All recent comments on applications from Central Coast Council, NSW

The height, scale, massing, and built form of the proposal together with the extent of hardstand areas will dominate the surroundings and respond negatively to the surrounding context.

Due to the local topography and context being structures that are subservient to the streetscape, the Proposal will be unacceptably visually prominent, and dominate the streetscape in a manner responding negatively to the surrounding context.

The height and scale of illuminated facades, carpark lighting, business identification and wayfinding signs associated with the Proposal will dominate the streetscape, cast excessive light spill, glare, and skyglow, and at night negatively and unreasonably impact the amenity of the public realm and surrounding residential uses.

The coastal context, biodiversity and local wildlife and bird populations are threatened by the excessive lighting involved in the proposal, the height of lighting fixtures, colour and colour temperature of lighting fixtures, scale and size of illuminated areas, and the hours in which the Applicant proposes that the external areas of the site will be illuminated and in which that light will be visible from outside of the premises.

The proposal will generate unreasonable amenity impacts to surrounding residential uses at night, through acoustic, light, glare, offensive odour, additional motor traffic on not just Main Road but also surrounding streets likely to be used in order to access the premises.

The Applicant has not demonstrated that lighting associated with the proposal will not threaten biodiversity, bird and other wildlife through its contribution to skyglow and its placement upon typical pathways for bird movement and migration.

The Applicant has not demonstrated suitable measures to screen the premises so that lighting in the premises does not illuminate neighbouring lands or structures.

The Applicant has not demonstrated suitable measures to prevent the emission of offensive odour from the premises.

The Proposal will create unacceptable discharge of stormwater due to the extent of its hardstand areas and lack of sufficient and acceptable systems for onsite stormwater detention.

The plantings in gardens associated with the Proposal include non-native vegetation that is at high risk of invasiveness due to spread of seed and self-propagation by spread of cuttings and prunings and the entry to the local waste system of the same.

The lack of sufficiently high screening for the site, of dark low reflective finish and lack of an acoustic tunnel for the drive through section will contribute to the propagation and spread of noise and light beyond the subject site particularly at night and significantly late at night.

The use of electronic ordering devices including loudspeaker type systems upon the Premises past the hours of 8pm daily and prior to 6am in a low density residential district will create unreasonable acoustic and amenity impacts upon the public realm and surrounding residential populations.

The Applicant has not demonstrated by reports of light, acoustic, environmental and social impact consultants that the Proposal will not generate unreasonable amenity impacts upon the public realm and the surrounding residential uses.

The Proposal will create unreasonable amenity impact upon the school site, public realm and surrounding residential uses due to the emission and dispersal of offensive odour particularly during peak trading periods.

The Proposal will create unreasonable amenity impact due to the encouragement of birds and vermin to congregate upon the subject site and surrounding areas seeking to consume litter abandoned by patrons of the premises.

The Proposal will create unreasonable social impact through the promotion of energy dense and nutrient poor foods directly to children via its display of images of food and beverage offerings and prices on billboards or banners hung or otherwise erected upon the site.

The Proposal will create unreasonable local traffic impacts and potential for vehicle conflicts due to significant volumes of vehicles entering and exiting the site and the impacts extending to surrounding local streets, impact pedestrian safety, and increase noise associated with the traffic.

I Urge that Council refuse to grant approval for this proposal.

Road needs fixing as promised in the last year’s drainage works.Water is still on the road when it rains as the road fixing didn’t happen.Potholes are there and the street is crowded with resident cars.

Need to resolve this road issues before adding any more dwellings.

The Building does not meet the character of the area and surrounds, It is a very heavy set home with not alot of natural surroundings.
The space of concrete ground in comparison to the natural surface of earth seems extremely greater than the council requirements of 50%
The setback of the planned development " The average distance of the setbacks of the nearest 2 dwelling houses having the same primary road boundary" - The nearest 2 houses are more than 7m setback from frontage so this property cannot only be setback at 4.5m as it will not be in line.
The size states 10 metres in height? Is this a true representation of the height on the plans as it seems to outweigh any sizing of the double story home already built next door, being 48 Noamunga Crecsent.
Lack of parking for a 5 bedroom home - the does not seem sufficient parking and this will become hazardous to other home owners aswell as other pedestrians in the area.

Construction seems unsafe and hazardous with significant pollutants entering resident homes due to the excavation currently in progress.
Continued excavation in the area is likely to cause an adverse impact on the biophysical and ecological environment, given significant turbulence whilst drilling.
Systems are needed to reduce air borne pollutants and rocks from flying into neighbouring areas.

We would like to submit an objection to this proposed development. The building is out of character with the streetscape and the rest of the houses in Noamunga Crescent where we are residents. The proposed height is over 10 metres which is out of character with the rest of the houses heights. Furthermore this proposed development builds to the boundaries and we believe this should never be permitted as it does not allow any space on the owners own land for repairs or even general maintenance such as painting, clearing branches and leaves etc and hence any repairs encroach on neighbouring properties which is unacceptable. Further, failure to be able to adequately carry out these basic maintenance tasks like getting rid of fallen branches and leaves poses a fire risk not just to this house but to its immediate neighbours. We strongly oppose this development.

We strongly object to the proposed dwelling at 46 Noamunga Crescent, Gwandalan based on the proposal consisting of a 2 storey home, however, the plans reflect a rooftop terrace with proposed trees and we are concerned about the impact of this terrace on our privacy or lack of it in the neighbouring back yard. Council website states "The maximum building height for dwellings is 10m. Building Height shall generally not exceed two storeys" and this clearly breaches this guideline.
We are also concerned about a 5 bedroom house only providing 1 garage and this will negatively impact the safety of the road due to the increase in street parking.
The design and size of the dwelling is out of character for the local environment and will be a blot on the street and waterscape.
Given the land size of 506m2, the majority of this will be taken up with dwelling, leaving minimal space for yard.
We also strongly object to the breach of the front boundary which is required to be 7.5m.

I wish to register an initial objection to this development application.

It is in direct conflict with the Objectives defined in section 2.1.2.1 Building Height of the Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022 (CCDCP 2022)

The zoning is R2 Low Density Residential.

As the site is not specifically mapped, it receives the standard 10m max height for that zone as set out in the CCLEP2022.

The wording in the review table of the Statement of Environmental Effects do not match the detail shown in the plans.

Under 2.2.2.1 it says:

The building height exceedance of 1.3m is seeking a “reasonable alternative solution”.

The building façade and rooftop balustrade may be 1.3m above the 10m limit, but the stairwell structure exceeds the 10m by approximately 3m and it is not just glass. It contains, steel structure, metal sheeting, sunshades and probably some reinforced concrete. Not really “visually permeable” as they suggest. Additionally the plans show significant planting on the rooftop, which taken with the stairwell structure and building façade constitute a significant occupation of the space above 10m which is supposed to be free of visual obstructions or impediments.

Two other statements made in the table are:

The glass stairwell structure “enhances the visual aesthetics of the dwelling house and also provides an opportunity for future occupants to appreciate and embrace the scenic waterfront surroundings.” But this is precisely what it will impact and take away from surrounding residential properties. Ie. It is advantageous to the site occupier at the expense of others surrounding.

“Crucially the height exceedance does not yield any adverse visual privacy impacts, overshadowing effects, or any other known consequences for adjoining properties or the streetscape.” This is clearly not the case as demonstrated by the side elevational drawings and visual elevations supplied.

In summary:

1.) The development will clearly visually pollute and compromise the space above the 10m height limit to the advantage of the occupier and the detriment of the amenity of the surrounding community, which does not satisfy objective 2. of the CCLEP 2022.

>Objective 2< To ensure that the height of buildings protects the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of visual bulk, access to sunlight, privacy and views

2.) It will set a precedent for further non-complying development and incursion into the space above 10m which was prescribed to be free of buildings and structures. As outlined in Objectives 1 & 3, this will adversely affect both the streetscape and appearance of the foreshore from the Lake itself.

>Objective 1< To ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality

>Objective 3< To ensure that building height is compatible with the scenic qualities of hillside and ridgetop locations and respects the sites natural topography

Gavin Craig

Central Coast Council reference DA/1964/2023

I would like to comment on the proposed building application at 46 Noamunga Crescent GWANDALAN.

This proposed building is well out of character and will overshadow the adjoining building.

Although it states 2 storey building, with a viewing area on top, this will allow other objects to be placed on the roof making the total height beyond reason.

The building covers a large percentage of the land, there appears to be no area left for any outdoor recreation.

A house with 5 bedroom and only 1 garage means there will be many times that extra vehicles will be parked on the street.

Mike Collins

Objection to the proposed build.
setback from front Boundary Boundary should be 7.5 metres as per building Lines "development control Plan no 99" on page 11
>The Building is taller than 10 metres. and If plantation are being added then the building and trees above will be greater than 10 metres once plantation are established on the Roof.
>This seems to be a flat roof with access, so this will change the characteristics of the area.
>Shouldn't there be a percentage for grass area around the property? It is clearly built with larger intentions than the average two storey home.
>The size of this development will restrict the natural environments view for the residents accross the road and as well as the residents on Winbin Crescent.
>The size of this development should be similar to No 48 and 50 Noamunga crescent. Not double the size and impact the neighbours all around.

Please regard planning tools.. I believe that this development is too large for the block; parking and road size is unsuitable for a child care business to be run from.

Central Coast council requirements for childcare centre listed in Part 2 Development Provisions Chapter 2.8 Section 3.3 Site Requirments states the following objective " To ensure the site is of sufficient size to meet the minimum area requirements for indoor and outdoor play spaces and car parking"
Requirments 3.31 Residential Zones
a) The site must have a minimum width of 18 metrea at the building line setback
I have noted that 10 Laggon Street is approximately 15 metres wide and so is approximately 3 metres less than the required stipulation.
Section 3.8 of the DA Traffic parking and pedestrian circulation states " the street poses no pedestrain dangers as it is a flat, straight and tree-lined street that will provide safe pedestrian access to the proposed childcare centre".
Currently between Barrenjoey Road and Springwood Road, there are no footpaths on one side of the street while there are no continuous footpaths as well as limited footpath access on the side of the proposed childcare centre. The lack of safe footpath access and the numerous trees on the verges force the elderly, particularly those using walkers, people with prams, strollers and dogs have to walk on the road for the majority of Lagoon Street, This makes the street quite dangerous for pedestrians at any time of the day and more importantly with the increased traffic during opening and closing times of the centre as well as residents going to and from their driveways. This will lead to increased potential dangers for the growth in pedestrian numbers and traffic due to the centre. Currently drivers regularly stop to give way to oncoming traffic due to parked cars and pedestriansdue to the narrow nature of the unkerbed street and this occurrence will increase dramatically.
Central Coast Concil requirements
3.4 Traffic Impact
Objectives - "To ensure the safe movement of traffic entering and exiting the site"
Requirements - " Approval will not be granted where existing traffic volumes would be created by children crossing the road or by vehicles turning in the vicinity of the site" There are numerous driveways in close proximity to the childcare centre's entry points and with cars parked on the grassed verges, visibility will be diminished resulting in increased potential danger for children accessing the site.
3.6 Objective - "To ensure pedestrain safety and safe access/egress from the site for all vehicles"
Requirements - a) "a drive-in/drive-out drop-pff site is required"
b) All vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be able to do so in a forward direction"
Version 2 of the current plan no longer provides a turning area for vehicles if all parking spaces are occupied and the drieway is now narrower with no separation to ensure the required forward movement of vehicles can occur.
Section 6 DA Vehicle Access and Serviceing states the "service vehicles will be vans and utes so are suitable for on-street parking".
The street already contains a number of dual occupancy lots close to the proposed site resulting in residents currently using the limited on-street parkiing. Service vehicles will have a direct impact on traffic flow in both directions, particularly if these delivery vehicles are larger than a ute as they will force vehicles on to the verge if there are no parked cars again causing increased potential danger to pedestrians. The service vehicles will impact on the visibility for residents leaving their driveways also creating potential danger to pedestrians. Service vehicles will also create noise pollution.
In conclusion, for the reasons stated above, the proposed development will have a negative impact on the area. The overall aesthetic of this quiet residential street will be compromised due to the industrial like signs used to advertise the business, as well as the increased noise and traffic in what is traditionally a quiet beachside community.

Objection to proposed Childcare Centre at 10 Lagoon Street:

I would like to object to this application for the following reasons:

1. Architectural plans and Positioning.
a. The property is 3.5 meters from the front of the block. The other new properties in 12 Lagoon Street when approved by council had a minimum distance requirement set by council as 6 metres from the front of the block.
b. This will place the property out of context with other developments on the street. It also means that the positioning of the ground floor car parks is directly outside the bedroom windows of next-door property bedrooms.
c. Their coverage for the building also exceeds limits for coverage on the block for standard residency.
d. Fencing restrictions by council had their heights restricted at the front of the blocks in street to allow for visibility to the street and had to be lowered to cater for this restriction. This development would be built in front of the current restrictions and impact privacy and visibility to the street and oncoming traffic
e. In our opinion the operation of childcare centre in the current zoning is inappropriate. Such a facilitating cannot operate without compromising the surrounding neighbourhood. The provisions of the child day care centre have not been adequately considered. The primary reasons for the location of the development in a residential area is to maximise financial gain for the owners at the expense of the surrounding residents. It would appear that the developer is misleading the council regarding the impact of this facility on the surrounding environment, Residents and Streetscape
2. (Operational Plan Appendix 18) It states the hours of operation are 7:00am to 6:00pm daily 52 weeks of the year. It also states drop-offs begin at 7:00am. Staff will be arriving prior to 7:00am to open the centre and prepare for arrival of children and therefore would disrupt residents with noise outside of stated council guidelines.
a. Cleaning and maintenance schedules are not included. Cleaners and other maintenance procedures will take place outside of operational hours as it would be difficult to clean until children have left for the day. That is additional noise and activity that is not outlined in the operational plan.
b. In the operational plan or traffic report parking for the additional services the centre requires would park during these operational elements.
c. The operational plan mentions openings and centre functions. They would impact on the site and surrounding properties with noise additional traffic and parking requirements during these events. Childcare centres typically have several of these events through a year with Xmas, Mother’s Day, father’s day, Halloween, Annual parties etc. There is no allowance in the application for the management of these events. I would like confirmation that no on-site events would be conducted.
d. Also noted in the operating plan regarding parking, there is a small reference there to the staff at times having to maybe park off the site. Where would the staff park as there is no street parking currently available.
e. The construct of the plans for the property has the car parks consuming the ground level which means vehicles are driving onto the block and parking directly opposite resident’s bedrooms and living areas on the properties next door. That is significant noise and disruption throughout the day right through the property not just at a street level. Most houses are designed to manage that noise at a street frontage but not right through all aspects of the block and property. There has been no consideration outlined for this disruption in the operational plan or designs of the property.
f. There is no specific in the operational plan around waste management and if they will use commercial services or local council pickup. There is no consideration for the additional noise and traffic requirements if a commercial service is used and where the waste will be stored so there is no environmental impact to close residents.
3. (Traffic Report Appendix 14) The traffic management report does not factor in several disruptive elements to the traffic flow to the property.
a. The report mentions street parking is permitted but no reference to the condition of the road. For the most part to park on the street would require parking on grass outside most properties in the street. During wet days this could easily become muddy and unusable. The street regular floods due to a lack of infrastructure to clear water after rainfall.
b. The report mentions the current carriageway in Lagoon St is 5 metres and that surrounding streets 7 – 12 metres wide which illustrates the concerns residents have for larger traffic flows and that the road is largely suited today for single vehicles with others need the additional grass areas on the road to pull over and let vehicles pass. If overflow parking restricted that flow, it could add to safety concerns and potential accidents.
c. The traffic management report does not cater for functions or events typically conducted at Childcare centres and how would that additional traffic flow be catered for and would they only happen during published operational hours.
d. The traffic report does not talk to the condition of the road. With a lack of drainage, the road often subsides and is not maintained well by cancel
e. There is no overflow parking on the street and infrastructure to cater for overflow parking or staff parking. There is also no footpaths so often people with prams or kids attempting to walk up the street walk on the road, particularly when its wet. People using public transport for drop off could have safety impacted.
f. A Childcare centre will require a regular flow of deliveries and commercial vehicles to provide supplies and operational needs such as cleaning. There is no consideration for that traffic flow and how parking would be serviced.
g. The report uses recent government surveys on childcare traffic data to assess traffic flow. It does not factor in staff traffic, commercial traffic for deliveries and centre maintenance. It does suggest that street parking can cater for all those requirements. As mentioned above the road is a narrow street with grass on either side for parking that will not cope with significant traffic increases and wet weather could significantly impact its viability. There are also safety concerns for this blocking ongoing traffic flow.
4. Appendix 15 Acoustic Assessment report. This report is not included in the published documents online. I cannot see considerations for air conditioning (where it will be located the size, assuming there is a commercial grade product required and the noise implications for neighbouring properties. The noise from vehicles flowing into the property to the rear of the block. The noise created during outdoor play time and the impact on neighbours attempting to rest during the day. The constant operation of the garage door at the front of the property to accommodate arrivals and departures. Parking plans have vehicles entering well into the depth of the block and corresponding residents were not designed to cater and protect against the noise and disruption.
5. Privacy Screening. There is no consideration of privacy screening for the centre as it provides direct visual access to both properties on either side of the development.
6. Stormwater Engineering Plans. The rainwater tanks are located directly on the boundary with 12 Lagoon Street and are over 2.2 metres high which would exceed the height of the current fence and obscure the current view.
a. The area is a flood risk area and after recently building a house in the area and having to build in storm water flood pits on our property these is no consideration in the plans for flood risk and mitigation.

While I somewhat agree with some of the previous complaints about traffic, the implication that a child care centre would disrupt the lives of elderly residents sounds downright alarmist at best and very NIMBY-ish at worst.

The Peninsula is gradually gentrifying and becoming more modern with more up-to-date facilities and spaces for families. Part of that is the shift of an ageing demographic to a younger generation who are raising young families, where multiple child care opportunities are essential. This is made extremely difficult when fewer child care facilities are made available, presenting parents already struggling with the cost of living crisis to stay at home as primary caregivers when no care places are available.

I would argue that should this property develop into a child care facility, that yielded enough demand, Council would be forced to re-evaluate traffic management to include proper drainage, traffic flows, parking regulations, etc. This is without mentioning the published downturn of motor vehicle usage for small trips and the increase of foot traffic and bicycles in the community, that will only increase in years to come as fuel and manufacturing prices remain high.

Leaving it as-is and not collaborating constructively is only going to hurt working families.

I agree with the above comments and worry about the increased traffic around the proposed development. Lagoon St is narrow and underdeveloped in comparison to many other roads in the area, it floods when it rains, and regularly has large potholes.

As a previous commenter mentioned, it is home to many elderly and retired residents and the noise that will be created from the children at the childcare center alone will disrupt their daily lives immensely. Several houses have been recently bought in the street and these new residents would be disappointment to know that the lovely, quiet area they have purchased into will not be anymore.

There is not much parking available in the street already - if one neighbour has a gathering at their house, for example, most of the street parking is instantly occupied. This makes the street even narrower. With the development of this childcare centre, this would become an everyday issue and I am concerned the street will become dangerous for my family and our young child, as well as our elderly neighbours who frequently walk on the road as there are no footpaths.

I understand there is a huge shortage of childcare on the Central Coast, I had to experience these long waitlists firsthand and feel for the families on the peninsula that are also experiencing this, but I do not believe Lagoon St is a suitable location for one.

I also agree with the comments all ready submitted around traffic management. The road has no formal structure, no kerbs, no drainage. Grass frontages with no formal driveways, so often traffic is impeded by road flooding also there is no street parking and footpaths. Most of the residents in the street are elderly and some use motorized scooters in the street and have to use the road as there are no footpaths again creating traffic challenges. Anyone approaching the childcare facility on foot would not have footpaths to use and with local flooding at times have to walk directly on the road. Given that the noise created during the day from a childcare facility to residents who are mainly at home during the day would significantly impact quality of life. Reading the traffic management report they do not take into account the current conditions of the road and also that there would be peak traffic flows in and out of the property around the start and end of the day which would flow into the street as well as functions the the childcare centre might have for families and how the overflow of additional cars etc would be catered for.

I am concerned about the increase in traffic in the street. There is a high volume already with the number of people using the street to access netball courts. The road does not cope with the volume of high speed traffic with quite a lot of sink holes and potholes that appear frequently and are dangerous. The childcare centre will change the tone of the street and may cause accidents as there is little kerb and guttering and limited safe parking. The street is very narrow and a lot of drivers do not give way on the narrow road and speed.

A much more pleasing design than the interim one. The dual gables are quite attractive with the pavilion facing the open area being quite tall and therefore more amenable to use in aid of musical or other functions.

I have reservations re the scale of the extension. The extension is almost as big as the cottage in roof area and visual bulk. In this respect the concept of a cottage nestling in the arboretum, rather than being a prominent aspect, is to some extent compromised.

I Object this development and this is totally unfair by council letting a two storey and put other residents in shade…it will take the sunshine away from the neighbours…

Council should not let them build a double storey as the proposed two storey dwelling does not meet the zone objectives to maintain and enhance the residential amenity of the area, which will be largely single storey dwellings.

I am building a single storey home on Lot 126/23 McGeachie Drive, Hamlyn Terrace. I dispute this two storey home being built right behind my lot as it will take away sunlight which will effect the solar panels that are being installed on my roof. It is a complete invasion of privacy, they will look right into my backyard from the second storey balcony.
It’s stated on the plan that Lot 126 is vacant land this not correct as this will be my dwelling which is currently going through the building process.
Please don’t let this property be approved they enough room to build a big single storey home.

I object to this development.

The statement of environmental effects does not address privacy, overshadowing and amenity impacts on the surrounding residential lots. The SEE refers to the adjoining land as vacant lots, which does not represent the intent of the land for houses by the same developer. These dwellings are single storey dwellings.
The development should be considered in context of the broader residential development, not separate to the houses which have yet to be built. These are not hypothetical dwellings, but part of this same subdivision.

The proposed two storey dwelling does not meet the zone objectives to maintain and enhance the residential amenity of the area, which will be largely single storey dwellings.

The statement of environmental effects states that the development will not result in overshadowing. However, the SEE does not include shadow diagrams so it is not possible to consider what the impact on the adjoining lots are, and if there is any overshadowing of the adjoining lots, and private open space on the adjoining lots.

The SEE acknowledges that the proposed second floor balcony could cause privacy issues with the adjoining land. With the location of the balcony, there is a high likelihood of privacy impacts on the private open space of the residential lots to the west of the balcony. Privacy screening on the balcony should be insufficient to address privacy and amenity impacts on the adjoining land.

The development application does not consider the proposed development in context with the surrounding area, and should be refused. Without this necessary information it is not possible to assess the relevant matters under section 4.15(1)(b), (c) and (e).

Is the council aware on the western side of this dwelling there are 2 single story houses which will have yards with infinite darkness
solar that won’t work and
compromised privacy
You must complete a shade study
And effect on solar

2 storey house will create a major privacy issue
From the proposed design the balcony would look straight into proposed house
They would be able watch the new home owners in 23 Mcgeachie
eat breakfast
Please use common sense and decline this invasion of privacy

Plus the privacy issue I’ve seen the plans balcony higher than maximum fence height looking into 23 Mcgeachie’s backyard
Surely this is not legal

This will be an eyesore building a 5m tower in a battle axe block is going to leave surrounding residences in darkness
The is a large block they could build a large single storey
I hope the council acts quickly to block this