IT was December 2010 that the state planning minister of the day, Labor's Tony Kelly, announced the "green light" for 4500 new homes at the Kings Hill subdivision north of Raymond Terrace.
That decision had been years in the making, and it came despite concerns over the impact that RAAF jet noise would have on the hoped-for new suburb.
Indeed, the noise concerns had seen Kings Hill raised more than once in federal parliament.
The existing noise was causing enough complaints, but fears had emerged that the Joint Strike Fighters - since arrived but then still in the wings - would be noisier than the F/A-18s they were slated to replace.
A decade on, the JSFs are in our skies, but the big concern about Kings Hill is closer to the ground, in the form of koala habitat.
In late 2020, Port Stephens Council came out in favour of the largest land owner in the Kings Hill area, a company called Kingshill Development, with concept plans for 3500 houses in total.
Despite the council view, a state-government appointed Hunter and Central Coast Planning Panel opted to defer any decision until the koala impacts could be further studied.
In February this year, with the relevant state environmental agency unwilling to give its "concurrence", the planning commission rejected the Kingshill Development DA.
The developer - not surprisingly - turned to the NSW Land and Environment Court to push its case.
In the meantime, the Urban Development Institute of Australia lobby group is using Kingshill to push its line that biodiversity laws are threatening development in the region by locking up much of the same land that the planning arms of the same state government have identified for priority housing. Here's Michael Parris's story on the subject today.
There are no easy solutions here, and environmental protection is undoubtedly a bigger community concern than it was 20 years ago.
At the same time, however, a growing population demands housing developments that keep pace with the market, and the owners of Kings Hill bought the land in 2012 on the back of the government's "green light" just two years previously.
That is not to say that housing should automatically be preferred over the environment. But is it to say that consistency is needed in government decision-making.
Because every delay, every reversal of position, costs real money.
Money that is eventually recouped from the pockets of everyday homebuyers.
ISSUE: 39,952
WHAT DO YOU THINK? We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on the Newcastle Herald website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. Sign up for a subscription here.
