GBOTA as the Proponent, has failed to deliver their promised planning proposal including the claimed benefits to the Orange community, including improved greyhound welfare with a straight track. Promoted as being safer by the industry, the proposed straight track has been scrapped, demonstrating yet again that animal welfare will always be sacrificed in favour of commercial industry profits.

In line with Council's Strategic Policy ST26, the 'Conflict of Interest Management Statement' submitted by the Applicant's consultant, Peter Basha Planning & Development, confirms that Council is the owner of the subject land and has entered into a contract to sell the land to NSW GBOTA. There has been an ongoing lack of transparency around the sale of this public land with the community excluded from all negotiations and decision making. Council’s own Housing Strategy identified the site as suitable for residential development to address the serious housing shortage in Orange. In direct contravention of this strategy, a decision was made by Council to sell this valuable public land to GBOTA.

Public land should benefit the broad Orange community, not a minority for gambling fuelled dog racing.  

The applicant has failed to consult with the community including those who would be most negatively impacted as shown in the applicant's own DA documents.

The Proponent’s own reports confirm multiple negative social and amenity impacts.

The Social Impacts Assessment risk matrix confirms identified negative social impacts are both likely and very likely and high or very high. Further the matrix indicates negative cumulative impacts across important considerations such as "way of life", “health and wellbeing", "culture" and "decision making systems ". These negative social impacts will impact current and future generations.

The negative impacts are numerous and significant and many are cumulative impacts. These include visual impacts, light pollution on sleep, cultural values, noise and vibration, increased crime risk, street congestion including air and noise emissions and road danger and the harmful effects of on-site alcohol consumption and gambling on-site and remotely. These negative impacts go significantly further when considering the multiple environmental impacts.

The Proponent has failed to adequately address and respond to all risks, impacts and cumulative impacts that could or would arise from this planning proposal, or demonstrate how they would adequately avoid, manage and mitigate these risks and impacts.

Many of the Proponent’s DA documents including the Statement of Environment Effects (SEE) are lacking in substance, including many random assumptions without foundation or evidence. There are also notable omissions. The DA fails to adhere to all planning instruments and key planning considerations including but not limited to the broad ‘aims’ and ‘objectives’ of Council’s Local Environmental Plan 2011 (LEP) and Development Control Plan 2004 (DCP). Key considerations in relevant and applicable State Environment Planning Policies (SEPPs) have also been ignored. In short, the DA has failed to demonstrate planning merit and does not satisfy all the requirements of the NSW planning regime and applicable planning instruments, including “public interest”. 

The Greyhound racing industry serves and benefits itself and gambling businesses, not communities. It’s unsustainable, a globally dying industry, its social licence is in tatters and ‘safe’ tracks are a myth’. The injury and death rates are unacceptable and the entrenched culture and systemic cruelty has been evidenced in the damning NSW McHugh and Drake inquiries.

The industry's regulator data confirms an ongoing increase in the volume of GRNSW participants and related charges for serious wrongdoing. There has been no meaningful reform and millions of dollars has been squandered while the industry's own claims remain unaudited with “egregiously exaggerated” economic benefits.