Councillors back James Creek objectors
By Tim Howard
Clarence Valley councillors have joined the long list of objectors to a 290-dwelling sub-division at James Creek, near Yamba.
The development, which the Northern Regional Planning Panel knocked back last year, has been resubmitted and is due to go back to the NRPP later this month.
At its July 23 meeting the council resolved it would advise the NRPP councillors were not in favour of the development, although staff had submitted an assessment in favour of the development.
For the second time in three meetings councillors have voted to not recommend a development to the NRPP despite council staff assessing the development as suitable.
In May councillors voted to not support a DA for a 284-dwelling sub-division in West Yamba, which the council officers assessed as suitable.
In June the NRPP voted 3-1 to refuse the development, valued at close to $46 million, in a decision labelled “historic” and “monumental”.
As was the case at the May meeting, council staff presented their assessment to the NRPP ahead of the council, drawing the ire of some.
Cr Steve Pickering said it “drove him crazy” when these DAs come to council to note when they’re being referred to the NRPP.
“It frustrates me that we have a lot of information,” he said. “I read through 94 submissions I looked through the petition signed by 265 members of the local community, all in opposition to this, all in opposition to the DA.”
Cr Pickering said the rules, which had the effect of turning council officers into staff for the NRPP ahead of council was “most frustrating”.
“We don’t know what staff are going to recommend,” he said. “Staff may recommend refusal, they may recommend approval.
“All of these items may have been resolved and they may not have been resolved. Who knows. We’ll find out in about three weeks.”
Cr Debrah Novak agreed with Cr Pickering but said an extraordinary meeting of council closer to the date of the NRPP meeting, when councillors were in receipt of the latest information, could be a solution.
“The staff will make their submission about seven days before the planning panel meets,” Cr Novak said.
“And we are able as a council to hold an extraordinary meeting that will put a better case, a stronger case forward in a way to support our community, rather than making this on the run.”
She described any council resolution without access to this information as “a paper tiger”.
“This doesn’t have any teeth. This is like a paper tiger,” she said.
Cr Novak foreshadowed a motion that council hold an extraordinary meeting prior to the planning panel meeting in August and Cr Karen Toms seconded it.
“Even if we all supported it, it’s still only a paper tiger because it doesn’t have the evidence behind it that the staff will have in their assessment to support these matters.”
But Cr Bill Day, who moved an amendment that council were not in favour of the development become a third point of the council resolution, said an extraordinary meeting was just another excuse to delay.
He said the NRPP had already refused this DA in 2023 and it was not council’s fault the process had to be repeated.
“We have to make this submission before council staff prepare their response,” he said.
“If some of the issues that are in the new motion to be brought to the attention of the NRPP will have been addressed by the applicant, I’m sure the NRPP are smart enough to ignore those specific items.
“Let’s tell the NRPP that they got it right. And they should be even stronger with their refusal.”
Cr Greg Clancy agreed with Cr Day’s assessment.
“When there’s major community concern, it is a red flag and we do need to take a close look,” he said.
“This is the right decision for us to say that we’re not in favor of the development whether the planning panel gives a large score or not, but time will tell.
“These issues are important. They’re important to the local residents but they’re also important in the bigger picture of how the Clarence Valley functions.”
Cr Toms said she could not support a council resolution without accessing the information in the staff’s assessment of the DA.
“Cr Novak’s, right. It’s really a bit of a toothless tiger unless we’ve got an assessment,” she said.
She said it was wonderful the community could send deputations to the council meeting, but she said they were still subject to the planning rules that governed development in Australia.
“That’s why our planning staff and the planning department have Northern Rivers Planning Panels, with three ministerial appointees and two from each council,” Cr Toms said.
“Again, that’s democracy. It’s the way it is. We mightn’t like the fact we don’t know until seven days before or whatever, but that’s the way it is. And we have to accept that.”
Councillors did not agree and voted 6-1 for the motion:
That Council:
- note that a public determination meeting for Development Application DA2023/0759 will be scheduled by the Northern Regional Planning Panel on the 20 or 21 August 2024; and
- note that a resolution is required should Council wish to make a submission about DA2023/0759 to the Northern Regional Planning Panel.
- advise the NRPP that we are not in favour of the development application on a number of grounds including;
- Inconsistency with rezoning assurances
- Insufficient buffers and impacts on agricultural activities
- Increased density and urban design/irreversible over development
- Stormwater impacts
- Traffic and access to childcare centre
- Services and infrastructure
- Environment/Biodiversity
- Lack of green space (less than 1%)0
- No play area for children
- Bio basins dangerous for children
- Single entry/exit for vehicles
- 300 vehicles per hours accessing site
- Non compliance with DCP
- Negative impacts on wildlife
- Suburban development/not village style
- No public transport to this site
Voting recorded as follows
For: Clancy, Day, Novak, Pickering, Smith, Whaites Against: Toms. Crs Ian Tiley and Peter Johnston who are on the NRPP, declared an interest and excused themselves from the chamber.
For more local Clarence Valley news, click here.
