SOME residents are worried that the door has been opened to developments that don't fall in line with Bathurst's planning controls.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The point was raised at the April 19 public forum, preceding Bathurst Regional Council's ordinary meeting, where a concept development application (DA) for the future of Tremain's Mill was on the agenda.
The grand vision for the heritage site in the Bathurst central business district doesn't comply with some of the rules in the Development Control Plan (DCP) and the Local Environment Plan (LEP).
This includes the height of buildings and the requirements for parking, where there is currently a shortfall of more than 200 spaces, although the developer has put forward arguments as to why fewer spaces should be required.
Council resolved to give concept consent at the April 19 meeting, effectively supporting the plans.
No architectural design or building works have been approved, with these subject to future DAs.
Some residents have expressed concern that councillors are overlooking the planning controls to secure multimillion dollar developments, such as the Tremain's Mill redevelopment and the proposed Bathurst Integrated Medical Centre (BIMC).
A site-specific height amendment has been made to the Bathurst LEP to accommodate the latter, should it be approved by the state government planning authority.
Bathurst resident Jennifer Gray, who spoke at the April 19 public forum, said council needs to be careful not to set a double standard by overlooking its planning controls.
"These rules, regulations, LEPs, whatever you want to call them, have been put there for a reason and purpose, and it's really concerning if you don't take that seriously and we keep overlooking them, letting things go through," she said.
"We were emphatically promised with the BIMC that it would be the only exception, for a specific purpose, and yet we're not even past that and we've already got people - two or three - lined up ready to put things forward, just as this (Tremain's Mill) has, to exceed all those regulations."
Ms Gray said councillors had to decide where they were going to draw the line.
"What you're doing if you don't observe them is creating a double standard," she said.
"You're expecting certain members of the public to operate by planning codes, but others are being allowed exceptions, and you've got to be careful the territory that that goes into, and also all the different things that it opens up, and it then makes it very hard for you to justify one thing against the other."
Her comments were echoed by Iain McPherson, who said Bathurst has a problem with "bright, shiny objects".
"Let's not keep proving over and over again that if someone comes along with a bright, shiny object that we'll say, 'Oh, great, thank you so much', and now we're going to put all of our rules to one side," he said.
Councillor Warren Aubin later pushed back against the "bright, shiny object" argument with regards to Tremain's Mill.
He said it was a "beautiful, vibrant development to enhance our city".
"I think we should be taking in these bright, shiny objects and making them part of our city," he said.
"... We need developments such as this to stop us falling behind other cities that could take us over for tourism and that sort of thing, which will leave us in the 18th Century."
Reading this on mobile web? Download our news app. It's faster, easier to read and we'll send you alerts for breaking news as it happens. Download in the Apple Store or Google Play.
Rachel Chamberlain
I have been a journalist at the Western Advocate since 2014.
I have been a journalist at the Western Advocate since 2014.
