A new state government body with sweeping powers to approve major housing developments is quietly reshaping how - and whether - communities are consulted on controversial projects, with two proposals already submitted for large-scale housing estates in Grose Wold and North Richmond.

Together, the two proposals represent multi-million-dollar developments that could transform large rural tracts of land in Kurrajong and Grose Wold, north of the Hawkesbury River, into high-density housing. The Grose Wold developers want to build 899 homes. The plans for North Richmond propose 450 homes. If approved, they would bring significant traffic, infrastructure and amenity impacts to the region. Neither of these developments have been factored into the traffic assumptions for the new Richmond bridge - but residents have had no say in the process so far.

The Housing Delivery Authority (HDA), launched in January this year by the Minns Government, is overseeing a fast-tracked approval pathway for major housing projects across NSW - bypassing the traditional role of local councils and, crucially, community consultation.

Under this new regime, developers can submit Expressions of Interest (EOIs) for projects worth more than $60 million in Greater Sydney or $30 million in regional NSW. If accepted, these projects are declared "State Significant Development" and are assessed solely by the NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces.

Hawkesbury City Council is largely in the dark about when and how these EOIs are submitted - or even that they exist - unless staff happen to stumble upon them on the HDA’s website. Council has no formal role in assessing the proposals, nor is there a requirement for public notification or community input.

“Officers have raised this issue with the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,” said Meagan Ang, Council’s Director of City Planning, in a memo to councillors last week. “It is understood that other councils have also raised the same issue.”

Council information confirms that both proposals submitted in the Hawkesbury - one for Belmont Park Estate in Grose Wold, and another for the beautiful equine property, Catalina Estate at 125 Grose Vale Road, North Richmond (opposite Redbank Estate) - were rejected by the HDA. Both failed to meet the Authority’s internal criteria around fast delivery, high-yield housing types, projects that can be assessed quickly and drive quality and affordable housing.

But despite these early knockbacks, what happens next is unclear. There is no known limit on how often a developer can reapply, nor any transparent process for community oversight. If a revised proposal meets the HDA’s criteria, it could be declared State Significant and proceed without Council or community involvement. If a proposal is knocked back developers can still submit a development application through the normal council process.

The Minns Government has pitched the Housing Delivery Authority as a way to deliver more homes faster by “reducing the number of large, complex Development Applications councils are required to assess each year.”

But critics say that’s just code for cutting out local voices.

“There isn’t even a formal mechanism to keep councils - and thus communities - informed,” one planning expert familiar with the process told the Hawkesbury Post. “The fact that even this hyper-development-focused authority is rejecting some of these ambit claims tells you how speculative they are. But the concern is: how many times will developers keep tweaking and trying again until one slips through?”

Independent Councillor Nathan Zamprogno was scathing of the new Authority and its processes.

“This unelected and unaccountable body were appointed by Labor to say ‘yes’ to as much new housing as possible. It says a lot about how meritless these development proposals are that even this new Authority has balked,” Clr. Zamprogno said.

“Developers are now using backdoor tactics to dodge public scrutiny. They’re holding so-called ‘scoping meetings’ with Council to shape their applications behind closed doors, without putting anything on public record. That’s not how planning should work - these processes need to be transparent, and Council resources shouldn’t be used without disclosure,” he said.