GRIFFITH City Council has blocked Terra Ag’s bid to build a fertiliser depot next to the Sikh temple.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Council went against the recommendations made by an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel that advised it approve the development application, subject to a number of conditions.
The panel was appointed by Council to avoid a potential conflict of interest and was advisory only, meaning the final decision still lay with Council.
Only seven members of council voted on the development application to build the rural supplies business next to the temple at Council’s meeting on Tuesday night.
The other councillors present on the night declared a conflict of interest and left the chamber.
The controversy that had surrounded the issue led to standing room only in Council chambers as members of the Sikh community and residents of the surrounding areas made clear their fierce opposition to the development.
The argument about the development centred on its location, with opponents claiming the land was not zoned for a “bulk fertiliser storage facility” and that it should not be built next to a place of worship.
Speaking before councillors made their vote, Hardip Chahal made an impassioned plea on behalf of the Sikh community.
Mr Chahal said while he respected that councillors were stuck between a rock and a hard place in making their decision, he urged them to consider what Griffith meant to the Sikh community and how this would effect the Sikh people.
“This development will effect a significant part of the community you represent and we ask that you keep in mind the merit of the community and what is for the greater good for the Griffith community,” he said.
In light of the fact the Sikh community had lodged a development application to build a learning centre next to their temple Mr Chahal said they did not think it was appropriate a development for a fertiliser plant be approved.
“I know the proponents say this won’t cause pollution, but there are studies from places like CSIRO that say this is not the case.
“If this was a school you were considering sending your children to would you be happy with this development?
“All I ask is that Council take on our concerns and that we try not to marginalise a significant sub-population of Griffith.”
Commenting following Council’s decision Mr Chahal said he was pleased with the outcome and thought Council had really looked at the greater good of the community.
Proponents of the development reiterated their argument that the business was allowed within the ‘B6 industrial zone’ under Griffith’s Local Environment Plan (LEP) because it was a rural supplies business and were visibly disappointed with the final decision made.
It was Councillor Alison Balind who moved that the development not be approved, saying the application was inconsistent with the objectives of the Griffith Land Use Strategy and that it was not in the public interest.
“With our opening prayer we agreed that we meet here to represent all members of our community and it’s diversity and that we make decisions for the common good of the community,” she said.
“I feel for the developers, their business has grown and that is fantastic but the reality is we are talking about fertiliser which will impact on the day-to-day residences within the whole environment.
Councillor Balind queried why Council had not come up with a better strategy to assist developers with such proposals.
“There are a number of other places where this development would slot straight in and we need to work more smartly with people who want to grow their business or open in new areas,” she said.
Councillor Balind’s motion was seconded by Councillor Pat Cox, no other councillors spoke against the motion.
Before the decision was made Griffith mayor John Dal Broi urged both sides of the debate to respect Council’s decision.
“I am aware this issue has caused discontent in the community and ask you to respect each others views,” Cr Dal Broi said.
“In this democratic country where we live everyone has a right, the developers to submit their development application and the objectors to object to it.
“This is not an easy decision for council.”