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.
Okay, I might make a start if that's okay. We'll get this meeting underway and thank you for your attendance this morning. This is the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel meeting for Thursday the 18th of June 2026. The panel has been appointed by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces and the Council to determine certain categories of development applications, and we'll also be considering matters relating to planning proposals. My name is Grant Christmas. I'm the Chair of today's panel. The other panelists to my right, Graham Brown, expert member; to my left, Chris Hallam, expert member; and to my far left, Wayne Mitchell, who's the community representative member. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land, the Dharug people, their elders past and present.
Now, as a courtesy to others, can you please— well, actually that applies, I think we've got everyone here. So I just ask that everyone be courteous to one another with respect to those people who speak, and ensure that you maintain an appropriate level of decorum at all times. This meeting is being audio-visually recorded. Any part of the meeting that's held in a closed session will not be recorded. In the 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 staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting and live streaming of the local planning panel meetings.
Under the panel's code of conduct, panel members are required to disclose any pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary interest in relation to matters on today's agenda, and each panelist has provided a written disclosure. Now, I declare that I have no conflicts of interest, and we'll just get each of the panel members to confirm that
Graham Brown, I have no conflicts of interest. Thank you. Chris Hallam, I have no conflicts of interest. Wayne Mitchell, I have no conflicts of interest.
Thank you, panel. As I indicated, the development application that's listed for today's meeting is DA 0060 of 26, relating to Lot 1, Deposited Plan 838670, being 291 Bells Line of Road, North Richmond. It's a proposal for two food and drink premises and a childcare centre. Also on the agenda are two planning proposals, one planning proposal relating to property at Belmont, known as Belmont Park, being 135, 61, 63 Grose River Road at Grose Wold. And the second item is that relating to some additional listings of heritage items that are sought to be added to the Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan. By way of ensuring, I suppose, ensuring that everyone's here and I've addressed everyone correctly, now I've been provided with a list of people who have registered to speak.
She's outside. Okay. And is Matthew Cozley, is he? Okay. Terrific. All right, well we've got everyone listed, and on that basis, I think each of the presenters has three minutes to speak. That can be extended at my discretion. I would ask that you try and keep it to the time limit, but if you do wish to, I suppose, make some important points that are outside the time limit, please let me know so that we can extend the time.
As a local resident of the Hawkesbury all my whole life, 63 years, I've lived actually on Yeomans Road for the past 14 years. And from there we can see quite clearly the amount of traffic that Bells Line Road has increased over that period of time. This new proposal on that intersection is really one of the worst I've actually ever seen. The traffic congestion on a good day is bad enough. Now according to the figures that are in the proposed plan, Macdonald State, that they are only going to have 1,552 vehicles on a weekly basis. Now, on figures that I actually obtained and from credible sources, there is actually be 5,675 vehicles on average per week going through there, instead of the 1,552 suggested , three and a half times the amount.
KFC is very similar. They're proposing about 350, 400 vehicles. There's actually 1,960 vehicles plus, so it's three times more, three to four times more than what they have actually suggested they would have. It just can't sustain it. Getting in and out of Yeomans Road as it is now is quite bad. On a good day, like I said, we can be there two, three, four minutes just for one vehicle to get through. You've got to remember the amount of vehicles coming in also have to go out. They've got to turn left, they've got to turn right. There is quite a lot of near misses already on that intersection, and it's just a recipe of a disaster waiting to happen.
Where do we go to from here? I'm not sure. The proposal, there is only giveaway signs, and a short turning out lane of about 90 metres on each side. That won't sustain it. The amount of traffic build-up there is going to be horrendous. From that point, I think it's a distinctive proposal to reject that, to have that proposal put there. Another factor there, looking through the documentation, is the waste water management proposal. From my indications, and from credible sources that I've actually had these discussions with, professionals in the industry on the wastewater, they feel it is totally inadequate for the proposal that's put forward, and it will never sustain an environmentally ethical proposal to have.
The issue there is the sloping of the land, the location of Redbank Creek. The wastewater that would come off that would really damage our environment. The water quality there would be drastically affected forever. So from that point of view, yeah, it's another one that needs to be considered. The safety of school students coming out from Colo High School, there is no pedestrian access. I know everyone, you look at social media and they're all saying that it'd be great for jobs for the kids from Colo High School. For me, that area there is going to be, again, an issue for traffic congestion, no pedestrian access. Kids crossing the road, it's going to be a recipe for disaster there for accidents and injuries to children.
And I can't see any viable proposal of crossing that road there at all. So I think this needs to be taken into careful consideration as well. Pedestrian and school safety is paramount there as well. The other thing too in that area too, McDonald's KFC is known to bring noise , antisocial behaviour in that area. Our area is quite a beautiful rural atmosphere at the moment, and with the amount of traffic and waste that would be incorporated coming from— The rubbish which McDonald's and KFC packaging always has, you see quite often in the areas where they are now. And that will be littered up and down Bells Line of Road. Now, the Bells Line of Road is our gateway to the Hawkesbury, and to have this sort of waste along the side of our roads, it's just not acceptable.
It's not a good look for our area, and we want to try and retain the rural atmosphere of the Hawkesbury, so as much as we can. So again, this is another aspect we need to take into consideration.
About eight. Eight, yes, that's correct. And that's another thing too, is that once that intersection does go in, then all our mailboxes will be gone. There's obviously no provision for where we could put our mail there at all. And if we do have our mailboxes there, I can guarantee they will be trashed and littered and damaged for sure by vandalism in that area.
Quite useful if you're a resident there. I mean, in terms of coming up and turning right onto the main road, yes. When is it most difficult to do that?
Generally over morning, when the increased traffic, anywhere between, say, 7:30 and 9 o'clock of a morning. The traffic is banked up well past Kyler High School most mornings. And then if you look at weekends, Saturdays and Sundays, it's nearly impossible. You can be waiting there five, six, seven minutes just for one car to get out if you're lucky. So if you look at the amount of increased traffic of, you know, a couple of thousand cars increased just on a Saturday alone. Now, McDonald's State, they are 24 hours. KFC say they're only pretty much a daytime entity going to be business there, but KFC are doing a proposal at the moment to have 24-hour sites open. They've got one which is working in Mascot at the moment, and from my sources, they are going 24 hours on KFC as well, so they're opening for breakfast as well.
So it's not only McDonald's which will be for breakfast, you've got also KFC which will be opening up as well, plus also the increased traffic from childcare centre. Now, their proposal states a number of vehicles going in and out of the childcare centre. They've only got 64 going in of a morning, but 39 going out in the afternoon. So I'm sorry, but where's the other 25 children going to stay? They must be staying in a childcare motel overnight because there is definitely , if you've got 64 going in, they've got to come out in the afternoon as well, and their proposal is obviously flawed in that area as well. So their figures just don't add up.
Saturday, they're both bad, yeah. Especially in springtime when the weather's great. Saturdays and Sundays, it's just constant traffic. And then when you look at public holidays, the traffic coming down Bells Line Road, it banks up to well past Kermon. So that's it.
There is ample vision on the left, but the problem is the vehicles that coming over the hill, they fly over the top of that hill. Now the concern is the vehicles that are turning right into Yeomans Road. Even though there is a dedicated right-hand turning lane, that 90 metres there proposed is not enough to bank the amount of cars that they're proposing to come in. Now we have quite a lot of near misses, people turning right into Yeomans Road at the moment, even though there is no dedicated right-hand turning lane. There's quite a few near misses there all the time. You can hear the brakes screech there, stopping, and we've had family members which have nearly been collected there. So quite often we tell people when you come over that rise, just keep pumping your brakes so people are knowing that you're turning right or slowing down, because they don't.
It's just 80k zone. They fly over the top of that hill.
A lot of them do, yeah, but even at 80k, it's still pretty quick coming over that rise because it is a bit of a blind rise. Now if the traffic is already banked up, then you don't have time to brake. So if anything, I believe there is a proposal anyway coming in place that they're going to lower the speed limit through there anyway. But it is a dangerous area coming over that hill, and then when the fog is in there as well, it even makes it much worse.
Good morning, everyone. So I'd like to present myself. I'm Ben Moyer. I live on 1024 Bells Line of Road, the same road less than two kilometres from this site. I just want to highlight that the traffic is not consistent. There are traffic jams the whole way up Bells Line of Road. Some weekends we can't get out of our property, and we have our own stop-go signs and orange vests to be able to get in and out of our property for the reason of trucks and vehicles that don't travel at the speed limit. There is motorcyclists. There is people that do drifting at night time. We live on the bends on the thing, and we live just below Crash Rock, where people are regularly injured or maimed. So the speed of racing drivers is disproportionate to other roads in Sydney because of the attractiveness of Bells Line of Road for motorcyclists and sports car drivers.
I want to be up clear upfront that I'm not anti-development. I'm not anti-McDonald's. I had McDonald's on the way here, but I do travel, it's only eight minutes into the local Richmond to get KFC and McDonald's. I've lodged a detailed written submission, so I'm not going to repeat that. I just wanted to bring up three things that maybe carry more weight in this forum. So number one is the road. There's a crest near the proposed site. 80 kilometres an hour, the stopping distance is around 40 metres for a car. There's large trucks on that road, so they'd have longer stopping distances, and the crest compresses the sight distance. The vehicles decelerating, turning right into the drive or back into traffic would create a collision scenario, and traffic modelling may not capture this.
The Transport for New South Wales Strategic Corridor Plan for Bells Line of Road recorded 13 fatalities over five years. I'd ask that the panel to require Transport for New South Wales formal concurrence and an independent peer-reviewed sight distance assessment before any consent is considered, not the applicant's consultant. I want an independent assessment by Transport for New South Wales. Secondly, the school, Colo High is approximately 1,000 students. Fast food across the road. No pedestrian crossing. 80 kilometres an hour. If a student is hurt or killed crossing that road after this opens, the question will be whether the risk was raised and whether it was adequately addressed. I'm raising it now.
The alternative is my third point. It's been reported applicants tried North Richmond first and couldn't secure land. I understand that; it's hard to get land. But the community shouldn't bear the planning consequences of a development site's acquisition problems. North Richmond is a commercial centre. This is rural land adjacent to a school on a high-speed road. They're not interchangeable. Just because you couldn't find land or they couldn't find land in North Richmond shouldn't be the problem of this council. If the panel is minded to approve, I ask that Transport for New South Wales concurrence and independent traffic assessment addressing the question geometry and a formal pedestrian safety plan be treated as mandatory, not conditions to be satisfied later.
Finally, and not only here, I'm not here for myself. I'm here for the people of the community who care deeply but haven't had the time or the means to submit or stand here today. Many have taken to social media. They want to be heard. We all want to know that we did everything we could, because if I'm driving past this site one day and I see the aftermath of an accident and I drive past it every single day, or worse, a child hurt or maimed or killed, I want to know in my heart that we all stood up as a community. We ask for this to be reconsidered, and my conscience will be clear. Thank you.
Sorry, Benjamin. Just if there are any questions from the panel. No, no. Thank you for your address. Appreciated. Next person, has Angela Bichler ? Yes? Bichler. No, that's fine. Please come up to the...
Three, okay. Well, I think a fair few of my points have been covered already, so sorry if I've replicated anything. I'm a resident of Angela Bichler, resident of Yeomans Road. I'd like to specifically focus on road safety and the intersection of Bells Line Road and Yeomans Road, particularly the risks created by the proposed entry and exit arrangements, the crest on Bells Line Road, and the proximity of Colo High School. This proposal seeks to introduce a 100-place childcare centre together with two 24-hour drive-through fast food outlets. That combination will generate a significant increase in vehicle movements at an intersection that already experiences safety and operational problems. The first issue for me, and look, and to reiterate the previous gentleman who talked about McDonald's, I'm not anti-McDonald's or KFC or childcare centres.
It's just the wrong spot. That's where I'm coming from, and I think most of the community agree there. The first issue is visibility. So trying to pull out of that road is a nightmare. So using this intersection regularly, travelling north towards Richmond from Ox Road, the proposal relies on vehicles slowing and queuing in the new right turn lane to enter Yeomans Road. However, drivers approaching from behind the crest have limited ability to see traffic conditions ahead, and they come over the rise. This creates a foreseeable risk of rear-end collisions, particularly during busy periods when vehicles may be queued waiting to turn, i.e. the mornings. And sometimes very heavily, actually, in the afternoons on the weekend.
Importantly, Council's own development engineer has identified concerns regarding restricted vertical sight distance on Bells Line of Road and has stated that further safety assessment is required. The second issue is the complexity of the traffic movements at this intersection. So people turning right at the moment, it's already very difficult. Under this proposal, there will be vehicles turning right from Bells Line of Road into Yeomans Road, vehicles turning left from Bells Line of Road into Yeomans Road, vehicles exiting Yeomans Road, customers entering and leaving the development, childcare drop-off and pick-up traffic, and heavy vehicle servicing movements. This creates multiple conflicting turning movements at a single rural intersection with a very short entry from Bells Line of Road.
The queue-up would be substantial. So Council's own assessment notes that the right turn movements from Yeomans Road are expected to operate at level of service F, which is the poorest level of traffic performance, with delays of up to 136 seconds. With the proposed development, there will be so many more vehicles waiting and queued extensively to enter Bells Line of Road, drivers becoming impatient, and they will take risks. The third issue is that the works themselves, the roadworks proposed, do not appear capable of resolving these safety problems. So Transport for New South Wales advised that it does not support the proposal in its current form, and as the previous speakers, there needs to be a lot more work done on this.
I think the whole area, whole intersection would need to be redesigned, and at the moment, State Road Authority is not satisfied that this intersection can safely accommodate the proposed development. So I won't touch on the child safety again, but that is definitely a big concern for all of us. It's only a short distance away, and quite often I see kids run across that road. McDonald's is very attractive to kids, and, you know, no one wants to see anyone killed there. The other day, I just want to reiterate, I did take some footage, and it wasn't allowed today, but when it's foggy, and it's quite often foggy in the mornings, up to 11 o'clock sometimes, you actually can't see the crest, and I've actually taken video and photos of this, where the other day I just stood there at 8:15, and I couldn't see either way what's coming, and that is just a recipe for disaster.
So sorry to reiterate similar points, but, yeah, really from my point of view, it needs to go into a commercial area, such as North Richmond shop area, not in a rural landscape area. Thank you.
Good morning, Chair and panel members. My name is Laura Jones. I grew up in Kurrajong, currently live in Kurrajong, and attended Colo High School. I speak today in support of Council's recommendation that DA 0060/26 be refused. Over recent months, a friend and I helped organise community opposition to this proposal. Through that process, I read hundreds of submissions. What struck me was not simply the number of objections, but their quality. Ours is a community with ambition, imagination and a genuine vision for its future. Teachers, doctors, builders, artists, business owners and residents all raised concerns. Submissions came from Colo High teachers and Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District.
They came from different backgrounds, but they reached the same conclusion: this proposal is not suitable for this location. After reading Council's assessment report, it's easy to understand why. Council recommends refusal because of significant concerns relating to traffic and road safety, environmental impacts, visual amenity, rural character and the suitability of the site itself. The traffic concerns alone should give the panel pause. Council identified unresolved issues relating to road safety and intersection performance, and Transport for New South Wales does not currently support the proposal. There appear to be unresolved issues regarding intersection design, vehicle movements, sight distances and road widening.
A channelised turning lane on the crest of an 80 km an hour hill, a short distance from Colo High, is difficult to reconcile with community expectations of safety, especially given this is not a site within an established commercial centre. Access is via Yerrin Road, a country lane, and the applicant has not demonstrated how the increased traffic can be accommodated safely. There are also significant environmental concerns. Council's report identifies issues relating to major earthworks, fill, stormwater, wastewater management, and potential impacts on the adjoining watercourse and Webbs Creek subcatchment. What stands out is the landscape must be substantially altered to make this development work.
Rather than responding to the site, the site is being reshaped to fit it. And that brings me to the broader question of character. One submission put it well. The Hawkesbury's greatest asset is its distinctiveness, its landscape, its community, its character. This proposal would erode all three. Council's assessment agrees, rejecting the applicant's comparison of the existing arrow sculpture on the site to the proposed 24/7 illuminated signage, and finding the signs would be significantly more prominent and incompatible with the area's rural character. And frankly, as an artist, I was quite amused by this pole and arrow being characterised as a sculpture. If only this whole development proposal was more inspired.
The overwhelming weight of public submissions reached the same conclusion as Council. I respectfully urge the panel to support Council's recommendation and refuse DA 0060/26. Thank you.
My name is Alison Dunshea, and I'm the Healthy Places Manager in the Centre for Population Health at Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District. Local health districts operate under the New South Wales Health Services Act 1997, and our primary purpose is not just to provide relief to sick and injured people. We are also required to promote, protect, and maintain the health of our community. And it is for this reason that we strongly support Council's refusal of this development application. It's clear from the number of community submissions that the people of the Hawkesbury don't want these fast food outlets opening up in their community. They're worried this development will add more traffic, impact the character of the local area, and limit the availability of fresh, healthy food options.
Growth in fast food outlets, combined with heavy marketing, has normalised these unhealthy foods, bringing with them rising rates of chronic disease. Given the known impacts of highly processed fast foods on obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases, we're asking the panel to listen to the community and reject this development application. It just doesn't make sense for governments to be telling people to eat healthy food on the one hand, while giving the green light for two fast food outlets next to a childcare centre and down the road from a local high school. New South Wales Health invests a lot in preventative programs in childcare and schools to promote healthy eating and canteen programs.
These settings play a crucial role in helping our children and young people gain the information, skills, and habits they need to set themselves up for a good life. It's counterproductive to teach children about the importance of having a healthy, balanced diet while fast food chains sit right next door and down the road. Fast food companies deliberately place outlets near childcare centres and schools to build lifelong loyalty to their unhealthy products, setting our children up for poor health later in life. Most people would agree our health determines not just how long we live, But how well we live. So it's important we shape our cities and towns in ways that help all of us get what we need to live our best, healthiest lives.
We understand from the panel's agenda that the applicant has already commenced Class 1 proceedings in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. At the end of the day, the Hawkesbury community should be able to decide whether or not they want two new fast food outlets and a childcare centre opening up in their neighbourhood. Ultimately, health impacts need to be included as a valid consideration in planning decisions in New South Wales. We recognise this is outside the control of the local planning panel, but we thank you for the opportunity to make our case and be heard.
Thank you. I speak today on behalf of the councillors who voted unanimously to express opposition to this proposal and as a resident and ratepayer of Kurrajong. I strongly oppose this DA. As we've seen from the speakers who've just spoken, the central issue around this development is that it's in the wrong location. It's not a minor proposal, but an intensive urban-style commercial development proposed on a prominent rural site, on a major arterial road opposite a high school, on steep land and an area with no reticulated sewer supply. The land is zoned RU1 primary production. That zoning is intended to protect rural land, maintain rural character, minimise land use conflict, and avoid the fragmentation and alienation of rural resource land.
This proposal does the opposite. It introduces a highway-style commercial use into a rural setting and contributes to the creeping urbanisation of land that should remain rural in character and function. That is what our strategic documents say. The site is steep, visually exposed, and requires substantial cut and fill to make the development work. That level of engineering intervention is evidence that the development is being forced onto land that is inappropriate for this scale and intensity of use. There are environmental concerns. This is an unsewered area, and the proposal relies on on-site wastewater management for commercial use. On a steep site, wastewater, stormwater, and runoff move with the landform and can adversely impact the waterways.
A development of this scale should not be supported where the necessary urban services are not already available. There are also serious traffic and safety concerns. This proposal would generate frequent vehicle movements through a single access point, including short-stay trips, queuing, and turning movements. That is concerning in any location. It is especially concerning directly opposite a high school, where a predictable and avoidable risk arises to the physical safety and health of young people. The visual impact is also significant and irreversible. The Hawkesbury's rural vistas, ridge lines and mountain backdrop are central to its identity. Such development would scar the landscape with light and noise pollution, impacting wildlife and residents.
The proposal is also incompatible with Nevelyn, PA Yeomans' historic demonstration property, which sits below the subject land and is connected to the history of Australian agricultural innovation and keyline farming. Approval would set a poor precedent. This development would be a forerunner of the creeping urbanisation our rural planning controls are intended to prevent. Approval would shift expectations for the whole corridor. It stands to remove a core reason people are drawn to the area, its uniqueness and beauty. It erodes opportunity and enjoyment for future generations. It is incompatible with RU1 objectives, is unsuitable for a steep and unsewered rural site, unsafe opposite a high school, damaging to rural character, and is inconsistent with the strategic importance of our town centres and local businesses, many of which will be adversely impacted.
For those reasons, in the public interest, I strongly support refusal of this DA and respectfully urge the panel to refuse the application. Thank you.
That everyone's addressed us that was listed. The panel will. Going into closed session later to consider its decision with respect to this matter, and that will be public made available in due course. We thank you for your addresses to us this morning. We thank the council staff for the report that they've prepared, and we will consider the matter very closely. Thank you.
Sorry, before we go, Graham Brown, am I right, former Commissioner of Land and Environment Court. Now , the panel will make a decision with respect to this development application, and
Nonetheless the matter is before the Land and Environment Court. I'm instructed that it's currently in its early stages, and I think the appeal was lodged last month. That process will go through its administrative phases by the council preparing a document called a Statement of Facts and Contentions, which will be presented to the court, and that will spell out the council's issues with respect to the development. There will be, firstly, the court will issue, or the court will order that there be a conciliation conference where all the parties get together on a without prejudice basis and discuss, try and come to an agreement about the matter. If that doesn't occur, that matter comes back before the court, and it will be listed for a full court hearing, which, based on current court backlogs, probably would not be before the end of the year, or it may be towards the end of the year.
But that essentially is a separate process. The court has the ultimate statutory power with respect to the determination of the application. So that, that I just let you know by way of information. But the panel will nonetheless still make a decision with respect to this application. Can
I just add that as part of that process, the court will come out to the site, and residents who wish to speak to the court will be given the opportunity to speak to the court and show what their concerns are on site. So you will get the opportunity. So the notes you've kept, you may be able to use them again when the court comes out. So it's a relatively informal process on site, but it is still part of the court process, and you will be given that opportunity to explain what your concerns are.
You'll probably need to speak to the relevant council officers. They then are in contact. The council has appointed external solicitors to deal with the matter, to represent the council in the court. But it's probably, I think it's best for you or your group, whoever it might be, nominate one person. That would be sensible to then liaise with the appropriate council officer, who will then liaise with the council solicitors, and then they may then be in direct contact. Although my experience is that they'll then be in— Direct contact with you.
Okay, proceeding to item number two, the planning proposal relating to Belmont Park, Grosvenor Road at Groswold. Now I have Bridget Bradley and Matthew Causley. Do you want to come up and — yeah, jointly. Yeah, probably be best. That way we can ask you some questions at the end. Thank you. Yeah, sorry, up to the lectern, sorry.
Hi, I'm Matthew Causey, representing the landowners, the Cavanagh family. Thank you to the planning panel for the opportunity to present, and thanks to the council staff for their comprehensive report. We're encouraged that Council's report recognises the project's potential to satisfy the strategic merit test, describing it as largely consistent and generally consistent with many of the relevant planning considerations. This was particularly encouraging given the very different response to the previous planning proposal nearly two years ago, and it reflects how far the project has progressed. The local planning panel feedback two years ago on the previous planning proposal significantly changed our approach, including we've got new lead planners in Urbis, and we've got Bridget Bradley here, who's Associate Director, here to answer any of your questions today.
We've commissioned a range of additional studies. We've undertaken community consultation. We've engaged meaningfully with the local Aboriginal community. We've also done extensive agency consultation via a revised scoping proposal that included two options for both agencies and Council to consider.
This process has resulted in a completely new proposal. We have a new master plan with 100% flood resilient housing. All dwellings are above the PMF, and that is 12 metres above the 1 in 100. The project size has been reduced by 40%. It was a 1,200 dwelling proposal; we've reduced it to 735, and obviously that reduces the development footprint too. And we've retained the rural character, the 60 hectares of rural lands. will remain and will be one of the largest rural land holdings in the Hawkesbury. And to articulate why we believe it's necessary and the benefits it brings to the community, we have produced this document, which I'd like to table a little later on, which...
And this has all occurred in a significantly changing planning framework to which Bridget will elaborate on shortly. But ultimately, we seek the panel's support to expedite more affordable, flood-free housing by endorsing the project's potential to satisfy the strategic merit test and ideally recommending it proceed to gateway. If there are any concerns regarding its consistency with either the strategic merit or site-specific merit, we would be happy to address those concerns today. In doing so, we'd also like to address a few inconsistencies in the report, particularly where they may mislead the panel. But perhaps that's done a little later on in question time. Otherwise, I'll pass over to Bridget.
Thank you, Chair and panel members, for the opportunity to address you today. The Belmont Park planning proposal responds to a materially changed planning context in the Hawkesbury. Since the local strategic planning statement and local housing strategy were prepared, updated flood evidence has shown that many locations previously identified for housing are constrained by flood risk, evacuation capacity and isolation during major events. Belmont Park has clear strategic merit. It can accommodate residential development outside the PMF extent, allowing growth to be directed away from more constrained, flood-affected land. At the same time, substantial areas of the site are retained for rural uses, environmental conservation, riparian rehabilitation.
Heritage protection. Council has acknowledged that the proposal is generally consistent with the Greater Sydney Region Plan and the Western City District Plan. It is also noted where generally consistent with the relevant SEPPs, ministerial directions, and the Hawkesbury LSPS. We acknowledge that the proposal raises questions about the metropolitan rural area and the draft Sydney Plan urban footprint. However, we believe these matters are capable of being justified by the site's unique circumstances, the public benefits associated with the proposal, and as a response to the updated flood evidence. Belmont Park should be understood as a targeted, evidence-based refinement to the urban footprint, not just broad rural expansion, which can set precedent for wider MRA urbanisation.
The public benefits of the proposal are significant. The proposal will deliver approximately 735 dwellings and aims to improve housing choice and affordability in the Hawkesbury. It will also establish a local centre, support community infrastructure opportunities, create a connected open space network, which will include a rehabilitation of approximately 1.8 kilometres of Steding Creek. We are also looking to retain rural land and enable the conservation and adaptive reuse of locally significant heritage buildings. The proposal also addresses the draft Sydney Plan principles for development beyond the urban footprint, as noted in Council's report. We acknowledge that the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment and Biodiversity Development Assessment will continue to progress.
These matters can be appropriately managed as part of the post-gateway process prior to exhibition. The project has also been informed by early and ongoing engagement with Nurra Advisory so that Dharug cultural values, stories and connections to country can be embedded within the site. We also note that agency comments received to date related to the earlier scoping proposal. The current planning proposal has been refined in response to these comments and Council feedback. Gateway is the appropriate point to test these matters through agency consultation, technical refinement and public exhibition. In closing, we consider that the planning proposal has demonstrated sufficient strategic and site-specific merit to proceed to Gateway.
We request that the panel endorse the proposal progressing to Council for consideration and referral to DPI for Gateway determination. Thanks for your time today.
Yes, just on the flooding, I'm looking at the flood impact risk assessment. Yes. Page 17 and 18, figures 2.7 and 2.8, about the PMF extent covering the single site access road. I mean, the graphic suggests there's an issue, but the text suggests the actual road level will be above that. Is that the way it should read?
Yes, we would have to do a little bit of cutting and fill to, yeah, we'll serve it, bring that above the PMF, but that's a DA-level detail that can be managed, so either within the technical, within the road design.
Okay. I mean, is there only the one option for road access to the site? I mean, is there any way of any other options apart from the emergency-only access at the top end?
Yeah, look, there are other options to access the site. There's another one on the southern side of Steedman Creek, which is... Direct access to the Great Western Road, then, but then we'd have to cross Steeding Creek to come back up into the development site .
Inconsistent with a number of objectives, or whatever you call them in the strategic plans. My reading would tend to suggest that it doesn't have strategic merit, because the thread that runs through a lot of the documents was to retain agricultural land,
You're doing the opposite to that. You're using agricultural land for urban development that is not within a defined future growth area in a number of the strategic plans. I mean, I'm struggling with the suggestion that it has strategic merit.
I mean, I've seen enough of the strategic plans to know that there are often objectives, or whatever you want to call them, in each of the plans that are opposite to each other. Some will say provide housing, others will say don't take away agricultural land. I haven't seen anything that would suggest that the contrary objectives or requirements in a lot of these strategic plans is properly addressed in terms of its strategic merit. I'd like your response if you can, thanks. Absolutely
Keep pressing the button. So, as we know, the Greater Sydney Plan is from 2018, and the latest strategic plans for the Hawkesbury, which are the LSPS and the Housing Strategy, were prepared prior to the latest flood inquiry. So areas that were previously identified for housing are likely to be delivered because they're in flood-prone areas. And we've also tried to— so we've been looking at the Greater— the draft Sydney Plan, which will be the future strategic plan for Sydney. And as part of that, while it identifies an urban footprint, it also provides guidelines for development outside the urban footprint. And so we've gone through those guidelines and addressed that we can, in fact, address all the provisions that they're looking for, and we can provide housing which aligns with the strategic merit of the draft Sydney Plan.
I also had some slides. I don't know if they're available . I note in the council report it talks to the state agricultural map, and it says that we're looking to develop within areas identified as regionally significant agricultural land. We have an overlay, I think it's the last slide. So , sorry, if we can just stop here for a sec. The second slide? Yep. So these are all the areas around us that have been identified within the current strategic documents for the Hawkesbury as housing investigation areas, and you can see that most of these areas are sitting within flood— Flood-prone land. So then, if we can just scroll down. We'll
Keep going. That's kind of what we've covered today. Sorry, if you can go to the last slide. So this is the significant agricultural map. Our residential footprint is completely outside of that agricultural map. There's a portion of our RE1 land that kind of hovers on it, but none of the residential land that we're proposing has been identified as significant agricultural land. And we are maintaining that complete footprint to the south of the site. So, in summary, we've been meeting the latest strategic guidelines, which form part of the draft Sydney Plan, while also maintaining the rural land to ensure that we are still maintaining rural land in the Hawkesbury, because we do think that's very important.
The problem I have is that normally the report would say it has strategic merit, and the report asks us for our comments. Yes. Where it's generally consistent. Now, that's not enough, I don't think, for the panel to conclude that it has strategic merit and that it's worthy of gateway. It may ultimately be that, but certainly I'm not convinced we have enough information to make that conclusion based on the documents that has where it's inconsistent
To them right now, because we believe that some of them may have been misconstrued or maybe anything incorrect, that would otherwise suggest they actually are consistent. Yes. So if you want to talk to specifically objective 11 of the Greater Sydney Region Plan, housing is more diverse and affordable. Yeah. If you could read out what it is, then then you could respond to that.
Yeah, absolutely. So the first one that we've identified is where we're inconsistent with is housing diversity. This proposal aims to provide medium and low density housing to provide options within the Hawkesbury area. We do have yield analysis. I don't think it was reviewed as part of— it's not identified within the report, but we have provided a breakdown showing it'll be around 40% medium density and then 60% low density. This proposal, we're looking to provide housing for the sort of younger generation who probably can't afford houses in the Hawkesbury at the moment. You know, we want to provide a range of houses. So I just think we have a disagreement. We do think that it is showing that objective of housing diversity. Can
Page 91 of our report . I can't see anything in that that is supporting the rezoning of the land for residential. It talks about making rural lands— Well,
Actually it says, I think the average size, Andrew, correct me if I'm wrong here, but of land holdings, rural land holdings is about eight hectares or less. So the bigger point was made in the report that we've got a large rural land holding here and that we should keep large rural land holdings, or by definition 60 hectares will still be a large rural land holding.
We're actually saying we're changing that, and we're saying we're keeping specifically, staying out of any of those areas that the Department of Ag has actually identified as important rural land holdings.
Yeah, and in our planning proposal report, we talk about that. While the Rural Land Strategy notes that there's opportunities for rural residential growth are limited, they can still be considered when it achieves, it can be achieved without adverse impacts on areas that actively contribute to environmental, social and economic values. So that's what this proposal has tried to achieve by maintaining the riparian corridor and keeping, and doing rehabilitation works to Stedding Creek, as well as maintaining the rural land to the south.
That may be correct, but what I'm saying in front of us is, does say that. We've got the extract from the Hawkesbury Rural Land Strategy that just talks about keeping rural land. Now, there might be, I mean, I suppose what it needs to be, what needs to happen, there needs to be some sort of summary that
We believe here right now that any of those consistencies—I do have a summary here that actually specifically all the objectives and where they're inconsistent, where the council staff said they're inconsistent. And I know that we can actually have a discussion where we'd end up with a result saying it is consistent,
This forum. I mean, it's gone down a long way, and one of my concerns was if it didn't have strategic merit, there's a lot of people throwing a lot of money to hopefully not end up in the garbage bin. And, I mean, I
Just needed some more comfort that the strategic merit argument was satisfied, and I couldn't get that from the report because the extracts that were taken from the strategic planning documents tended to be unsupportive of that conclusion.
So, as I said, with all due respect, I think we have a very strong argument for strategic merit. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here. And I appreciate you mentioning that. There's been a lot of money, a lot of effort. Oh, look,
But look, it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, we're trying to get a result. We know at the end of the day here that Hawkesbury is facing a looming housing shortage. You know, and one of the biggest things of strategic merit is not just providing more houses, because there's other parts of Sydney that can do that. We're actually trying to provide houses that help the local community keep the younger generation in the Hawkesbury, and that's why we've deliberately gone for houses that are a mix of housing. And certainly when you look at the Hawkesbury's local housing strategy, it actually specifically says that at 87% of detached housing, we need more diverse housing. We've gone and addressed that. We've specifically done that. More of
I think it really comes down to the fact that a lot of these strategic documents are a few years old, and we are responding to the change in circumstances, and that's where our strategic merit argument is responding to rather than responding directly to the objectives.
Well, that's what you've got to do. I mean, unless they're not there anymore, you have to reply to them. And one of your, I suppose, arguments to say they're not relevant is because they're old and they're being overtaken by other documents. But I just have to feel comfortable in drawing that conclusion. And
Like I said, any time we're happy to meet and go through the specific objectives, we can do it now, we can do it later. We know that we can meet the strategic merit argument, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Yeah. I
A lot to make sure that we do actually address that. We had a big pushback from the local planning panel last time, so we had a massive rethink. Yeah. We're like, okay, if we're serious about this and we're going to invest more money, what do we need to do?
I just had probably a question more about some detail. In terms of your proposed zoning map and this residual 60 hectares that would be retained agriculture, so what part... Where's the boundary of what would be public land, what would be dedicated to Council, what would Council be maintaining into the future? You talked about rehabilitating the creek line, etc., but that appears to be in the agricultural 60 hectares. And the scale of this 750 houses, does that provide the capacity to do the sort of rehabilitation that you're talking about? And where is that all that—how's that going to fund that work and that dedication?
You basically have the development footprint, which is mostly in pink and dark red up on the screen. You've got some green land, which is the open space. Below that and above Steeding Creek are— If
Yeah, great. So you can basically see anything that's south of Steeding Creek, so that darker sort of treed-looking river type thing, that's the 11 hectare, 1.8 kilometre Steeding Creek section that will be rehabilitated— river chase, sorry. And then the south of that is RU1, maintenance RU1. Above that is RU4, which will have the old heritage buildings that we're proposing to list as heritage items and refurbished. And then above that, there's a smaller amount of public open space, and then above that, obviously the residential. So funding it, I mean, look, we're still early stages. The development definitely has the capacity to fund these sorts of things. There's always a discussion when we go through this process about who owns it and who maintains it, and I'm happy to continue that conversation.
It's not one I don't think I can answer right now. I think we need to do a to and fro on that one.
The situation, it would have been a lot easier had we had the discussion beforehand. You had the information in front of you. Totally get it. No problem.
Just on the— you've had a fairly major traffic study done, and it seems that its conclusions are that, you know, it's not particularly good with or without you; that, you know, you're on the approach to a new bridge over the Grose River, which initially ticks a box, that's great, you can get out there, but your report, your traffic report says even without you, there's going to be a capacity problem with that road and Springwood Road and with Springwood Road and Castle Road. So, you know, so what's the point of doing a traffic study if you don't take it any further? I mean, there's nothing I've suggested that you will say, Oh, we will pay for this or that in a VPA. I mean, what's the point of studying something if you then just ignore it?
Well, with all due respect, we certainly haven't ignored it. And the traffic study is an honest one, which is good. It actually points out the fact that the studies that Council had been given before and been considered don't highlight the fact that when that Gross River Road bridge goes in, the intersection of Gross River Road and Springwood Road won't be operating satisfactorily during peak hours. So what we did is we looked at that intersection plus the further one along Castle Ray Road, and we said, okay, well, what's got to make it work? And basically upgraded to roundabouts is what would make it operate satisfactorily during peak hours, and that's on page 41 of the traffic report. There's actually a little diagram showing the roundabouts.
It's probably a discussion with transport once we get into the gateway stage where they take these conversations more seriously than they would prior to gateway, because that's when they'll have genuine conversations with us. There
Is no doubt that any infrastructure that's required as a result of the development needs a contribution from that development. That's standard. We expect it. There's a pathway for that, a VPA. Absolutely, we'll have those discussions. That's not a problem at all.
Could I just add one further statement on the— I noted you said that if there was one map that showed this as urban development, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but the draft Sydney Plan does provide guidelines for development outside the urban footprint that have been addressed in the Council report, and the one thing that they said we weren't— Consistent with is having the AHAR finalised, and that's very close to being finalised. And we've also, the Aboriginal cultural heritage—sorry, I'm a planner, we talk in acronyms, too many acronyms—but that work has progressed, and we've also been doing a lot of work with Nura Advisory as the connecting country consultant on this project. So if you look at Council's report, it does talk to those guidelines, and we believe we do have consistency with the guidelines for development outside the urban footprint, which is part of the strategic framework for the site and for Sydney.
So if that's something that you could have another look at, that'd be great. Thank you
And we have no one addressing us on the third item. I therefore declare the meeting closed at 10 past 11. Thank you. I specifically want to acknowledge, in respect to the planning proposal for Belmont Park, that Jock Douglas provided a written submission to the council yesterday or the day before, which has been provided to the panel members. Thank you.
