Outrage as much-needed Wagga land release for 500 homes knocked back

City councillors this week rejected a developer's bid to release land for almost 500 future residential properties in Forest Hill, despite the ongoing housing crisis amid fears it could jeopardise the future of the city's airport.

The council is currently awaiting a decision by the federal government on the future of Wagga Airport, with its 30-year lease set to expire in mid-2025.

Councillors voted to refuse a bid by Brunslea Park developer Samantha Brunskill to re-classify two parcels of land at Forest Hill from primary production to a mixture of general residential, large lot residential, public recreation and general industrial zones.

Council documents reveal the approximately 168 hectares of land is composed of Parcels A and B with the former located at 20 Mangrove Crescent and 60 Lacebank Drive - between the Brunslea Park and Governors Hill estates.

Meanwhile, Parcel B is located at 50 Inglewood Road, directly west of the Wagga Airport - with both parcels of land owned by Douglas Brunskill.

Explaining council's decision, director of regional activation John Sidgwick said it was due to several factors, in particular concerns about the future of the airport.

"There is an existing suburb at Brunslea Park, but an expansion of that will bring more sensitive receptors and people closer to the airport," Mr Sidgwick said.

"From a policy perspective, that's something council doesn't support."

Mr Sidgwick said the airport is clearly identified as a "critical piece of infrastructure."

"Land use planning should protect that critical infrastructure for long-term growth," he said.

"If we put more people there, we are fundamentally going to risk the long-term expansion and maintenance of the airport and that's something we can't allow."

In relation to why council rejected Parcel A, given it is not adjacent to the airport, Mr Sidgwick said a noise assessment was carried out there, which found that flight paths crossed that parcel as well as Parcel B.

"That would still lead to a noise impact for future residents," he said.

Mr Sidgwick it was about avoiding a scenario where airport flight times were cut short due to too much noise in the area.

However, the decision left Wagga businesswoman and developer Samantha Brunskill outraged.

"I'm in absolute shock," Ms Brunskill said.

"It is quite ludicrous that council has decided this just because there are two pre-approved existing estates and the land we are speaking about is 100 per cent serviceable.

"Many past council decisions have all been with the assumption this would go through, and in less than 12 months, we're going to see tradies and other Wagga people out of jobs because of the lack of vacant land."

Ms Brunskill said the decision goes against council's previous plans to link Governor's Hill and Brunslea Park as they have already worked towards a road realignment and creation of a new pump station at the location.

Responding to airport concerns, she did not see why a covenant could not be put on land if it was necessary, so future residents were alerted to issues such as noise before moving in.

Ms Brunskill has now vowed to fight the decision and is determined the project will go ahead.

"This will 100 per cent go through," she said.

The latest Land Monitor Report found over the last five years, Wagga's population has increased at a rate of 0.96 per cent per year, with the city projected to reach 77,540 people by 2036.

In order to adequately house this increase, the report found the city needs to build at least 267 new homes every year for the next five years.

But with the availability of vacant land in Wagga decreasing over the last few years and uncertainty around future supply of developable land, Ms Brunskill said something needs to be done.

"That report literally called out for decision-makers to do something about it and we have that opportunity right now with a risk-free area, so it's pretty shocking that was the result," she said.

Her mother and fellow land developer, Michelle Brunskill, was also quite disappointed with council's decision, given their past indications of support for the project.

"The grounds of whether this area was suitable for development were assessed over a decade ago," Mrs Brunskill said.

"Nothing has changed over that period, and there's been minimal noise complaints."

Mrs Brunskill said council's "change of opinion" on this project "could contribute to the 50 million dollars of potential loss of income to the economy happening due to land shortages."

"The decision-makers need to be held accountable to not contribute to this, when the industry is calling for them to open up land supply," she said.

Forest Hill resident Richard Salcole also decried the decision, saying the suburb is being left behind as council prioritises developments in the northern and southern suburbs.

"It appears that council has once again forgotten about Forest Hill, because council's plan is to develop... [the northern and southern suburbs] whereas there is a potential for development at Forest Hill - with a major land resource that could be unlocked and hasn't been," Mr Salcole said.

Speaking at Council on Monday, Councillor Rod Kendall acknowledged there was a housing crisis, but said it did not mean freeing up land for development regardless of the consequences.

Cr Kendall said if the land was developed, it would "jeopardise the [city's air] transport link".

Council's general manager Peter Thompson said the council had received legal advice when reaching its determination to recommend rejecting the proposed rezoning requests.

Despite the majority of councillors voting against the project, Cr Tim Koschel backed Ms Brunskill and the proposed development.

"We probably shouldn't be turning down any blocks of land that come [to] us at the moment," Cr Koschel said.

He said it was "up to a person's [own] choice where they live."

He said it was a "shame" council received the legal advice it did and said he wished there were "other ways" to support more land opening up.

Deputy mayor Amelia Parkins meanwhile threw her weight behind the council recommendation and said it was important to look at housing options, but they need to be in the "right locations."

"We can't jeopardise important assets [in the process]," Cr Parkins said.

She also acknowledged there was "a lot of work to do" in identifying future land to be released.