The issue came to the fore at the most recent Goulburn Mulwaree Council meeting. Councillors approved a dual occupancy at 7 Mary Martin Drive, an area with a minimum 2000 square metre residential lot size.

The approval followed last October’s endorsement of a multi-unit development at nearby Fox Close, at Marys Mount. Both were permissable under current planning laws, sparking councillor concerns. Nevertheless, they approved the developments, saying there were no planning grounds to refuse.

Owners of the Mary Martin Drive home proposed a dual occupancy with strata title subdivision. The second home would be constructed behind the existing house on a 1000sqm lot. The property is a total 3008sqm.

Consultant Tim Lee said the second house would allow the owner to accommodate his family on the one block and maintain “strong ties.” 

“It doesn’t increase the number of people living there and we don’t see it as increasing the traffic burden,” he said.

Mr Lee stressed that although objectors had highlighted the imposition of a covenant governing minimum lot size, this had no validity in planning law. Council planners agreed with this, saying the Local Environmental Plan overrode any such provision. Further, they said the smaller lot was permissable because it was a strata title subdivision and no minimum lot size applied.

Cr Andrew Banfield branded this a “loophole.”

“It’s just words...a dog is a dog,” he told Growth, Planning and Culture director, Louise Wakefield.

“I understand what you’re saying but it just ticks me off...It is not the intent of the area. People establish homes there for precisely this reason (larger lots). If they knew this was going to happen, they’d have been better off holding on to their money, buying 600sqm and keeping their money in the bank...It is just wrong.”

The DA attracted four objections raising concerns about the impact on the neighbourhood’s character and appearance, the setback, traffic increase and minimum lot size.

Resident Jim Hughes told open forum he had no problem with the owner or development in general but felt he needed to stand up for “principle.”   

“Twenty years ago we bought into the subdivision and built a family home and felt secure in the knowledge it couldn’t be compromised because of the R5 zone,” he said.

“Now we see it can be manipulated.”

He disagreed with planners’ assessment that the 20 metre housing setback should be varied to 6m because many others in the area did not comply with this.

Mr Hughes argued the development would set a precedent. Cr Margaret O’Neill agreed.  

“I have concerns for the residents but also the elderly in the (nearby Wollondilly Gardens) retirement village,” she said.

“It was supposed to be a retirement village with only a few (other) houses. I just feel we’re opening a box here.”

She cited several other cases where smaller blocks were allowed and said the council needed to address such “precedents.”

Cr O’Neill was unsuccessful with her motion to refuse the DA on the basis the covenant could not be overlooked and the project was “not in the public interest.”

Mayor Bob Kirk argued it was not a precedent because any landowner in the area could have done it. Deputy Mayor Alf Walker also maintained the DA had to be assessed on its merits. But he also welcomed the chance to review the planning law early next year.

Councillors conditionally approved the development four votes to three, with Crs O’Neill, Banfield and Denzil Sturgiss voting against. Crs Sam Rowland and Carol James were apologies.

The housing strategy will assess needs in Goulburn and Marulan and review planning controls.