A court process may be underway but it's not stopping the new council from revisiting Wakefield Park raceway's future.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Newly elected councillor Jason Shepherd has proposed a notice of motion to the term's first meeting on Tuesday. It asks that councillors meet with Wakefield Park management and surrounding residents about the facility's conditional approval in July, 2021.
READ MORE:
The meetings would be held "without prejudice," given the matter was before the NSW Land and Environment Court.
"Councillors have been informally discussing over the past few weeks that there is value in meeting with Wakefield Park and the affected residents as soon as possible to see if there is a way forward within planning and environmental boundaries that allows (the raceway) to be commercially viable, while mitigating residents' concerns," the motion states.
Cr Shepherd told The Post there were glimmers of hope in discussions last year.
"Let's see if we can make them shine," he said.
"My feeling is we are not on the final lap. As it stands, neither the residents nor Wakefield Park are satisfied. The matter has been left unresolved with legal action pending and all the costs that go with it. (I think) a middle ground can be found and Goulburn Mulwaree's elected new councillors can get stuck in to see what can be done. If we can reach an agreeable outcome it's to everyone's benefit."
Cr Shepherd said he purposefully hadn't met with Wakefield Park's management or residents as he didn't want to be seen as biased to any party. But he did extensive research on past meetings and spoke to supporters and objectors during the election campaign. Cr Shepherd said most people in the community had an opinion.
"The message from the community is clear. Sort out Wakefield Park so it's commercially viable and the residents concerns are addressed," he said.
The Braidwood Road facility's future became a flashpoint in the recent election campaign. Several ultimately successful candidates said they wanted the raceway's economic future secured and disagreed with the July approval's conditions surrounding noise.
Cr Shepherd previously said he voted for Cr Walker as mayor, in part, because he wanted the matter revisited.
Wakefield's owners, Benalla Auto Group, is challenging these conditions in the court, arguing they will render the operation 'unviable,' given noise restrictions. A hearing is scheduled for March 8, 9 and 10.
Mediation between the council, residents and the company failed in November.
But Wakefield Park operations manager Dean Chapman told The Post he'd love to settle the matter out of court to say legal expenditure.
"We believe we can all work together for the betterment of all the community and we're excited by the opportunity of reaching a resolution," he said.
However it would not stop the current court proceedings for now because Wakefield needed to know the conditions were "workable."
Mayor Peter Walker said the five new councillors elected in December wanted to be updated on the issue before it went to court. He and several others have previously stated they didn't want it to get to that stage.
"My understanding is that up until the hearing there can be talks, with input from both sides," he said.
"Nothing was decided at the last mediation. But there's no reason there can't be more discussion...It's an opportunity for the five new councillors who all had Wakefield Park on their agendas."
The council last year voted five to four in favour of the development application. It contained amended conditions to appease residents' noise concerns but Wakefield Park opposed these.
What are the options?
In advice to Tuesday's meeting, council general manager Warwick Bennett said "without prejudice" talks could occur with both parties, despite the court process. This was based on legal advice about the ability to revisit the July decision.
Solicitors also stated that the the council's role as a decision making body was now "spent," with the matter "firmly entrenched with the court."
Both parties and their experts were expected to put forward arguments and the court had to be satisfied that "no adverse environmental impact would result from the determination."
"It is noted that environmental impact is likely to trump economic benefit, based on the (court) being required to have regard to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act," the report stated.
Other options were available, Mr Bennett said. The council could choose not to defend the matter but the court was "highly unlikely" to accept this as the action had resulted from a legal process.
Alternatively, Wakefield Park could withdraw the appeal or surrender its recently granted consent. However a 1993 approval would again take effect.
Residents' noise objections were based on the 1993 consent and Mr Bennett said they could take the matter to the same court if it took effect again.
"They can and have proven beyond all doubt that environmental impact has occurred," he said.
A Wakefield Park representative also conceded last June that the raceway had breached noise consent conditions.
Mr Bennett's report also stated that the operators could lodge a new or modified development application.
"If Wakefield Park did lodge a modification, the council could ask the court to pause the litigation until any new application is determined. However the court is unlikely to agree to this course of action given how far the matter has advanced," he wrote, based on the legal advice.
Cr Walker voted against the terms of the most recent development application's consent. He said at the time that the noise schedule would negatively impact the raceway's operation and the council should find ways to support the business.
On Friday, he told The Post he was only one of nine people and he wasn't sure whether more talks would strike compromise.
"I'm mindful of residents as well," Cr Walker said.
"The problem is we need to find a middle ground. Where that is remains the issue...If there is no (agreement) and it goes to court, so be it. But if we get some middle ground we can go further down the mediation path."
Tuesday's meeting starts at 6pm and will be livestreamed on the council's webpage.
Do you have something to say about this issue? Send a letter to the editor. Click here for the Goulburn Post
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.
Louise Thrower
If you have a story to tell, drop me a line at louise.thrower@austcommunitymedia.com.au or call 0418 229 678.
If you have a story to tell, drop me a line at louise.thrower@austcommunitymedia.com.au or call 0418 229 678.
