Hans Lovejoy
A legal show-down between the developers pushing for a large-scale Bangalow mixed residential-commercial building and Council is likely to return to the Land and Environment Court after councillors voted to reject a compromise proposal recommended by staff at last Thursday’s meeting.
The two-storey building proposal is adjacent to the A&I Hall and would include eight dwellings, three shops with basement car park, an attic, and would take up almost the entire property.
When the plans were revealed it riled residents, including the Bangalow School P&C, and public meetings were held in response.
Residents claimed such a large-scale building would set a precedent and was not keeping with the town’s low-key planning strategies.
Crs Cubis, Woods and Hunter voted against, while Crs Richardson, Cameron, Dey, Spooner, Ibrahim and Wanchap voted for the legal clash.
The vote re-affirms a previous decision, which was based on concerns for ‘bulk and scale,’ among other factors. And despite some concessions by applicant Gordon Highlands, the development still contravenes Council’s development control plan (DCP). The vote comes despite staff recommending to approve it if general manager Ken Gainger undertakes conciliation. Confidential legal advice was also presented.
Ex-councillor and vocal opponent Jenny Coman told The Echo, ‘We are very proud of those councillors who supported their community by voting against the staff recommendation [to accept the development]. I know how difficult it is to do that and we thank them.’
As a Bangalow resident I find it annoying that a vocal minority doesn’t want change, so nothing gets done. Usually it’s the same people who whinge there is no housing, too much traffic and not enough jobs.
If you don’t like what happens go somewhere else and get in the way of their progress.
This farcical controversy is a disgrace. Bangalow has become an urban sprawl, very few buildings in the original streetscape remain. The new corner development is totally disproportionate to the debated ‘monstrosity’ at issue. There are people with no home. Not everyone wants a triple fronted brick veneer on the quarter acre block, as once was the great Oz dream. Some people like a smaller village feel on/close to high street, walk around, not have to drive from an estate now kms. from town centre.. Not to mention legal fees. Staff have guidelines, E.I.S. etc to adhere to, councillors have whims. Your (deliberately?) unattractive foto representation in above article almost defeats the purpose. Size of adjacent A.& I.? Come on people, stop this greedy attitude and give a few people a smaller dwelling, footprint, and get on with obsessing over something a little more magnanimous.