Council planners urge refusal of multi-unit dwellings
The Local Planning Panel has heard recommendations at its November 24 meeting from Central Coast Council planners to refuse two development applications for multi-unit dwellings in Warrah St, Ettalong.
DA61592/2021 for 16 Warrah St had attracted 27 public submissions and a 47-signature petition, while DA62934/2022 for 34 Warrah St had attracted 15 submissions.
Warrah St is a one-block street with 40 properties.
It already contains seven multi-dwelling gun-barrel developments, similar to the two proposals.
Applicant for both applications before the Panel was Knight Mapleton Design Partners, which was also the applicant for six of the existing multi-dwelling developments.
Because they were both lodged prior to August 1, the applications were assessed under planning provisions which applied before that date.
Both applications contained "section 4.6" requests to allow development on a lot size less than the minimum for a multi-dwelling development (750 square metres).
Both applications were non-compliant with provisions for setbacks, solar access, overshadowing, private open space, excessive lengths of inarticulated wall, excessive height of exterior walls, insufficient deep soil areas and insufficient separation from adjacent buildings.
Each application was assessed by a different council planning officer.
However, in both cases, the main reasons for refusal were similar.
The s4.6 variance request was found to be unsatisfactory, because acceptable "planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard" had not been provided.
The non-compliance with the Development Control Plan and the design standards, the bulk and scale, and the loss of amenity were found to be unsatisfactory.
The planners said the proposals failed to satisfy objectives of the R1 Residential zone.
They failed to "ensure that development is compatible with the desired future character of the zone".
They also failed "to promote best practice in the design of multi-dwelling housing and other similar types of development".
The planning officers also raised issues with the timing and content of various drawings and documents.
These were listed as being contributing factors to the refusals.
The representative of Knight Mapleton Design Partners and, in the case of 34 Warrah St the client as well, spoke against the council recommendations.
They argued that council had previously approved the six similar applications in Warrah St, and many other multi-dwelling developments on the Peninsula which they considered similar.
They said it was therefore unfair not to approve these applications.
The client stated that they were "blindsided" by the recommended refusal, given all the similar variations that had been permitted previously in Warrah St.
The Statement of Environmental Effects had also listed a number of other alleged precedents.
They claimed that their application had been inadequately assessed and that there were unreasonable delays in the council process.
The client said that they were helping the community by providing much-needed extra housing and increased density but feared the area would become very unpopular with developers if they faced these kind of problems.
Under questioning by the panel, the planning officer said the section 4.6 variation request in the application was too "generic" and did not make specific comparisons.
Virtually all of the precedents supplied by the applicant were judged not to be applicable as "they did contain similarities but also differences".
The planning officer also emphasised that the planning provisions were minimum standards.
Solar access was considered an important requirement and the application for number 34 Warrah St had not taken into account the over-shadowing created by the multiple units at number 32, a previous development by the same applicant.
The Local Planning Panel is expected to announce its decision this week.
SOURCE:
Local Planning Panel agenda 3.1 and 3.3, 24 Nov 2022