High Technology Industry Williamtown

I object to this development ‘High Technology Industry Williamtown', and appeal to the planning authority to refuse this application.

1. Not in the Public Interest.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that the public interest must be considered as part of the assessment (Part 4, Division 4.3, Section 4.15).

This development for defence related manufacturing and software development is clearly not in the public interest.

Weapons manufacturing contributes to an arms race between nations and too often takes the lives of innocent civilians.

Investing in this facility will divert skilled workers away from the critical transition to low carbon industries and renewable energy generation. Time is running out to meet our climate targets, and we are simultaneously experiencing a skills shortage in the Hunter. We cannot afford to invest in the defence industry when our collective priority must be ensuring a rapid and well planned transition.



2. Councils must act ethically.

The Local Government Act states that councils must act ethically in the interests of the local community (Section 8Ah)

Newcastle Council should collect revenue from sources that are in line with its own policies. With Astra Aerolab, it is directly contravening its own Investment and Borrowing Policy which includes Environmental and Social Investment Guidelines (7.1.4) that specifically identify ‘production or supply of armaments’ as investment that should be avoided as it is considered a socially harmful activity.

Collecting revenue from an undisclosed aerospace contractor is not in line with the ethical standards that the community expects from Newcastle Council and Port Stephens Council.



3. Increasing ties between universities and weapons manufacturers is unethical.

The Environmental Impact Statement highlights the benefits of the ‘High Technology Williamtown’ proposal as including ‘increasing research capabilities’ with the University of Newcastle. Increasing ties between the University and weapons manufacturers is raising serious concerns amongst students, staff and the broader community. Student movements across Australia are revealing ties between weapons manufacturers and research facilities and will continue to protest against these agreements.

4. This project is on PFAS contaminated lands within the Tomago Sandbeds Catchment Area.

The independent review into PFAS contamination must be completed before this DA can be finalised. There is insufficient information for managing PFAS contaminants and protecting the Tomago Sandbeds.

I object to this place being built on the basis of environmental protection and that we shouldn't be manufacturing any more weapons that will inevitably go towards wars and genocides.
This is a disgusting proposal after the community has made it clear that we do NOT support genocide and wars, nor do we support destroying the earth any more than we already have!

I object to this development ‘High Technology Industry Williamtown', and appeal to the planning authority to refuse this application.

1. Not in the Public Interest.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that the public interest must be considered as part of the assessment (Part 4, Division 4.3, Section 4.15).

This development for defence-related manufacturing and software development is clearly not in the public interest.

Weapons manufacturing contributes to an arms race between nations and too often takes the lives of innocent civilians.

Investing in this facility will divert skilled workers away from the critical transition to low-carbon industries and renewable energy generation. Time is running out to meet our climate targets, and we are simultaneously experiencing a skills shortage in the Hunter. We cannot afford to invest in the defence industry when our collective priority must be ensuring a rapid and well-planned transition.



2. Councils must act ethically.

The Local Government Act states that councils must act ethically in the interests of the local community (Section 8Ah)

Newcastle Council should collect revenue from sources that align with its policies. With Astra Aerolab, it is directly contravening its own Investment and Borrowing Policy which includes Environmental and Social Investment Guidelines (7.1.4) that specifically identify ‘production or supply of armaments’ as an investment that should be avoided as it is considered a socially harmful activity.

Collecting revenue from an undisclosed aerospace contractor does not align with the ethical standards that the community expects from Newcastle Council and Port Stephens Council.



3. Increasing ties between universities and weapons manufacturers is unethical.

The Environmental Impact Statement highlights the benefits of the ‘High Technology Williamtown’ proposal including ‘increasing research capabilities’ with the University of Newcastle. Increasing ties between the University and weapons manufacturers are raising serious concerns amongst students, staff and the broader community. Student movements across Australia are revealing ties between weapons manufacturers and research facilities and will continue to protest against these agreements.

4. This project is on PFAS-contaminated lands within the Tomago Sandbeds Catchment Area.

The independent review into PFAS contamination must be completed before this DA can be finalised. There is insufficient information for managing PFAS contaminants and protecting the Tomago Sandbeds.

I don't support weapon facilities. I object drastically to the project in my town.

The militarization of suburbs within NSW is frankly appalling - with the levels of global unrest we're seeing, it seems deeply opportunistic and irresponsible to prioritise profit over people and pile in on Australia's involvement in war. We do not need defence manufacturers and weapons companies in our suburbs. It is not in the public interest, and sends a terrible message about pushing for inherently violent investments.

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed "High Technology Industry Williamtown" development. My concerns are grounded in the following points:

1. The Proposal Does Not Serve the Public Interest
Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the public interest is a crucial factor in assessing development proposals (Part 4, Division 4.3, Section 4.15). This particular project, focused on defence-related manufacturing and software development, does not align with the broader public interest.

The production of weapons exacerbates global tensions and too often results in the tragic loss of innocent lives. Furthermore, our region is at a critical juncture where we need to prioritize the transition to low-carbon industries and renewable energy. The skills shortage in the Hunter region only makes this more urgent. Diverting skilled workers to the defence sector at this time would hinder our progress towards essential climate goals.

2. Councils Have an Ethical Responsibility
According to the Local Government Act, councils are expected to act ethically and in the best interests of the community (Section 8Ah). The Newcastle Council must adhere to its own policies, particularly its Investment and Borrowing Policy, which includes Environmental and Social Investment Guidelines (Section 7.1.4). These guidelines specifically advise against investments in the production or supply of armaments due to their socially harmful impact.

Supporting this development, particularly through revenue collection from an undisclosed aerospace contractor, would be inconsistent with the ethical standards that the community rightfully expects from Newcastle and Port Stephens Councils.

3. Ethical Concerns Regarding University Partnerships
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this proposal highlights supposed benefits, including enhanced research capabilities with the University of Newcastle. However, fostering closer ties between universities and weapons manufacturers raises significant ethical questions. Across Australia, students and staff are increasingly concerned about such partnerships, and these concerns are not to be taken lightly. The University of Newcastle, as a public institution, should be cautious about aligning itself with industries that many in the community find troubling.

4. Risks from PFAS Contamination
The proposed site for this development is located on PFAS-contaminated land within the Tomago Sandbeds Catchment Area. The independent review of PFAS contamination in this area is still ongoing, and there is currently insufficient information on how these contaminants will be managed to ensure the protection of the Tomago Sandbeds. Until these serious environmental and health risks are thoroughly addressed, moving forward with this Development Application would be premature.

Given these points, I strongly urge the planning authority to reject this development proposal. It fails to align with the public interest, ethical standards, and environmental safety. I hope these concerns will be seriously considered in your decision-making process.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

thank you the attached submission deepens my objection

The proponents outline in the EIS that one of the supposed benefits of this proposal is to increase academic connection with the university of Newcastle, presumably in the manufacturing processes and weapons development stage. This is no longer feasible considering the University of Newcastle is currently in the process of developing procurement and knowledge partnership registers that will deliberately exclude weapons manufacturing.

The proponents have asked for development approval for a large section of land that is subject to ongoing environmental assessment due to previous contamination. Notwithstanding the industrial nature of the application, the land may be instrumental in future to the remediation of previous degradation. This is obviously of prime importance to nearby resident groups justifiably concerned about the rehabilitation of previous chemical degradation and pollution.

It is simply not in the public interest to develop a weapons manufacturing centre so close to residential and commercial operations. However far-fetched it may seem in 2024, there is no doubt that weapons manufacturing facilities present a legitimate military target should diplomatic efforts fail and combat begin. Weapons manufacturing facilities additionally attract a social reputation that can come to affect the cultural fabric of our city.

Weapons manufacturing is a sensitive industry with a heavy moral overtone. It is not in the public interest to site these facitilies in our city, especially in times of conflict and war such as 2024 in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan and elsewhere. furthermore, the divestment of resources and workers such as those contained within the application will harm the transition to renewable energy and other projects geared toward protecting, not harming, the future of our region.

Finally, Newcastle and Port Stephens councils co-own the land and will seek to exploit a financial advantage from this development. This is the antithesis of ethical investment and will tarnish the reputations of both organisations.

This application requires objection on environmental, economic, ethical and practical grounds. I say hard no to weapons manufacturing in my city and the region I love.

This development proposal is not in the Public Interest. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that the public interest must be considered as part of the assessment (Part 4, Division 4.3, Section 4.15).
This proposal would divert skills away from a necessary transition for the region to renewable technologies and weapons research and manaufacture certanily do not represent this.
The local government act states that councils must act ethically in the interests of local community.
Newcastle Council should collect revenue from sources that are in line with its own policies. With Astra Aerolab, it is directly contravening its own Investment and Borrowing Policy which includes Environmental and Social Investment Guidelines (7.1.4) that specifically identify ‘production or supply of armaments’ as investment that should be avoided as it is considered a socially harmful activity.
Collecting revenue from an undisclosed aerospace contractor is not in line with the ethical standards that the community expects from Newcastle Council and Port Stephens Council.
Increasing ties between universities and weapons manufacturers is unethical. Part of the proposal is to strengthen these links but students, staff and the broader community have concerns about this and will continue to oppose these unethical money-making opportunities.
I implore those responsible for this decision to consider that both Newcastle and Port Stephens councils are acting out of contempt for public interest in this proposal. Please reject this and send a clear message that this behaviour is unethical and they should respect their communities in future.
Thank you.

I object to this development ‘High Technology Industry Williamtown', and appeal to the planning authority to refuse this application.

This development is not in the public interest.
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that the public interest must be considered as part of the assessment (Part 4, Division 4.3, Section 4.15). This development for defence related manufacturing and software development is clearly not in the public interest.
Weapons manufacturing contributes to an arms race between nations and too often takes the lives of innocent civilians.

Investing in this facility will divert skilled workers away from the critical transition to low carbon industries and renewable energy generation. Time is running out to meet our climate targets, and we are simultaneously experiencing a skills shortage in the Hunter. We cannot afford to invest in the defence industry when our collective priority must be ensuring a rapid and well planned transition.


Councils must act ethically, and not support or facilitate weapons manufacture.

The Local Government Act states that councils must act ethically in the interests of the local community (Section 8Ah)

Newcastle Council should collect revenue from sources that are in line with its own policies. With the "Astra Aerolab" proposal, it is directly contravening its own Investment and Borrowing Policy which includes Environmental and Social Investment Guidelines (7.1.4) that specifically identify ‘production or supply of armaments’ as investment that should be avoided as it is considered a socially harmful activity.

Collecting revenue from an undisclosed aerospace contractor is not in line with the ethical standards that the community expects from Newcastle Council and Port Stephens Council.

Thank you for considering this submission,
John de Bruyn
0438 311 309

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that the public interest must be considered as part of the assessment (Part 4, Division 4.3, Section 4.15).
This development for defence related manufacturing and software development is clearly not in the public interest.
Weapons manufacturing contributes to an arms race between nations and too often takes the lives of innocent civilians.
Investing in this facility will divert skilled workers away from the critical transition to low carbon industries and renewable energy generation. Time is running out to meet our climate targets, and we are simultaneously experiencing a skills shortage in the Hunter. We cannot afford to invest in the defence industry when our collective priority must be ensuring a rapid and well planned transition.
The Local Government Act states that councils must act ethically in the interests of the local community (Section 8Ah).

Newcastle Council should collect revenue from sources that are in line with its own policies. With Astra Aerolab, it is directly contravening its own Investment and Borrowing Policy which includes Environmental and Social Investment Guidelines (7.1.4) that specifically identify ‘production or supply of armaments’ as investment that should be avoided as it is considered a socially harmful activity.

Collecting revenue from an undisclosed aerospace contractor is not in line with the ethical standards that the community expects from Newcastle Council and Port Stephens Council.The Environmental Impact Statement highlights the benefits of the ‘High Technology Williamtown’ proposal as including ‘increasing research capabilities’ with the University of Newcastle. Increasing ties between the University and weapons manufacturers is raising serious concerns amongst students, staff and the broader community. Student movements across Australia are revealing ties between weapons manufacturers and research facilities and will continue to protest against these agreements.

The Environmental Impact Statement highlights the benefits of the ‘High Technology Williamtown’ proposal as including ‘increasing research capabilities’ with the University of Newcastle. Increasing ties between the University and weapons manufacturers is raising serious concerns amongst students, staff and the broader community. Student movements across Australia are revealing ties between weapons manufacturers and research facilities and will continue to protest against these agreements.

The independent review into PFAS contamination must be completed before this DA can be finalised. There is insufficient information for managing PFAS contaminants and protecting the Tomago Sandbeds.

This development will include BAE, a company whose products are being used to exterminate Palestinians, and may include other weapons manufacturers killing civilians around the world. It is essential that the NSW and Australian governments do not become even further enmeshed in an industry that profits from war - we see the results of such enmeshment today, with countries that host large weapons manufacturers supporting the bombing of civilians. F35s are dropping the weapons that slice and dice and burn Palestinians alive and cannot support this brutal industry, particularly now.

I object to this development ‘High Technology Industry Williamtown', and appeal to the planning authority to refuse this application. This submission considers the views of others in the community that I’ve engaged with on the subject. The proposed High Technology Industry Williamtown development does not align to community values nor the expectations of many City of Newcastle LGA constituents. That the City of Newcastle Council (Council) would entertain it, let alone be allowed to proceed is unacceptable.
1. Not in the Public Interest.
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that the public interest must be considered as part of the assessment (Part 4, Division 4.3, Section 4.15).

The expansion of defence-related manufacturing and software development is antithetical to the public interest.

Weapons production fuels competition between nations and tragically results in the loss of innocent lives; we are witnessing this occur in nations including Palestine, Ukraine, Lebanon, Israel, Yemen – so few people in this world are safe. Why would anyone want to contribute to that?
Channeling resources into such endeavours will draw skilled labor away from the essential shift toward sustainable industries and renewable energy sources. There is a much brighter, more positive direction we can take our world and we should. Our children deserve that – something I expect Council to be on board with.
With time ticking to meet climate goals and facing a scarcity of skilled workers in the Hunter region, prioritising investments in defence contradicts the urgent need for a swift and organised transition.

2. Councils are bound to act ethically.
The Local Government Act states that councils must act ethically in the interests of the local community (Section 8Ah).

Council revenue streams should align to its own policies, and more importantly: its values. should collect revenue from sources that are in line with its own policies. The Astra Aerolab plan is in direct violation of Council’s own Investment and Borrowing Policy, which encompasses Environmental and Social Investment Guidelines (7.1.4). These guidelines explicitly highlight that investing in the 'production or supply of armaments' should be avoided as it is considered a socially harmful activity.

Generating income from an unidentified aerospace contractor does not align with the ethical expectations set by the community for both Newcastle Council and Port Stephens Council.

3. Strengthening ties between universities and weapons manufacturers is unethical.
The Environmental Impact Statement highlights the benefits of the ‘High Technology Williamtown’ proposal as including ‘increasing research capabilities’ with the University of Newcastle.

Strengthening connections between the university and weapons manufacturers at a time when many of us in the community, alongside students and staff, hold deep concerns about these arrangements in terms of ethics, sustainability, and social welfare. Student movements across Australia are revealing ties between weapons manufacturers and research facilities and will continue to protest against these agreements.

They have my full support – the future belongs to young people.

4. This project is on PFAS contaminated lands within the Tomago Sandbeds Catchment Area — health and environment outcomes must be considered
The independent review into PFAS contamination must be completed before this DA can be finalised. Transparency and diligence in this process are paramount and the long-term impacts on water quality and potential health risks for the local population be considered seriously. There is currently insufficient information for managing PFAS contaminants and protecting the Tomago Sandbeds.

I concur with Councillor John Mackenzie, per the following: https://www.newcastlegreens.org.au/stop_councils_profiting_from_weapons?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaadrLiYcvbN-1BMdJxxZmgCnpkzKcDbUwpQCsaNtHAiVqM4aa-qFlU2Zjk_aem_iE5tvzceKg1PTIR5hgs5yQ

This project feels like an obvious capitulation to external interests, and not in the interest of Newcastle or its people. I expect attitudes around supporting councillors and members to be affected by this proposal. There is still time to wash your hands of this.

I object to this development ‘High Technology Industry Williamtown', and appeal to the planning authority to refuse this application.

1. Not in the Public Interest.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that the public interest must be considered as part of the assessment (Part 4, Division 4.3, Section 4.15).

This development for defence related manufacturing and software development is clearly not in the public interest.

Weapons manufacturing contributes to an arms race between nations and too often takes the lives of innocent civilians.

Investing in this facility will divert skilled workers away from the critical transition to low carbon industries and renewable energy generation. Time is running out to meet our climate targets, and we are simultaneously experiencing a skills shortage in the Hunter. We cannot afford to invest in the defence industry when our collective priority must be ensuring a rapid and well planned transition.



2. Councils must act ethically.

The Local Government Act states that councils must act ethically in the interests of the local community (Section 8Ah)

Newcastle Council should collect revenue from sources that are in line with its own policies. With Astra Aerolab, it is directly contravening its own Investment and Borrowing Policy which includes Environmental and Social Investment Guidelines (7.1.4) that specifically identify ‘production or supply of armaments’ as investment that should be avoided as it is considered a socially harmful activity.

Collecting revenue from an undisclosed aerospace contractor is not in line with the ethical standards that the community expects from Newcastle Council and Port Stephens Council.



3. Increasing ties between universities and weapons manufacturers is unethical.

The Environmental Impact Statement highlights the benefits of the ‘High Technology Williamtown’ proposal as including ‘increasing research capabilities’ with the University of Newcastle. Increasing ties between the University and weapons manufacturers is raising serious concerns amongst students, staff and the broader community. Student movements across Australia are revealing ties between weapons manufacturers and research facilities and will continue to protest against these agreements.

4. This project is on PFAS contaminated lands within the Tomago Sandbeds Catchment Area.

The independent review into PFAS contamination must be completed before this DA can be finalised. There is insufficient information for managing PFAS contaminants and protecting the Tomago Sandbeds.

I object to this development ‘High Technology Industry Williamtown', and appeal to the planning authority to refuse this application.

1. Not in the Public Interest.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that the public interest must be considered as part of the assessment (Part 4, Division 4.3, Section 4.15).

This development for defence related manufacturing and software development is clearly not in the public interest.

Weapons manufacturing contributes to an arms race between nations and too often takes the lives of innocent civilians.

Investing in this facility will divert skilled workers away from the critical transition to low carbon industries and renewable energy generation. Time is running out to meet our climate targets, and we are simultaneously experiencing a skills shortage in the Hunter. We cannot afford to invest in the defence industry when our collective priority must be ensuring a rapid and well planned transition.



2. Councils must act ethically.

The Local Government Act states that councils must act ethically in the interests of the local community (Section 8Ah)

Newcastle Council should collect revenue from sources that are in line with its own policies. With Astra Aerolab, it is directly contravening its own Investment and Borrowing Policy which includes Environmental and Social Investment Guidelines (7.1.4) that specifically identify ‘production or supply of armaments’ as investment that should be avoided as it is considered a socially harmful activity.

Collecting revenue from an undisclosed aerospace contractor is not in line with the ethical standards that the community expects from Newcastle Council and Port Stephens Council.



3. Increasing ties between universities and weapons manufacturers is unethical.

The Environmental Impact Statement highlights the benefits of the ‘High Technology Williamtown’ proposal as including ‘increasing research capabilities’ with the University of Newcastle. Increasing ties between the University and weapons manufacturers is raising serious concerns amongst students, staff and the broader community. Student movements across Australia are revealing ties between weapons manufacturers and research facilities and will continue to protest against these agreements.

Rejection of project .affecting aminety of the area and poss use of weapons in war crimes.

The project is directly linked to weapon production for the genocide in Gaza. This is against the community of Newcastles wishes, is unethical, unsafe and it is not the industry that Newcastle should be supporting while attempting to decrease our environmental impact

object to this development ‘High Technology Industry Williamtown', and appeal to the planning authority to refuse this application.
1. Not in the Public Interest.
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that the public interest must be considered as part of the assessment (Part 4, Division 4.3, Section 4.15).
This development for defence related manufacturing and software development is clearly not in the public interest. 
Weapons manufacturing contributes to an arms race between nations and too often takes the lives of innocent civilians. 
Investing in this facility will divert skilled workers away from the critical transition to low carbon industries and renewable energy generation. Time is running out to meet our climate targets, and we are simultaneously experiencing a skills shortage in the Hunter. We cannot afford to invest in the defence industry when our collective priority must be ensuring a rapid and well planned transition.
 
2. Councils must act ethically.
The Local Government Act states that councils must act ethically in the interests of the local community (Section 8Ah)
Newcastle Council should collect revenue from sources that are in line with its own policies. With Astra Aerolab, it is directly contravening its own Investment and Borrowing Policy which includes Environmental and Social Investment Guidelines (7.1.4) that specifically identify ‘production or supply of armaments’ as investment that should be avoided as it is considered a socially harmful activity.
Collecting revenue from an undisclosed aerospace contractor is not in line with the ethical standards that the community expects from Newcastle Council and Port Stephens Council.
 
3. Increasing ties between universities and weapons manufacturers is unethical.
The Environmental Impact Statement highlights the benefits of the ‘High Technology Williamtown’ proposal as including ‘increasing research capabilities’ with the University of Newcastle. Increasing ties between the University and weapons manufacturers is raising serious concerns amongst students, staff and the broader community. Student movements across Australia are revealing ties between weapons manufacturers and research facilities and will continue to protest against these agreements. 
4. This project is on PFAS contaminated lands within the Tomago Sandbeds Catchment Area.
The independent review into PFAS contamination must be completed before this DA can be finalised. There is insufficient information for managing PFAS contaminants and protecting the Tomago Sandbeds.