Rodney Stevens
A development application for 17 three- and four-bedroom units, a communal swimming pool, car parking and landscaping that exceeds the maximum nine metre building height by 88 centimetres has been approved by Clarence Valley Council (CVC) in a split decision five votes to three.
Due to the applicant Enhance Urban Planning seeking a number of variations to the Clarence Valley Local Environmental Plan 2011 LEP and the Clarence Valley Development Control Plan – Environmental Protection, Recreation and Special Use Zone 2011 DCP, which are outside council staff delegations, the application was referred to council for determination.
The 17-unit complex at 6 Yamba Road will be located next to The Carmel Motel, on the 4010 square metre site that sold for $3.48 million in November 2021.
At the March 28 CVC meeting, councillors voted on the DA for 6 Yamba Road, for which council received 10 submissions, including seven objections, when the application was on public exhibition.
Cr Karen Toms moved the officer’s recommendation that council:
- Support the Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards variation request to Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings of the Clarence Valley Local Environmental Plan 2011 to permit a maximum building height of 9.88 metres;
- Support the proposed variations to the Clarence Valley Development Control Plan – Environmental Protection, Recreation and Special Use Zone 2011; and approve Development Application 2022/0471 subject to the draft Advices and Conditions contained in Schedule 1.
The motion was seconded by Cr Debrah Novak.
Cr Bill Day asked CVC Director Environment and Planning, Adam Cameron, why he was recommending variations to council planning instruments, in particular the height variations, and he questioned the impacts on neighbouring properties in the Yamba community.
“The council officers consider the variations overall to be minor in nature,” he said.
“The General Manager does have a delegation to approve within 10 per-cent variance of the height limit stated, the nine metre height limit stated within the LEP.
“Some topographical restraints on the site are also relevant in relation to this matter where there is a slight slope of the site towards the eastern edge.
“In terms of the three storey units, they are located along Yamba Road which is giving, I guess, a benefit of minimising that overshadowing and overlooking to nearby properties.
“They’re some of the key reasons why we’ve recommended approval.”
Cr Toms then asked Mr Cameron if the development had been redesigned to meet some of the concerns of the seven objectors and staff, which he confirmed was correct.
Mr Cameron was then asked to comment by Cr Novak on ‘short term stays’ in the complex, which he said would be a matter for the owner or body corporate to address.
Speaking in favour of the motion, Cr Toms said just because she was supporting this motion doesn’t mean she supports every DA subject to variations, then she gave examples of when she had voted against previous DA’s that didn’t adhere to the DCP.
“Our development Control Plans aren’t set in law, they are guidelines, and we often have to make decisions based on whether it makes a better development or not, and this one I believe certainly has,” she said.
“We have a housing crisis all across Australia and we should be trying to approve houses…this design of 17 new units is going to provide 17 new homes for people, and that’s what we need.”
Speaking against the motion, Cr Jeff Smith said the proposed development would be located with a single storey motel to the east, and a reserve to the west.
“It’s going to stick out, it’s going to stick out fairly substantially,” he said.
“This development is non-compliant in seven of the 16 requirements (of the DCP), now they have all been cleverly explained away and there’s all sorts of reasoning behind it.
“The village of Yamba is long gone but let’s not make it another Sunshine Coast.”
Cr Bill Day spoke in favour of the motion, and acknowledged the concerns and impacts on adjoining properties highlighted by Cr Smith.
“Overall, it’s a positive development, the variations to council building instruments are relatively minor,” he said.
“The other positive, no fill is required, and that’s been one of the contentious issues.”
Cr Ian Tiley then spoke against the motion, saying he didn’t agree with Cr Toms that this was ‘a good news story’.
“I can’t find anything in the report which goes to where it’s not complying with the LEP, which of course is a statutory document, so if they are not complying with the LEP, how can we approve,” he said.
In the 28 years he has been involved in Clarence Valley local government, Cr Tiley said there had been incremental changes in councils planning instruments that continually, over time, impact the amenity of the surrounding area the planning instruments are put in place to protect.
“I think we as a council need to send a message that if you comply with our statutory and advisory prescriptions you will get support,” he said.
Cr Tiley then foreshadowed a motion that the application be refused because of non-compliance in the LEP and DCP as detailed in the officers’ report.
Agreeing with Cr’s Tiley and Smith, Cr Clancy spoke against the motion, saying council had the LEP and DCP planning controls for good reason, and the DCP can be altered in a minor way.
“If it was only just one alteration it wouldn’t be so bad, but there’s numerous alterations here,” he said.
The motion was carried five votes to three, with Cr’s Tiley, Clancy and Smith voting against.