Hawkesbury councillors have unanimously refused to advance a proposal for 735 homes at Belmont Park, Grose Wold, but a state rezoning review leaves the development bid alive.
At the October 13 meeting, all 12 councillors supported a motion not to submit planning proposal LEP001/26 to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway determination.
The adopted resolution, numbered 205, was moved by Councillor Creed and seconded by Councillor Veigel. It also noted the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel’s advice supporting the recommendation.
The decision concerns whether Council will progress the proposed rezoning. It does not determine the outcome of the separate state review.
The Kavanagh family’s proposal covers 119.44 hectares at 1, 35, 61 and 63 Grose River Road. It seeks to change planning controls over land currently zoned RU1 Primary Production to allow a mix of low- and medium-density housing, a local centre, recreation and conservation areas, while retaining rural land.
The Gazette reported on the 735-home proposal in September. The latest Council decision gives the elected body’s formal position following further consideration by the local planning panel.
The officer’s report identifies both strategic objections and unresolved site-specific issues.
Officers concluded that the proposal conflicted with the Sydney Plan, urban growth criteria, Council’s Local Housing Strategy and its Rural Lands Strategy. They assessed the site as outside the designated Urban Growth Area and not contiguous with North Richmond’s existing urban area.
The report says Council is on track to meet its five-year target of 1,300 homes through existing and planned growth areas, including Redbank, Jacaranda and Vineyard Stage 1, and had not been shown a need for this additional rezoning.
The proponent disputes that strategic assessment. Its case, summarised in the Council report, argues that Belmont Park adjoins the established North Richmond area, would complement Redbank and could provide additional housing in a location less constrained by flooding than other parts of the Hawkesbury.
Traffic and evacuation arrangements were central to the site-specific objections. The report identifies a need for road improvements beyond those already proposed for the Richmond Bridge project, with uncertainty about responsibility for funding and delivering mitigation measures.
Officers also questioned a proposed gated emergency access route that would connect through a fire trail. They said its width catered for fire and response vehicles rather than general traffic, limiting its effectiveness for residents evacuating the development.
The adopted refusal reasons include inadequate secondary access and higher-density zones or uses within or adjoining bushfire asset protection areas, inconsistent with the recommendations of the strategic bushfire study.
Council also found that the long-term agricultural viability of retained primary-production land had not been demonstrated. The proponent argues that the land has limited commercial farming potential and proposes retaining rural land for grazing.
Biodiversity remains another unresolved issue. The report identifies potential direct impacts on about 16.83 hectares of native vegetation, while the final biodiversity credit requirement awaits targeted ecological surveys scheduled for May 2027.
The flood findings require a distinction between the proposed development area and access to it.
The report states that the proposed development is above the probable maximum flood level, although the broader property contains flood-affected land. Part of the single access road is currently below that level. The proponent’s flood assessment proposes raising the affected section to provide access above the probable maximum flood.
Flooding was not separately listed among the adopted refusal grounds; the resolution identifies transport, bushfire, agricultural and biodiversity issues alongside the lack of strategic merit.
The proponent lodged its state rezoning review on August 20, before Council’s vote. On October 16, the NSW Planning Portal continued to list review RR-2026-20, linked to proposal PP-2026-761, as under assessment.
The Council report says its position will be sought as part of that review. A favourable review could allow the proposal to continue towards Gateway consideration, but would not itself rezone the land or approve construction.
The state review provides a separate pathway through which the proposal could progress despite Council’s opposition.
Previous Gazette coverage
- Proposed 735-home mega-suburb for Grose Wold — 14 September 2026
- New Hawkesbury alliance calls for smarter approach to growth — 10 September 2026; wider growth debate concerning a separate proposal
