Community
cost, developer benefits 

We wear the cost — they get the reward.

  • ✽

    Local jobs lost

    More than 79 jobs will be displaced — and there's no plan or commitment to replace them on-site.

  • ✽

    Token affordable housing

    Just 5% of homes would be affordable — and that number isn't legally secured.

  • ✽

    Seniors housing workaround

    The proposal mentions “seniors housing” to help justify the scale — but it doesn’t demonstrate compliance with the proper rules around location, design, or eligibility.

  • ✽

    Open space risk

    Promised parkland may not be delivered — if Council refuses to adopt it, it could remain private or be developed.

  • ✽

    Developer uplift

    Rezoning brings huge financial gain to the landowner, with few clear benefits flowing back to the community.

  • ✽

    No binding public benefit

    The proposal doesn’t lock in any firm outcomes — only vague intentions that can shift at DA stage.

Make your offical objection today

 FAQs

  • The proposal includes just 5% affordable housing, well below Council’s 15% target and at this stage, there’s no legally binding agreement in place. A letter of offer has been submitted, but without a finalised VPA, there’s no guarantee these homes will be delivered or retained long-term

  • There’s no clarity on eligibility, pricing, or management. Without legal safeguards, “affordable” can lose its meaning quickly.

  • Roughly 79 jobs will be lost with the displacement of local businesses. The proposal provides no clear plan to replace this employment.

  • No. There’s no VPA in place to lock in affordable housing, open space delivery, or other community benefits.

  • No. Council must agree to take it on. If not, it could revert to private recreational use — or allow commercial activity under RE2 zoning.

  • We bear the cost — with more density, more pressure on services, and no guaranteed return in jobs, open space, or housing security.