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