A bid by the would-be developers of the 'Croc Park' at Wentworth Falls to change some of its plans has been rejected by the Department of Planning.
It means the company now has just 48 hours to lodge its environment impact statement or face making a new application to the department.
Residents opposed to the park, on land on the Great Western Highway, were "cautiously optimistic" although Murray Matson from the Bodington Hill Wildlife Resort Action Group Inc (BHWRAG) said: "It's great news and we should be cautiously optimistic but BHWRAG advises the community that the battle isn't over yet. In theory the proponents still have till the 30th of June to lodge some sort of EIS... They also still have an existing consent for an earlier incarnation of the project."
The BHWRAG group is meeting tonight [June 29] to work out its ongoing strategy.
But the company behind the development, Aesthete No 14 Pty Ltd, has foreshadowed taking legal action to have the decision reviewed.
Aesthete wants to build a wildlife park, with animals including freshwater and saltwater crocodiles, Tasmanian devils, penguins, emus, cassowaries and dingos, as well as accommodation and a multi-storey car park.
The $110 million project was given state significant development (SSD) status by the previous state government.
Earlier this year, the company sought to amend the secretary's environmental assessment requirements (SEARs), which were approved in March 2021, arguing its new plans had significant changes.
But in a letter to the company yesterday [June 28], the Planning Secretary said "the key issues for the proposal have not changed as a result of the amendments" so the 2021 SEARs stood.
But these SEARS expire on July 1, giving Aesthete just two days to lodge its environmental impact statement and SSD application.
The letter added: "If you do not lodge the SSD application prior to 1 July 2023, you will need to seek new SEARs for the proposal via the department's major projects portal."
Farshad Amirbeaggi, solicitor acting for the company, immediately wrote to the department pleading procedural unfairness.
Mr Amirbeaggi wrote: "Your office has taken approximately six months to respond to the request for amended SEARs made and has now responded two business days out from the asserted sunset date. That is not procedurally fair.
"Your office represented [expressly in writing] that it was satisfied that the amended SEARs was necessary and would seek government agency comment prior to issuing the amended SEARs. It has now changed its position without explanation two business days from the asserted sunset date. That is not procedurally fair, and is in fact unconscionable."
He also argued that, under the legislation, the company should have a new "sunset date" two years from yesterday's date to lodge a DA, rather than just two days.
"We invite you to reconsider the position you have taken and confirm that the period for making of the development application is extended to 28 June, 2025. Please do so by close of business tomorrow [June 29], absent which our client will on 30 June 2023, file its summons seeking judicial review of your decision."
