Hawkesbury Council's enthusiastic support for a contentious pub and casino development in historic Kurrajong Heights has ignited a storm of controversy, as serious flaws in the development application (DA) come to light. Residents are raising alarms over potential conflicts of interest and procedural oversights that could undermine the integrity of the approval process.

The development application (DA0120/22), spearheaded by developer Bashir Merhi of Balma Projects Pty Ltd, has ignited a firestorm of opposition from local residents. While Hawkesbury Councillors do not support the project, Hawkesbury Council staff are firmly in favour of it and have recommended to the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel that it be given the green light.

Balma Projects Pty Ltd, has submitted plans for a two-story venue featuring a pub, VIP gaming lounge with up to 22 poker machines, nine accommodation cabins, and a 255-patron capacity. The proposal also includes parking for 75 cars and extended trading hours. 

At a heated Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel (HLPP) meeting on February 27, 2025, retired senior ecologist and Kurrajong Heights resident, Nicola Trulock, delivered a scathing critique of the project's supporting assessments. Trulock, formerly a natural resource and interim bushfire management officer for the City of Parramatta Council, lambasted the proposal for its significant omissions and inaccuracies.

"The Social Impact Assessment and Statement of Environmental Effects fail to mention the incompatible land use due to proximity to St David’s Church," Trulock asserted. "They also neglect to assess the social impact or increased risk of interpersonal conflict arising from such incompatible activities on local parishioners."

At the heart of the dispute is the revelation that the Social Impact Assessment and Statement of Environmental Effects for the proposed development were both prepared by Balma Projects Pty Ltd, the very company seeking approval for the project.

Trulock didn't mince words when highlighting a blatant conflict of interest: "The display of bias is not surprising when you learn that both reports were prepared by Balma Projects Pty Ltd, the applicant for the DA. This is a clear-cut example of conflict of interest. Why did Hawkesbury Council not insist that these reports be rectified and prepared by an independent consultant?"

Further compounding the issue, Trulock discovered during the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel (HLPP) meeting that her comprehensive 21-page report, detailing significant omissions and inaccuracies in documents supporting the DA, had not been provided to the panel members prior to their deliberations. "I am a little dismayed that Hawkesbury City Council did not provide my report to the HLPP prior to this meeting," she remarked.

"I specifically made an email application after I made the online application for speaking at the HLPP meeting to ensure I could send the document and receive a timestamped receipt response," she later told the Hawkesbury Post.

She further accused the applicant's representatives of parroting Council's language. "Of particular concern is the use of nearly the same wording as the Council response on the agenda," Trulock observed. "The representative of the applicant stated that the site did not appear on the Biodiversity Values Map and is not located in a Koala Habitat Zone," Trulock recounted. "This was directly lifted from the Council response to my previous raising of this issue as set forth in the Agenda for the HLPP meeting."

Environmental concerns took center stage as Trulock exposed the absence of an ecological impact assessment, despite the potential for the development to impact foraging and dispersal habitat for up to 23 endangered species in the area. "No ecological impact assessment was undertaken to assess impacts resulting from clearing native and non-native vegetation forming potential habitat for these threatened species," she said.. "Approval should not have been granted based on the absence of an environmental impact assessment alone."

The project's bushfire risk assessment didn't escape criticism either. Trulock pointed out that the vegetation classification was erroneously labeled, leading to a dangerous underestimation of bushfire hazards. "The bushfire assessment report states that Dry Rainforest presents a low bushfire risk. They are wrong," she warned. "Dry Rainforest has a seasonal dry period during which plants shed their leaves and ferns dry out, resulting in high fuel loads just like Wet Sclerophyll Forest.

“This vegetation is part of a west-east and south-north fire run, connected to large tracts of unmanaged wilderness in Blue Mountains National Park. If a fire gets into one of these runs and is pushed by strong winds, it will rapidly advance towards Kurrajong Heights, RFS will not be able to stop it as they did not require regular bushfire hazard reduction within the APZ as a condition of consent,” she said. This statement applies specifically to a fire during a prolonged drought period similar to what The Blue Mountains experienced in the 2019/2020 bushfire season and the 2013 State Mine Fire.

The situation has left many residents questioning the council's role in facilitating a development that appears riddled with errors and potential conflicts of interest and how the DA has been allowed to advance to this stage.

Responding to questions from the Hawkesbury Post specifically about why Trulocks submission was not provided to the HLPP, they said an earlier submission was included in the HLPP Business Paper dated February 21 but did not explain why the recent submission was not presented to the HLPP.

“This response from Council refers to the submission I prepared and submitted on 2 February 2025 during the exhibition period for the DA extending from 13 January 2025 to 3 February 2025. This response does not refer to the submission report I prepared for the HLPP meeting and submitted via email to Hawkesbury City Council along with my application to speak. The minutes of the HLPP meeting will reflect the fact that when I asked the HLPP members if they had received my report, the panel members were unable to confirm that they had received the submission or reviewed it. The HLPP made a point of stating to me that they would place the issue of my HLPP submission report on notice just before the public session concluded.”