Community groups in the Dungog shire are mobilising against a state government push to merge their cash-strapped council with the Gloucester local government area.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
After months of anticipation that Dungog would be encouraged to merge with the financially sustainable Maitland City Council, the government had a late change of heart in December and announced it wanted Dungog to merge with Gloucester, which also had significant financial problems.
Shire officials and residents from Dungog and Gloucester have widely rejected the plan, but it remains to be seen whether the government will force the amalgamation.
Gresford Community Group is one of the organisations looking for an alternative to present to a government representative who is scheduled to visit the region next week.
Community group president Graham Murphy said Gresford residents wanted no part of a merger with Gloucester.
He said community groups from Gresford, Dungog and Clarence Town were considering making applications to the Office of Local Government Boundaries Commission to break away from the Dungog local government area and join neighbouring council zones like Port Stephens.
“Nobody comprehends how the Gloucester/Dungog merger came about because it was never part of the IPART plan,” he said.
Mr Murphy said he couldn’t understand why the government would change its mind and push for the Dungog/Gloucester merger based on the recommendation of Upper Hunter MP Michael Johnsen, when it would likely cost the state more.
“It doesn’t make sense. You’ve got two unfit councils, one with a mega debt and one with a lot of debt. Put them together and all you’re going to have is a council with much more debt,” he said.
“A merger with Gloucester is not an incentive for anybody.”
In a letter to the Dungog Chronicle, Cr Linda Bowden accused the government of purposely giving councillors, council staff and shire residents little time to respond to the new proposal by announcing it the week before Christmas.
But she wrote that she would not advocate splitting Dungog local government area and attaching its pieces to neighbouring council areas.
“This would result in a loss of our rural identity and LEP [Local Environment Plan], voice in local government, and impact the businesses we so depend on for services and employment,” Cr Bowden wrote.
“If this council received appropriate, needs based funding, the basic wish of our residents for our roads to be fixed would be achieved.”
Written submissions in response to the merger remain open until February 28.
