Link Road Forest Campaign

Question 1 – Will you commit to the attached pledge opposing the clearing of native forests for development?

Yes

Question 2 – Do you support the amended Notice of Motion in its entirety? If not, which parts do you support or not support?

Yes

Question 3 – If elected as the Lord Mayor of Newcastle, what will you do to pursue positive outcomes in relation to these requests to the two ministers and the Lake Macquarie councillors.

Continue to advocate for rezoning into a National Park and lobbying the State Government to protect this significant piece of greenspace.

Question 4 – If elected as the Lord Mayor of Newcastle, what else will you do to champion the Council’s position on Link Road Forest and achieve its acquisition to be made a National Park for the communities of Newcastle and the Lower Hunter, and the myriad of species, many endangered, whose homes are at risk if the forest is developed.

Again, continued advocacy, working with Councillors across the chamber to lobby state members across Newcastle and Lake Macquarie to protect and preserve this greenspace, and the many species that inhabit it (some of which are endangered.)

Put simply, this land must not be developed.

I am committed to protecting our greenspace and to ensuring that growth should not strip away the character that makes it special and that must include the Link Road Forest land.

Question 1 – Will you commit to the attached pledge opposing the clearing of native forests for development?

Yes, I commit to the attached pledge opposing the clearing of native forests for development.

Question 2 – Do you support the amended Notice of Motion in its entirety? If not, which parts do you support or not support?

Yes, I support the amended Notice of Motion in its entirety? 

Question 3 – If elected as the Lord Mayor of Newcastle, what will you do to pursue positive outcomes in relation to these requests to the two ministers and the Lake Macquarie councillors.

 If elected as the Lord Mayor of Newcastle I would continue to support efforts to meet with the Minister for Planning and the Minister for the Environment (Part F),  for a joint planning workshop with Lake Macquarie councillors and to consult with the Link Road Forest Campaign

Question 4 – If elected as the Lord Mayor of Newcastle, what else will you do to champion the Council’s position on Link Road Forest and achieve its acquisition to be made a National Park for the communities of Newcastle and the Lower Hunter, and the myriad of species, many endangered, whose homes are at risk if the forest is developed.

 If elected as the Lord Mayor of Newcastle I would continue to support the efforts of your group in actively champion the Council’s position on Link Road Forest in particular the proposal for the land being acquired as part of a National Park for the communities of Newcastle and the Lower Hunter. I understand that the land forms part of a green corridor which is vital for the ongoing survival of many endangered species.

If I am elected as the Lord Mayor, I will endeavor to inspire the whole council to become more consultive of the community of Newcastle; therefore, it is unwise to sign any pledge as I may find that the community may have an alternative view. Historically from where I stand, I grew up on a farm that was essentially a Jarrah Forrest in Western Australia. Our family were log cutters and supplied cut timber to various customers. The fashion of our harvesting of timber was the complete removal of the selected trees and saw over the regrowing of trees in the place of the removed tree. After 50 years of logging the farm was sold to a Buddhist community because they saw an example of natural bushland that had no apparent harm done to the forest. When I see mature trees chipped instead of being sent to timber mills makes me extremely disappointed seeing a resource being wasted. As a person who has studied a lot of history from at least the bronze age till current history, I find the climate change claims not fully sustainable under very close examination. The details of which I will not go into here as it is midnight and I have just recently arrived home and want to give you an honest reply. I have often said that some of the easiest things to keep our environment wholesome include: having longevity as being front and center in our decisions processes in regard to infrastructure and manufactured products, the making of plastics from plant fiber in place of petro-chemicals ones as the plant fiber products are fully biodegradable. The repair and restore things will enhance the longevity. We need to stop throwing things away when a repair would suffice. As to expanding our housing stock, we have the old Stockton hospital site that must be used for housing. 

Back to the link road forests, I personally have a strong preference that it remains as bushland as long as possible and would seek to have both Lake Mac. And the ministers responsible to consider creating a protected forest all along the Link Road.

However being the chair of the elected council  I cannot demand how everybody fall in behind me; for we have a democratic community and we need to move away from the dictatorial nature that many have recently experience in our local government area.

This may not be how you want me to answer your email, but it is my answer which has considerable depth on the subjects you are concerned with.

Question 1 – Will you commit to the attached pledge opposing the clearing of native forests for development?

Yes.

Across my time on Council, I have consistently opposed inappropriate clearing of high environmental value land, particularly where it impacts biodiversity, koala habitat and critical ecological corridors.

This is not a new position for me. Over the past decade, alongside the community, I led both public and private efforts to protect 505 Minmi Road from development. That campaign involved sustained advocacy to successive Environment Ministers, multiple Council resolutions, reversing earlier planning decisions, and ultimately securing NSW Government protection of the vast majority of the site for conservation in perpetuity.

As a decision-maker, I will continue to assess proposals on their merits, but my record is clear, where land has high environmental value, I will advocate strongly for its protection.

Question 2– Do you support the amended Notice of Motion in its entirety? If not, which parts do you support or not support?

Yes, as recorded in the minutes, I supported the motion in full.

Labor councillors led on this matter across the entire Council term. Every motion brought forward has been co-signed by all Labor councillors, including myself, and I have worked closely with my colleagues, Ward 4 Labor Councillors Adamczyk and Richardson, at each stage.

Importantly, I also initiated the December 2025 Notice of Motion at the request of your campaign following your public voice presentation. This was ultimately carried by a majority at Council.

As confirmed in the Council minutes, the resolution formally endorsed the campaign’s goal of State acquisition of the 574-hectare site for permanent conservation, alongside advocacy actions including ministerial engagement and regional collaboration. 

Question 3 – If elected as the Lord Mayor of Newcastle, what will you do to pursue positive outcomes in relation to these requests to the two ministers and the Lake Macquarie councillors.

If elected Lord Mayor, I will continue to elevate this advocacy.

That includes:

• Direct engagement with the NSW Minister for Environment, Minister for Planning and Minister for the Hunter
• Working with the NSW Government to explore funding pathways, including biodiversity offsets linked to major infrastructure projects
• Elevating collaboration with Lake Macquarie City Council, recognising this is a cross-boundary environmental asset that requires a coordinated regional approach

One of the key roles of the Lord Mayor is to represent Council in discussions with the State government and build those relationships to secure outcomes. I have demonstrated that ability over many years.

Question 4 – If elected as the Lord Mayor of Newcastle, what else will you do to champion the Council’s position on Link Road Forest and achieve its acquisition to be made a National Park for the communities of Newcastle and the Lower Hunter, and the myriad of species, many endangered, whose homes are at risk if the forest is developed.

Consistent with existing council resolutions and the requests of the Link Road Forest Campaign, my focus would be on delivery.

That includes:

• Progressing the evidence base to elevate this matter, including the environmental, social and economic case for conservation
• Advocating for formal recognition of high environmental value areas through State planning processes
• Working with the Guraki Committee on appropriate naming and cultural recognition
• Building a broad coalition of support across government, community and stakeholders to strengthen the case for acquisition

Most importantly, I will continue to provide consistent leadership on this issue.

This is not a new position for me, nor a campaign commitment developed in isolation. It is part of a long-standing record of action to protect important environmental assets in our city.

Question 1 – Will you commit to the attached pledge opposing the clearing of native forests for development?

Yes, I stand by my support for the Save Link Road campaign goals and this resolution on the 16th of December that I voted in support of.

Question 2 – Do you support the amended Notice of Motion in its entirety? If not, which parts do you support or not support?

Yes, I still support requesting a meeting with the Minister for Planning, Minister for Environment and with Lake Macquarie Councillors. Despite the rejection to our previous invitations, I feel there will be new opportunities to continue to engage and to communicate the position of the Council on this proposal.

Question 3 – If elected as the Lord Mayor of Newcastle, what will you do to pursue positive outcomes in relation to these requests to the two ministers and the Lake Macquarie councillors.

With the state government decision expected this year, I’d be seeking anopportunity to express the position of the council with any relevant Minister or senior member of staff to reiterate the position of the council and the opportunities presented through the alternative proposal of the National Park. I would be ensuring that the decision makers were very aware of what theexpectations are of the community and of Newcastle Council as they make their final determinations.If possible, taking a senior ecologist with me to these representations would be beneficial to demonstrate the value of the habitat in this area. I would also invite councilors from other political parties to join me as a delegation in order todemonstrate the broad political support for the Save Link Road campaign.

Question 4 – If elected as the Lord Mayor of Newcastle, what else will you do to champion the Council’s position on Link Road Forest and achieve its acquisition to be made a National Park for the communities of Newcastle and the Lower Hunter, and the myriad of species, many endangered, whose homes are at risk if the forest is developed.

I think the broad cross-party and community support for protecting this habitat as a National Park is a powerful story that needs to be told again from the chamber. Itwould be fitting to repeat this once the community has elected a new Lord Mayor.As part of this public support, Councillors should again re-iterate that these homesare not required to meet Newcastle’s housing targets and that they are not well located homes.

I am also open to any requests that the Save Link Road campaign has of the council in order to support their advocacy.

Item 9.1 – Alternative Motion
That Council:
A. Rescind the resolution carried under amended Item 9.5 – State Significant
Development – Planning Proposal for 144 Boundary Road, to enable further
consideration and discussion of this matter between councillors.
Add points
B. Notes that on 25 July 2025 the NSW State Government identified that 144
Boundary Rd Wallsend would be a state-led State Significant Development
Planning Proposal for re-zoning.
C. Affirms the ongoing urgent need for more new accessible and affordable housing
in Newcastle and supports the State Government’s ambition for housing in
locations that are well-serviced and with supporting infrastructure.
D. Resolves to request DPHI and / or the Minister’s delegate that consider
re-zoning 144 Boundary Road for conservation in perpetuity and consistent with
the community’s vision as expressed through the LSPS, or
E. Failing this, request that the planning powers for 144 Boundary Rd are returned
to the Council as the appropriate local planning authority.
F. That points G-L also be provided to the Planning Secretary and DPHI for their
considerations of the planning proposal for 144 Boundary Road, Wallsend as a
resolution of the elected Council of the City of Newcastle.
Further
G. Notes that some housing estates built in recent decades in adjacent parts of the
region have created isolated, car-dependent suburbs, in severe deficit of
community and social infrastructure including sporting fields, schools capacity,
community centres, environmental conservation, environmental bads, public
transport stations, stops, and provision, and zero housing choice through
diversity, and that this is inconsistent with the community’s vision expressed
through the CN LSPS.
H. Notes statements over the last month from the land owner Eden Estates
(EE) suggest that elements of this proposed re-zoning are at odds with the
LSPS’s vision for environmental conservation and creating liveable, healthy, and
sustainable communities;

a. Memo issued 9 September 2025 that EE applied for the State-led
rezoning pathway for the reason that CN has not supported re-zoning
including due to CN’s desire to protect and conserve land identified
within the site as of High Environmental Value.
b. Background Report to September 2025 OCM Item 8.3 LSPS containing
a submission from EE stating that they did not support identifying for
conservation protection in the LSPS the HEV land within this bushland
site.
c. Background Report to September 2025 OCM Item 8.3 LSPS containing
a submission from EE inaccurately suggesting that the holding category
of ‘E4’ means for development.
d. Memo issued 15 September 2025 of drone survey results which found
local populations of koalas in adjacent lands, while EE declined to
participate.

I. Notes strong support from multi-level governing bodies and community to
re-zoning land in this privately-owned, bushland parcel for protection, including
a. Letter from DCCEEW 17 March 2025 in response to the draft LSPS (in
September OCM LSPS Report at Attachment 2 p.1) of support for
removing identified areas from ‘housing release area’ in the LSPS, the
statement that ‘there is strong support for threatened species protection,
biodiversity corridors, and conserving land north of Link Rd’ and the
removal of the land on the south of the site as an area of known high
ecological significance.
b. None of the four State government agencies that gave input into the
LSPS raised concerns with CN’s proposed conservation land
classification for this site, and in fact the DCCEEW and CPHR explicitly
supported ‘conserving land north of Link Rd’ and areas of known HEV
south of the Link Rd.
c. CN did not request state-led planning for this site, and the Planning
Minister previously praised CN’s management of the process.
d. The City of Newcastle actively avoids using terms like ‘vacant land’ to
refer to land that is bushland, and removed the word ‘greenfield’ from the
DCP to reflect changing attitudes and values including rejecting any
implicit assumptions that all remaining bushland in the city is waiting in a
‘pipeline’ to be ‘unlocked’ for housing development.
e. 99% (552) community submissions to the LSPS (in September OCM
Item 8.3 Report) supported that the HEV parcel of land at 144 Boundary
Rd should be retained for biodiversity value, or sought further
environmental protections for conservation including support for
threatened and endangered flora and fauna species and for the
identification and protection of biodiversity corridors.

J. Notes, again, the demonstrated capability to translate capacity into supply by
planning for and delivering well-located homes to supply for population targets as
set by the State Government, including in the UDP Housing Supply targets, as
evidenced by how
a. Between 2016-2021 population in Newcastle increased by 4,769 people,
and dwellings increased by 5,752 dwellings.
b. As-at August 2025 approximately 2,500 approved dwellings are ready to
be constructed in the city, including 2,000 in the CBD.
c. September 2025 reported processing times for DAs and since the
introduction of the ADA and DA assessment time are 25% faster than
expected days and 30% faster than the sector average in the Local
Government League Tables.
d. Councillor Memo issued 9 September 2025 containing Eden Estates
statement of 29 August 2025 preferring to work with an alternative
planning authority to CN and including a statement from LMCC 29 July
2025 requesting the need for an alternative authority for the planning
proposal, is inconsistent with this capacity.

K. Notes the statement by Eden Estates as reported in the LSPS Background
Report that re-zoning for conservation may ‘result in a reduction of 1,000
dwellings from the XStrata housing release area’ is inconsistent with the
objectives of our City’s Planning Strategies and Instruments that make clear that
the identification of land within a ‘Housing Release Area’ does not mean land
will be developed, including how
a. The Greater Newcastle Metropolitan Plan 2036 states a housing release
area is for investigation not development, and furthermore does not
identify this site for housing release.
b. The NLEP 2012 Zone E4 Environmental Living objective states
investigation for either development or conservation.
c. The LHS identifies the site as ‘E4’ and furthermore that ‘new housing
release areas will be subject to comprehensive environmental
assessment to ensure that existing biodiversity is protected
appropriately’.
d. The Local Housing Strategy notes housing targets can be reached with
no new re-zonings, and infill targets are 92 per cent.
e. The Greater Newcastle Metropolitan Strategy states that ‘new residential
release areas’ are appropriate only ‘if there is less than 15-year supply of
land to meet dwelling projections’.
L. Notes that the state government announcement to fast track the re-zoning
was made without consultation with CN or explanation as to why CNs
planning authority was insufficient for this site, and
a. Notes that a number of projects have been removed from Council
under state-led planning approval pathways.

b. Notes the state-led rezoning pathway often weakens Council and
community involvement in the planning process and consequently
could result in reduced outcomes for quality urban design, housing
diversity, livability, serviceability and biodiversity protection, and
c. Reaffirms the delegated planning pathway for 144 Boundary Road was
initiated in 2020 and that the pre-lodgement meetings between the
proponent and CN had been