA).

Panel chair Gordon Kirby said they had been to the proposed site and received all the submissions. 

“This is about hearing everyone’s views,” Mr Kirby said.

Hardip Chahal from the Gurdwara Singh Sabha Society spoke against the development and said the temple was their most sacred place.

“The Sikh community is the second-largest community in Griffith,” Mr Chahal said. “The temple is the centrepiece of our community. The entire Indian community of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area is opposed to this development next to the temple.”

Neighbouring property owner Alvise Minato told the panel about coming to Australia after WWII with the goal of being free to have a farm and a place for his family. He claimed the development would “displace” him from his home.

“You need to stop that from going ahead,” Mr Minato pleaded. “Help me make my house safe so I can start my life again.”

Dusty Adams addressed the panel on behalf of the residents of Shiraz Drive.

“We’re in favour of development,” he said, “but this is in the wrong spot. There are 500 signatures on a petition against this development, that’s not for no reason.”

Sydney solicitor Paul Vergotis spoke for Terra Ag and handed the panelists an outline of his argument including a decision-making flowchart.

Opponent Jenny Churchill argued with Mr Kirby, saying the deadline for submissions had passed and Councillor Bill Lancaster said there was a restriction on legal counsel speaking, but the document was allowed and no problem was found with legal representation.

Mr Vergotis outlined the legal arguments why the development should be allowed and said there was a similar development in Sheparton.

The panel asked Terra Ag if any other locations were considered and Martin Ruggeri, speaking on behalf of Terra Ag, said other sites were considered but were either impractical or unavailable.

Ms Churchill was invited to speak and she criticised the panel for allowing a late submission and letting people speak longer than five minutes.

Mr Kirby responded by saying it was common for developers to be allowed to address objections before closing the hearing.

The panel’s recommendations will be sent to Griffith City Council.

Council votes for transparency

Panel one step closer