Approval of units sparks broader conversation about development in Bathurst

Bathurst Regional Council granted consent for the 12 units - nine single-storey and three two-storey - to be built on three allotments at 225A, 225B and 225C Peel Street.

The development includes the construction of a common outdoor dining area and driveways to accommodate vehicle movements.

Council's decision came less than two months after it approved five residential units to be built 221 Peel Street.

READ MORE: Council approves Peel Street units despite residents' concerns

The two properties share a boundary.

The approval of the two developments has sparked a bigger conversation about development in Bathurst and the need to protect heritage areas.

Councillor Marg Hogan, who appeared at the June meeting via video link, was the only councillor to vote against the 12-unit plans.

When she addressed the chamber, she said that "we can do better" when it comes to development in the heritage area.

"The issue that we've got, I think, is that somehow we need to be working with the developers and the designers at the start of the process," she said.

"I know some other councils have what's called a design review panel, or something similar to that, where they bring together a group of experts in early stages of the process to offer advice.

"That advice isn't binding, but in this instance, as an example, I think if we had that kind of input I think we might have arrived at a better conclusion.

"I'd just like to say publicly, my commitment is to ramp up my efforts behind the scenes to try and achieve something like that or something similar."

Cr Hogan also noted that she agreed with much of what was said by resident Michael McCormick, who spoke earlier in the night during public forum.

Mr McCormick has been staunchly against both of the Peel Street developments and is among many neighbours who have objected during the public consultation processes.

READ MORE: Resident calls proposals for Peel Street 'reckless overdevelopment'

During public forum, he said that community title provisions had become "a wrought for developers" to increase density and, in his opinion, there was no justification for either of the developments to go ahead under community title.

"To have two community title projects back to back in a heritage area is ludicrous, and community title is designed for gated communities, for retirement villages, it was never the intention of parliament to bring it into place to share a driveway and have community title around that driveway," he said.

The report on the plans by council's planning staff stated that the proposal was consistent with the objectives of the R1 General Residential zone and that multi-dwelling housing was permissible with consent on the land.

It was also "considered satisfactory in the heritage conservation area".

When Neil Southorn, the director of Environmental, Planning and Building Services, was quizzed about the community title aspect, he made the following comment.

"There is a community space proposed and, again, point of detail, the criticism was about the use of community title. The development and the use of community title is a permissible activity in the zone," he said.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can access our trusted content: