Showing posts with label coastal development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coastal development. Show all posts

Monday 19 February 2024

That Australia faces rising air, land & sea surface temperatures is a situation that can no longer be denied and yet federal, state and local governments are not fully addressing the thermal mass of subdivision & individual residential dwelling design

 

The fact that ambient air temperature, lad surface and sea surface temperatures are rising across the Australian continent can no longer be denied.


GRAPH: Australian Bureau of Meteorology






In New South Wales generally average maximum temperatures in the month of January 2024 ranged from around 24°C to 36-39°C, spiked by days on end of heatwave temperatures which often broke temperature records for individual localities.


MAPPING:  Australian Bureau of Meteorology






In the north-east coastal zone of the state the minimum air temperature was 1°C higher and maximum air temperature 1-2°C higher than they were between 1981-2010.


In January the highest Northern Rivers region minimum & maximum recorded daily temperature range was:


Evans Head 24.838°C

Grafton 24.537.6°C

Yamba 25.637.2°C

Murwillumbah 27.1—36.2°C

Casino 27.1—36.2°C

Lismore 24.5—35.6°C

Tabulam 23.0—34.9°C

Byron Bay 25.6—32.7°C

Ballina 24.934.2°C

Note: These are the nine official Bureau of Meteorology weather stations in the Northern Rivers region.



Yet despite all this new subdivision schemes and housing designs are paying little more than lip service to sustainability and mitigating the thermal load of both the internal road networks of these subdivisions or the collective & individual loads of dwelling contained there in.


Apparently, multi-dwelling structures that increasing look like a collection of boxes are skating through BASIX requirements on the presumption that each individual box within these boxes will be fully air conditioned at some point before occupation or that if ceiling fans are fitted to some of the rooms then this will mitigate heat.


An assumption which:

(i) takes no account of the increasing stress air conditioning places on a household's cost of living. Because the price per kilowatt hour & associated charges of residential electricity supply continues to rise and commonly these multiple dwelling boxes are not built with any rooftop solar power grid to mitigate cost;

(ii) completely ignores the increasing risk of destructive storms causing levels of damage to power supply infrastructure that cuts power supply to both collections of streets or entire towns for days/weeks at a time. As occurred in heatwave conditions in 2024; and

(iii) appears to leave the thermal load of closely clustered internal roads out of the equation completely.


I expect the latest collection of boxes being considered by Clarence Valley Council will also get the nod because I have yet to see this local government apply the full suite of climate change policies to every development application before deciding consent. The heat footprint of an application rarely rates a mention in Council-in-the-Chamber debates or elicits questions to senior staff attending. Neither are there many mentions of the heat island affect caused by new roads, pavements and driveways. Nor does the wind resistance factor of a proposed building arise - and given the entire Clarence Coast is now in a cyclone risk zone that borders on the negligent when assessing new development applications.


Artists impression of street view of 6 Yamba Road, Yamba proposed subdivision. IMAGE: BDA


Set out below are some basic facts about how the freestanding houses, town houses, duplexes, units and flats we live in attract and retain heat.


Australian Government, Your Home, retrieved 19 February 2024:


Passive Design


What is thermal mass?

In simple terms, thermal mass is the ability of a material to absorb, store and release heat. Materials such as concrete, bricks and tiles absorb and store heat. They are therefore said to have high thermal mass. Materials such as timber and cloth do not absorb and store heat and are said to have low thermal mass.


In considering thermal mass, you will also need to consider thermal lag. Thermal lag is the rate at which heat is absorbed and released by a material. Materials with long thermal lag times (for example, brick and concrete) will absorb and release heat slowly; materials with short thermal lag times (for example, steel) will absorb and release heat quickly.


Thermal mass


Thermal mass, or the ability to store heat, is also known as volumetric heat capacity (VHC). VHC is calculated by multiplying the specific heat capacity by the density of a material:


  • Specific heat capacity is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1kg of a material by 1°C.

  • Density is the weight per unit volume of a material (ie how much a cubic metre the material weighs).


The higher the VHC, the higher the thermal mass.


Water has the highest VHC of any common material. The following table shows that it takes 4186 kilojoules (kJ) of energy to raise the temperature of 1 cubic metre of water by 1°C, whereas it takes only 2060kJ to raise the temperature of an equal volume of concrete by the same amount. In other words, water has around twice the heat storage capacity of concrete. The VHC of rock usually ranges between brick and concrete, depending on density. Most common building materials with high VHC also tend to be quite conductive, making them poor insulators.






Thermal lag


How fast heat is absorbed and released by uninsulated material is referred to as thermal lag. It is influenced by:


  • heat capacity of the material

  • conductivity of the material

  • difference in temperature (known as the temperature differential or ΔT) between each face of the material

  • thickness of the material

  • surface area of the material

  • texture, colour and surface coatings (for example, dark, matte or textured surfaces absorb and re-radiate more energy than light, smooth, reflective surfaces)

  • exposure of the material to air movement and air speed.


To be effective in most climates, thermal mass should be able to absorb and re-radiate close to its full heat storage capacity in a single day–night (diurnal) cycle.


In moderate climates, a 12-hour lag cycle is ideal. In colder climates subject to long cloudy periods, lags of up to 7 days can be useful, providing there is enough solar exposed glazing to ‘charge’ the thermal mass in sunny weather.


Embodied energy


Some high thermal mass materials, such as concrete, cement-stabilised rammed earth, and brick, have high embodied energy when used in the quantities required. This highlights the importance of using such construction only where it delivers a clear thermal benefit. When used appropriately, the savings in heating and cooling energy from the thermal mass can outweigh the cost of its embodied energy over the lifetime of the building. Consideration should be given to using high thermal mass materials with lower embodied energy, such as water, adobe or recycled brick.


Why is thermal mass important?


When used correctly, materials with high thermal mass can significantly increase comfort and reduce energy use in your home. Thermal mass acts as a thermal battery to moderate internal temperatures by averaging out day−night (diurnal) extremes.


In winter, thermal mass can absorb heat during the day from direct sunlight. It re-radiates this warmth back into the home throughout the night.

In summer, thermal mass can be used to keep the home cool. If the sun is blocked from reaching the mass (for example, with shading), the mass will instead absorb warmth from inside the home. You can then allow cool breezes and convection currents to pass over the thermal mass overnight to draw out the stored energy.


Conversely, poor use of thermal mass can reduce comfort and increase energy use. Inappropriate thermal mass can absorb all the heat you produce on a winter night or radiate heat to you all night as you try to sleep during a summer heatwave.....



Sunday 13 August 2023

A suspicious person might wonder if the well-heeled owners and operators of Airbnb-style short-term rentals in Byron Bay may have been lobbying both Macquarie Street and Darcy Street to protect their lucrative income earners



A suspicious person might wonder if the well-heeled owners and operators of Airbnb-style short-term rentals in Byron Bay may have been lobbying both Macquarie Street and Darcy Street concerning Byron Shire Council’s desire to place a 60-day annual cap on short-term rentals by June 2024.


With the following consequences.......


The Echo, 9 August 2023:


Byron Shire Council risks losing its planning powers to ‘independent intervention’ if it does not ‘demonstrate how it intends to improve its housing supply’.


In an aggressive letter to Council’s general manager, Mark Arnold, Sydney-based Deputy Secretary NSW Planning, Marcus Ray, outlined what he believes is Council’s failure in fast-tracking housing supply for the area, adding that Council’s development application (DA) processing times ‘are among the slowest in the state’.


In the letter, which was provided to The Echo, Mr Ray demands that Council outline ‘commitments it intends to make over the next three, six, 12 months and beyond, to deliver at least 4,522 new and diverse homes to 2041’.


It’s a target that he says Council will fall ‘well short of’.


Where is the flood data?


The demand comes despite his own department still sitting on the long-awaited 2022 flood data that will underpin further developments.


In previous years, the NSW planning department told The Echo that housing targets are set by councils, are flexible, and not enforceable.


Regarding the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) report recommendations on short-term rental accommodation (STRA), which are yet to be adopted/rejected by NSW Labor Minister Paul Scully, Mr Ray says, ‘it remains critical for Council to demonstrate how it intends to improve its housing supply before any decision on Council’s planning proposal can be made’….


Read the full article here.


Tuesday 8 August 2023

Tweed Shire Mayor Chris Cherry: "I think that [the 2022 flooding] has been a big wake up call for all of us."

 

IMAGE: Google Earth snapshot showing 40 Creek Street, Hastings Point & environs. Retrieved 7 August 2023. Click on image to enlarge.








In the matter of Development Application DA20/0386 for a 13 lot subdivision (11 residential lots, 1 drainage lot and 1 residual dedicated riparian lot) at Lot 156 DP 628026 No. 40 Creek Street, Hastings Point made on behalf of Queensland-based Palm Lakes Works Pty Ltd on est. 17.77 ha of flood prone, environmentally sensitive, estuary land which includes preferred koala habitat and SEPP14 wetland.


The Tweed Shire Council meeting which refused development consent saw councillors cast their votes 6 to 1. The sole councillor in support of the DA, was former National Party campaign director and former mayor Cr. Warren Polglase, who in speaking to the motion was moved to utter words to the effect that he did not believe that climate change was occurring here not having seen it with his own eyes. 


Echo, 7 August 2023:


Click on image to enlarge







The Tweed Shire Council has refused a development application (DA) for an 11-lot subdivision at the site of 40 Creek Street, Hastings Point.


The site is zoned residential but ‘has significant environmental constraints as well as being flood prone’ according to the staff report. Despite that, Council staff recommended approval of the DA.


Mayor Chris Cherry told the Council meeting (3 August) that in 2019 she had been one of the councillors to propose ‘in-principle support’ of the subdivision.


Looking through that and looking at what that support was based on, it was conditional support based on this application not increasing its development footprint. It was based on it complying with a number of different conditions that were very important to the council of the day and the community.’


Councillor Cherry said point six of the in-principle support stated that:


Any future development application that proposes to increase the number of lots, reduce the size of lots or vary any other developments controls to intensify yield or the development footprint or further impact on the buffer or environmental areas will not be looked on favourably by Council.’


Cherry went on to detail a number of ways that the current DA went beyond the basis of the in-principle support, saying that in ‘the proposal in 2019 only three of the lots were intercepting into the 75m ecological buffer zone. Now most of them are, I think seven of them now [are] into that 75m buffer zone. So the developable footprint has increased.


The lot for the existing house was 800 square metres in the plan in 2019. It is now 1,470 metres square.


2022 flood


There are a lot of changes that have been made that increased the impact of this development. But the biggest thing that has happened in the time since the in-principle support was given is the 2022 floods. I think that has been such a big wake up call for all of us. And we’ve heard today from the flooding experts, from Floodplain Management Australia and the planning expert who came forward, just how much consideration we should be giving to the location, to the impact of storm surge in a climate change future that we are most definitely going to see. And I think it is imperative that we take this very seriously. [my yellow highlighting]


Most of you would have seen the article in the Sydney Morning Herald [saying] that it is inexplicable that Hawkesbury Council keeps approving developments of a floodplain when they have gone through such a massive flood. It is the same for us. We can’t keep repeating the same mistakes. We can’t keep saying it will be okay. To put 2.2m of fill across this site to get flood immunity for the new residents is simply not the way. That’s not good planning. That’s not the way we need to go forward as a community…..


Full article here.


Friday 21 July 2023

With GCB Constructions Pty Ltd still in financial difficulties and tradesmen allegedly owed more than $1 million, the Uniting Church 50-unit retirement complex in Yamba remains in limbo


For over four months the Uniting Church’s 50-unit retirement complex build site in Yamba has remained devoid of all construction activity and the financial difficulties of the Gold Coast & Lismore-based builder remains unresolved.


The build before scaffolding was removed from the idle construction site.






This situation for a construction company built on the foundations of a small family business is a far cry from the optimistic outlook of 2011.


The Gold Coast Bulletin, 20 July 2023, p6:


The director of embattled Gold Coast builder GCB Constructions insists his company is viable, despite five more companies joining court action to wind it up.


GCB managing director Trent Clark said he was “determined and confident” of overcoming financial struggles which have seen work slow to a trickle or completely stop at sites along the east coast since May 8.


There has been good news for buyers in GCB’s largest project, Marine Quarter at Southport, who were told via email the site’s tower crane would return to operation and concrete work would recommence this week.


Subcontractors and suppliers of the company have lashed Queensland’s building regulator for not taking more decisive action on GCB’s licence. The licence was restricted on June 26, requiring GCB to submit its accounts weekly and preventing it from taking on new projects without express QBCC approval.


The QBCC acted almost two months after sites had shut down – amid subbies’ complaints they had not been paid – and a month after the wind-up action was initiated…..


Mr Clark did not answer questions about the current status of the wind-up. “Court actions are regularly taken against builders and we are working through these in an orderly fashion,” he said in a statement….


Buildcap, developer of the $97m Marine Quarter development under construction by GCB at Southport, emailed buyers on Wednesday, telling them work was due to ramp up on site this week.


Works ... include the pouring of the slab of level 26 as well as level 27 stairwell and core walls, along with external facade works such as installation of windows and balustrading, render and painting,” the email said.


But down the NSW coast at Yamba, where GCB was building a 50-apartment retirement building for Uniting, work stalled in October and has not resumed since. One family business owner said they were owed a six-figure sum by the builder, who had ceased all communication with them by February. A statement from Uniting on Wednesday said “disappointingly work on the apartments and clubhouse remains on hold for now.” “While it’s expected that there will be a delay, Uniting is committed to completing all the planned works, including the apartments, and building a vibrant welcoming community,” the statement said.


Mr Clark did not answer the Bulletin’s questions about the Yamba project. GCB is battling major cases with two developers of its projects, which GCB claims owe it more than $14m, neither of which look likely to be resolved in the near future.


Dean Gallagher’s GDI Group, developer of the 27-storey Drift tower at Main Beach, launched action in May against GCB, claiming it failed to lodge security bonds worth more than $3.7m.


In turn, GCB alleges the developer owes them $3.8m in progress payments. The case has been set for a hearing on August 2. GCB is suing the developer of the $196m Ascot Aurora project in Brisbane, seeking more than $10m from a subsidiary of China-owned Poly Global. Poly has lodged a defence and counterclaim in that case, and both parties have been given until mid October to disclose their evidence. Mr Clark did not answer questions on how important succeeding in those cases was to his company’s viability, except to blame the alleged “non-payment from developers” for “some of the hiccups we have experienced”. GCB’s licence remained active on Wednesday.


The Gold Coast Bulletin, 21 January 2023, p.9:


In its most recently-lodged financial reports, for FY2021-22, GCB made $938,755 net profit from revenue of $92.04m. Its FY21 net profit was $1.1m from $67.4m revenue.


The company had gross assets of $25.3m and liabilities of $18.3m, including trade debts of more than $10.7m.


Cashflow would have been in negative territory for the year, had the builder not had access to cash from financing activities, including a share issue, bank loan and other drawdowns. It had $87,947 cash or equivalents at the end of June.


The company is registered as G C B Constructions and solely directed by Trent Clark.


Thursday 20 July 2023

Qld 'whiteshoe brigade' developer Graeme Ingles, and Goldcoral Pty Ltd, determined to continue pursuit of the Iron Gate Development proposal in the face of a community which has been resisting development on this site since the 1990s

 


Echo, 19 July 2023:


Evans Heads locals and other concerned members of the public form the Northern Rivers have raised concerns over Richmond Valley Council’s (RVC) apparent lack of preparation to defend the controversial Iron Gates appeal currently underway in the Land and Environment Court (L&EC) in Sydney.


The development application (DA) was rejected by the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP) in September 2022. An appeal was immediately launched by Gold Coast developer Graeme Ingles. Ingles has been trying to regain approval for residential development of the site since his approval was stripped by the L&EC in 1997 after illegal clearing and other works were done at the site. Remediation was required by the L&EC of approximately $2 million, however, this work has never been done by Ingles.




Some of the drains that the developer was ordered to fill that still hasn’t been done over twenty years later. Photo supplied



The current iteration of seeking a DA for residential development is now in its ninth year. The NRPP had roundly rejected the DA by Goldcoral Pty Ltd following a public hearing on the development and two independent professional assessments which recommended refusal. Grounds for rejection included serious fire, flood, ecological and Aboriginal cultural and town planning concerns.


Following his appeal application to the L&EC Ingles put the Iron Gates property up for sale by but the property was withdrawn from sale early in 2023. Goldcoral Pty Ltd was then put into administration and the appeal case in the L&EC was taken over by the large legal firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth from Ingles’ solicitor.





Developer Graeme Ingles. Photo inglesgroup. com.au









Public refused right to know basis of appeal


The matter proceeded to a Section 34 Hearing by a L&EC Commissioner held on site at the Iron Gates at Evans Head. Submissions against the appeal were presented by the public despite the fact that the basis for the appeal was not made public.


Public excluded from onsite meetings


The public was then excluded from further negotiation with the Commissioner, and the parties to the case, including a second respondent, the Bandjalang People, retired behind closed Iron Gates and closed Richmond Valley Council (RVC) chambers for further talks.


The community was not informed of the outcome of the discussions with the Commissioner by RVC’s solicitor who had overseen the public representations. Council’s solicitor declined to respond to questions about the case on the grounds that Council was its client, not the public……




Simone Barker (nee Wilson), daughter of the late Lawrence Wilson who opposed the development back in the 1990s accompanied by supporter Jaydn.



Revised reports not available to public and RVC substantially redacted


None of the new plans or revised expert reports presented by the appellant (Goldcoral Pty Ltd) and considered by the Court are publicly available. Those auditing the case (15 parties at one point during the day) were forced to infer what had been claimed.….














Iron Gates Road in flood March 2022. Photo supplied



Insufficient review time for RVC


Counsel representing Council complained to the Registrar about the fact that it had only just received material pertinent to the case from the Appellant and had insufficient time to review it. And Counsel representing Goldcoral complained that the material it was presenting to the Court needed substantial work to accommodate the significant changes to documentation necessitated by the heavily redacted RVC affidavit, changes accepted by the Registrar and parties to the case.


Despite the complaints the parties worked to adapt to the revised circumstances and most of the afternoon’s hearing was given to presentation by the legal representative from Goldcoral about the revisions to the plan for residential development. In essence the case was put that the material was for a revised development which took account of many of the criticisms put to the NRPP which led to the DA’s refusal.




LEP wetlands riparian map of Iron Gates site and Evans Head. Image supplied



Proposed changes included, among many matters, the extent of the development footprint, reduction in total area of the development, changes to size and diversity of blocks, changes to the internal roads including a new fire trail around the site, a new refuge area for fire and flood for residents cut off during such events, increased setbacks from littoral conservation areas, new consultation processes with Aboriginal stakeholders yet to be completed, changes to earthworks with reductions in mass and impact, changes to vegetation clearance and changes to stormwater management. The hearing with the Registrar is set to continue next Tuesday. Those interested in following the case can obtain details from the Land and Environment Court site.


A spokesperson from Evans Head Residents for Sustainable Development (EHRFSD) said today following the Hearing that it was disappointing to witness the wholesale, and what appeared to be, valid criticism of the case material prepared by the staff of Richmond Valley Council in their affidavit to the Court. The problem was made worse by the fact that the material was not made available to the public and Council’s General Manager had written a generic letter to those asking for more information about the case that it would not be doing so:


Significant cost to ratepayers


The spokesperson for EHRFSD said that the case had already costed ratepayers a seven figure amount and more costs were on the way. He also added that given that the community had provided so much valid criticism about the former DA that it was decidedly wrong to exclude the community from the information attached to the case.


The community is not asking for a “running commentary” on legal proceedings,’ he said. ‘We have never done so. What we are asking for is the basic information such as new reports and affidavits and plans on which the case for an amended DA is based so that we can assess for ourselves the veracity of materials being presented, follow court proceedings and draw our own conclusions. The community is not stupid and has much to offer and it is becoming patently clear through what appears to be a dismal performance by council in material preparation, that community input may be essential to the case as it has been in the past for success.


There is no doubt that the case is a complex one but this is not a ground for refusing to provide basic information to an interested public, particularly one that has already gone through four versions of the DA and made substantial submissions.


As it currently stands the question before the Court, as we understand it is, “are the changes to the application so significant that it should be a new DA process, or should it be approved by the L&EC without further consideration by the public, as an amended application?”


It is our view that even in the absence of detailed information the amendment application looks like a very different application to the one we have seen and should be treated accordingly as a new DA,’ he told The Echo.


But there is a bigger question here which council has refused, and continues to refuse, to deal with and that is, “is the Iron Gates a suitable area for residential development or should it be rezoned in keeping with it natural and cultural attributes for environmental protection?”


This is a question that the community has been asking for a review of for decades. It is important to remember that this land was zoned for residential development in the early 1980’s, forty years ago when the “white shoe” brigade was in ascendance.


It is vital to ask the question “is residential zoning appropriate here today given the future impacts of climate change and our better understanding of the environment, protection of the public interest, and keeping the public out of harm’s way? There is recent precedent for doing so in the Clarence Valley,’ he explained.


Read the full article at:

https://www.echo.net.au/2023/07/richmond-valley-council-drops-the-ball-in-appeals-case-before-the-lec/


Sunday 16 July 2023

Tree by tree and hollow by hollow, regional coastal villages are being made over into the almost sterile landscapes of distant metropolises

 

All up and down the NSW coastal zone local residents are involved in conversations like this and, as in this case, local government staff are well aware of what is happening.


Concerning DA 2022/0100 - tree removal and erection of a shed - at 35 and 37 Riverview St, Iluka, at the mouth of the Clarence River estuary:


Click on image to enlarge












Melaleuca quinquenervia. Current common names: Broad-leaved Paperbark or alternatively Paperbark Tea Tree.

Tree grows 10 to 15m high and can live to more than 100 years. It produces clusters of cream to white flower spikes in summer, attracting birds, bats, bees and insects. Koala have been known to shelter in mature paperbark tree stands during storms or excessive heat. 

Grows on seasonally inundated coastal & near coastal plains, along stream banks and in low-lying coastal swamps.


Melaleuca quinquenervia is found as plantings in the grounds of The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust.



























Hollow in mature paperbark prior to removal on lots 35 to 37 Riverview Street, Iluka. IMAGE: Contributed




Section of a felled paperbark on site showing hollow


REMARKS:


"They are dreadful images,.. and are pretty damning of the approval process. Those hollows should have been identified prior to clearing, and normally there should have been a requirement to have an ecologist or animal rescue person present at the time of felling. Microbats also live under the bark of those Melaleucas.


Of course, as Council refused to approve the hiring of an ecologist, they have no suitably qualified person to assess DAs, and are therefore at the mercy of the developer and what they chose to tell council.

[Email 11 July 2023, copied to Clarence Valley Council, councillors and relevant staff, transcript excerpt supplied]



NOTE: Paperbark tree taxonomy and general description have been altered since this post was first published.


Thursday 13 July 2023

In which the persistence of a millionaire Qld property developer is countered by the commitment of a Lower Clarence community to protect the James Creek precinct from overdevelopment and other harms

 

Clarence Valley Independent, 12 July 2023:












The Northern Regional Planning Panel has published its reasons for refusing a 336-lot subdivision at James Creek, a proposal that encountered hurdles satisfying council, which ultimately led to it not being recommended for approval.


When a development application DA was lodged with Clarence Valley Council in November 2020 for a staged residential subdivision on James Creek Road at James Creek, it proposed 342 lots, with 336 residential lots, a single park, and a neighbourhood centre for small scale retail.


Soon after the DA was lodged, The James Creek Residents Action Group was soon formed, and on December 7, 2020, the development application was withdrawn on behalf of owner Kahuna No 1 Pty Ltd.


A revised DA was lodged with CVC on November 4, 2021, for a 336-lot subdivision at 104 James Creek Road featuring 329 residential lots, one commercial lot, 4 drainage reserves and associated public space areas.


After working with CVC on the subdivision for more than a year, when Council staff completed their final assessment report for the Northern Regional Planning Panel NRPP, they recommended the subdivision be refused.


On June 29, 2023, when the NRPP met via videoconference to decide on the DA, after hearing submissions from 16 concerned locals, the subdivision was unanimously refused.


The NRPP published their reasons for refusing the DA last week, stating the application was refused for the reasons attached to the Council’s assessment report.


The Panel agrees with the council assessment that the proposed inward facing urban structure, density, and proposed lot design relates poorly to the existing topographical form and presents a stark change to surrounding rural and semi-rural setting and character,” the determination stated.


The Panel considers there is inadequate social infrastructure and services to support the proposed development including bus services and given the distances to local shops and facilities.


The Panel also concluded there was insufficient consideration of flood evacuation, but notes the verbal advice provided by Council staff of an offer by the applicant to upgrade Gardiners Road to enable evacuation in a 1:100 year flood event.


The Panel agrees with Council’s view that additional information and design amendments which might result in a more integrated ‘village’ style settlement may resolve these and other issues addressed in Council’s assessment report.”


In coming to its decision, the panel considered written submissions made during public exhibition and heard from all those wishing to address the panel.


The panel noted issues of concern included the impact on services, the lack of flood free access from Townsend along Gardiners Road, access to Austons Lane, stormwater management and flooding, impacts on adjoining rural land users and lack of buffers, inconsistency of development with planning proposal and adopted council policies, urban design and local character, traffic, transport and access, lack of Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment and consideration, a bushfire hazard, lack of public consultation and biodiversity.


The owner of lot 104 James Creek Road, Kahuna No 1 Pty Ltd now has the option of working with council to redesign the subdivision and relodge a revised DA, which they did with this DA, or decide not to pursue a subdivision on this site.



Australian Rural & Regional News, 5 July 2023:










Cheers of celebration and relief from James Creek residents erupted when the Northern Regional Planning Panel refused approval for a controversial $33 million 336 lot subdivision on James Creek Road.


The panel met via teleconference on Thursday June 29, to decide whether to approve the development application DA by MPD Investments at 104 James Creek Road for 329 residential lots, one commercial lot, four drainage reserves and two open space areas on the 33-hectare site.


Clarence Valley Council’s assessment report for the ‘regionally significant development’, which required it to be decided by the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP), recommended the DA be refused over concerns with sewage, stormwater discharge, traffic issues, land use conflict, the urban structure and sensitivity of the proposed design to the surrounds.


When the DA was put on public exhibition three times in 2022 and 2023, council received 100 submissions and a petition with 171 signatures against the subdivision.


Clarence Valley Council was represented by Cr’s Ian Tiley and Peter Johnstone on the five person NRPP, after Cr Greg Clancy declared a conflict of interest as he had been to a public meeting with complainants about the subdivision.


NRPP Chair Diane Leeson said there were 18 people registered to speak to the panel about the DA.


Speakers included James Creek resident of 30 plus years, Pat Bowen, and Lorri Brown who spoke on behalf of the James Creek Residents Action Group stating the development would double the population of the village, which went against council’s targeted growth figures for James Creek.


Carolyn Cameron, whose husband’s family settled in James Creek in 1863 said she feared ‘that our close-knit rural community is going to be lost’.


An emotional Sharon Farlow, who holds a routine movement stock permit to move her cattle along James Creek Road which her family has done for 100 years, feared with increased traffic her livelihood would be impacted.


Neighbour Keira Fahey urged the NRPP to follow council’s refusal recommendation as the buffer zone between the subdivision and other properties was not adequate…..


Read the full article here.