Panel approves development despite concern for tree
Local Planning Panel has expressed "concern about the loss" of an established street tree at 42 Hobart Ave, Umina, but has approved a non-compliant development application nevertheless that will result in the tree's removal.
The application was for a dual occupancy of two four-bedroom units.
In its decision, the panel only required the planting of two three-metre shrubs, "that will grow to a height of three metres", to compensate for the removal of the substantial shade tree.
The application attracted 22 public submissions, the majority objecting to the removal of the large healthy angophora floribunda on the road verge to make way for a proposed 7.7 metre wide 54 square metre concrete driveway crossover located centrally on the Hobart Ave frontage.
Existing vehicle access is to the left of the tree.
Many submissions asked why the existing access could not be used.
They pointed to numerous gun barrel developments of three or more units only having three metre wide driveways.
The council planner's assessment stated: "The angophora floribunda or rough barked apple tree is a very common woodland and forest tree. It is a large tree reaching up to 30m tall and live for 40-plus years."
No mention was made of the fact it is one of the two primary species of the rare Umina Coastal Sandplain Woodland.
"From historic photographs this strand of trees has been on this verge area since at least the 1970s.
"The majority of vegetation in the area was removed prior to the 1970s.
"All other street trees both on Hobart Avenue and Mount Ettalong Road will be retained.
"Another building design would have required more trees to be removed."
The council assessment defended the 7.7 metre width of the driveway.
"The application proposes a Torrens title subdivision of the dual occupancy.
"Narrowing the vehicle access crossing would require rights of access to be created over the driveways where turning paths for one dwelling encroached into the neighbouring lot."
"This in effect would again reduce effective parking on site to the garage spaces only.
"Rights of access are not proposed with the subdivision of the development."
One person addressed the panel about the application: Mr Frank Wiffen representing the Peninsula Resident's Association.
He questioned the council assessment report assertion that "The cumulative impact of the proposed minor non-compliances of side setback and floor space ratio has been considered."
He said that it was the cumulative effect of the non-compliances that led to the parking requirements which were being used to justify the driveway width.
This cumulative impact had not been addressed, he said.
These non-compliances enabled the units to be four bedrooms rather than three.
This meant that there had to be four off street car spaces in a "stacked" configuration, rather than only two.
Mr Wiffen said that, with four spaces, the council argued that an enormous driveway crossover was needed to allow one car to manoeuvre out of the way of the other without having to leave the property.
This would not have been necessary with two single spaces.
Mr Wiffen said the council should not be allocating an extensive area of public land to be covered in concrete and removing a valuable tree to provide what it called "residents' private manoeuvring space".
Mr Wiffen said that a maximum width for driveway crossovers was needed to protect neighbourhood amenity, including to retain on-street parking and to allow for substantial shade trees on the street verge.
The panel approved the application, with a 3-1 vote, adding conditions that trees in the rear yards be planted at least 1.5 metres from the boundaries and that at least one shrub, that will grow to a height of three metres, in each front yard.
The Panel commented: "The panel generally agrees with the assessment report but is concerned about the loss of the tree and wishes to add more significant landscaping to the front yards to compensate.
"The variations are minor and won't have any perceivable impact on the built form."
SOURCE:
Central Coast Local Planning Panel item 3.1, DA/1627/2023, 15 May 2025