THE top of Mount Panorama remains the chosen site for a go-kart track after a notice of motion proposing to relocate the circuit was defeated.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The motion, put forward by councillor John Fry to move it to a site one kilometre west of the approved location in McPhillamy Park, was discussed at length at Wednesday's council meeting.
Cr Fry argued that adding the track to the Mount Panorama second circuit precinct made more sense and would ensure the protection of a site Bathurst Wiradyuri elders consider sacred.
"I'm moving this motion tonight because I believe that the current site for the go-kart track is the second best site and we would have a far better result if we moved it down the hill a bit to a site which doesn't have the same baggage as the current proposed site," he said.
However, his argument, which also touched on the impact on the Grassy Box Woodland, wasn't able to persuade enough councillors to scrap the site approved almost five years ago.
He could only gain the support of councillors Monica Morse and Jess Jennings, while mayor Bobby Bourke, deputy mayor Ian North and councillors Warren Aubin, Alex Christian, Graeme Hanger and Jacqui Rudge voted against the proposal.
- WATCH: The full discussion of the notice of motion to relocate go-kart track.
Those who spoke against the proposal primarily based their arguments around the long list of studies that have been done on the location, including Aboriginal cultural heritage assessments, and the amount of money that the project has already cost council, which would only increase if the site was changed.
"We've got a DA fully approved, substantially commenced, and for what? For someone to say 'No, we don't want to do that anymore'," Cr Aubin said.
"... I just can't understand why people can't just abide by the umpire's decision and just let it go, do what we put through and let's build this track where we're going to build it, up at the back of McPhillamy Park."
It was also noted that there are opposing views of the significance of the site from two key aboriginal groups.
"One thing about this whole process, I've known a lot of Aboriginal people through my life, and I've asked them for advice because I'm not an Aboriginal person ... they've given me advice, women have given me advice and they have told me it is not a secret women's area," Cr North said.
"... When we have reports and it says it hasn't been found - and we as councillors can't tell the public what's in this report, we're not allowed - and the new report was given to us the other day and we all asked questions about.
"... Why commission these reports if we're going to dismiss them?"
In response to a request for information from Cr Hanger, council's general manager David Sherley said council has spent about $164,000 so far on studies and initial works for the site.
Building of the track itself would cost approximately $4.5 million, which council intends to pay for entirely with grant money.
Grants are being sought, but no money has been secured yet.
Earlier in the meeting, Mr Sherley also rattled off a list of problems with relocating the site as outlined in the wording of Cr Fry's motion.
"The biggest issue I have with the motion, and it's not a question of whether I believe where the go-kart [track] goes, the issue I have is that it says specially 'be located approximately one kilometre west'," he said.
"The indication doesn't tell us exactly where."
Without knowing the full details of the site, Mr Sherley said it presented the following issues:
- Council doesn't know whether existing Aboriginal heritage studies cover that area
- Council doesn't know what the implications are for water; sewer and power are
- The location potentially conflicts with the master plan for the hotel for the second circuit
- The location potentially conflicts with the second circuit design
- Council doesn't know the impact on the trans grid easement
- Road access would need to be established, specifically a secondary route
- A brand new DA would be required, as of how different the project would be.
- Biodiversity issues. A new DA would enact the biodiversity act, which is not enacted by the current DA, and that would generate costs.
- Another acoustic assessment would be required
- Sampling pits would need to be done in the area
