Hawkesbury City Council has made a submission on the controversial $213 million Island Oasis tourist development in Kurrajong Hills - almost a year after its input was first due and only after pressure from frustrated residents.

Internal documents obtained under freedom of information laws reveal that the Council missed at least six deadlines last year for providing feedback to the NSW Department of Planning, which is assessing the project. Yet for months, Council insisted it had not missed any deadline, even demanding that the Hawkesbury Post retract its reporting and issue a “correction acknowledging your errors.”

Emails between the Council and the Department tell a different story. The first deadline for the Council’s input was May 30, 2024. On June 17, a Department official followed up, writing: “Do you have an ETA on Council’s response/comments? Noting that we have not received anything.” Council’s Strategic Planning Manager, Andrew Kearns, replied that comments would be provided the next day. They weren’t. Council had previously claimed it was verbally told during May 2025 not to provide input.

By June 25, the Department, still waiting, withdrew its original request and later reissued it. Over the following months, it sent repeated reminders, pressing Council for input. Again and again, Council promised a response - again and again, it failed to deliver.

The delays continued for months. By October 4, the Department was still chasing the Council for input. On February 25, the Department confirmed that it had still not received a response. It wasn’t until March 17 - almost 10 months after the original deadline - that the Council finally submitted its comments.

Despite the clear paper trail, the Council launched an aggressive attack on the Hawkesbury Post for reporting the story. On January 16, it wrote to the Post insisting that its article on the delays was “factually incorrect” and demanded its immediate removal. You can read that story here - https://hawkesburyapp.com.au/NewsStory/transparency-in-tatters-over-213m-resort-saga/67a09c3aefcdc9019f24f6bd

“The assertions made within the article Council Misses Deadline on Controversial 200M Kurrajong Development are factually incorrect, and we strongly request that you remove the article from publication to prevent this misinformation from further circulating in the community. Council has not missed a deadline to “lodge an objection” as your article charges…” a council spokesperson wrote.

Four days later, on January 20, the Council doubled down, accusing the Hawkesbury Post of relying on “very incomplete information” and displaying a “fundamental lack of understanding” of the planning process.

Council’s accusations didn’t stop there. It insisted the Hawkesbury Post publish a correction acknowledging its so-called “errors.” Yet two separate freedom of information requests - one to Council and another to the Department of Planning - confirmed that the Post had been right all along. Council had repeatedly missed deadlines, ignored follow-up requests, and attempted to bury the truth.

The project itself has drawn strong opposition from Kurrajong residents concerned about its impact on local wildlife, including endangered koalas and platypuses, and the risk of pollution in waterways that support the threatened Macquarie Perch. Fire safety, traffic congestion, and a lack of infrastructure in the area are also major concerns. The Federal Government has also now stepped in, warning the developer that it may need to be assessed under national environmental law due to its potential impact on the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

Emails show that the Council was well aware of the growing frustration from residents, who were demanding to know why the Council failed to provide input on such a significant development.

Hawkesbury Council Governance Coordinator Karina Ward, in approving the release of documents under freedom of information laws, acknowledged the importance of transparency, stating that the project was “of substantial interest to the Hawkesbury community” and that the release of information would “enhance government accountability.”

In a letter to the Post, granting the release of documentation, Ward said in approving the release of information, that the project be “of substantial interest to the Hawkesbury community”. This makes the Council’s decision to drag its feet on input into the project more than 10 months after it was first invited to give its views, even more difficult to understand. 

“The release of the information to a local media outlet could reasonably be expected to enhance government accountability and transparency regarding the assessment process,” Ward added.” This was taken into account as a significant public interest consideration in favour of the release of the information," she wrote.

HCC’s belated submission was made on March 17, following pressure and representations from residents who were furious about the serial delays and broken promises on the timing of its submission.

In the end, Council’s submission - which recommends a battery of studies - came not because of its own diligence, but because of public pressure. And despite its repeated denials and attempts to discredit the Hawkesbury Post, the records tell the real story - one of delays, obfuscation, deflections, and a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the facts.