Thank you to everyone who has signed the petition and contributed to sending a clear message to the NSW Government, Minister for Planning and developers that the rolling green hills of west Kiama are out of bounds! Please continue to share the petition far and wide. We still have a way to go through this planning process, but we’re in it for the long haul, and we hope you will be with us on the way. 

Whilst the Kiama community has a special connection to this cause, the comments left by signatories show that Kiama is special to many outside of just residents and ratepayers. The location is a  picturesque, historic, environmentally and agriculturally significant community asset, that needs to be protected for future generations. 

To protect the green hills of west Kiama we need you to write to the Minister for Planning, Paul Scully MP and the Southern Region Planning Panel (SRPP), and copy in Kiama Council, to express your concerns about the decision of the SRPP, and the proposal. 

Paul Scully MP - office@scully.minister.nsw.gov.au 

Southern Regional Planning Panel - information@planning.nsw.gov.au 

Kiama Council - council@kiama.nsw.gov.au 

The petition sets out many concerns with the proposal, however some particular points of concern you may wish to consider are:

In relation to the SRPP decision:

• The decision inappropriately foreshadowed that the proposal “should achieve site specific merit” if the proponents address 14 outstanding areas. The SRPP should not make a decision without having all the required information before them.  

• The SRPP placed weight on the State Government’s general priority of “providing additional housing”. The State Government imposed a housing target of 900 homes on the Kiama LGA in 5 years. This proposal will not contribute to that target and does not meet the required criteria

• The decision incorrectly determined that the planning proposal seeks to significantly assist in addressing housing needs by providing additional housing supply “in close proximity to existing facilities and services”. There are no such “existing facilities and services” on the site. The proposal is deficient in addressing water and sewer services and any pre-existing access roads are inadequate.

• The decision failed to fully consider other development locations in Kiama when considering strategic merit, and not enough weight was given to the Kiama Council’s draft Growth and Housing Strategy.

• The Majority (2:2 with the Chair’s casting vote) found that the proposal is “Generally consistent with applicable strategic planning documents, particularly as they relate to the general objectives for housing”. This is incorrect, the Illawarra Shoalhaven Regional Plan and the NSW Government’s reform agenda seeks to prioritise new housing in existing centres (“well located dwellings”). The Regional Plan specifically provides that the focus for Kiama should be planning for a larger proportion of housing stock in the existing centres of Kiama and Gerringong. 

In relation to the planning proposal:

• The proposal does not adequately address water management, biodiversity and management of riparian lands. The site is within the catchment of Spring Creek, which already regularly floods, the addition of 1200 houses and roads will increase the flash flooding and natural water retention by the landscape will be impacted.
• The site contains heritage listed dry stone walls and cabbage tree palms which will not re-propagate, what is left are the last ones. We have no confidence that the walls and cabbage tree palms will survive the development.
• The NSW Department of Primary Industries policy for Maintaining Land for Agricultural Industries provides that “land with the best combination of soil, climate, topography and water for agricultural production is a limited resource in NSW and should be maintained for future generations”. That policy provides “NSW Department of Primary Industries (Agriculture) where appropriate will provide input into planning decisions of a strategic nature which affect agriculture”.  DPI have not been consulted, and have not been identified by the SRPP as an agency for consultation.
• That same policy provides that Environmental planning instruments should:
  • protect natural resources used by agriculture;
  • protect other values associated with agricultural land that are of importance to local communities, such as heritage and visual amenity
•  The State Government priorities for housing seeks “diverse and well located homes”, that being in areas within walking distance to transport, shops and services. State Government policy considers a “walkable distance” to be a 10 minute walk of 800 metres. This proposal ticks none of those boxes.
• The campaign for the proposal tries to ‘sweeten the deal’ with provision for affordable housing, community housing and a 5% portion (60 homes) each to be put aside for local buyers and key workers. The proposed area is not suitable for ‘affordable’ or ‘low cost’ housing development given the topography of the site. Development and infrastructure costs on steep land with a basalt base will be high. There is also no way to hold the Developers to their guarantee.
• Kiama Council has identified other areas in the LGA, that provide housing solutions that are shorter term than this proposal, are well located, and do not require greenfield expansion.

It is time to call this proposal out for what it really is. Private development companies answer to their shareholders and investors, with their sole focus on maximising their return on investments.  This proposal is not being proffered for the benefit of the community or to give the community what it needs. It is unwanted and unwelcome.

Save Kiama’s green hills!