On a quiet stretch of Soldiers Point Road, a vote over eight proposed units has become something larger — a contest between the letter of planning law and the spirit of a community's vision for itself. Port Stephens Council will decide Tuesday whether a $4.7 million development by Cerretti Holdings qualifies as permissible multi-dwelling housing or a prohibited apartment block, a distinction hinging on the meaning of a staircase. Whatever the council resolves, the decision will ripple forward, shaping not only this site but the character of the neighbourhood that surrounds it.
Soldiers Point development hinges on zoning technicality as council votes
Each approval makes the next one easier to justify
Mark
Why does it matter whether this is called multi-dwelling housing versus residential flats? Aren't they both apartment-style buildings?
Mimi
The zoning rules allow one and ban the other outright. It's not about what it looks like—it's about what the law says it is. If council approves it as multi-dwelling housing, they're saying the rules permit it. If they reject it as flats, they're saying it violates the zone.
Mark
But the lawyer says the staircase argument is a technicality. Doesn't that suggest the rules are being bent?
Mimi
That's exactly his point. He's saying the developer changed the design to create individual staircases specifically to fit the legal definition, not because it makes the building better or more in keeping with the area.
Mark
So what happens if council approves it?
Mimi
It sets a precedent. The next developer can point to this decision and say, "You approved something similar, so you have to approve mine." The character of the area shifts gradually, one approval at a time.
Mark
And if they reject it?
Mimi
The developer can appeal to the Land and Environment Court, and a judge will decide. Either way, someone's unhappy, and the question of what Soldiers Point becomes stays unsettled.
Mark
Do the residents have a real legal case, or are they just fighting to preserve their neighbourhood?
Mimi
Both. Woodward is arguing the building fails the rules as written. Whether a court agrees depends on how strictly they read the definition of ground-level access and whether they think the staircase argument is genuine or a workaround.
Der Puls
- A single planning classification — multi-dwelling housing versus residential flat building — stands between approval and rejection of eight units on a low-density residential block.
- Neighbours and a planning lawyer argue the building's shared basement car park, communal lift, lobbies, and strata title reveal an apartment block dressed in compliant language.
- Council staff are recommending approval, leaning on a 2016 court ruling that individual staircases satisfy the ground-level access requirement — even though those staircases were added after the original design.
- Residents warn that each approval on Soldiers Point Road makes the next one harder to refuse, fearing a slow but irreversible drift toward higher-density development.
- Tuesday's vote will either hold the line on the area's low-density character or open a precedent that reshapes what can be built along this stretch of coastline.
On a quiet stretch of Soldiers Point Road, a vote over eight proposed units has become something larger — a contest between the letter of planning law and the spirit of a community's vision for itself. Port Stephens Council will decide Tuesday whether a $4.7 million development by Cerretti Holdings qualifies as permissible multi-dwelling housing or a prohibited apartment block, a distinction hinging on the meaning of a staircase. Whatever the council resolves, the decision will ripple forward, shaping not only this site but the character of the neighbourhood that surrounds it.
Port Stephens Council meets Tuesday to decide the fate of 23 Soldiers Point Road, where Cerretti Holdings wants to replace a 1930s cottage with eight units valued at $4.7 million. The site is zoned low-density residential — a designation that permits townhouses and villas with individual ground-level access, but bans apartment blocks outright. The entire dispute turns on which category this building belongs to.
Council staff recommend approval. They cite a 2016 Land and Environment Court ruling establishing that internal staircases can satisfy the ground-level access requirement, and note that each of the eight units has its own staircase. They also support allowing the building to exceed the council's nine-metre height limit.
Neighbour and planning lawyer Ian Woodward is unconvinced. He points to the building's shared basement car park with mechanical stackers, communal lobbies, a lift serving every floor, balconies in place of backyards, and a single strata title — features he says reveal an apartment block regardless of how the staircases are classified. He also notes that the ground-floor access used to justify approval was not in the original design. "If the plans already complied, there was no need to change them," he said, warning that each approval on Soldiers Point Road makes the next one easier to grant.
Residents' submissions reflect a broader unease. Some argued the development would consume the entire site, contradicting what they understood as council's intent to limit density and visual impact. Others questioned whether eight premium beachfront units would address housing need at all, or simply feed the short-term rental market. Earlier concerns — the demolition of the cottage, the removal of mature Blackbutt trees, the loss of a possible koala corridor — have faded into the background.
What remains is a technical question with lasting consequences: does this building comply with the rules as written, or does it breach them in spirit? The council's answer on Tuesday will likely define what Soldiers Point Road becomes.
Port Stephens Council will vote Tuesday on whether to allow eight units to rise where a 1930s cottage now stands at 23 Soldiers Point Road. The $4.7 million development from Cerretti Holdings has narrowed into a fight over words—specifically, whether the building qualifies as multi-dwelling housing or a residential flat building, a distinction that will determine its fate.
The site is zoned for low-density residential use. Under council rules, that permits multi-dwelling housing: townhouses and villas where each unit has its own ground-level access. Residential flat buildings—apartment blocks—are banned outright. Council staff are recommending approval, arguing the development clears the bar. They point to a 2016 Land and Environment Court decision holding that stairs can count as ground-level access if they form part of the dwelling itself. Each of the eight units has individual staircases, officers say. They also recommend allowing the building to exceed the council's nine-metre height limit.
Neighbours see it differently. Ian Woodward, a planning lawyer living nearby, is not convinced by the staircase argument. He points to what he calls the building's true character: a shared basement-style car park with mechanical stackers, a shared driveway, communal lobbies, a lift serving every floor, balconies instead of backyards, and a single strata title covering the whole site. He notes that the ground-floor access used to justify approval wasn't part of the original design. "If the plans already complied, there was no need to change them," Woodward said. He sees a pattern repeating on Soldiers Point Road, each approval making the next one easier to justify.
Submissions from residents echo the concern. One wrote that the buildings and car park would fill the site entirely, contradicting what they understood to be council's intent to prevent developments of this scale and visual impact. Another was direct: building something this large with such disregard for neighbours struck them as selfish. A third submission questioned whether eight beachfront units at this price point would serve the housing crisis at all, or simply become holiday homes and short-term rentals.
The February reporting on this application noted that residents had raised other objections too—the demolition of a 1930s cottage, the removal of mature trees including two large Blackbutts, and the loss of what some argued was an important koala corridor. But those arguments have receded. What remains is the technical question: does this building fit the rules as written, or does it violate them in spirit? The council's decision on Tuesday will answer that question and likely shape what comes next on this stretch of road.
Bemerkenswerte Zitate
If the plans already complied, there was no need to change them— Ian Woodward, planning lawyer and neighbour
Each approval makes the next one easier to justify— Ian Woodward
Möchten Sie die ganze Geschichte?
Das Original lesen bei Newcastle Herald ↗
Politics & Governance