Development Application 2026.044 - 1541 Carlwood Road, O'Connell

TO: General Manager, Oberon Council

SUBJECT: Submission – DA2026.044 – Animal Breeding Establishment – 1541 Carlwood Road, O’Connell

Dear General Manager,

I wish to make a submission raising significant concerns regarding DA2026.044 for the proposed Animal Breeding Establishment at 1541 Carlwood Road, O’Connell.

Having reviewed the Statement of Environmental Effects, Noise Impact Assessment, Air Quality (Odour) Impact Assessment, Visual Impact Assessment and accompanying plans, I believe there are a number of significant matters that require clarification and further investigation before this application should be determined.

My concerns relate particularly to the apparent operation of the breeding establishment since 2020 without any approval being identified in the exhibited documents, inconsistencies regarding whether the development is a breeding establishment or a boarding/training establishment, breeder identification and regulatory compliance, animal numbers, animal welfare, biosecurity, noise, waste management and Council's ability to monitor and enforce any development consent.

I do not believe these matters should simply be dealt with through general conditions requiring future compliance. Council should establish the relevant facts before determining whether development consent should be granted.

# 1. Existing breeding establishment operating since 2020 – what approval exists?

This is one of my primary concerns.

The applicant's own Statement of Environmental Effects states:

“Litters of pedigree Border Collies have been born at 1541 Carlwood Road, O'Connell NSW since the 7th of February 2020.”

The applicant's Visual Impact Assessment goes further and states:

“The property has operated as a breeding facility since 2020.”

The GHD Noise Impact Assessment describes the development application as seeking approval for the “on-going use” of the property.

That same assessment records an existing operation involving 28 dogs, comprising 16 breeding dogs, five studs and seven desexed household pets, together with 12 cats already being housed in the cat building.

This raises an obvious and important planning question:

What development consent has authorised the operation of an animal breeding establishment at this property since 2020?

If there is an existing development consent, Council should identify the consent number, date of approval, approved use and approved animal numbers.

If there is no existing development consent authorising this use, Council should clearly explain:

- whether the breeding establishment has been operating without the required development consent;
- when Council first became aware of the operation;
- whether Council has previously inspected the premises;
- whether Council has received complaints concerning the operation;
- whether any compliance or enforcement action has previously occurred;
- what approvals exist for the existing dog runs, kennels, whelping areas, cattery and other structures associated with the business;
- whether any structures were erected or converted for commercial animal breeding before obtaining the necessary approvals; and
- whether this DA is, in substance, seeking approval for an existing operation that has already commenced.

The planning system should not operate on a “build or commence the use first and seek approval later” basis.

If development consent was required for this operation, that consent should have been obtained before the use commenced.

The fact that the operation may already exist should also not create a presumption that the current application should be approved.

Council should assess DA2026.044 on its merits and separately address any existing unauthorised use or development in accordance with its statutory responsibilities.

# 2. Breeding establishment or boarding and training establishment?

There is a significant inconsistency within the documents submitted with this DA.

The Statement of Environmental Effects describes the proposal as a Dog and Cat Breeding Establishment.

However, GHD's Noise Impact Assessment describes the proposal as the ongoing use of the property as an “animal boarding and training establishment”.

The GHD Air Quality (Odour) Assessment similarly describes the use as an “Animal Boarding or Training Establishment”.

These are not simply interchangeable descriptions.

Breeding establishments and boarding establishments involve different activities and have different animal management, record keeping, welfare, disease prevention and biosecurity requirements.

I have previously worked within a boarding establishment and understand the importance of animal separation, vaccination, disease prevention, isolation and biosecurity where animals belonging to different owners enter and leave a facility.

Council should therefore establish precisely what development is being applied for.

I request clarification of the following:

- Is this solely an animal breeding establishment?
- Does the applicant currently board animals belonging to other persons?
- Is commercial boarding proposed?
- Is animal training undertaken for fee or reward?
- Has boarding or training previously occurred at the property?
- How long will visiting stud dogs ordinarily remain at the property?
- Can visiting stud dogs remain overnight or for multiple days?
- Are visiting stud dogs effectively being boarded while at the premises?
- What separation and biosecurity arrangements apply between visiting animals and resident breeding animals?
- Which statutory Codes and regulatory requirements apply to the actual operation?

If boarding or training forms any part of the operation, this needs to be expressly assessed rather than inadvertently authorised through ambiguous wording in a development consent for a breeding establishment.

Council should also establish whether the GHD assessments remain appropriate if the consultants were instructed to assess an “animal boarding and training establishment” while the DA exhibited by Council is described as an “Animal Breeding Establishment”.

# 3. Breeder Identification Number and existing breeding activities

The Statement of Environmental Effects states that the operator has been a “registered breeder for almost 7 years for dogs and 1 year for cats”.

It also refers to breeding, health and litter records being maintained consistently with “registration body requirements”.

However, the relevant sections of the exhibited documentation do not clearly identify what registration body is being referred to or provide the relevant breeder identification details.

I understand that the applicant is associated with the Master Dog Breeders & Associates (MDBA).

I have been unable to independently identify a current NSW Breeder Identification Number associated with this operation.

I am not asserting that no BIN exists. I am asking Council to verify it.

Membership of a private breeder association or registry should not be confused with compliance with NSW statutory breeder identification requirements.

The applicant says that dogs have been bred at this property since February 2020. Accordingly, there is a legitimate question concerning the breeder identification details under which those dogs and puppies have historically been bred, identified, advertised and transferred.

Before determination, I request that Council establish:

- the applicant's current NSW Breeder Identification Number;
- whether that BIN has current active dog-breeder eligibility;
- what breeder identification number or recognised breeder identification was used for previous litters bred at the property;
- which breeder organisation or organisations the applicant has belonged to since breeding commenced;
- the relevant membership numbers and breeder prefixes;
- what registration arrangements apply to the cat-breeding operation; and
- whether the existing breeding and transfer records comply with applicable NSW requirements.

Given the applicant relies upon approximately seven years of breeding experience as part of the information supporting this application, the regulatory history of that breeding activity is directly relevant.

# 4. Historical Companion Animals compliance

This is not an application for someone proposing to establish a breeding business from scratch.

The applicant's own documents establish that a sizeable breeding operation already exists.

Council should therefore satisfy itself that the existing operation has complied with applicable Companion Animals requirements.

Where Council has the lawful authority to obtain or verify the information, this should include:

- breeder identification records;
- microchip records;
- NSW Pet Registry records;
- breeding and litter records;
- records relating to puppies previously sold or transferred;
- identification of breeding animals;
- veterinary records required by applicable legislation or Codes; and
- records of animals entering and leaving the establishment.

If another NSW regulatory authority is responsible for particular matters, Council should consider whether referral or consultation with that authority is required before determination.

# 5. Is this genuinely a “small-scale” breeding establishment?

The Statement of Environmental Effects repeatedly characterises this development as “small-scale”.

However, the proposed maximum numbers are:

- 20 breeding bitches;
- up to 15 additional dogs, including stud dogs, household pets and visiting stud dogs;
- puppies additional to those numbers until rehomed;
- up to 20 breeding queens;
- fewer than 10 breeding toms;
- kittens additional to those numbers until rehomed;
- five additional household cats; and
- additional sheep, chickens and ducks.

This represents potentially approximately 69 adult dogs and cats before a single puppy or kitten is counted.

I question the objective basis upon which an operation of this potential size is being characterised as “small-scale”.

More importantly, Council needs to assess the maximum reasonably foreseeable number of animals actually present on the property.

The DA should therefore identify:

- the maximum number of dog litters proposed annually;
- the maximum number of cat litters proposed annually;
- maximum simultaneous dog litters;
- maximum simultaneous cat litters;
- expected and maximum litter sizes;
- maximum number of puppies present at any one time;
- maximum number of kittens present at any one time;
- maximum number of visiting stud dogs;
- and the maximum total animal population that could physically be present on the property at any one time.

The number of animals directly affects noise, waste production, staffing, traffic, biosecurity, animal housing and welfare.

Leaving puppies and kittens completely outside the numerical cap creates uncertainty about the actual maximum intensity of the development.

# 6. Animal welfare and staffing

The Statement of Environmental Effects commits the operator to compliance with applicable NSW animal welfare requirements and refers to health and genetic testing, vaccination, microchipping and breeding records.

These commitments should be supported by an operational management plan and, where appropriate, enforceable consent conditions.

Council should establish:

- the number of people employed or otherwise working at the establishment;
- staffing arrangements seven days per week;
- who cares for the animals if the principal operator is unavailable;
- staffing arrangements during multiple simultaneous litters;
- arrangements during whelping and queening;
- procedures for veterinary emergencies;
- after-hours supervision;
- procedures for infectious disease;
- the age and reproductive status of breeding animals;
- how applicable breeding limits will be monitored; and
- what records will demonstrate ongoing compliance.

This becomes particularly important when the potential number of adult animals, puppies and kittens is considered.

# 7. Night housing arrangements

The documentation proposes individual night enclosures for dogs.

The Statement of Environmental Effects describes these as elevated mesh-floor enclosures that allow urine and faeces to fall through the flooring.

Dogs are proposed to remain within these enclosures between 6.00 pm and 7.00 am Monday to Saturday and between 6.00 pm and 8.00 am on Sundays and public holidays.

That potentially represents confinement for 13 hours overnight and 14 hours on Sundays and public holidays.

Council should undertake a detailed assessment of these structures against all applicable animal welfare requirements, including:

- minimum enclosure dimensions;
- ability to stand, turn, stretch and rest normally;
- flooring;
- weather protection;
- temperature;
- ventilation;
- bedding;
- sanitation;
- urine and faecal management;
- cleaning arrangements;
- access to water;
- duration of confinement; and
- management of pregnant, elderly, sick or recovering animals.

A general statement that animal welfare requirements will be complied with should not substitute for assessment of the actual proposed enclosure design.

# 8. Biosecurity and visiting stud dogs

The proposal expressly allows visiting stud dogs.

This introduces outside animals into a property containing breeding females, pregnant animals, puppies and other resident animals.

Council should require a proper biosecurity management plan addressing:

- vaccination requirements;
- veterinary health checks;
- parasite control;
- quarantine or isolation;
- separation of visiting animals;
- infectious disease;
- cleaning and disinfection;
- movement between breeding areas;
- procedures following suspected infectious disease;
- veterinary intervention; and
- records identifying every visiting animal and its period on the premises.

Council should also determine at what point the accommodation of a visiting stud dog becomes boarding rather than merely a short breeding visit.

# 9. Noise and rural amenity

I note that another nearby resident has raised concerns regarding existing nighttime barking from domestic dogs responding to kangaroos and other wildlife and the potential for this development to add substantially to that disturbance.

Interestingly, the applicant's own Visual Impact Assessment acknowledges that kangaroos moving through an adjoining paddock in the early morning and evening currently cause the dogs to bark.

This confirms that wildlife-triggered barking is not merely hypothetical.

The proposed mitigation relies significantly upon relocating dog runs, vegetation, shade cloth and overnight enclosure.

Council should therefore carefully consider whether the acoustic assessment adequately represents:

- simultaneous barking;
- barking triggered by wildlife;
- visiting dogs unfamiliar with the property;
- breeding-related behaviour;
- feeding times;
- early morning activity;
- multiple litters;
- unusual events;
- and the particularly low background noise environment experienced in a rural locality at night and in the early morning.

Any noise conditions imposed should be measurable and enforceable.

# 10. Waste, urine and wastewater

The application proposes more than ten 80/120 litre wheelie bins and daily collection of animal waste.

Given the potential number of animals, Council should require considerably more detail regarding waste generation at maximum occupancy.

This should include:

- estimated daily and weekly quantities of faecal waste;
- urine management;
- management of waste falling beneath elevated night enclosures;
- cleaning of those areas;
- wash-down water;
- cleaning chemicals and disinfectants;
- contaminated bedding;
- cat litter;
- storage duration;
- collection frequency;
- disposal destination;
- fly and vermin control;
- stormwater protection;
- and contingency arrangements if normal waste disposal is interrupted.

The GHD odour assessment is expressly a qualitative assessment and states that it did not involve odour sampling, emission testing or dispersion modelling.

Council should take that limitation into account when considering an operation of the proposed maximum size.

# 11. Cattery clarification

The breeding cats are proposed to be housed indoors.

The documentation describes a purpose-built 10 metre by 10 metre cat building relying upon natural ventilation through a permanently open front façade.

Council should therefore establish whether housing up to 20 breeding queens and fewer than 10 breeding toms, together with kittens additional to those numbers, within this facility complies with applicable requirements concerning:

- space;
- ventilation;
- temperature;
- separation;
- breeding animals;
- queening;
- kittens;
- disease control;
- sanitation;
- litter facilities;
- isolation;
- enrichment;
- and maximum stocking density.

# 12. Traffic and visitor movements

The operation will involve people viewing and collecting puppies and kittens, visiting stud dogs, veterinary movements, feed and supply deliveries and waste removal.

The applicant proposes visitor hours between 10.00 am and 4.00 pm seven days per week.

Council should establish the maximum anticipated number of vehicle movements rather than relying only upon average movements.

This should include the potential traffic associated with maximum breeding activity and simultaneous litters.

# 13. Consent conditions and enforceability

If Council ultimately considers granting consent, the conditions should be precise and enforceable.

They should not simply require the operator to “comply with relevant legislation”.

Council should consider enforceable conditions dealing with:

- maximum adult dog numbers;
- maximum breeding female numbers;
- maximum cat numbers;
- visiting animal numbers;
- simultaneous litters;
- animal registers;
- breeding records;
- visitor hours;
- operating hours;
- night enclosure requirements;
- noise;
- waste;
- biosecurity;
- landscaping;
- complaint management;
- and Council inspection and monitoring where permitted by law.

The development consent should also make absolutely clear whether boarding or training is prohibited unless separately approved.

# 14. Matters raised by neighbouring residents

I am aware that at least one nearby resident has lodged an objection raising concerns including noise, rural amenity, odour, waste, water quality, traffic and the overall intensity of the proposed operation.

These concerns reinforce the need for Council to assess this DA on the basis of its maximum potential operation rather than its average day-to-day activity.

The applicant's own documents acknowledge existing dog barking triggered by wildlife. This is particularly relevant in a rural environment where nighttime and early morning background noise levels can be very low.

Neighbour amenity must therefore form an important part of Council's assessment.

# 15. Conclusion

I am not opposed to responsible dog or cat breeding conducted lawfully and in accordance with appropriate animal welfare, planning and companion animal requirements.

However, I have significant concerns about DA2026.044 in its present form.

Most importantly, the applicant's own documentation states that this property has operated as a breeding facility since 2020.

That requires an answer.

If development consent already existed, it should be identified.

If development consent did not exist, Council needs to establish how a commercial breeding establishment involving significant numbers of animals has apparently operated for approximately six years without that approval and determine what action is required concerning the existing use.

An existing operation should not obtain an advantage simply because development has already occurred or a use has already commenced.

I am also concerned that one part of the application describes a breeding establishment while two professional assessments describe an animal boarding and training establishment. That discrepancy needs to be formally resolved.

Before determining DA2026.044, I request that Council:

1. Establish and publicly identify the planning approval history of the existing breeding operation.

2. Determine whether the breeding establishment operating since 2020 has been lawfully authorised.

3. Clarify precisely whether the application is for breeding, boarding, training or some combination of those uses.

4. Verify the applicant's current NSW Breeder Identification Number and applicable breeder eligibility.

5. Establish the breeder identification arrangements under which breeding has historically occurred at the property.

6. Clearly distinguish private breeder-organisation membership from statutory NSW requirements.

7. Establish the maximum total animal population reasonably capable of being present, including puppies and kittens.

8. Assess the proposed night enclosures, cattery, whelping facilities and other animal housing against applicable animal welfare requirements.

9. Require adequate staffing, operational, biosecurity, waste and animal-management information.

10. Properly consider the concerns of surrounding residents regarding noise and rural amenity.

11. Ensure that the noise and odour assessments relate to the actual land use being sought and to the realistic maximum intensity of that use.

12. Ensure that any conditions imposed are measurable, enforceable and capable of being effectively monitored by Council.

I do not believe these matters should be deferred until after consent is granted.

They go directly to the nature, legality, scale, environmental impacts and appropriate management of the proposed development and should therefore be satisfactorily addressed before DA2026.044 is determined.

I request that the matters raised in this submission be specifically addressed in Council's assessment report and that, should the application be reported to the elected Council for determination, Councillors be provided with the applicant's responses and all relevant regulatory and compliance information.

Yours sincerely,

Councillor Helen Hayden

To: The General Manager, Oberon Council

Email: council@oberon.nsw.gov.au

Date: 01/10/2026

Subject: OBJECTION to Development Application DA2026.044 – Animal Breeding Establishment, 1541 Carlwood Road, O’Connell

Applicant Name: Deborah & Gary Crumpton

Property Address: 1511 Mutton Falls Road, O'Connell NSW 2795

Contact Phone: 0402 343 475

Email Address: debcrumpy@gmail.com

Note: I request that Council suppress my personal contact details from public business papers and public disclosure.

Dear General Manager,

I am writing to formally lodge my objection to Development Application DA2026.044 for the proposed Animal Breeding Establishment at 1541 Carlwood Road, O’Connell.

While I acknowledge that the application is described as small-scale, the cumulative animal load—comprising up to 35 adult dogs (plus uncounted litters of puppies), 30 breeding cats, 5 household cats, and livestock—represents an intensive commercial-scale operation in a rural locality. The proposal poses significant potential impacts on local rural amenity, environment, and infrastructure.

My grounds for objection are outlined below:

1. Excessive Noise Impacts & Loss of Rural Amenity
Barking Noise: The presence of up to 35 adult dogs, alongside multiple litters of puppies, will generate persistent nocturnal and diurnal barking. Dog vocalisation—triggered by feeding routines, wildlife, weather events, visiting stud dogs, and territory protection—is dynamic and unpredictable, making noise mitigation extremely difficult to guarantee.

Inadequacy of Sound Mitigation: Acoustic barriers and landscaping cannot fully contain high-pitch or resonant barking across open rural topography, particularly under quiet evening and early-morning rural background noise conditions.
We already encounter a lot of noise of a night in particular from local pet dogs barking at kangaroos and other wildlife which interrupts our sleep and the thought of this many animals adding their voices is very distressing.

2. Odour Generation & Air Quality Issues
Concentrated Animal Waste: With dozens of dogs and cats housed on-site, the cumulative volume of feces, urine, and wastewater will produce severe local odour emissions, particularly during warm weather or humid conditions.

Indoor Cat Facility Venting: The proposal relies on an indoor facility for up to 35 cats. Forced ventilation or extraction systems servicing this facility risk concentrating and expelling unpleasant ammonia and waste odours directly toward surrounding properties and downwind areas.

3. Effluent, Waste Management & Water Quality Risks
Runoff and Groundwater Protection: Large quantities of washdown water containing chemical detergents, disinfectants, and animal waste pose a risk of contaminating local groundwater and runoff into nearby drainage lines or catchments during storm events.

Waste Disposal Logistics: The application must demonstrate rigorous, hygienic, and biosecure daily disposal of animal waste and bedding to prevent secondary pest infestations (flies, rodents) and biosecurity risks.

4. Traffic Generation and Road Safety
Increased Vehicle Movements: The operation will generate ongoing traffic beyond standard rural usage, including client visits, delivery of bulk feed and supplies, routine veterinary visits, stud visits, and waste removal.

Carlwood Road Conditions: Increased vehicle movements—particularly turning movements into and out of the property—present potential traffic safety hazards on local rural road networks, which are not designed for continuous commercial traffic flows.

5. Scale and Incompatibility with Rural Character
The overall scale of the operation (up to 70+ animals including litters at peak capacity) is inconsistent with the quiet, low-density rural character of O’Connell. The commercial intensity of this facility is better suited to dedicated light industrial or heavily buffered agricultural precincts.

Political Donations and Gifts Disclosure
In accordance with Section 10.4(5) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, I confirm that I have not made any reportable political donations or gifts to any local councillor or employee of Oberon Council within the past two years.

Thank you for considering this submission. I trust Council will carefully weigh the acoustic, environmental, and amenity impacts on the O’Connell community and refuse DA2026.044.

Yours sincerely,

Deborah Crumpton