NAMBUCCA Valley Council’s 23 February meeting saw councillors vote unanimously to accept the Town Planner’s recommendation to refuse DA105/2022 for Lot 208 DP1270916 in Forest Road, Nambucca Heads.

There were seven clear reasons given for the review recommendations, including that the development was proposed to be to 12.07 metres, higher than the 8.5 metre height restriction of the zoning for the area.

Advertise with News of The Area today.
It’s worth it for your business.
Message us.
Phone us – (02) 4981 8882.
Email us – media@newsofthearea.com.au

The DA review presented by Mr Greg Elham, who proposed the development, failed to address changes to the development’s negative effect on the amenities of the neighbouring properties by overshadowing, blocking of light and impacting privacy.

As Claire Mellon, a member of the Forest Road Action Group (FRAG) stated in her address to councillors, “With heights of 12.07 metres this development is 40 percent higher than the LEP zoning for the area of 8.5 metres.

“The proposed building is at the top of the subdivision and the six-block width will tower over the existing homes below and beside it, severely affecting their amenities by blocking out light and free flow of air, negatively impacting on both their solar panels and privacy.”

Claire Mellon also raised the fire management risks to the area if this development was accepted.

“The increase of population this development will create will put undue stress on existing roads resulting in congestion on the streets that border Forest Road, and will put residents in danger in the instance of bushfire, and other emergency evacuation,” she said.

FRAG member Jane Kevan, who has lived in Nambucca for 29 years, said, “The adverse effects on the amenity of the neighbouring properties means this development is not appropriate for this site.

“Within the immediate area, all the current homes have been built, in good faith to the zoning requirements.

“The expectation of those who have built there is that the remaining areas of the subdivision would also be built to the same zoning requirements of R1 residential,” she said.

The brief that Council’s Manager of Development and Environment Daniel Walsh presented to Council covered the community‘s concerns regarding zoning height restrictions, detrimental impact on amenities of neighbouring properties, increased traffic, constant soil erosion, water runoff, and the risk of creating precedents for significant height variations to existing planning requirements.

“Good planning is not based on numbers alone,” Mr Walsh said.

“There is the impact a variation will have on the surrounding area, and in this case the height restrictions and overshadowing are hard to justify.”

By Karen GRIBBIN