News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 Fears of bias over Huntlee development 

Fears of bias over Huntlee development

31 Mar, 2010 03:00 AM
ANGRY Branxton residents are calling on NSW Planning Minister Tony Kelly to step aside and not have any involvement in the consideration of the Huntlee development.

Sweet Water Action Group president Chris Parker said Mr Kelly had several meetings with the site's developers but would not answer his group's correspondence.

"We requested a meeting with the Minister on March 11 and we are still waiting for a reply," Mr Parker said.

"It seems to us that the Minister is just the same as the previous planning minister and now Premier Kristina Keneally, in that they are happy to meet the developers but not so happy to meet the residents."

A spokesman for Mr Kelly said the department had yet to receive any new application for the Huntlee site, so it was not possible to speculate on who would be the determining authority.

"However, the Government will closely examine whether the [Planning Assessment Commission] should be the determining authority," he said.

Former planning minister Keneally approved the Huntlee development in February last year but her decision was overturned by the Land and Environment Court in October.

It is now back on the drawing board.

Mr Kelly's spokesman said the Land and Environment Court case related to the legality of the determination, not the merits of any development proposal.

Mr Parker said the group believed Mr Kelly had already shown his bias towards Huntlee by saying the Land and Environment Court overturned it on a technicality.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
How is that bias towards Huntlee? The development WAS overturned on a technicality. It was overturned because it was rulled that the conservation land offered was a land bribe. Whether the development should be allowed to go ahead or not is a different issue, all that court ruling did was postpone the development for a simple technicallity. Unless the action group has something better to stop the plans this time the development wil be approved!
Posted by Techy, 31/03/2010 11:24:38 AM, on The Herald
Surely consideration should be given to residents first, and future development second. When did this thinking go out the window?
Posted by Vexed, 31/03/2010 11:29:28 AM, on The Herald
Techy - you want to know why it was Bias - When the lower Hunter Regional Strategy was in a draft format a few yeasr ago, it was published for community consultation - at that stage a range of developers put forward sites for inclusion as NEW residential/urban areas. Around 100 sites were put forward. The Department of Planning then ranked those sites from 'best' to 'worst' based on planning grounds (ie access to transport, schools, nearby employment, ecology, infrastrcuture and so on). Huntlee and Catherine Hill Bay were ranked the WORST TWO sites for housing in the Lower Hunter (THATS RIGHT, THE WORST TWO). A few months later and both Huntlee and Catho are included for housing - yet around 60-70 sites (which were identified as better sites) were not included. Any explanation as to why?? The problem now is that in order to restore due process the whole Lower Hunter Strategy should be revisited. unlikely to happen though! You claiming that it was a technicality is obviously not based on the facts at hand. Court case was technicality, but the basis behind the whole development is flawed
Posted by Tomato Juice, 31/03/2010 3:34:23 PM, on The Herald
Catherine Hill Bay and Huntlee were ranked the worst two sites for housing because they were always going to bring out the most whingers and whiners.
Posted by moon, 31/03/2010 8:16:21 PM, on The Herald
Huntlee will happen,
Posted by Realist, 1/04/2010 9:58:08 AM, on The Herald
Sorry moon, but how many people would complain had nothing to do with their ranking which was made on planning issues only. Look at Catho as a classic - a new housing estate with no nearby health services, no shops, no public transport, no buses, no school, no sporting facilities (other than surf club and beach), one road in and out one small pub ... anyone can see that plonking another 500-600 houses in there is a recipe for disaster! I can just see 1200 extra cars leaving catho at 8am everyday to go to work.... I'm not against developent, far from it, I reckon the gov't needs to release more land for housing and do it quickly, but it needs to be in the right place and not determined by who's mates own what land. And I agree Realist, Huntlee WILL happen! I have no doubt that Catho will as well. But the point is that they are both poor development locations and they will be creating the slums of the future. Housing estates in the middle of no where with no services where you have to drive 25kms to get a carton of milk. Just to state, I live nowhere near either site, so have no vested interest, although as an as a town planner I can make an educated unbiased judgement.
Posted by Tomato Juice, 1/04/2010 1:08:25 PM, on The Herald
Housing is unaffordable across NSW. Our population is expanding. We need to build new housing to accommodate our new Australians yet we get this resistance. But oh no, those people can't have nice houses in the scenic Hunter Valley, they must live in 2 bedroom apartments in the city. And they must pay through the nose for the privelege. "Not in my back yard." "Go live somewhere else." Someone tell these anti-progress types to have some compassion to families who want a home to live in at an affordable price, and who quite like the idea of a peaceful valley life.
Posted by munroe, 19/04/2010 4:10:33 PM, on The Herald

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

Most popular articles


 
 
 
 


Newcastle Herald







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...