|
IMAGE: Google Earth 2008
|
In
what seems an appropriate response to a proposed
retrospective development consent
the NSW
Office of Local Government
and NSW
Ombudsman
have commenced a preliminary investigation into building works
undertaken at 19
Gumnut Road, Yamba,
a
waterside residential property of
approx. 651.70 sq metres, which
according to Clarence Valley flood
mapping is at risk of a degree of inundation even in a 1 in 5 year flood event and in a 1 in 100 year event water likely reach the top floor of the house.
A
development
application DA
2019/0439 was
lodged on 14
August 2019, however subsequent
construction
did not follow the structural plans to which Clarence Valley Council had
granted
consent on 2 December 2019 apparently by delegated authority.
After
a site inspection in February 2021 when build inconsistencies could
not be ignored by council officers, the owners of 19
Gumnut Road were
obliged to lodge
DA2021/0153 and MOD2021/0016.
These documents show:
CONSTRUCTION
OF NEW CARPORT AND AWNING ATTACHED TO EXISTING DWELLING
2
CONSTRUCTION OF [detached]
RUMPUS
ROOM AT REAR OF LOT
3
CONSTRUCTION OF DECK AT REAR OF LOT
4
NEW FENCE ALONG WESTERN BOUNDARY
*
NOTE: POOL AND SURROUND TO BE APPROVED AS SEPARATE D.A
Additionally the documents described a retractable privacy screen and awning, rainwater tank and floating pontoon. The rainwater tank and retractable awning were constructed without Council approval and do not meet the development standards for exempt development
(i.e. development that does not require Council approval) listed in State Environmental Planning Policy
(Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008. The retractable privacy screen has not been
constructed or installed and the floating pontoon has been removed from the application. Accordingly, this
application only seeks approval for:
• Proposed retractable privacy screen
• Existing retractable awning (as-built)
• Existing rainwater tank (as-built)
The 40 year-old house and additional structures now appear intended to cover around 85-90 per cent
of the lot.
Apparently
eager to oblige these particular local business owners, council staff formally
recommended
to
Council
in the Chamber that retrospective
consent be given as well as consent for certain proposed construction and, predictably the 'all-development-is- good-but-over-development-is-better' brigade holding a majority on Clarence Valley Council also agreed to oblige the owners on 25 May 2021.
Quite frankly, the article below does not do full justice to the level of non-compliance shown in photographs taken in 2020 and supplied to Clarence Valley Council by local residents. Nor is the mention it contains of the rumpus room/studio adequate to describe the aesthetically bereft, freestanding structure that was actually built.
Clarence
Valley Independent,
2 June 2021:
Councillors
were split four to three at the May 25 Clarence Valley Council (CVC)
meeting, when they approved a raft of existing building works at a
Gumnut Road property in Yamba, however, three councillors lodged a
rescission motion after the meeting.
Nearby
residents lodged objections (a total of nine submissions and a
petition signed by 40 people) to the “as-built inconsistencies with
the approved” development applications (DA) and other unapproved
works, which council’s planning staff described as “minor” or
“very minor”.
Some
of the modifications and works approved were non-compliant with CVC’s
development control plan (DCP).
Objectors
have raised issues with Ombudsman NSW, regarding how CVC has managed
processing the DAs and CVC’s alleged indifference to unapproved
building works.
Ombudsman
NSW is currently making “preliminary enquiries” into the matter.
Councillors
Debrah Novak, Karen Toms and Greg Clancy lodged the rescission
motion, which outlined six reasons:
Council
did not undertake progress inspections during construction works for
both DA 2019/0439 (now MOD 2021/0016) and DA 2021/0153);
Council
has varied the residential DCP floodplain management controls in
relation to the required floor level of 2.9m Australian height datum
(AHD) for the studio, consequently, CVC’s DCP would need to be
updated as this has set a precedent;
The
applicant has not provided a survey completed by a registered
surveyor as required … when the DA was lodged or prior to
commencement of construction;
The
applicant has not provided a valid structural engineer certification
for the whole build of the studio … occupation is prohibited
without a valid structural engineer’s certification;
No
valid structural engineer’s certification has been submitted for
the existing retaining wall, which is now the foundation for the
large extended deck; and,
The
applicant has enclosed a deck without obtaining prior approval from
council. [my
yellow highlighting]
Acting
general manager Laura Black said the rescission motion would be
tabled at the June 2021 CVC meeting; however, she said the rescission
motion “bears no relation to the ombudsman’s enquiry, at the
moment”.
“As
we [CVC] understand it, the ombudsman has received a complaint from a
ratepayer … and the [ombudsman has] made an enquiry [regarding] our
communication with that ratepayer,” Ms Black said.
“We
are unaware of the nature of the complaint and we’ve provided a
response to the ombudsmen, including all of our correspondence with
that particular ratepayer.
“This
rescission motion, though, is purely a rescission motion from three
councillors, in accordance with the code of meeting practice, and it
puts on the table that … the motion that we’ve resolved in
relation to the DA modification [could] be rescinded….
“At
this stage, the ombudsman is just undertaking preliminary enquires;
we don’t know the nature of the complaint, but the ombudsman’s
office actually doesn’t have any power to stop council from making
a decision.
“We
have been advised [Ombudsman NSW] has no intention of interfering in
council’s decision making – so the rescission motion itself is
not related to the ombudsman.”
Councillors
Richie Williamson and Karen Toms were absent.