Residents have voiced strong opposition to Weddin Shire Council's proposal to reclassify Lot 133 Stan McCabe Drive from community land to operational land, but councillors ultimately voted 7-2 to proceed with the planning proposal.

Speaking for the public forum during August council meeting, Carolyn Baker said she was representing over 40 local residents concerned about the future of the Stan McCabe Drive block.

Ms Baker told councillors the land had originally been donated by developer Snow McHuckle in lieu of sewer connection costs and was intended for use as sporting fields or parkland.

She said residents believed the block should remain for community use and argued it had become a valued passive recreation area for children, cyclists, dog walkers and families.

"The land is a highly valued passive play zone," Ms Baker said, urging councillors to defer the matter for a month to allow further consultation with the community.

Residents also questioned the timing of the decision, saying they had received a large volume of information only days before the meeting and were concerned about the lack of a clear future plan for the site.

Ms Baker said many people had purchased homes in Lawson Estate believing Lot 133 would remain open space, noting that council promotional material had identified the area as proposed playing fields.

She warned that selling the land would permanently remove future recreational opportunities and suggested alternative community uses, including a pump track.

The planning proposal before council covered two separate matters.

The first sought to reclassify 15 council-owned parcels of land from community land to operational land.

The second related specifically to Lot 133 at Lawson Estate.

Councillors were not being asked to approve a subdivision, development or sale of any land.

Instead the vote was whether to support reclassification, which would give council greater flexibility to consider future uses of the land.

Any future decision to sell, subdivide or develop a site would require separate consideration and approvals.

Council's Director of Environmental Services told the meeting six submissions had been received regarding Lot 133 and that 59 people attended a public hearing in May.

He stressed that councillors were not being asked to approve a subdivision or sale of the land.

"We don't have any plans. Council doesn't have a resolution to sell the land," he said.

Mayor Paul Best reiterated that point, saying the decision was about whether council should have greater flexibility to consider future uses of the site.

"We're not approving a subdivision," Cr Best said.

"Tonight we're deciding whether council should have the flexibility to properly consider the future use of this land."

Councillor John Niven attempted to have the matter deferred for a month, reflecting the request from residents, however the amendment failed to receive a seconder and lapsed.

During debate, Cr Jen Parlett spoke in favour of reclassifying 15 other council-owned properties but opposed including Lot 133 in the proposal.

Cr Parlett said residents had invested in Lawson Estate with the understanding the land would remain a reserve and argued council should act in good faith by honouring those expectations.

"The land is currently being informally used by the community," she said.

She also questioned the economic wisdom of a potential future subdivision, noting the slow sale of previous residential and industrial land developments in Grenfell and concerns about the impact on existing homeowners.

Cr Makin sought clarification on what reclassification would mean in practice and whether the community could continue using the site.

The Director advised that reclassification would not automatically change public access and simply provided council with greater flexibility for future decisions.

"If council chose to just keep that as a vacant block of land and not choose to put any restrictions on it, they (residents) are to continue to use it as they are now," he said.

Several councillors argued that reclassification was about future options rather than an immediate development proposal.

Cr Neil said he could see both sides of the debate but believed council needed flexibility to meet future needs across the shire.

"We don't need a new park, we need that flexibility," he said.

Cr Jeanne Montgomery said operational classification did not automatically mean the land would be sold, while Cr Simon Rolls warned against confusing the reclassification process with the concept subdivision plan that had been included in the planning documents.

Mayor Best rejected claims the proposal was being rushed, noting the matter had been under consideration since late 2023 and had undergone an independent public hearing process.

"This is a three-year process," he said.

Following an extended debate councillors rejected an amendment from Cr Parlett and Cr Niven to Endorse the planning proposal for the separate 15 parcels of land and not proceed with Lot 133.

A further attempt to separate the vote on Lot 133 from the other 15 parcels also failed.

Council then voted on the original motion, with councillors Neil, White, Gorman, Rolls, Makin, Montgomery and Mayor Best in favour, while Cr Niven and Cr Parlett voted against.

The decision means the planning proposal will now proceed through the state planning process, where a final determination on the reclassification of Lot 133 will ultimately be made.