Plans of the new animal shelter. Photos: Eurobodalla Shire Council website.
It is almost seven years since the subject of a new animal shelter was raised in Eurobodalla Shire, yet construction may not start until the end of this year or early next year.
The plans were on exhibition for public comment from 29 May to 22 June. It was the first opportunity for people to see what would replace the 37-year-old animal pound that no longer meets current standards.
The plans prompted some people to contact councillors with their concerns. As a result councillor Mick Johnson submitted 14 questions on notice ahead of council’s recent ordinary meeting. The responses raised further questions.
A major concern is that the new animal shelter will not provide an increase in kennels. In the development application (DA) for the shelter it said the number of dogs peaks during the summer holiday season at 14. The new shelter only provides 14 kennels so is not catering for forecast population growth of 10.9 per cent between 2026 and 2046.
In the public forum session before the meeting, Louise Webb said that Dubbo Regional Council’s shelter that opened in 2025 provided one dog kennel per 576 head of population, and Bathurst’s shelter that opened in 2024 had one kennel per 1070 people. Eurobodalla’s animal shelter was proposing one kennel per 2582 people.
Council staff said the new kennels were double ones that were flexible and reconfigurable so that more dogs could be accommodated as needed. Cr Johnson questioned that option given half of each kennel is exposed to the elements. It would also result in animals potentially kept in an enclosure 30 per cent smaller than in the existing pound.
“My biggest concern is it has taken so long to get where we are,” Cr Johnson said. “Can volunteers come in now and look after the animals? Can we form some sort of committee who wish to make the animals’ lives as best as possible until the new shelter is up and running?”
In the written response to Cr Johnson’s questions on notice it said “a proposal is currently under consideration to expand volunteer involvement through a feline foster care program supported by a structured group of volunteers”.
A schematic showing where elements of the shelter are positioned.
Councillor Anthony Mayne wanted to see a tight timeline on the project and said that could be achieved by council working hand-in-glove with the community.
Councillor Amber Schutz asked about the process and timeline for refinement of the plans and potential re-exhibition.
Council’s environment and planning director Gary Bruce said they were reviewing the submissions received and analysing what needed to be changed. Then an architect would draw up the amendments. Those would be presented to councillors, followed by getting quotes for the shelter’s construction.
Councillor Colleen Turner asked Mr Bruce where the shelter would be in a year’s time. He said he hoped work would start by the end of the year or early next year. “It is dependent on the construction drawings being provided and we need to engage a private building certifier to provide a certificate before any construction can start.”
Councillor Sharon Winslade said the process needed a “big burst of sunshine”.
“We didn’t do any public consultation and that is a missed opportunity,” she said. “Is there a better way to work on this going forward? The way we are doing it isn’t working. It is too bureaucratic. Perhaps a committee?”
Mayor Mat Hatcher said perhaps a motion along those lines could be put forward at the July council meeting and perhaps councillors could be updated regularly as part of the quarterly budget reporting.
Some people would like the dogs’ exercise area to be grassed, not concreted.
In the public forum session Peter Cormick addressed councillors in light of the written responses to Cr Johnson’s questions on notice.
“I and others have found this whole process of acquiring a new animal shelter to be inordinately and unnecessarily demanding, frustrating, and more recently, infuriating.”
He said the DA did not include an animal welfare expert report and there did not appear to be an isolation area in the plans as specified in the Australian Veterinary Association policy on animal shelters and municipal pounds. Also, contrary to the requirement of that policy on shelter design, a veterinarian had not been involved in the design process.
When Cr Schutz asked Mr Bruce if council staff had consulted with a vet, he said that the shelter design was developed in-house, with some help from specialist community members.
Mr Cormick said council’s answers to Cr Johnson’s questions ranged from obtuse to alarming.
“The DA is bereft of anything about animal welfare and is perfunctory,” he said. “The shelter might as well be a storage depot.”
