We want to challenge the opinion piece written by developer Jeff McCloy ("Activist-driven environmental overreach destroying home ownership dream", NH 15/9).
On August 23, 2023, Commissioner Sarah Bish, following a hearing in the NSW Land and Environment Court, handed down her decision on the Kings Hill Development Concept Plan. The case was brought before the court after the proposal to develop 517ha of land to the north of Raymond Terrace was previously rejected by the Hunter and Central Coast Regional Planning Panel (citing 17 reasons, not all of them environmental) and a conciliation hearing failed. The commission visited Kings Hill and held a complex and long court case.
Commissioner Bish found that the proposal did not satisfy several government acts, but added that the site was "not demonstrated as suitable for the proposed (and future) development" and was "not in the public interest". There were environmental concerns but, importantly, "insufficient certainty on the provision of designated state significant infrastructure".
McCloy, a prominent developer in the Hunter, suggested in his Herald opinion that the process of development had been highjacked by green activists. Not only is this misguided, it is an insult to the commissioner and the integrity of the Land and Environment Court's process.
Developers such as McCloy should abide by the Land and Environment Court's judgement without resorting to the generalisation that everyone is a greenie and hell bent on stopping development. Residents and community groups are eligible to make submissions to the court. There was not a "placard-waving environmental greenie/environmental activist" in sight.
All submissions, including those from the proponent, are scrutinised by professional staff including ecologists, scientists, engineers, lawyers and government department officials.
Volunteers who care deeply about biodiversity and the health and welfare of local people, have spent hours reading thousands of pages of reports, while researching and then pointing out perceived shortcomings of the proposal, knowing those points will then be reviewed by experts. We know that our work and scientific evidence will be used to assess projects through government acts/regulations and policies, and hope this scrutiny will enable improvements to be made to concept plans, that will ultimately benefit the community and the environment.
McCloy's opening words in his opinion piece were "change is all around us". Yet he seemingly resists it while reminiscing fondly about how easy it was to develop land in the "good old days". Changes in social values and environmental concerns must be recognised.
Land is a valuable finite resource. As we clear-fell trees for housing or other developments, we are losing the biodiversity to which humans are intrinsically linked.
No longer should developers provide housing that is dangerous to our health with black roofs and black roads, with limited infrastructure such as parks and gardens. We know these create heat sinks and are allowing climate change effects to spiral.
Developers must present very sophisticated models for housing projects that are more in keeping with current planning paradigms, that actually consider the surrounding environment and conserve biodiversity and wildlife by identifying and protecting climate corridors, limiting climate change effects, providing social infrastructure to enhance and connect communities in safe spaces.
These desirable planning outcomes can only be based on scientific and engineering expertise, rather than economic rationalism alone.
Community groups know only too well the urgent need for more housing, but we also respect the need to properly consider how and where that housing is to be provided, with appropriate infrastructure assured.
We don't find it surprising that journalists and politicians are now listening, as "these people" (the term used by McCloy) are now in the majority and are concerned for the health and well-being of future generations.
