The Northern Regional Planning Panel have refused a proposal for a controversial $53 million 284 lot subdivision at Miles Street, Yamba, in a split decision 3 votes to one.
The original application lodged by Garrard Building Pty Ltd on behalf of Kahuna No.1 Pty Ltd for the proposal was submitted to council in August 2019 for 295 lots, but following discussions it was amended in June 2021 to a 310-lot subdivision.
Then the 310-lot subdivision DA was withdrawn by the applicant in September 2022, before it was set to be determined by the Northern Regional Planning Panel NRPP, and a revised DA SUB2023/0001 for the 284-lot subdivision was resubmitted in December 2022.
The proposal was for a 284-lot subdivision comprising 277 low density residential lots, 1 medium density residential development lot, 1 commercial development lot, 1 low density development lot, 3 drainage reserve lots, and 1 open space reserve lot at 52 – 54 Miles Street, Yamba, off Carrs Drive.
When the DA was placed on public exhibition, council received 330 submissions about the proposal, with just three in support.
Clarence Valley Council planning staff did an updated assessment of the proposal dated June 1, 2024, which recommended the development be approved.
As the proposal is valued at more than $30 million and is considered a regionally significant development, the NRPP are the determining authority and the panel of acting Chair Michael Wright, Stephen Gow, Penny Holloway, and Cr Ian Tiley, met to determine the proposal.
The decision of the NRPP to refuse the application pursuant to section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 was published just before midday on Monday, June 17.
“The decision was 3:1 in favour, against the decision was Penny Holloway,” the NRPP said in its determination.
The NRPP gave the following reasons for refusing the application relating to filling of the site, the flood risk and evacuation, community concerns about flooding, and the management of Acid Sulphate Soils:
“The proposed development relies upon significant additional filling of the subject site. There is some discrepancy between the assessment report and the submitted application documents in relation to the intended minimum finished surface levels. Insufficient information was evident as to the quantity of additional (not yet approved) fill material, an approved source for this and the required method of transport to the site. Accordingly, the Panel could not be satisfied as to the environmental and amenity impacts of this required filling activity as part of the project.”
“The site is in a high-risk flood catchment, where flood planning is in transition. The proposed residential subdivision would necessitate evacuation in major flood events and is not intended to provide a flood refuge for residents who may otherwise be isolated for significant periods of time. Some of these are likely to be vulnerable persons. Mindful of the need to apply a precautionary, risk-based approach to the determination of development applications in flood-effected locations, the Panel did not have evidence that there would be adequate capacity of facilities for additional evacuees in safe evacuation centres. Accordingly, the Panel was not sufficiently satisfied in relation to safe evacuation measures.”
“Having regard to section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Panel has also noted the level of community concern and anxiety about flooding issues and associated insurance costs, the complexities of riverine and stormwater flood impacts, as well as problems experienced with flood warning, evacuation, and potential resident isolation in Yamba.”
“The Panel was not satisfied that an adequate Acid Sulphate Soils Management Plan for the development had been supplied to the Council, as required under clause 7.1(3) of the Clarence Valley Local Environmental Plan 2011, noting that Council had required such a Plan to be submitted as a condition of any consent.”
Accordingly, the Panel was not satisfied that the granting of consent would be in the public interest, having regard to section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
The complete NRPP determination and Penny Holloway’s reasons for disagreeing with the decision can be found at https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/planning-panel/284-lot-subdivision.
This article appeared in the Clarence Valley Independent, 19 June 2024.
