Concerns over Hawkesbury City Council’s (HCC) handling of the controversial $213 million Island’s Oasis development in Kurrajong are deepening, as the Council faces accusations of withholding crucial information about the project. Despite a freedom of information (GIPA) request, key documents detailing HCC's communications with the Department of Planning remain undisclosed, raising questions about transparency and accountability in the approval process for the large-scale resort proposal.

Concerns about the project have grown, with HCC refusing to disclose what advice it plans to give the Department of Planning regarding the proposal. The Island's Oasis is a proposed tourist development under the Significant State Development (SSD) process, which allows the project to bypass the Council. Developer Tony Mehri plans to create a sprawling resort in Kurrajong Hills, featuring cabins, lodge suites, camping sites, and other facilities. The proposal faces strong opposition due to environmental and safety concerns, including the destruction of koala habitat, increased bushfire risks, and further strain on already overloaded infrastructure. A similar attempt to rezone the 450-hectare site was rejected by HCC in 2013.

The project is currently in the SEARs (Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements) stage, where councils are encouraged to provide input - “advice” - to the Department of Planning to assist in determining the project's outcome. HCC has yet to submit its advice. Initially requested in May 2024, HCC explained that the Department officially rescinded the request on June 25, 2024, after identifying the need for document amendments.

However, HCC did not include this information in the documents provided under the NSW Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act). The Council argued the request was “informal,” rather than “formal,” and therefore not subject to full disclosure. The GIPA application, filed online, sought communications between HCC and the Department of Planning regarding the SEARs process. The resident clarified the request with an HCC officer, who confirmed the information sought in writing, which included communications between the HCC and Department about the development.

Despite this, the documents provided by HCC were incomplete and failed to tell the whole story. The GIPA response included only a site plan and a single automated email from the Department of Planning, dated May 17, 2024, reminding HCC of the May 30 deadline to submit Council’s “advice” on the development. Notably, the response did not contain any information indicating that the Department had rescinded its request for advice - a claim HCC has used to justify its failure to submit the required advice.

HCC said the resident could submit another “formal” GIPA request to view that information.

HCC defended its decision to release only partial information, citing its ability to determine what to disclose under an “informal” GIPA request. While the GIPA Act provides government bodies with flexibility in determining the scope of informal requests, HCC still chose to withhold relevant documents without offering an explanation. The Council also chose not to grant the applicant physical access to additional documents related to the project, despite the option being available under the legislation.

“Council has satisfied the informal GIPA application submitted by the resident. If further information is sought, the resident is welcome to submit a formal GIPA application,” an HCC spokesperson told the Post.

Adding to the confusion, an email from HCC to the resident accompanying the GIPA response appeared to blame informal communication from the department for the Council’s failure to provide advice by the deadline. The email stated: “Council did not receive any cover letter, consultation letter or similar aside from the attached automatic email notification. Council has not yet made a submission in response to the consultation.”

However, following the article, Council emphatically denied missing the deadline to provide “advice” about the project to the Department of Planning, stating the Department of Planning withdrew its request for advice due to amendments being made to the proposal documentation. HCC claimed “formal” notice of this withdrawal was provided in June, following verbal discussions. The Post has requested to see this correspondence, but as of publication, HCC has not provided it. HCC has also not stated when its advice regarding the Island Oasis project will be submitted, despite public consultations scheduled for February 1, 2025.

Documents provided under the informal GIPA request were the basis for a previous Hawkesbury Post story, which noted that the Council missed the Department’s May 30, 2024 deadline for input, just days after the formal request for input was made.

Residents continue to express concern that HCC’s failure to act promptly on important issues has become a pattern in recent years. A notable example was the Council’s failure to issue a tender or plan for critical maintenance on the Lower Portland Ferry service in 2023, leading to rushed negotiations and a one-year extension. Another case involved the long-term inaction on the riverbank collapse at Cornwallis, caused by poor maintenance of Council drains and worsened by failed attempts to repair the bank, resulting in a three-year saga.

As the questions surrounding the project continue to grow, the developer is moving ahead. Just three days before Christmas, the developer invited community feedback through an online site and announced a “Drop-In” meeting on February 1 at the Kurrajong Community Centre, more than six months after lodging the application.