Goulburn Mulwaree Council orders demolition of farmshed house

"This is absurd and...I feel strongly about it," he told Tuesday night's council meeting.

"It's unbelievable that anyone would think we could retrospectively approve this."

Councillors unanimously refused retrospective approval of the "shed-like" house on Forest Siding Road on 13 grounds. They also decided to issue demolition and remediation orders for the property, some 25km from Goulburn.

If not for a complaint to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment in February, 2019 the matter might not have come to light as soon.

At that time, a person complained that a large stand of native vegetation had been cleared from the property. The Department investigated but also found a 46-metre long by 21m wide by 7.7m high structure that had been built into the side of a hill. The council said a large section of the hill had been excavated for its construction.

ALSO READ: Poidevin parks stock career for a brainy forward move

OEH subsequently issued a $5000 fine for removal of 9.5 hectares of vegetation.

Planners said after they were notified, they issued a notice of intent to order the structure's demolition, along with a $1500 penalty notice.

The owner said he would lodge a development application to rectify the unauthorised work, Tuesday's report stated. Last October, he lodged a DA for a farm building, for which planners subsequently requested further information, including an internal inspection.

"At the time of the inspection (in November 2019), a significant majority of the internal space had been fitted out with various rooms, most with an attached bathroom. Some rooms were lined but unfinished and had only electrical or plumbing fixtures," their report stated.

After expressing their concerns it wasn't being used as a farm building, and at planners' urging, the owner later amended the DA for an already erected dwelling. The council requested further information, but found that by February/March, much of this was still outstanding, the report stated.

ALSO READ: Fish farm fights to keep head above water as restaurants close

Planners said it wasn't clear what approvals were being sought, it omitted details of earthworks and construction already undertaken, a structural engineers certificate, plumbing and drainage works, bushfire access and water storage in event of fire, a landscaping plan, particularly given the vegetation removal, and had not addressed erosion control, among other aspects

In addition, environment and planning director Scott Martin said the 92.92 hectare consolidated lot did not have a dwelling entitlement and the applicant had not sufficiently proved a variation to the 100ha standard should be granted.

Moreover, Water NSW stated the wastewater management system had not been installed correctly, or commissioned.

Council planners said there were other omissions and if a DA had been lodged before construction began, it would not have been supported.

"The reason for this is that the proposal can be located alternatively within the site without resulting in significant excavation or tree removal," they wrote.

"Also, the building's visual impact would have been alleviated if it had been proposed in a location that was not alongside a prominent ridgeline. The scale of the building is not characteristic to that within a rural area, but rather an industrial area."

ALSO READ: Goulburn school's Easter hat parade goes on-line for students at home

They recommended refusal on 13 grounds, including that it did not promote "good design and amenity" and was not in the public interest. They also recommended a demolition order be issued and an investigation conducted into a second building on the site. This had been approved as a farm garage in 1981 but planners claimed "substantial alterations and additions" had been made.

But a consultants report completed for the applicant stated that the owner originally thought DA approval wasn't needed. He now understood this was not the case.

The report maintained the building was not major, was well setback from the road, compatible with the area's character, similar in size to other structures. Moreover, consultants argued houses were permissable within the RU2 rural zone and that no floor space, height or heritage controls applied. In addition, they stated the structure was in the public interest because it "encouraged sustainable primary industry production by enhancing the property's natural resource base."

Councillors didn't agree. Cr Sam Rowland said there were "ample planning grounds" to refuse the application.

"On what basis they submit that it's in the public interest, I don't know, particularly when you take into account they've removed native vegetation," he said.

Cr Rowland successfully moved further investigation of the second building onsite, with a report to come back to councillors.

ALSO READ: Exploration company weighs in on search for gold around Crookwell

Cr Kirk described the structure as "an awesome piece of gear."

"It's amazing to think the applicant had the audacity to say they didn't think a DA was needed and then to provide us with a report basically saying it will encourage sustainable primary production," he said.

Far from "maintaining the natural resource base", the mayor said it had been removed. He told the meeting he was yet to see any other similar sized building in the area, as the applicant had justified.

"Who do they think they're dealing with..." he said.

"Imagine if we found a way of retrospectively approving this. What could happen to this place? We have a development control plan and 13 good reasons listed to refuse it and I don't think anyone could think of any other outcome."

Mr Martin told The Post that land clearing on this scale would have required a biodiversity offset. As this was not done, the council had the power to order remediation under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The applicant has the right of appeal on the orders.

The Post attempted to contact the applicant, without success. Neither his planning consultant nor architect returned requests for comment.

ALSO READ: Operation Tortoise to commence over Easter long weekend

A spokesman for the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment confirmed the $5000 penalty notice was issued to the owner in January, 2020 for "undertaking unlawful clearing of native vegetation in a regulated area." It followed a complaint on Februray 13, 2019 and an investigation.

"The unlawful clearing was deemed to be over an area covering 9.47ha. DPIE considered this clearing was of a medium risk based on its consideration of a number of factors, including the size," the spokesman said.

"DPIE is not aware of any appeal regarding the notice."

We care about what you think. Have your say in the form below and if you love local news don't forget to subscribe.