The developer of a proposed $7 million unmanned service station and 24/7 truck stop near Oatlands has asked a Southern Midlands councillor to declare a pecuniary interest before the issue is reconsidered at a meeting on May 27.
In February the Southern Midlands Council voted 5-2 against the proposed development at 20 Interlaken Drive citing five grounds: 1) lack of employment; 2) road user safety; 3) trade competition relating to the development’s effect on fuel sales at the Oatlands BP service station; 4) the effect on a council-owned electric vehicle charging station at the Oatlands Aquatic Centre; 5) effect of illumination on a council aspiration for a “Dark Sky Reserve; and 6) rural zoning and the loss of agricultural land.
In April the Tasmanian Planning Commission ordered the council to reconsider the issue saying it had taken into account “irrelevant matters”.
In its latest agenda the concedes that “original grounds 3-5 inclusive are not valid criteria and are subsequently withdrawn”.
Councillor Donald Fish, whose nephew Andrew Fish owns the BP service station in Oatlands, voted against the development citing traffic safety concerns.
Mr Fish said the Mood Food site near Kempton had a poor safety record and he believed the Oatlands site may encounter the same problems.
He told the Mercury in April he did not declare a pecuniary interest and did not believe he had to.
“You haven’t got to declare an interest with nieces and nephews,” he said.
In a letter to councillors TAS Petroleum general manager Nathan Thurlow said councillor Fish should declare a conflict of interest and excuse himself from deliberations and the vote.
“There has been a precedent set previously where Councillor Fish excused himself from voting due to a friendship conflict, therefore we see a direct blood relative as an even more apparent conflict,” Mr Thurlow said.
In its agenda for the meeting general manager Tim Kirkwood says council has two options including to adopt the recommendation of council’s consultant planner and prepare the necessary planning amendment.
The alternative option is to reaffirm its decision not to support the request for the draft amendment which would allow the development to go ahead.
The report to councillors says: “Council contests the introduction of a traffic generator (fuel sales, rest area, amenities building) at this location without necessary provision of appropriate upgrades eg acceleration and deceleration lanes, will not only increase the potential for vehicular collisions but both compromise both the safety and efficiency of this transport corridor”.
“In the absence of an appropriate intersection upgrade the development represents a significant safety risk.”
In his letter to council Mr Thurlow said a Department of State Growth (DSG) transport expert, Keith Midson, had provided additional technical commentary reaffirming the safety and suitability of the intersection.
The Department of State Growth was the responsible authority for the Midland Highway and the intersection in question, he said.
Mr Thurlow said that since the council vote the company had been encouraged by significant support received from the wider Tasmanian community, the heavy vehicle industry, and relevant governing bodies.
Extracted in full from: https://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/councillor-urged-to-declare-interest-over-nephews-rival-service-station/news-story/81de6f2cea5fbd46ca76df79da24be71
