Browse > Home / News, Penola, Penola news, Region / Bypass decision deferred again

Bypass decision deferred again

Posted on October 22, 2008, 2:02pm ,  2 views

Wattle Range Council’s decision on whether to proceed with acquisition of land to build the Penola bypass has been put on hold until December.

More than 120 people attended a special council meeting at Rymill Hall on Tuesday night to witness council’s discussion on the matter, only to hear the decision would be deferred due to the need for legal advice.

A large section of the crowd stood to applaud Penola councillor Peter Muller when he was the only councillor to publicly express his view on the project during the half-hour meeting.

Other councillors remained silent after Mayor Mark Braes said proceedings should be adjourned due to a new legal threat.

Chief executive Frank Brennan read aloud from a letter from the Penola and District Residents and Ratepayers Association’s lawyers.

The letter claimed council had demonstrated bias in favour of an approval of the Penola Bypass road, making it incapable of properly considering objections.

Mellor Olsson legal partner Tim Mellor also wrote that there were concerns about the legal status of common land that would be used for a section of the bypass.

He wrote that the bypass did not match the “community use” purpose of the land.

“The real intention of the bypass is to facilitate the access of heavy vehicles, in particular those carrying blue gum logs or chips to the proposed pulp mill on Millers Lane,” Mr Mellor wrote.

Mr Brennan said he had not had time to gain advice from council’s solicitors on the letter after receiving the correspondence late in the day of the meeting and it would be prudent for discussions to be postponed.

Cr Muller said the matter should be adjourned until December so council could also await the Federal Government’s infrastructure priority list, due at the end of November, along with other information, and seek meetings with affected parties to consider alternative options.

He warned against council committing to “half a bypass”, which it could be left with if it proceeded with its unfunded plans.

Cr Muller council’s plan would inflict “personal, emotional and financial pain” on individuals whose land would be acquired, while corporations, such as large employer Fosters, which pays $500,000 in rates, would also be hurt.

“I suggest that if we were to acquire compulsorily the prized portion of Kimberley Clarke’s land, this council and the senior managers sitting around these tables, most of whom live near Millicent and see it as their centre, may well be prepared to continue to re-negotiate the situation, rather than provide a single solution bypass, which is seen as a fait accompli and which has created such dissent with council in our community,” he said.

“We should listen to the wishes of our community and not ignore them as the majority of my fellow councillors did when they dismissed the views of 500 ratepayers over council’s budget.”

His motion was seconded by Cr Michael McCourt, who said he backed the adjournment of discussions until December due to legal concerns, not because he agreed with Cr Muller’s comments.

JASON WALLACE

These articles might be of interest:
Tags: , , ,  

Email this post Email this post   Print this article Print this article

Comments

We welcome your comments on this story. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. We require a working email address - not for publication, but for verification.