The controversial $1.5 billion Huntlee New Town development is headed back to court.
And this time battle lines have been drawn in the community.
Only days after the Sweetwater Action Group (SWAG) celebrated its second Land and Environment Court win with a barbecue at the weekend, LWP Property Group announced yesterday it had lodged an appeal against the ruling to quash the rezoning of the site near Branxton.
LWP Property Group managing director Danny Murphy, said the appeal was based on strong legal advice.
And support for the project has been bolstered by the formation of the Friends of Huntlee group and an online petition at www.gopetition.com/petitions/frie nds-of-huntlee.html
Friends of Huntlee spokesman Mick Starkey welcomed news of the appeal.
“It means the development is not dead in the water, which would have been a big loss to the area,” he said.
“This is a benchmark development and for the Hunter to miss out on that would be terrible.
“Looking into the future, it’s going to make the area so much more prosperous.”
The development represented the first new town in the Hunter for almost 50 years, to provide up to 7500 homes, 3000 permanent jobs and 200 hectares of employment lands over 20 years.
“We remain committed to this important regional project and we have been encouraged by the wave of support from the local community in the wake of the disappointing ruling,” Mr Murphy said.
“We have sought urgent discussions with the NSW Planning and Infrastructure Minister, Brad Hazzard, given the implications of last month’s Land and Environment Court decision for Huntlee and the broader development industry in NSW.”
SWAG spokesperson and Cessnock Greens councillor Chris Parker said the group would “vigorously defend” the appeal.
“We are not about to go away now,” he said.
“Even though the law and the court rules do not allow us to challenge the merits of this development and just why it is so bad, we have still been able to get two Land and Environment Court judgements declaring, firstly, that it was biased, and secondly that it had not been assessed thoroughly enough.”