Council approves Sapphire Beach mansion that’s 26% above height limits

City of Coffs Harbour councillors have waved through a development application (DA) in Sapphire Beach, despite it breaching existing height limits by 26 percent.

The proposal, at 42 Coachmans Close, Sapphire Beach, includes a two-storey home, two in-ground swimming pools and a 300-millimetre deep “reflection pool” with an estimated cost of $29,793,000.

The height limit for the area is 8.5 metres, while the proposed dwelling is 10.735 metres.

That’s not all: Other proposed works involve the construction of a new entry gate, driveway and pedestrian footpaths, retaining walls to a maximum height of 2.190m, and landscaping works including the removal of 37 trees and “implementation of various plant species including trees, shrubs, perennials and groundcovers and climbers”.

• A total of 12 submissions were received during the consultation process, with concerns including the building height, fencing, bushfire access, traffic, headlight impacts/light spill, and impacts on neighbouring structures. 

Why set limits?: Councillor Tony Judge spoke against the proposal at the City’s meeting on May 28, citing the height variation.

• “I hark back to our former colleague, Councilor [Scott] Wolgamot, who regularly said if we consistently vary the height limits and the setbacks and all the other limits in our plans, we make a mockery of them,” he said. 

  
  “If we're going to take our own planning regulations seriously, then we need to take them seriously when it comes to a development like this.
  
  “This [development] is not a community benefit. It's not a block of housing that will house a lot of people. It's one person's house.” 

What they said: Councillor Jonathan Cassell agreed, warning that Council “may be setting an ongoing precedent” by approving the height variation.

Admitting height variations would normally be an issue for him, Councillor Paul Amos supported the DA because there were limited objections to the height in submissions.

Councillor George Cecato described the proposal as an “excellent DA”, urging his peers to approve it. 

In response to concerns over light pollution from the property, Council staff outlined a range of conditions to be imposed, including a landscape buffer and a barrier along the driveway.

How they voted: The DA passed seven votes to two, with councillors Judge and Cassell voting against and councillors Williams, Cecato, Fowler, Saro, Sechi, Oxford and Amos voting for. 

Image credit: DA planning documents.