The sprawling 4,078 square metre site at 2 Brownell Drive, Wategos Beach, is arguably the most beautiful vacant coastal lot in the Byron Shire.
Sitting on the hill overlooking the iconic beach with the Byron lighthouse soaring above, the oversized block is six times the size of a ‘normal’ Wategos mansion site. Yet this parcel of paradise is the subject of a development proposal that has produced bitter accusations and allegations, and could well end up in court.
The owner, media entrepreneur Antony Catalano, is proposing a development that has drawn the ire of some locals, and a decision of refusal from Byron Shire Council.
It is fair to say that the plans for this piece of paradise are ‘eye catching’.
The proposal that came before Council recently was for the construction of two neighbouring mansions on the site: one a multi-level, six-bedroom dwelling with ‘swimming pools’, and the other a multi-level, four-bedroom house with a single pool.
The overall development, described as a family home, would have involved substantial clearing of protected littoral rainforest, and the excavation of up to eight metres into the steep hillside. This excavation and associated work would require 4,078 cubic metres to be exported off site, requiring 30 trucks movements per day for four weeks.
‘It is considered the proposed development is not sympathetic to the environmental constraints of the land, does not comply with the relevant state and local planning controls, is unsuitable for this site in Byron Bay owing to bulk scale and land changes required to accommodate it, and is not in the public interest,’ Council staff said in a succinct summary of their objections to the plan.
Some of the neighbours and other locals who opposed the project have objected in more colourful terms.
Outrageous defamatory claims
‘We were subjected to an enormous amount of misinformation, deliberate lies, claims that it was a commercial property, claims that it was public parking, outrageous defamatory claims,’ said Mr Catalano, who also owns the iconic Raes on Wategos.
‘We’re a family that works in this community, employs 100 people, soon to have more than 300 people…’
Mr Catalano’s planning team submitted a revised development application for the site after being told that the first was unsatisfactory. This proposal involved a significant reduction in the number of rainforest trees to be removed, and the replanting of native trees around the border of the home.
They argue that their proposed rehabilitation strategy for the property will, in fact, improve the quality of the rainforest because it will increase the number and quality of the native trees there.
But Council staff say the revised plan is also inappropriate, pointing out that, under state planning laws, a development cannot be approved if it involves the destruction of coastal wetland or littoral rainforest.
With Mr Catalano’s team disputing this interpretation of the law, it seems entirely possible that the matter will ultimately be decided in court.
Mr Catalano told the recent meeting that, far from seeking to destroy or degrade the environmental integrity of the site, he was ‘trying to save it’.
‘When I bought this property, I bought it because I discovered that the developer was planning 17 dwellings on the property,’ he said.
‘That was going to be his ambit claim to then get 10 which was permissible under the sub-division rules… I was horrified at the prospect of that and I approached him and asked to buy him out of his option and to give him the development margin on the property.
‘I paid him $10m to go away because I didn’t want that in our area. It was an enormous price to pay to protect Wategoes and to buy a family home. I did it to protect the property, to protect the area.’
The meeting also heard that Mr Catalano has nine children between the ages of five and 34, which justified such a family home comprising two mansions with swimming pools.
When the matter came before Council, Mr Catalano’s team sought a deferral so that they could engaged in further discussions with Council staff.
Unanimously refused
But this request was refused, with councillors unanimously voting to the refuse the application.
‘I can’t see how anyone could pass the plans in front of us in good faith on behalf of our community,’ Mayor Sarah Ndiaye said.
‘They don’t meet environmental, planning, or community expectations. We’re not assessing the revised plans, and you’ll either bring those back to us or it will go to court. They do seem greatly improved, and I can acknowledge the potential environmental benefits.
‘It does keep the whole ring of trees around it. I think it’s a much better design. But unfortunately what’s in front of us is what’s been assessed so far.
‘If the plans that had originally come to us were within the parameters of what most people would consider reasonable we might be in a different place.’
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
