A majority of councillors again voted to reject a recommendation from environmental planning and building services director David Shaw to approve the DA, subject to 28 conditions.

But in an unexpected twist, it was those conditions that swayed the votes of at least three councillors to oppose the application.

Councillors Monica Morse, Bobby Bourke and Graeme Hanger expressed concerns that the number of conditions and the range of issues they covered – including noise, odour and sewage control – meant there were too many unanswered questions for them to confidently approve the DA.

They were joined by councillors Ian North,  Greg Westman and Jess Jennings in voting to knock back the DA, with only Cr Coote, Cr Warren Aubin and mayor Gary Rush voting to grant conditional approval to the development.

As it became clear which way the numbers were falling, Cr Coote reminded councillors that applicant Brendan McHugh had already foreshadowed legal action if the kennel was refused.

“I would ask you all to pull out your wallets because this is going to the Land and Environment Court,” Cr Coote said.

Cr Coote also asked Mr Shaw if the application would have been approved under delegated authority if no submissions had been received.

“Yes, it would,” Mr Shaw replied.

“So now because we have had a few people jump up and down – as they’re fully entitled to – we are going to knock back a complying development,” Cr Coote said. “That’ll do me.”

Earlier, Cr Aubin had asked Mr Shaw how many of his planning staff held environmental science degrees and was given the answer “four”.

Cr Aubin then asked how many councillors held environmental science degrees and received an answer from the floor from Cr Bourke, who said: “Probably one, but I’ve got common sense.”

Cr Bourke said he had not changed his view on opposing the development, saying rather than approve the DA with a raft of submissions that council should be asking the applicant to start again to ensure his application addressed all their concerns.

And Cr Hanger actually changed his vote on the issue, switching from initial support for the kennel to knocking them back on Wednesday night.

“What it comes down to, for me, is that this development is not in the public interest,” Cr Hanger said. “I do listen to our staff but I also listen to the community and we have 380 pages of attachments with this report and something doesn’t gel. Something just doesn’t grab me.”

The application to build a 24-dog kennel along with cattery for 20 animals and shelter for up to 20 other small animals has been strongly opposed by neighbours in the Dunkeld valley since it was first lodged almost a year ago.

Concerns have included the daytime noise, environmental concerns and traffic concerns along Marys Lane and the intersection with the Mitchell Highway.

Councillors first rejected the proposal in September before the applicant sought a review of that decision at Wednesday’s meeting.