Rodney Stevens
A development application for a six large-lot subdivision off Carrs Drive at Yamba has been refused by Clarence Valley Council after councillors raised concerns about its impact on an adjoining conservation zone.
When the development application DA from Wassa Consulting and Building Design, on behalf of Sharon and Gavin Shankland, for the subdivision at 181 Carrs Drive was on public exhibition, Clarence Valley Council CVC received nine submissions against the proposal.
The public submissions raised concerns regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed development, stormwater, flooding and servicing the development.
The DA proposed six large-lots ranging between 5000 square metres and 7855 square metres, on the 3.38-hectare parcel of land which stretches from the western side of Carrs Drive to almost Shallow Channel, that is currently zoned R5 large lot residential and C2 Environmental Conservation, under the Clarence Valley Local Environment plan 2011.
Councillors were to vote on the motion that council “approve Development Application SUB2021/0045 subject to the draft Advices and Conditions contained within Schedule 1.”
But at the April 18 CVC meeting, Cr Greg Clancy moved a motion to refuse the DA, which was seconded by Cr Peter Johnstone.
Cr Johnstone asked whether sewage would be released into the conservation zone portion of the land as part of the development.
“That’s correct, the proposed effluent disposal for lot 6 is located within the C2 zone and would support the dwelling house in the R5 zone,” CVC Director Environment and Planning Adam Cameron said.
Director Cameron also advised Cr Johnstone the developer had planned to do offset planting in addition to their $251,101.99 contribution to the Biodiversity Conservation Trust, to cover a total of 11 ecosystem credits that have been calculated as applicable for the unavoidable loss of site vegetation.
Speaking for the motion, Cr Greg Clancy said he believed under section 415 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act that there were a number of issues that haven’t properly been addressed.
“We have had a BDAR (Biodiversity Development Assessment Report) done but the problem is we don’t really know what species of fauna and flora will be impacted,” he said.
“I really find it difficult to accept that we could have a whole list of threatened species that are known to be in the area, but no real assessment done and no compensation for the loss of those individuals.
“The suitability of the site for the development, that is a real concern to me, because it’s basically a wetland.”
Cr Clancy said the site of the proposed DA floods, which puts residents in danger if having to self-evacuate, and the results of the issues raised in the public submissions weren’t enough to allay his fears in terms of stormwater runoff and the clearing of natural vegetation.
Cr Peter Johnstone said his main concerns centred on plot 6 of the development, most of which is on C2 conservation zoning and part of a wildlife corridor.
“The building, which will presumably going on plot 6, is really going to cause damage as far as I can see to that wildlife corridor,” he said.
“I’m concerned about the sewage outflow, the only way the sewage can go is into the C2 zone.”
Cr Karen Toms said she wouldn’t be supporting Cr Clancy’s motion as she was very concerned he had already made his mind up about the development before a site inspection and the reasons put forward for refusal wouldn’t hold up in court.
“I don’t think the reasons for refusal will hold up in the Land and Environment Court,” she said.
Cr Steve Pickering spoke in support of Cr Clancy’s motion, stating he was concerned about the C2 zone component of the property.
Cr Clancy’s motion to refuse the DA for the subdivision was carried 6 -3, with Cr’s Toms, Allison Whaites and Debrah Novak voting against.