The developer behind a controversial North Wollongong unit block has once again asked the council to approve modifications it has already made.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
For the third time in the past year, Realta Enterprises has lodged a request to make a series of changes to the plans of its 21 Bourke Street apartments.
The changes to windows, balconies and privacy screens, which have been built into the almost complete complex, were knocked back by the council’s Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel in February.
Three residents raised concerns about the modifications’ impact on their privacy, and noted they were built without council approval. They said the council did not take action to stop the work and worried this may set a precedent for other developers to build first and gain approval later.
They said the council should “take a stand against builders who take the risk in circumstances such as this”.
The panel agreed, voting unanimously to refuse the application.
“The panel is concerned that this application seeks approval for modifications which have already been carried out,” their recommendation said. “The community is legitimately concerned with this process and the disregard which the developer/builder has shown to the approved plans.”
However, the panel also said the application could be considered, as the changes were “substantially the same” as the approved development. But they said the applicant had not adequately justified the changes or assessed their impact on neighbouring properties and the building’s design integrity.
The community is legitimately concerned with this process and the disregard which the developer/builder has shown to the approved plans.
- IHAP recommendation
Now, Michael Brown Planning Strategies has lodged a request on behalf of Realta, asking the council to review IHAP’s decision. The application, on exhibition until April 20, said there had been previous court decisions allowing councils to approve similar changes,
“The planning merits of the modification are not relevant to the determination of the threshold question of whether the development to which the consent relates would be substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was original,” the application said.