THE controversial topic of the large development at 3 High Street was once again front and centre at Nambucca Valley Council’s December General Meeting with four speakers using the public forum to push their case.
Already midway through construction, the Masons, as owners of the property, were asking for approval to make a modification to the roofline of the top storey apartment.
“The modification (of 2m x 9m) seeks to extend the roof line to provide better weather protection to the balcony of apartment five on the top floor,” stated Senior Town Planner Michael Coulter in his request on behalf of the developers.
Mr Coulter further explained that this roof extension would result in the building exceeding the 12m height standard by one metre because the natural ground level below the extended roof line falls away steeply towards Hill Street.
Neighbours to the build, Bernard Perkins and David Pleasance, spoke out against granting the approval, while Bruce and Sandy Mason separately addressed the council in favour of the change.
Against the recommendations of council staff, Councillors did not approve the request at the December meeting and the Masons are now able to appeal this decision through the NSW Land and Environment Court.
“An important point is if [the matter comes before the Land and Environment Court] and Council has gone against staff recommendations, then they cannot use council resources or information to run that case in the Land and Environment Court,” General Manager Bede Spannagle explained.
He went on to say that Council would need to defend its position using external consultants as expert witnesses, with these added costs met by ratepayers.
As previously reported in NOTA in February of 2024, approval was granted for the Masons to build a sprawling apartment block on the site of 3 High Street.
Several neighbours have spoken out repeatedly about their concerns with the building’s size, height and the significant impact on the views from their apartments.
“I have been nothing but appalled at the treatment this developer has received at the expense of neighbours and ratepayers,” Mr Perkins told the Forum.
“I’d like to ask you, Mr Mayor, how would you feel about a view loss that was going to take probably 30 percent away from the value of your property?” he asked Mayor Gary Lee.
Councillor Jane MacSmith questioned both Sandy and Bruce Mason directly after their Public Forum addresses as to why this request to sidestep building height restrictions was not included in the original plans.
“The original DA looks like it had a big bite taken out of it, that you are now asking to put back in. Was there a reason why the architect didn’t include this portion of the roof design in your first DA application,” Cr MacSmith asked Bruce Mason.
The owners argue that, at the architect’s suggestion, this late change had only just been conceived.
Several other councillors weighed in on the changes at the December meeting, making it clear they felt the developers were disregarding council processes.
“I can’t see why this wasn’t done at the start,” Cr James Angel said.
“I’m sort of aghast this is before us – the people in one high street are sort of traumatised by [this development], I’m pretty traumatised by it,” Cr Susan Jenvey, one of the councillors who had approved the project in 2024 said.
Councillors refused the application to modify the original plans claiming the increased height compounds existing consequences of the build, further impacts neighbouring views, and is inconsistent with view sharing principles.
They maintain that reasonable alternatives, which do not require a modification to the DA, should be considered.
By Ned COWIE
You can help your local paper.
Make a small once-off, or (if you can) a regular donation.
We are an independent family owned business and our newspapers are free to collect and our news stories are free online.
Help support us into the future.
