Local Planning Panel

 

Minutes of the

Local Planning Panel Meeting

Held Remotely - Online

on 25 August 2022

 

 

 

Panel Members

 

Chairperson

Kara Krason

Panel Experts

Sue Francis

Stephen Leathley

Community Representative/s

Lyn Hunt

 

Central Coast Council Staff Attendance

 

Dr Alice Howe

Director Environment and Planning

Andrew Roach

Unit Manager Development Assessment

Wayne Herd

Section Manager Building Assessment and Certification

Ailsa Prendergast

Section Manager Development Assessment South

Stephen Goodworth

Senior Building Surveyor Building Assessment and Certification

Brad Reilly

Building Surveyor Building Assessment and Certification

Toan Dam

Senior Coastal Planning Officer, Catchments to Coast

Michelle Gilson

Senior Development Assessment Engineer Development Engineering

Mark Wasson

Strategic Planner, Centres Planning and Urban Design

Rachel Gibson

Team Leader Civic Support

Chantelle Ahio

Civic Support Officer

Rachel Callachor

Meeting Support Officer

Carolyn Patelis

Civic Support Officer

 

The Chairperson, Kara Krason, declared the meeting open at 3.02pm and advised in accordance with the Code of Meeting Practice that the meeting is being recorded.

 

The Chair read an acknowledgement of Country statement.

 

 

Apologies

 

The Panel noted that no apologies have been received.

 

 

 

 

1.1              Disclosures of Interest

The Panel noted that declaration forms had been received and no conflicts had been identified.

 

 

2.1              Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting

That the minutes of the previous Local Planning Panel Meeting held on 21 July 2022,  Supplementary Meeting held on 21 July 2022 and Supplementary Meeting held on 8 August 2022 which were endorsed by the Chair of those meetings, were noted.

 

Public Forum

The following people addressed the Panel:

 

Agenda item 3.1 - DA/63360/2021 - 44 Ocean Street, North Avoca - Swimming Pool

1.          Steven Fortey – for recommendation


Agenda item 3.2 -  DA/60728/2021 - 42 South Street, Umina Beach - Residential Flat Building (5 Units) & Demolition of Existing Structures

1.       Michael Emmett - against recommendation

2.       Deborah Sunartha - against recommendation

3.       Gary Machin - against recommendation

4.       Francis Wiffen - against recommendation

5.       Caroline James - against recommendation

6.       Sylvia Turnbull - against recommendation

7.       Rocco Furfaro (Architect) and Ravi Sharma (Planner) - on behalf of applicant - for        recommendation

 

Agenda item 4.1 - DA/62415/2021 - 99 Marine Parade, Macmasters Beach - Alterations & Additions to Existing Dwelling House

 

1.       Julie Garratley - Manager Planning NSW/ Principal Planner, Beveridge Williams,    on behalf of submission lodger  - against recommendation

2.       George Winyard on behalf of HP Hunt Holdings – against recommendation

3.       Jorge Hrdina, Jorge Hrdina Architects - applicant – for recommendation

4.       Michael Leavey, Coastal Planning and Consulting Pty Ltd - on behalf of applicant – for recommendation


The Local Planning Panel public meeting closed at 4:52pm. The Panel moved into deliberation from 4:56pm, which concluded at 6:06pm.

 

3.1              DA/63360/2021 - 44 Ocean Street, North Avoca - Swimming Pool

Site Inspected

Yes

Relevant Considerations

As per Council assessment report

Material Considered

 

·            Documentation with application

·            Council assessment report

·            34 Submissions

Council Recommendation

Refusal

Panel Decision

1       The Local Planning Panel refuse consent to DA/63360/2021 at 44 Ocean Street North Avoca, Lot 97 in DP 7547 for concrete in-ground swimming pool ancillary with an existing single dwelling house subject to the reasons outlined below and having regard to the matters for consideration detailed in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

2       That Council advises those who made written       submissions of the Panel’s decision.

 

Reasons

1        The consent authority is not satisfied, having regard to Clause 2.12 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, that the proposed swimming pool will not cause increased risk of coastal hazards on that land or other land. 

2        The consent authority is not satisfied the proposed swimming pool is consistent with the stated objectives of the R2 land use zone GLEP 2014 and consistent with the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development as specified within the Local Government Act 1993 having regard to the increased risk of coastal hazard on the land and other land. 

3        The proposed location of the swimming pool on the land seaward of the Coastal Building Line as defined with Chapter 6.2 of the Gosford Development Control 2013 would constitute an undesirable precedent for future development and threaten realisation of strategic planning objectives to reduce risks associated from coastal hazards. 

4        The proposed development is inconsistent with the various objectives and factors within clauses 6.2.4, 6.27 and 6.2.8.2 b. of Gosford Development Control Plan 2013. 

5        The proposed swimming pool forward of the Coastal Building Line would conflict with the potential alignment of future coastal protection work and therefore inconsistent with management actions outlined within Council’s Coastal Zone Management Plan for North Avoca Beach.

 

Votes

The decision was unanimous

 

 

3.2              DA/60728/2021 - 42 South Street, Umina Beach - Residential Flat Building (5 Units) & Demolition of Existing Structures

Site Inspected

Yes

Relevant Considerations

As per Council assessment report

Material Considered

 

·            Documentation with application

·            Council assessment report

·            61 Submissions

Council Recommendation

Approval

Panel Decision

1       The Panel agrees that the applicant’s clause 4.6 written request demonstrates that compliance with the Clause 4.4(2A)(b) Floor Space Ratio development standard in Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014 would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case because the proposed development meets the underlying intent of the control and is a compatible form of development that does not result in unreasonable environmental amenity impacts, and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening that development standard. 

Further, the Panel considers that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives for development within the R1 General Residential zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.  

 

2       That the Local Planning Panel grant consent to DA/60728/2021 - Lot 144 DP 7807, 42 South Street Umina Beach - Residential Flat Building (5 Units) & Demolition of Existing Structures detailed in the schedule attached to the report, subject to the changes to some conditions as outlined below, with additions shown in red text, and having regard to the matters for consideration detailed in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. 

 

That the following conditions be amended:

 

Condition 2.8.    Retain the land where any excavation is

required below the adjoining land level and preserve and

protect from damage any improvements or buildings upon

that land including neighbouring dwellings, public roads and

utilities.

 

Where necessary, the improvements or buildings must be

designed by a suitably qualified Registered Structural

Engineer. Any design proposals prepared to comply with this

condition are  to include geotechnical investigations, any

excavation that impacts on neighbouring properties and

public infrastructure, and are to be submitted for

the approval of the Registered Certifier.

 

Condition 6.7.    Erect fencing along the length of the side boundaries behind the building line to a minimum height of 1.8m.  from the existing ground level. The design and overall height of fencing, shall be agreed upon with the owners of the adjoining properties.  Fencing along the walkway on the southern boundary shall provide privacy to occupants of each property so not to cause adverse visual and amenity impacts.

 

Condition 5.17. If groundwater is encountered during any site

construction works, whereby dewatering will be required, all

works shall cease until an adequate assessment of the

dewatering impacts are undertaken, a report prepared by a

suitability qualified geotechnical and hydraulic engineering

professional, and submitted to Council for approval.

 

Removal of the following wording in condition 4.7

 

          The report must indicate the structure’s ability to withstand the proposed excavation, and any measures required to ensure that no damage to these structures will occur during the course of works.

 

3       That Council advise those who made written submissions of the Panel’s decision.

Reasons

1        The proposal is satisfactory having regard for the relevant environmental planning instruments, plans and policies.

 

2        The breach of the floor space ratio development standard is acceptable in the circumstances of the case.

3         There are no detrimental environmental impacts that would occur as a consequence of the development when considered under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, subject to the conditions of consent as modified.

 

4         The proposal is consistent with the zoning of the land and generally within the expectations for future development under the applicable planning provisions. The Panel acknowledges the overshadowing impacts that result from the application of applicable planning controls to this site.

Votes

The decision was unanimous

 

 

4.1              DA/62415/2021 - 99 Marine Parade, MacMasters Beach - Alterations & Additions to Existing Dwelling House

Site Inspected

Yes

Relevant Considerations

As per Council assessment report

Material Considered

 

·            Documentation with application

·            Council assessment report

·            2 Submissions

Council Recommendation

Approval

Panel Decision

1       The Panel to consider and support the applicant’s clause 4.6 written request demonstrating that compliance with the Height of Buildings development standard is unnecessary in the circumstances of the case because of the minimal environmental impact that would result from the noncompliance with the Height of Buildings development standard.
Compliance with the Height of Buildings development standard would be unreasonable in the circumstances of the case because of the topography of the land and the proposed developments compatibility to the size and scale of other dwellings within the vicinity of the MacMasters Beach hillside and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening that development standard.

 

Further, the Panel considers that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives for development within the R2 Low Density Residential zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

 

That the Local Planning Panel assume the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning to permit the non-compliance with the development standard under Clause 4.6 of the Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014, in accordance with the provisions of Clause 64 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. (Still applies as per Schedule 6- Savings, transitional and other provisions, Part 1-Repeal of Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Section 3 - Applications submitted before 1 March 2022.)

2       That the Local Planning Panel grant development consent to DA/62415/2021 – 99 Marine Parade MacMasters Beach to undertake earthworks and to construct alterations and additions to the existing dwelling subject to appropriate conditions as detailed in the schedule attached to the report and having regard to the matters for consideration detailed in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and other relevant issues.

3       That Council advise those who made written submissions of the Panel’s decision.

 

 

Reasons

1          The proposal is satisfactory having regard for the relevant environmental planning instruments, plans and policies.

 

2          The Panel considers that views are reasonably maintained, overshadowing as a result of the development is considered acceptable and there are no significant issues or impacts identified with the proposal under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment act 1979.

 

3        The proposal is considered to be modest and of a good design.

Votes

The decision was unanimous