All recent comments on applications from Central Coast Council, NSW

I am 95 years old, living at pretty beach. When i visit throughout the community I am often out of mobile touch and this is dangerous.

This proposed phone tower is apparently being opposed in main by a small group. It is on public land, next to a large public water tank, so the location after exhaustive research has been identified as a sound solution.

I ask for a safer communication

Alec Anderson

I couldn't see any plans for a septic/AWTS system, but could see that there's a WC in the plans.
Please advise.

I strongly object to the proposed subdivision of this semi-rural lot into residential lots. This development raises serious concerns regarding its environmental and infrastructural impacts.
Firstly, the location of this proposed subdivision, sloping towards fragile lake ecosystems, presents a significant risk of exacerbating flooding and environmental degradation. The surrounding ecosystems, already vulnerable, stand to be severely impacted by increased stormwater runoff, particularly given the area's proximity to Tuggerah Lake. The development could further strain the delicate balance of the lake’s ecosystems, especially during high lake levels, king tides, and periods of intense rainfall.
The infrastructure in this area is already inadequate to support a substantial increase in population. The two-lane roads, railway crossings, and intersections without traffic signals create significant congestion, particularly during peak traffic times and weekends when the area sees additional pressure from sport events. The introduction of new residences will exacerbate these traffic bottlenecks, leading to potential safety hazards and increased travel times for residents and visitors alike.
Wyong hospital is already understaffed and underfunded
What impact will there be to already appallingly long wait times in the emergency department and the rest of the Wyong hospital system (for example, obstetrics is no longer offered at Wyong hospital).
The proposed development threatens the environmental integrity of the area and will place considerable strain on already overstretched infrastructure. It is essential that any development in this region considers the long-term sustainability of both the environment and the community. I wish to see a report investigating each of these concerns and the concerns of other community members.

Good morning
I live on Tuggerawong Road and have seen the flooding to areas surrounding Jensen and Tuggerawong Roads on numerous occasions. The building of this development is likely to increase the water level in a flood and put not only mine but so many more properties at flood risk. The water level comes up from not only the lake but the swamp along Jensens road. The last flood we were more affected by the storm water run off to the west than the lake to the East. Due to the location on Jensen Rd this development is likely to and will, cause flooding issues for numerous suburbs along the lake and river. It’s time council stopped repeating their mistakes and consider both the environmental impact and the residents.
Thank you.

As a resident of lower Tacoma by the river I am concerned about the likely impact of disrupting what little natural land drainage this land provides by development. There is already large amount of water that impacts the lower lying properties when it rains and development will further increase the flow of water.
The current drains into the lake from the properties are damaged (collapsed) and council advise they do not have funds to repair. For development to occur there needs to be significant repair and major consideration to developing drainage into a lake system that is already overwhelmed. With the current information provided I oppose this development

I live along Tuggerawong Road and over the past 4 years have been affected by flooding on numerous occasions. I have now been notified by my insurer that they will no longer cover flooding. The cost of insurance cover, with the few insurance companies that will cover me is close to a third of my yearly income. As I have only had water surrounding my house and not in it, this is a risk I have decided I need to take. The building of this development is likely to increase the water level in a flood and put not only mine but so many more properties at flood risk. The water level comes up from not only the lake but the swamp along Jensens road. The last flood we were more effected by the storm water run off to the west than the lake to the East. Due to the location on Jensens Rd this development is likely to can cause flooding issues for numerous suburbs along the lake and river. It’s time council stopped repeating their mistakes and consider both the environmental impact and the residents.

Hi, the 46 lot subdivision is an unconscionable development. It would be built on sloping land containing hard structures like concrete, roofs, roads without infiltration but funnelling water down hill at velocity even in low consistent rainfalls, or during short intense rainfall events to inundate hundreds of homes. And then where does it go? As the lake is higher than sea level, add king tides, or even significant water input from all other upper areas. It is blocked. Opening The Entrance channel isn’t going to help and it rarely does. The frequency and intensity of rain events is increasing, as is regular flooding which I’ve observed over 35 years that I’ve lived here. 40 Jensen isn’t suitable for any hard structures deflecting rainfall. The development fringes huge soaks, evident by floodplain vegetation. The water table isn’t that far from the surface even in higher areas as one doesn’t need to dig far to see it. Black mould in homes is the common problem through the community now. The water tables will be higher and stay longer than ever for longer periods, then stagnation increases mozzie activity and therefore health risks. The lake is higher than sea level and therefore water is unable to disperse evenly or quickly, this already happens now! What infrastructure is going to help the community from flooding, absolutely nothing. Council can’t put in infrastructure to help dissipate the water. That would have already if it was a solution. Already our community pays hefty insurances, if they can. Council has mapped these low lying areas as sea level rise locations but until then hundreds of houses will be consistently inundated when it rains. This development will not improve our community of Tacoma, Tuggerawong, Wyongah, Wyong or Rocky Point. Plus there’s a potential to land lock those who live on Tacoma south for longer periods than ever before. I wonder why these planning ideas come about, we’ll just plonk it here because some private land owner is selling acres…and we’ve rezoned it. This isn’t about NIMBY, it’s about the flooding that already happens. This type of development and any others of this magnitude isn’t suitable here. That’s common sense from a community of non planning people with gained expertise of living here. Planners shouldn't take advantage of community that may think that local, state and federal gov can fix the flooding situation either.

I would like to be made aware of what infrastructure solution your engineers have in store to combat the already ongoing problem of flooding causing property damage to most in the area as the there hasn't been a solution yet. I believe that allowing this to go ahead would further if not make worse the situation we have had in recent years of flooding. It is worrying as insurance companies are quite strict on flood prone land and this will only get worse.
What will council do to help with the flood issues, the already damaged roads causing risk to anyone driving along, the lack of much needed services in the area. We don't even have a birthing unit in Wyong hospital anymore. The forever growing population that seems too have nothing too support it. Wait times in ED, drs appointments, transportation problems the list is endless. I would like a documented response on how you pose to fix all these issues.

Hello, I am a long time resident living In Braithwaite Rd Tacoma (40 years). I am extremely concerned about the rezoning of this land parcel and the potential effects it can/ will have on our properties in heavy rainfall events.
Can you please contact me ASAP or refer me to the appropriate engineers who are looking after the flood/storm water plan for this new development .

Kind regards

Bradley Browning

Is this inside the school grounds not squeezed in beside a Woolworths a truck bay I hope

That car yard is fairly new can’t believe they’re going to demolish existing buildings for another car yard
So wasteful

Agree with BL, traffic is already an issue with a school and shops next to each other. There is no green space in the heat sink area, sort it out we need places with trees for shade and cool. The park on Johns road should be called melanoma park and wearing oodles of sunscreen just makes you even hotter!. If gums are not preferred, sadly..then put in tuckeroos that spread and don’t drop limbs. The same needs to be happening at both developments at wadalba. Make it an area for community to enjoy, a pool with trees, bbqs, duckies. No more clearing land for housing either. You’ve stuffed up the land and created another heat sink at the freeway access..who in their right mind wants to live in hell…literally it’ll be that hot! Buy land from private owners that have already been cleared and put in less housing with more trees, green it up and allow these smaller villages to have solar, water recycling green spaces that link vegetation corridors. It’s time planning grew up and didn’t force these sorts of developments on community. Don’t let Eaton have a say his numerous timber yards and hardware stores are a conflict of interest on the coast.

Because the traffic isn’t horrendous enough here ?
Now there’s also the new daycare on Johns rd which will cause more gridlock (by the way I’ve never had an alert for their planning so is it even council approved?)
Whatever happened to making sure the infrastructure could handle more residents and traffic before adding more ?

This beautiful bit of old Woy Woy history should not be demolished. It's not acceptable for owners to leave buildings neglected for decades without proper maintenance and attention like so many on the peninsula. This should not be used as an excuse to demolish. Owners must be held accountable for neglecting this building and must repair it.

My two points for this submission are the pool & positioning of the house.
Due to the beachfront getting regularly wiped out by the sea in storms; a pool would only cause more erosion to the delicate shifting sands. There is already a local pool and the sea to swim in. I think the pool should be scrapped to keep the block of land stable in storms.
Secondly I think the house should sit as far back on the block as possible due to the ongoing beach erosion. It is only a matter of time before the front part of the block disappears; and the further back the house sits gives it longevity.

To whom it may concern,

We reside at 14 Bumble Hill Rd and share a boundary with 18 Bumble Hill Rd. We have noticed that a recent survey plan for DA/1119/2024 indicates that the highlighted property (Lot 1) includes the driveway. However, both past and recent surveys confirm that this driveway is part of our property, with us having the obligation to grant a right of carriageway. While we do provide this right of carriageway, we are concerned that the new owners, due to the way the property is highlighted, might mistakenly believe the driveway belongs to them. We would appreciate it if the current owner of Lot 1 could be reminded of this.
Kind regards,

Dr. Jakob Timmer and Dr. Anna-Karina Hermkens

I am extremely concerned that this property contains asbestos.i am adjacent to this property. I would request confirmation about this matter

How do I get to read the actual application?
I’ve spent an hour trying to navigate this impossibly difficult site and still no application appears.
Is this a deliberate difficulty?

My comment, without seeing the application, is this:
ALL APPLICATIONS IN PEARL BEACH SHOULD BE RIGOROUSLY ASSESSED AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 10 ‘Pearl Beach’ which, amongst other matters, requires maximum build of 50% site coverage, including swimming pools. Developments with multiple rooms designed for short-term rentals [very much like hotels] should be outlawed as inconsistent with the heritage character of the village … and a commercial enterprise in a residential area.

The Chapter should be strengthened by Council to place a re-generative requirement on any developments … regenerate habitat for small birds [eg finches] , koalas, platypii, wombats, bandicoots, possums … and outlawing/enclosure of cats.

The number, height and density of new buildings in Point Frederick, Gosford and surrounding suburbs has become incredulous and unsustainable. To make such a pretty part of the Central Coast so ugly, dark and unfriendly is wrong. Building multi level buildings so close to the beautiful foreshore is also wrong, disturbing and disruptive. Nature is being destroyed and unreliable residents welcomed, without consideration to long term residents.

216 Main Road Toukley, Development DA/731/2016/C.

We are very concerned about and strongly object to the proposed development at 216 Main Road Toukley, of ten plus floors (36metres high) with multiple windows, doors, etc, etc,etc, that may unreasonably overlook into our existing surrounding residential neighboring dwellings of secluded private open space and habitable windows.

It's only fair that OUR legal rights to privacy are also taken into consideration and ensured!
So we ask council to have the developer at least include either frosted or opaque glass on the balcony's glass balustrades (which is not unreasonable), to ALSO, at a minimum, attempt to establish and protect OUR privacy.

2.The parking ratio has been complied with, but realistically, there will be more cars per unit, resulting in;. 1. mpactimg the already severely limited parking spaces.2. cars ending up out onto Main Road and other nearby streets. 3. added high overload of traffic hazzard on an already very busy Main Road. Toukley, greatly compounding the traffic congestion issue, as Main Road is a major access road to and from the coast.4. Additional high impact of 101 rubbish bins – especially on bin pick up day – an absolute nightmare of complete street overparking including on the park and over/blocking residents' driveways.

the developers' architect has considered and appreciated the important privacy needs between neighboring apartments. But he has not put in any design measures to provide privacy protection for the surrounding lower residential properties.

we recently moved to Toukley to escape the high rise buildings in Sydney, only to have the prospect of having a 36m high rise – consisting of 101 units built to tower over and increase impact on our existing residences, which is very upsetting for us;

But we must remember this is a regional suburban area – not a high density living area
It's not in keeping with the aesthetics of the surrounding neighbouring residential homes.
The height/scale of the build form of the proposal will dominate the surrounding residential properties

On another note, I sincerely hope they don't take away any of the existing established trees to the west, south and east of their high rise building!
They could be our last little vestige of privacy!

Central Coast Council took the initiative to find out from the residents of Toukley, Canton Beach, Noraville, Norah Heads as to what the residents and users of the areas wanted and concerns of their neighbourhood so that Council could develop the area around those concerns.
The results of that study in April 2022 - Central Coast Local/ Character Statements Toukley Social Planning District Consultation Report:
1. A common theme expressed throughout the survey was that the local community valued very highly, the importance of maintaining low rise buildings – to limit/restrict further development/maintain low rise. With the idea of having stepped down buildings to reduce the height of developments.

2. Some of the key comments themes were to; Limit density, especially multi story apartments and a desire for features to be retained was; low density or low scale housing.

In summary; the community response was to clearly maintain low scale development and low rise buildings.

We ask that our Council as our advocate for preserving the character of the already coastal homes, put to the developers to make a stepped down development in line with what came out of the NSW Government initiative for the Central Coast Council to consult with residents as to what they would value most in their township/ suburb, which resulted in the 2022 Character Statements Toukley Social Planning District Consultation Report.

toukley_district_character_statements_consultation_report_april_2022_-_final.pdf (yourvoiceourcoast.com)

Do not want a telecommunication tower in this location.It is too close to housing emitting radiation, there has NOT been enough studies to say that these towers are safe. Cancer clusters have been documented with people living near to these towers.But where money is involved people won’t matter!

This area is at Flood risk and the existing premises goes under with every east coast low and king tide. It should not be built on at all so to let this monstrosity proceed would end up costing council for flood mitigation works. Want another Wamberal sea wall drama?- let this one through

Its too big - not fit for the site and a ridiculous request

This area is sand and it floods. I'm extremely concerned about the effect the wall and foundations on the property will have on eroding the surrounding sand, lagoon and adjacent park, when it floods and when the lagoon water level is high.
The building height will impose on the picnic area and will destroy public enjoyment of the space.

We live at 8 Ficus Ave, Avoca Beach. The plans for 1 Ficus Ave are ridiculous. When there is heavy rain and the big seas, waves break over the lagoon, over Jack Muller's Picnic Area, straight into thr premises on 1 Ficus Ave. We always get the waves coming down the street and into our property as well.
Hopefully commonsense will prevail and this development will not go ahead.

Judy and Dennis Paton

Rejection of application
I object the development of a Gin Distillery at 690 Wisemans Ferry Rd Somersby
There is too much development on the Somersby Plateau. Property owners are wiping out complete paddocks for their livestock: desecrating all natural vegetation and wildlife. The property adjoining to this has endangered species of plants and wildlife! The corner of this property has created a flood area, previously, from their stormwater management (or lack of).
This development will
• create a traffic hazard being on a corner and a blind hill.
• create obnoxious air and noise pollution,
• contaminate to the ground water: possible contamination to the Hawkesbury catchment area,
• create extra noise pollution.
At the start of the application, it states, 40m2: at the end, no more that 50m2…which is it! There is no buffer area in case of hazardous spills, explosions, fires.
Council will not monitor this development. Council do not care.
This development should be looking at retaining the local environment and creating a sanctuary for the native plants and wildlife. This development is just adding to one's greed and wealth: I totally object to the application.