Rodney Stevens

Cheers of celebration and relief from James Creek residents erupted when the Northern Regional Planning Panel refused approval for a controversial $33 million 336 lot subdivision on James Creek Road.

The panel met via teleconference on Thursday June 29, to decide whether to approve the development application DA by MPD Investments at 104 James Creek Road for 329 residential lots, one commercial lot, four drainage reserves and two open space areas on the 33-hectare site.

Clarence Valley Council’s assessment report for the ‘regionally significant development’, which required it to be decided by the Northern Regional Planning Panel NRPP, recommended the DA be refused over concerns with sewage, stormwater discharge, traffic issues, land use conflict, the urban structure and sensitivity of the proposed design to the surrounds.

When the DA was put on public exhibition three times in 2022 and 2023, council received 100 submissions and a petition with 171 signatures against the subdivision.

Clarence Valley Council was represented by Cr’s Ian Tiley and Peter Johnstone on the five person NRPP, after Cr Greg Clancy declared a conflict of interest as he had been to a public meeting with complainants about the subdivision.

NRPP Chair Diane Leeson said there were 18 people registered to speak to the panel about the DA.

Speakers included James Creek resident of 30 plus years, Pat Bowen, and Lorri Brown who spoke on behalf of the James Creek Residents Action Group stating the development would double the population of the village, which went against council’s targeted growth figures for James Creek.

Carolyn Cameron, whose husband’s family settled in James Creek in 1863 said she feared ‘that our close-knit rural community is going to be lost’.

An emotional Sharon Farlow, who holds a routine movement stock permit to move her cattle along James Creek Road which her family has done for 100 years, feared with increased traffic her livelihood would be impacted.

Neighbour Keira Fahey urged the NRPP to follow council’s refusal recommendation as the buffer zone between the subdivision and other properties was not adequate.

32-year resident of James Creek Road, Glen Brown said the DA amounted to overdevelopment, it has a single exit and entry point which could cause issues, there was a lack of connectivity with Townsend and both James Creek Road and the intersection with Yamba Road need upgrading.

Peter and Adam Cartmill were both concerned with stormwater runoff and highlighted no deed of agreement had been reached between the developer and landowners.

John Cashman said although the DA had 19 per-cent affordable housing, government policy dictates that it must be located close to transport and services, of which James Creek has none.
No contact from developers and concerns about extra traffic was why Andrew Grayson addressed the NRPP, who said the reduction of buffer zones around the site would result in ‘a Lego land town’.

Speaking on behalf of the developer, Town Planner Peter Bell said the land was zoned residential and with that goes existing rights and the developer has the right to exercise those rights.

He said the developer was aware of issues with James Creek and Gardiners Road’s and they offered to work with council to design and build a shared footpath to Townsend.

Mr Bell said the DA for the subdivision had been planned and designed to be the 43rd village in the Clarence Valley.

Following a 15-minute adjournment for the panel to decide, Chair Di Leeson returned to the video conference to announce the decision to refuse the DA was unanimous, and James Creek residents expressed their elation.

“The panel has unanimously determined to refuse the application, essentially for the reasons outlined in council’s assessment report,” she said.

Ms Leeson said the key issues for refusal were insufficient information about essential services servicing the site, the density proposed, and the lack of infrastructure related to the site, evacuation and flood isolation of the site hasn’t been resolved, the DA doesn’t represent a village atmosphere with concerns about one way in and one way out of the site, and not having a 50-metre buffer zone around the site.

The NRPP will publish its reasons for refusal in full this week.