Not viable or safe: too many questions remain

A $1.3m proposal for multiple floors of shop-top offices and units in Woolgoolga, has been rejected.

The site at 11 Market Street already houses a clothing and alterations shop and three flats, in two separate buildings, joined by a carport.

The proposal would have resulted in a street frontage café, two offices and four apartments and involve the addition of extra floors on top of each building.

Building one on the Market Street front, would have seen three additional levels: the ground floor would become a mix of commercial premises and a cafe or bar with the first and second floors more commercial premises and the top floor a two-bedroom apartment with roof terrace.

The second building at the rear would have been refurbished and an additional floor added to create a three-storey apartment block with lift access.

If approved building one would have reached 15.19 metres in height, exceeding the current height limits for the town, and well in excess of the 11-metre limit indicated in the Woolgoolga Town Centre Masterplan.

Residents concerned about the influx of development proposals in the town have called on Coffs Harbour City Council to urgently implement the masterplan which was unanimously endorsed by Councillors in 2018 but is yet to be formally implemented in the planning process.

A proposal for a five-storey apartment block on the corner of Market and Queen streets in Woolgoolga has met with some strong opposition. Terry and Julie Cooper live next door on Queen Street. Height indicator towers were recently erected at the site.

Council's Director Sustainable Communities Chris Champan has explained the delay saying the various studies needed to implement the plan (traffic and parking for example) had to be conducted in a "piecemeal" approach as funds were obtained.

What a whopper: Height towers shock Woopi neighbours

Changes don't go far enough - group vows to fight proposal

Traffic lights approved and hundreds of extra lots by 2040

The current development was refused on a number of grounds including it was not designed by a registered architect and was 'substantially deficient' in carparking.

Other reasons for refusal include:

- The development provides insufficient setback and privacy from residential balconies.

- Insufficient information has been provided on the structural adequacy of existing buildings

to accommodate the additional floors of the development. As such it is unclear if the

development is viable and safe.

- Insufficient information has been provided on waste management.