Rodney Stevens
A development application DA for a four-unit development on Harbour Street at Yamba has been approved by Clarence Valley Council with an additional condition to make it consistent with adjoining residences.
The DA from CHP Developments was for the demolition of an existing dwelling, construction of four multi-unit dwellings, four swimming pools and a four lot strata subdivision at 4 Harbour Street, Yamba.
At the May 23 Clarence Valley Council CVC meeting, Cr Karen Toms put forward a motion requiring the applicant to submit amended plans that increase the development’s set back from Harbour Street, which was seconded by Cr Debrah Novak.
Cr Tom’s motion was that council:
- support the proposed variations to Residential Zones Development Control Plan 2011 for Development Application DA2022/0473; and
- approve Development Application DA2022/0473 subject to the draft Advices and Conditions contained in Schedule 1.
- insert an additional condition that the applicant shall submit amended plans that increase the front setback to Harbour Street to a minimum of 3.6m to ensure the setback is consistent with the adjoining 5 Harbour Street, Yamba.
“We’ve been responsive to the neighbour who lives in number 5 next door who came and spoke to us very briefly, Mr Dodd, about the setback on his property being slightly different,” Cr Tom’s said.
“He believed his setback was different to what was in the report and on further investigation that was confirmed…so hence point three is in there to set the new condition.”
Speaking against the motion, Cr Greg Clancy said there were a number of variations in the DA to the Development Control Plan DCP and by varying the conditions it is making a much larger building that will ‘dominate the whole area’.
“I just think that we have to be careful that we don’t keep approving these amendments to the DCP, even if they are reasonably minor, because we are sending out the message to the architects ‘don’t worry about the DCP requirements because if you exceed them, we just approve anyway,’ he said.
“The buildings are an overdevelopment on the site and do not comply with the DCP and we’ve got to encourage our developers and our architects to try to fit within the rules.”
Cr Bill Day spoke against the motion, stating he agreed with Cr Clancy and that the DA breaches the DCP with setbacks on every side.
He said when the developer asked council for more information about the DCP they ignored it.
“It tends to open the door for architects and developers to ignore the DCP and I think there’s a time where we’ve got to say hold it…you asked for this information, why did you ignore it,” he said.
Cr Karen Toms said it was permissible for the applicant to seek variations to the DCP, as it is not ‘set in concrete’ like the Local Environmental Plan LEP.
“Whether we like it or not as lay people, the DCP is a guide and it can be changed,” she said.
“This particular application would have been approved by delegation if it wasn’t for the four objections.”
Cr Toms said the arguments put forward by Cr’s Clancy and Day that the DA doesn’t meet the DCP are not reasons for refusal.
The motion was passed six votes to three with Cr’s Clancy, Day and Jeff Smith voting against.