This transcript and its speaker attributions were generated with AI assistance and may contain errors. Speaker names may be corrected in later releases. It is provided for search and accessibility; the official Council minutes remain authoritative.
Welcome to the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel meeting Thursday 19 March 2026. This panel has been appointed by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces and the Council to determine certain categories of development applications. My name is Anthony Hudson and I am the chairperson for today's panel. And the other panel members, and I'll ask them just to give a quick wave as I read their name, is Mr. Gary Chapman as an expert representative, Mr. Paul Burkmeyer also an expert representative, and Katrina Hiltbrunner, who is the community representative. The panel acknowledges the traditional custodians of the land, the Dharug people, their elders past, present and emerging. During this public part of the meeting, if people keep their microphones on muted at all times until I call on anyone to speak.
This meeting is being audio-visually recorded. Any part of this meeting that is held in the closed session will not be recorded. In terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist Council staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting and live stream of local planning panel meetings. Under the panel's code of conduct, the panel members are required to disclose any pecuniary and non-pecuniary interest in relation to matters on today's agenda. And each of the panel members, including myself, have completed disclosure forms. I declare I have no conflicts, and each panel member has put forward the forms, and there are no declarations.
The panel will deal with the items in the agenda order. We will hear submissions now from the public, and then there'll be a private discussion, and the confirmed and the minutes of the meeting will be available on the council's website shortly. On the agenda are two matters. The first one is DAO 542/25, alterations and additions to an existing community facility, and the second one is a planning proposal LEP 002/26, 88 Spinks Road, Glossodia. Now, the first one is the alterations and additions to an existing community facility, and I think we have Hugh Halliwell, expert planning consultant. Is that correct?
That's all right. Well, we'll move on to the second one, the planning proposal 88 Spinks Road, and I think we might have Jessica Rippon, planning director. Is that correct?
Yes, if it's okay, both Matt and I would just like to make a very quick presentation, and we're just speaking, no PowerPoint slides, and I'll just get Matt to go first, and then I can follow
Yeah. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Chair, panel members and council staff. My name is Matthew Scard, and I am appearing on behalf of the landowner, Mr John Camilleri, in relation to the planning proposal at 88 Spinks Road, Gosfordia. Council staff will know me as the CEO of Celestino, but I want to be clear that this is not a Celestino proposal. I am assisting Mr Camilleri in a private capacity. I speak in support of Council's recommendation and this planning proposal, and will briefly outline some of its key merits and public benefits. This is a well-considered proposal grounded in Council policy, thorough research, community need and delivered at no cost to government. It will support growth and economic sustainability for Gosfordia and the broader Hawkesbury region.
The master plan concept is underpinned by Council feedback and over 20 extensive studies, plans and assessments, including flood modelling, biodiversity, infrastructure, servicing and site suitability studies. The site's developable area is flood free and avoids environmentally sensitive land, is appropriately set back from Howes Creek and retains more than 37 hectares of green space, including wetlands, high value biodiversity and riparian corridors. This is an environmentally responsible proposal. 88 Spinks represents a logical extension of Gosfordia, delivering a diverse housing mix consistent with the area and improves affordability options for future downsizers and young families. To the west, it directly adjoins 52 established houses, subdivided in the 1960s, with lot sizes ranging from 550 square metres to over an acre.
And the emerging Jacaranda community is directly to the south. This proposal is seen as a natural expansion of the village. The design enhances access to open space, while neighbouring properties benefit from informal access. This plan formalises and expands that opportunity for the whole community. Roads and services infrastructure can be efficiently delivered and connected, including sewer and recycled water from the Jacaranda Treatment Plant at no cost to government. Importantly, the proposal delivers public benefits alongside housing. A voluntary planning agreement will provide contributions towards council priorities such as roads, intersections, or libraries and childcare, even a potential revitalisation of Glossodia Village.
These contributions will help council create a more sustainable local jobs and businesses. In closing, this is a logical, well-researched and deliverable proposal. The land is easily serviced and not fragmented and responds to a clear housing mandate with strong community benefits. This project will deliver an orderly and appropriate housing pipeline on the edge of existing housing and will use infrastructure efficiently and provide ongoing economic growth for the Hawkesbury. I look forward to working with council and the community and seek the panel's support to progress this proposal. Thank you. Thank you.
And I would also like to acknowledge and thank council for the time and effort that's been applied to the assessment of this proposal and for the constructive engagement that they've provided us throughout the process to date. We've really appreciated the amount of effort that they've put in and the willingness to discuss the proposal throughout scoping, stage through to today. We are committed to continue to work collaboratively with Council and to achieve a positive outcome for the local community. As the Council recommendations states, what we're really seeking is advice from the panel to progress this proposal through to Gateway. This proposal is a planning-led site-specific response to a clear change in circumstances, consistent with the LEP plan-making guideline.
The broader intent of the planning framework and housing analysis identifies a structural shortfall in the housing supply within the Hawkesbury. Infill and existing investigation areas have not delivered the level of diversity or affordability required, and these pressures have intensified beyond what was anticipated when the current strategic framework was established. This proposal responds to that change in a measured and responsible way. It locates housing adjacent to the existing village where infrastructure services and community already exist, rather than dispersing growth, fragmenting rural land, or placing further pressure on more sensitive environmental areas. With an outcome that is consistent with the intent of the regional and local planning framework, we believe this proposal aligns with the LSPS, the region plan, and the aims of the New South Wales Housing Government Accord.
We are looking forward to working with the panel, with Council and agencies through to Gateway to continue to strengthen, finalise and to add further justification as necessary to this planning proposal to ensure a positive outcome for the community. We're really happy to answer any questions that you might have or any concerns.
Can I just ask one thing straight away? You said there you supported the Council's recommendation. I'm not sure I heard it correctly, but can I read what the Council's suggesting at the end to us? I mean, the purpose of the panel is to give sort of advice to the Council. They're saying it's not quite ready. It shouldn't be supported until certain things are done, including details of assessment as per the report. Does that mean you agree with that? Is that what you're saying?
No, I'm agreeing with the fact that it should be reported to Council and that we're expecting that there would be advice that it would proceed to Gateway. We're actually looking for it, obviously, to proceed to Gateway. We acknowledge that the Council has raised a number of— I don't believe they're significant. They're items that need to certainly be addressed, but that can happen through the gateway process.
I didn't think that was right anyway. I just wanted to... So your sort of broad position is we've done enough work to get a gateway. There's a lot of work, more work to be done, but it meets enough hurdles now to go to gateway and get all the conditions that come with a gateway. I mean broadly
Anyone want to start? Sorry, Paul. Okay, I've just got a couple of quick ones, Gary, so I might lead off. Yeah, sure. I note you have a comprehensive range of reports included in the submission, including traffic report. My question is really that to get a comment from you about the people movement which is beyond vehicle movement, particularly pedestrian and bicycle. And in the plan as it stands, you have all the vehicle and pedestrian and bicycle entry and exit off Spinks Road, but there's no access from the north because there's no road there. But there's also no east-west connection, particularly into the existing subdivision. Now I understand that that is now fully built up, that area to the west.
However, I just wonder if you have any comment about the need for east-west connection in order to get pedestrian, bicycle movement , particularly into the village and to the school. Perhaps Jess, you might comment on that.
Vehicular as well, but primarily other forms of transport. Because at the moment, for example, there is, if you had a child who lived at the end of the new estate who had a friend in the adjacent subdivision , you know, 100 metres away, they'd have to travel about four kilometres to get from A to B, or
More. It's an excellent question, and it's something that we've actually been working on quite extensively. We completely understand that that would be ideal, obviously, to have that east-west link, especially to enable community to be able to use our open space network. There's some really great open spaces proposed within this proposal, so being able to have that connection is important. We're working on that in the background. We have some ideas, some plans, and potential designs, but obviously it's not fully progressed at this stage and also needs further discussion with landowners and community engagement. So we're, yeah, I think that's probably as much as we can say in the public forum at this point in time.
And I guess associated with that is also emergency service access as well, in case of bushfire, etc., to have more than the one entry-exit onto Sphinx Road. So thank you. And I also note that you have a detailed assessment of the land value for agriculture, and I think that is going to obviously be a key point.
But I think from my reading, that's fairly clear that your assessment is saying that the… anything to add to that about the existing use? Is it actively used at the moment?
No, it's not actively used for any particular agricultural purpose. There is some cows that are disced on the property, just to continue to keep the grass down, in essence. So no, it doesn't have any crops or anything like that on the site. Okay. Okay
I just got some questions on the sort of, if you like, the planning framework, and what I'm trying to get my understanding of is under , you know, you'd be well aware the Sydney Regional Plan or Region Plan, we've got metropolitan rural area, and the site is not included in that. And this is just high-level assessment of this, to rezone that land, there needs to be justification , if you like, of a change in circumstance. Do you want to just, I mean, I've read the residential needs study by Colliers. Is that what your, is that, maybe you just want to explain how you're dealing with that?
Yeah, absolutely. So obviously, with any planning proposal, the basis of changing circumstances is really important. We're trying to use an argument we believe we're well supported with that of, one, demographic changes specifically, because obviously that is quite significant within the Hawkesbury LGA. We're then also looking at housing diversity and affordability, and also looking at urban investigation areas. So one of the key component of the draft Sydney Plan is that councils need to identify areas for future urban investigation. We believe this is a perfect site for that, and Hawkesbury haven't undertaken that work yet, and that's certainly part of their submission to the government. about the Sydney Plan, and we all know it's in draft and we're all trying to work through the changes that came through just before Christmas.
But certainly, we believe that we meet the change in circumstances. I certainly acknowledge within the Council report, and it's something we've been working through around how we can provide additional justification or additional documentation that might help with Council's understanding of that. There's also obviously a lot of significant changes from an infrastructure perspective. In this case, this site can be serviced because there's servicing that are provided adjacent in the Jacaranda development. So it's a multifaceted argument in relation to changing circumstances. The reports are there to help that. If the panel believes we need some additional reports or additional justification, we're more than happy to provide that.
And again, we come into these things a week in advance, if you like, and got to look. So that draft plan's identifying, and you can correct me or help me, that 1,300 homes for up to 2029. So, and that's consistent with the, like, the Sydney Regional Plan. So what I'm trying to get my head around is what's the justification? You've got an existing plan, Metropolitan Rural Area. You've got a draft plan that is saying the same numbers. I appreciate where this land's positioned and maybe not rural. Highly desirable rural land, but I'm just— have you, what's your comment on the draft Sydney Plan, and do you think, have you had any discussions with the department and/or council about whether that plan, as it currently stands, has got some work to do or it's going to move to , you know, to
Yeah, I mean, certainly that obviously is our intent. We've certainly had that conversation. Just very initial, as I said, we met with council, I think it was about two weeks ago, two, three weeks ago now, and we did discuss the Sydney Plan. They also provided a submission to the department. We've provided a submission to the department about that. I think we all acknowledge that the MRA has been in place for some time and certainly has objectives and intent. We believe that our studies around the agricultural viability of this land really underpin the reasoning as to why the MRA in this case isn't the most applicable impediment to development of this land. And I think, given that the Sydney Plan is still in draft form, that, you know, we can only take it as it is and certainly provide the submissions.
But yes, our intent would be that this was provided as an investigation area in the Sydney Plan.
And does that—so, and I guess that submission, you don't need to tell me, I mean you probably can't anyway, what's exactly in it, but I guess you're then using your residential needs study that was done, done an exact date to—yeah, okay.
I just—yeah, can I just—just when you talk about changed circumstances and you mention demographic changes, so on that point, do I take it you mean there was certain— Estimates made of population, we've had a look at it. We think there's going to be more population, so that's a changed circumstance. Is that correct? Is that too simplistic, or?
On that point, when you say changed circumstances about housing diversity, what do you mean, that people want different housing? What's the changed circumstance? What do you mean by, in that sense?
I think there's significant economic changes that have occurred over time. I mean, we're currently dealing with it right now in terms of the affordability of housing, but also the availability of the type of housing that's needed and what people are willing to accept and afford. I mean, when you go to any of the recent discussions with Paul Scully, it's all about the fact that we have to think about living differently and slightly smaller in terms of lot sizes. And
This is not—we're not talking tiny lots here. We're talking something that's consistent with Glosterdale, but there's very limited supply of those typical 500 square metre lots in this whole Hawkesbury LGA.
So we meet a changed circumstances that there would be a demand for this type of thing in this area, so therefore that's a changed circumstance that we're supplying that type of argument, right?
Correct. And also in terms of the context of the LGA, I mean, it is transitioning. We don't want to lose the character of the place, but it is a transitioning space that is changing because of other areas around it.
I think it's different population growth in terms of what was originally expected, but then it's also looking at what's happening around that area and the expectations. I mean, you've got a lot of different changes in surrounding LGAs, the change to Western Sydney, the other growth areas, everything's being pushed outwards from the centre. Okay
My next two questions might be questions for Matthew, and I just need some further— I don't need technical, but some further detail on the servicing of this site and how that works. Yeah,
Problem. Yeah, sorry, you go. I mean, I understand it's a, if you like, broad-term private system, and you're using the Jacaranda development . I guess I'm wondering that my questions related to that are: does it have capacity? Is it in perpetuity? Does it— how
Does it work? Yeah, no, it is a good question. Not everyone is aware of private sewer systems, excuse me. This is the Jacaranda project had an agreement—they were called Flow Systems, but they've rebranded to a company now called Altogether Group. They build and have been building for nearly two decades these private sewer systems. We actually built with one of them at the Gables, which was one of our projects. So being private, it allows us to then open up areas where Sydney Water either don't want to service or they can't service, or it's just not financially viable for them. So that was part of the original planning proposal for Jacaranda, and that project is now under construction. So with that system, they have to go through a WICA licence, so the Water Industry Competition Act, and get approval, and then that system is sized appropriately for, you know, the demand, same as what Sydney Water would do.
And essentially that is there's a site, a local water centre that's built, and then that local water centre would recycle and produce recycled water back to the development. So in this case, because the Jacaranda development had delays and it had to be rezoned second time due to changes in planning and biodiversity, which is a better outcome for the project, those delays has meant there's been a window for John Camilleri to negotiate with Altogether Group to expand that plant. So that plant will be expanded. All the pipes are already designed in terms of going in the streets. It has to literally go across the road from the south to the north, so over 20 metres to get into the 88 Spinks area.
So that means then that plant and that infrastructure is more efficient because it can actually connect more dwellings in the area. It's actually quite simple.
Okay, and so there's , apart from pipes in the road going across to the, I call it Jacaranda, is there any infrastructure on the subject site, on the Spinks Road site? No. There's not planned to be, no. Okay. And does, is the, if you like, the increase in capacity that was done on the Jacaranda site, is that just for it and the 480 lots, or however whatever the number ends up being on this development, or is there further capacity?
Yeah. So Altogether Group explained—sorry about my croaky voice. Altogether Group explained they always build in redundancy in there, or extra capacity, because areas like—I will talk of the Gables—the developers at the time, they go and further subdivide or the product changes so they do smaller products, so the density increases, which means the population, the EPs that are produced in terms of sewer increases. So they always leave some extra capacity in those designs. So essentially that's what they have at Jacaranda as well. But to answer your question, this isn't allowing for another 500 lots here or 1,000 lots there. That's something that would be addressed by those proponents.
Okay. And I'm not sure whether you'd be able to answer this, but so you've got Torrens title allotments, the infrastructure in the proposed roads that then goes across Sphinx Road into Jacaranda. How does it legally work? Is there a license or is there an easement or.
Altogether Group do. So it's very similar to Sydney Water. They've got the same rights in terms of accessing road reserves for installing pipes. So it's pretty much the same thing. There is private infrastructure on the lot. So there is actually a tank that sits in the very front or back corner of the lot where the sewer sits in, and then by telemetry, it all talks together, and then the whole street would pump together to the treatment plant through the street infrastructure, through the road reserve. But this is a well-tried and tested system, as it's been around for 20 years, and that's why now, you know, we're looking at them. So we've built one with Sydney Water at our Sydney Science Park project for over 5,000 dwellings.
So these systems are now also taking the pressure off Sydney Water because in the right location, like we have up at Glossodia, it shouldn't be up to Sydney Water to take all this cost just for 500 lots. So this actually makes sense, and it's just, not luck, but it's worked out well that we can actually join these two projects together with that infrastructure. And
Correct. And that's where the WIC Act comes in. That's where they granted all those licenses and... Because it all goes down all the way to how they charge the customer and be able to issue bills and things like that. Yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then so they own the infrastructure and the allotments that are on the infrastructure and all that. It just works that way. It's just another service.
Correct. Correct. And the beauty of it is we get recycled water. So the last drought we had in 2017 at the Gables, the whole place was green. Everywhere else was brown. So it's actually a really good, and it reduces, because you're reducing—oh, sorry, because you're using recycled water in your toilets, your washing, it actually reduces potable water use as well. And
The potable water, so Sydney Water says it can provide you with the water. I know it's going to be treated and all that, but they provide you with the water. There's no issue with that for both the Jacaranda and this development?
So again, we're fortunate with Jacaranda because it is bringing in the mains, but there was in the report about future modelling. We may need to amplify a water tower, but that's at our cost and not at Sydney Waters. Which is
Oh, pressure, yeah Yeah. So they use— I suppose what I'm asking is there's enough water generally. It's not as though there's a water issue. It's how it's treated and dealt with and all that is the issue. So Sydney Water says, we can give you the water, you look after it, sort of thing.
And does that infrastructure stay with the development for life? It's not where altogether Group, or whoever they are, do operate for 10 years and then once Sydney Water infrastructure becomes demand of Glossodia and surrounds, that they would take it over? Is that not the intent? That
Is a good question. For example, if Altogether Group decide to pack up and change business, there is an item in the agreement called the operator of last resort. In that case, it's Sydney Water. So what will happen, all this infrastructure will just get handed over to Sydney Water. And that's why there was interest from them to do the plant with us at Sydney Science Park, because it's a completely different technology. It's more advanced because they call them advanced water recycling facilities. And now what they're doing in the Aerotropolis, the big one that they're doing near the airport is actually just a big version of what we're talking about here at Jacaranda. It's exactly the same thing. Okay Okay.
It's a good point, Jess. I think for the panel, we still give opportunity to Sydney Water to look at their strategies. We always do that. They always have the opportunity to work with us to amplify new pipes, extension of plants. But in this case, they were like, well, it's probably more efficient if we expand the altogether group.
I mean, you imagine they would have some sort of say somewhere along the line, especially given what you said about their last resort. Anyway. Sorry, keep going, Gary.
Sure. So we have obviously included documents within the planning proposal itself. We also have a formal letter. So in our meeting with council, they asked for us to progress the VPA discussions as soon as possible. I think they obviously had experienced different circumstances with others, so really wanted for that to occur sort of now. So we've already got a draft letter ready to go to put that formal VPA offer to council, and that includes some other documentation around Glossodia shops and also some other items that we've discussed with council that they may seek some additional contributions to. So we wanted to wait to the panel meeting before we issued that to council, just to ensure we were following sort of the bouncing ball, but we would expect to send that to council next week.
Okay. I mean, just on a lower level, I mean, you know, this plan obviously includes provision of open space. I mean, that's handed over to Council, I assume, and whatever goes in those parks becomes part of your contributions?
That's the intent, that we would do obviously everything on site we would deliver, and then also we've talked through a management plan, like we've done in other previous developments where you'd have, you know, a certain period of time where we would continue to manage the site. Again, we haven't got a set time at this stage, but what we're talking about with that VPA is additional over and above what's on site that we can actually deliver to the local community so that there's a clear expansion or benefit to other areas that both this population will use and the existing population.
Could I just ask one question on that? The parkland, et cetera, is that on completion of the subdivision, is that handed to Council or does it remain as part of some other ownership?
Okay, thanks. That's good. And can I just jump in? Council's been fantastic through this process in terms of the master plan we've got to. I think there was five iterations before this. They've been very clear in their expectations, and open space, you've appropriately asked the right question. Low cost maintenance, low burden for Council. What are those long-term strategies? And that's why we will work with Council going forward and look at how we have a more natural play, but not create a liability, but also make sure we've got other amenity for, like you said earlier about what are the local kids going to do there? How do we keep them engaged in open space? So that's something that you'll see in the attachments, that it's fairly reasonably high level at the moment, but we just didn't want to go too far without moving through this process.
I mean, one would assume you're going to probably have reasonably young families in this development. What about playing fields and things like that? Is that, I mean, it's green open space on this plan, but I guess, do they go in this development or is it burden on area outside?
We would look at outside this site. So the way in which the site is laid out in terms of slope, in terms of the environmental constraints, it really doesn't provide the necessary space that Council will require. They've got quite specific requirements in terms of playing fields. We've done that analysis in terms of need. At the moment, if you have a look at their strategy, there is actually an excess in some of the active open space. But yes, certainly we would provide contributions in accordance with the contributions plan around any active space needed.
Thank you. Anthony, that's it from me. Okay, just following right on that point before I ask Katrina, sorry, is with the, no , so affordable housing, I read in there that you're going to just rely on, you know, the new affordable housing provisions that are coming in for Western Sydney and that you'll just deal with it that way.
There's percentages in terms of requirements from, I guess, the state government. Yes, that's what we're looking at at this point. We've had discussions about other options and looked at different thoughts around affordable housing and— Including community housing providers, et cetera, but we haven't really explored that too far at this stage because the intent is obviously just to meet the local demand.
Yeah, right. And just on that, well, something slightly different. I read somewhere one of the— there's not going to be any commercial zoning in this at all. Like, there's not going to be a little shop or any of that sort of stuff. It's all just residential, isn't it? And that, I suppose you'd say, well, Glossodia, we're going to help, you know, it'll build it and they'll come sort of thing. It'll happen over there type thing. That's where if you need more doctors and all that, it'll probably happen over that area. Yes
That's the intent, and that's part of our conversation around the VPA, where the intent is to actually do some work within the Glossodia shopping precinct. It's got real opportunity. It's quite aged. It's not laid out in the most desirable fashion. I think Matthew's is always saying to me that they're sitting outside in the cold and rain waiting for the doctors. So that's certainly somewhere I think that needs benefit and it needs to be enhanced. You don't want to draw away from that and have something that's just, you know, a standalone. So certainly our intent is to focus on that existing shopping precinct.
And I'll probably just add to that, there's some great existing infrastructure, as Jess just highlighted is quite old. And even with the school, so we're regularly in touch with Brenda, the principal there. Since 2022, they've had constant reduction in enrolments. So they're down about 30, I think it's about 30 percent of where they were in 2022. And that's when you go, well, why are the families leaving? And when you look into it, it's price point driven. They're being priced out of the area. So this product that we're talking, and you'll see by the way in the plans that that product is cut up, that there's a higher proportion of that entry product. So we can bring those families back because it's what a great place to bring up kids in this area and this environment.
And there's all this great infrastructure already there. And with Japaranda, their lot sizes are quarter, half and full acre. So they're not providing for those young families and even downsizers, so the older people that want to come off the land and, you know, get into smaller homes. So that probably gives you a bit of a sense of the principles behind that lot structure and sizing.
Thank you. And so one last thing, I think someone mentioned you're going to have to do a little— is there going to be a little bit more work on the traffic and the, I think the traffic report says it itself really, doesn't it, that you'd have to do a bit more work on that?
Yeah, we do, and the reason is very specific. So we couldn't do the required modelling within the December-January period because it's not as accurate given the school holidays and visitors, et cetera. So we've done, or we're in the process of doing those models at the moment. So we're expecting once they're finalised, we'll put a new traffic report in.
Sorry, Anthony, just on that, I think in the report it sort of gives you dot points, half a dozen or so of what needs to be done. Yeah, there's no objection to that, is there?
Okay, so thanks very much, Jessica and Matthew. That probably takes us to the end of that, and that's the end of this matter. Now we might just— thanks very much. That's okay, I don't need to hang around or anything.
Hello? Yes. Can you hear me? There he is. He's here. Sorry, I was having some... He's in San Francisco. Can you still hear me? Yeah, we can hear you and see you. Well, I can. Hi, everyone.
I don't— now, look, we've got the— you've read the report. I understand there are some just some additional conditions that the council officer is going to tell us about. I'll assume that you're okay with the report and the conditions subject to what you might have sent just recently.
That's right. So there has been some last-minute changes to some conditions which have been circulated. I have no issues with those changes, so I have nothing further to add.
