Community left fuming over house decision
DESPITE receiving 50 submissions with only 12 in support, a development application for alterations to an Angourie property was approved by Clarence Valley Council.
Councillor Andrew Baker said in its role as the consent authority, the council needed to follow the legislation when he put forward a motion which would see the alterations to 5 Angourie Street go ahead.
The motion said the addition of a consent condition to the Occupation Certificate be issued only once the landscaping was complete, which would integrate into the design of the development and soften its appearance when viewed from the street and neighbouring properties.
The landscaping must also not increase shadowing into living spaces of 7 Angourie St. This was only a slight adjustment to the officer recommendation, which said council should approve the application despite it not meeting all the guidelines.
Cr Baker said after dealing with council officers' recommendations since 1985, this was the first time he had fully agreed with the recommendation.
"The planning officer, independently and unbiased has put together all the issues that we have to consider and all the submissions that have come in," he said.
At the committee meetings last week, council heard objections, many of which Cr Greg Clancy mentioned while speaking against Cr Baker's motion as councillors "ignoring" the Development Control Plan.
"It asks that we ignore the fact that it will basically demolish the existing house and build a much larger house, it is listed as a proposal to renovate an existing house, one that doesn't conform to the requirements of the development control plan in a number of ways," he said.
Cr Clancy said the house doesn't fit into the aesthetic of the village and that will impact the living space of the neighbour.
"This is the third incarnation of this proposal, there should be a fourth," he said.
"One that completely complies with the DCP.
"It is true that council can approve applications that do not completely comply with the DCP, but there must be a valid case put forward to show justification why this should happen.
"The applicant has not provided this justification."
Cr Clancy said voting for this application would leave council open for justified criticism and possibly legal action.
"It is not unreasonable that a DA of this nature should comply fully with the provisions of the DCP," he said. "The section of the DCP relating to Angourie was written to maintain the character of the village."
Cr Clancy and Cr Debrah Novak voted against the application. Cr Peter Ellem declared a conflict of interest and left the chamber for the vote.