SEVEN units on one block of land at the end of a quiet cul de sac have got the nod from Goulburn Mulwaree Council.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The proposed development decision has angered residents of Fox Close and prompted councillors to call for an immediate review of the Local Environment Plan (LEP).
The council approved the proposed Castellino Pty Ltd development at the November 4 meeting in chambers.
Fox Close resident Kathy Parlett said the development should not be allowed under the council’s present LEP and Development Control Plan (DCP) for Mary’s Mount.
“This is not the way to run a city for the greater good of the community,” Ms Parlett said in an address to the council before the meeting.
The proposed development did not comply with Mary’s Mount DCP objectives, which included clauses such as ‘ensuring the bulk and scale of the development does not have an unacceptable impact in the streetscape’ .
“It is a congested, unattractive development; it is double the density of all other houses in the street; and it is wedged at the end of a cul de sac,” Ms Parlett said, saying there were already 10 house lots in the street.
She also asked the council to clarify whether minimum lot sizes under the DCP were 700m2 or 350m2, with a previous council report on the development stating an average area of 355m2 per dwelling unit was considered acceptable for the land’s R2 zoning.
“There is clearly no need for this density in this spacious, new 200ha part of residential Goulburn,” Ms Parlett said.
“It is stated that ‘council provisions allow’ this, but do they? Are you, or we, powerless in this situation? The wording of the LEP and DCP does not clearly state it.
“What is the council’s real intention for Mary’s Mount? Spacious suburban living a stone’s throw from the city or a dog’s breakfast of extreme development and social experimentation on the its fringe?” she asked.
“It is not certain that this developer will even take the council to court, but what is certain in this situation is that this development goes against everything we promote Goulburn to be.”
Cr Andrew Banfield moved an alternative motion: that the council refuse the development.
“I know we are bound by planning law, but we are not put here by developers: we are put here by the community,’ Cr Banfield said.
His comments were echoed by Cr Margaret O’Neill, who said she had “real concerns about this being built. This has also happened at Faithfull St and Combermere St”.
But Cr Robin Saville reminded the council of a recent loss in the Land and Environment Court over a development the council had refused at Lorne St, Goulburn.
The action ended up costing the council $30,000 in legal costs.
“I openly express my concern and frustrations with the current LEP,” Cr Saville said.
“I would refuse it if I could, but we will be wasting more ratepayers’ money in court.” He called for an urgent revision of the LEP and Mary’s Mount DCP.
Cr Denzil Sturgiss asked for clarification on the minimum dwelling size allowable in the street under the current zoning.
“Is it 700m2 or 350m2? Can we insist on 700m2?” he asked.
Goulburn Mulwaree Council planning director Louise Wakefield said that, under the current LEP and DCP, the development was legally permissible.
Cr Bob Kirk said no one commented on LEPs or DCPs when they went out on public display.
“I’m not happy with it, but I don’t feel we have any other place to go on this but the recommendation of staff,” Cr Kirk said.
