Clarence Valley Council’s meeting in Maclean on April 18 considered a very important Notice of Motion (NOM) lodged by Councillor Greg Clancy on the rezoning of lands on West Yamba Floodplain.
The NOM aimed to have Council request that the Department of Planning and Environment approve rezoning of lands in the West Yamba Urban Release Area (WYURA) which do not have development approval for a subdivision, from Residential (R1) to Conservation (C2) zoning or a mix of Conservation (C2) and Rural (RU2).
This NOM followed Council’s receipt of legal advice in February that rezoning of land which did not already have development approval for a subdivision was possible without Council being liable for paying compensation.
The West Yamba urban development was approved in 2007 despite considerable opposition because of concern about the advisability of adding tonnes of fill to wetlands to enable residential development and the likely impacts of climate change.
Early in 2022 Council’s pigeons came home to roost
with a vengeance as protracted rain at Yamba led to unprecedented flooding of
many houses outside the WYURA and road flooding cutting the town off for days. So the earlier concerns about the impact of extreme weather resulting from climate change appear to be justified.
Before the opening of the April Council meeting there were two strong deputations supporting the NOM. The first was from Sue Higginson, Greens member of the Legislative Council and former chief solicitor for the Environmental Defenders Office. Ms Higginson reiterated the legal advice which Council had received in February and spoke of the importance of acting now. The second was from Gulmurrad resident Peter Maslin which should have indicated to the councillors that the issue was not just a Yamba issue, but a floodplain issue for the Local Government Area in general.
So the large gallery attending the meeting found it very disappointing that the motion was rejected by five of the seven councillors eligible to vote. (Mayor Tiley and Cr Johnston as members of the Planning Panel could not participate in the debate or the vote.) Those voting for it were Councillors Clancy and Smith. Voting against it were Cr Day, Cr Novak, Cr Pickering, Cr Toms, and Cr Whaites. Arguments against it included the need to wait for some more reports, the fact that no other councils had ever taken action like this and it was up to the State Government to act on floodplain development. One councillor disputed that the town was cut off for an extended period and another asserted that, despite the legal advice, compensation of millions would probably have to be paid to developers.
What happened in 2022 will certainly occur again and the continuing addition of fill and further urban expansion in the West Yamba area is almost certain to lead to even more extensive flooding of existing dwellings elsewhere in Yamba as well as to road flooding leading to the town’s isolation for days.
What is interesting is that the councillors who voted against the motion are disregarding the very serious concerns of Yamba residents who want effective action and do not want this delayed until more reports are produced. Also interesting is that some of the councillors voting against the action actually live in Yamba.
The opposition to this unsustainable floodplain development will continue through local groups like Valley Watch and the recently-formed Yamba CAN (Community Action Network) as well as from other Clarence Valley groups such as the Clarence Environment Centre and the Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition. And the motion that failed may well be brought forward again after the required three month gap. Will the naysaying five have seen the light by then? It will be very interesting to see how many new West Yamba Development Applications will be submitted to Council in the meantime.
