Liberal and Labor councillors squabble in council meeting over future of Penrith Paceway

A bid to clear up ‘misinformation’ about redevelopment of the Penrith Paceway site erupted into mid-council meeting argument with councillors accused of ‘covering up’ their true intentions for the sites future. See the battle lines.

Artist impressions of the proposed redevelopment of the Penrith Paceway site by Capital Corp and Club Paceway.

A bid to clear up ‘misinformation’ about redevelopment of the Penrith Paceway site has erupted into mid-council meeting squabble with Liberal councillors accusing their Labor colleague of ‘covering up’ their true intentions for the site’s future.

On Monday’s council meeting, Labor councillor Karen McKeown OAM moved a motion opposing any residential development or residential rezoning on both the Penrith Paceway and Penrith Stadium sites, saying there was a need to clear up “misinformation” among residents.

“We are sending the message to our residents we do not want residential development or zoning on the paceway,” Ms McKeown said.

While Labor councillors John Thain and Robin Cook supported the motion, Liberal councillors Mark Davies, Ross Fowler and Bernard Bratusa questioned its purpose.

Mr Bratusa pointed out a far more ‘substantive’ motion had been passed in August which specified council opposing high rise development on the site.

Councillor Karen McKeown OAM

Councillor Bernard Bratusa

“I’m a little bit confused about what you’re trying to achieve, I’m disappointed because the substantive motion that was supported by majority in August quite clearly defeats any intention albeit it says high rise on that footprint,” he said.

“It would suggest that my Labor colleagues support high rise development but not residential development given the motion that's before us.”

The statement from Mr Bratusa was promptly withdrawn after Councillor Thain jumped on the defensive and refuted his claims.

Mr Davies then took aim at Councillor McKeown, and said the confusion in the community “wouldn’t be apparent if she had voted along the lines of the original motion put forward in April”.

“You didn’t vote, you didn’t support the Panthers, you don’t support the stadium to be built if you had it would have put an end to the confusion,” Mr Davies said.

“I just assumed you wanted to the McKeown towers to be built and have your name light up in neon lights on the Western Sydney horizon.”

Davies’ comment sparked Ms McKeown asking for an apology, saying he was “vilifying her family's name”.

Aerial view of the Penrith Paceway. Source: Capital Corporation

Sidestepping Ms McKeown’s request for apology, Mr Davies expressed his disappointment.

“Tonight we’re wasting time with political grandstanding, to try and do some covering up and trying to politically come out on top,” Mr Davies said

“To me it’s more confusion across this city and it does not make sense. You back the Panthers, you back the stadium, you back no rezoning and you back the open space, that equals no rezoning.”

A final amendment was agreed upon and carried with Mr Bratusa adding Ms McKeowns recommendations to the motion passed in August.

Councillors McKeown, Cook and Thain did not partake in voting.

The future of the Paceway site remains a hot button topic with council supporting redevelopment of the site to be an open public space and opposing any residential rezoning.

However a joint venture between the Paceway and property development group Capital Corporation included plans for the site to become a multimillion-dollar mixed use housing development.

The plans, earmarked in 2018, would see the development of 2393 apartments across as many as 34 residential towers ranging from two to 16-storeys on the site, as well as a hotel, central park and supermarket.