All recent comments on applications from Central Coast Council, NSW

Ok how the hell will the roads cope with such extra traffic when it can’t cope now.
The height is definitely going to effect sunlight to surrounding buildings and views for others.
Shops space is useless as we can’t fill the ones in the street already
Another empty eye saw

How can such an application be considered for 414 apartments? The neighbouring streets and roads around this property are absolutely deteriorated and as we have seen in the last five years, the streets around here are now regularly being flooded for weeks on end. How do they expect to add all these apartments in a high flood prone area. Also what will it do to traffic already built up in the area by tourists. I am not against development but the bulk and scale of this development will not work in this area. The problems and long term issues will be astronomical. 414 apartments are unsustainable here.

1. Lagoon History
Historically the lagoon between Coral Cres and Diamond Rd flowed across Amethyst Ave through the neighbouring blocks before finally flowing into Middle Creek and then out to sea.
The lagoon was later diverted to go under Coral Cresc and then out to sea. These blocks of land were then developed and because they were a water course have water retention issues.
2. Acid Sulfate Soils
Council will not dredge the lagoon due to presence of Acid Sulfate Soils. Given the history of the lagoon it is likely that 3 Agate Ave and neighbouring land also has Acid Sulfate Soils.
My understanding is that a pool cannot be built on land identified as having Acid Sulfate Soils. Building a pool on a water course will also cause water problems.
3. Tree Removal
The Melaleuca Quinquenervias are important for flood mitigation and mitigation of acid sulphate soils.
Many birds, animals and insects particularly native bees rely on the flowers from these trees. Given the recent outbreak of Varroa mite in the area which has resulted in the eradication of European honey bees it is vital that the environment of Native Bees is not destroyed but nurtured.
Currently a colony of flying foxes are enjoying the Melaleuca Quinquenervia flowers.
We back onto the lagoon which is an Endangered Ecological Community' more specifically E37i known as Coastal Swamp Forest the southern most one in NSW.
We enjoy watching and hearing the hundreds of birds each day which rely on the nectar from the flowers and building their nests in the tree hollows.
Pearl Beach has recorded 200 bird species and is a twitcher’s paradise. Over the years bird species have disappeared due to loss of habitat.
The Grevillea banksias, Callistemon salignas, Elaeocarpus reticulatis, Glochidion ferdinandiis also attract birds, bees, butterflies and provide nests.
Constant tree removal will also contribute to Pearl Beach’s temperature rising and more air conditioners being used to cool houses. This is evident when you go to Umina with very few trees and in summer it is a lot hotter.
4. General Comments
Surely a house could be built around the trees and make them a feature. Patonga Boathouse is a good example of how the beautiful Norfolk Pines have been made a feature.
I don’t understand people coming to Pearl Beach because of all the beautiful trees and then proceeding to knock them down.

I am supportive, in principle, with the development of the site. However the current proposal should be revisited to address following concerns:-
1. Size of build is not in character with other houses in the street
2. Proposed 2 storey development will cause extensive shading of surrounding properties which need as much light / heat as possible to control ground moisture levels. Agate Ave is prone to flooding (last year the grounds around the houses on that side of the road were waterlogged for 6 months of the year.)
3. Ground moisture levels will be detrimentally affected by the proposed removal of the large number of trees. DA needs to include reports from environmental experts on the affect of tree removal.
4. Mature trees contribute to good water management. Removal of mature trees should be prevented.
5. Pool - Chemical release and drainage from the pool will be problematical given the low lying nature of the ground and the existing flooding issues. Any inclusion of a pool must included approved dedicated drainage systems to ensure correct disposal of pool water / chemicals. Pumps (both filtration and drainage) should be screened and soundproofed to ensure neighbours and not adversely affected by increase in noise levels
6. Visual privacy for neighbours must be persevered. Privacy is NOT just an issue of how close the build is to the boundary (setbacks) but also the height of the build, the materials used (ie large glass windows / balustrades) and also the proposed use of areas that overlook neighbours. (ie 2nd story levels - incl balconies - with seating capacity overlooking neighbour living areas).
7. The proposed development is not in keeping with the designation of Pearl Beach as a low density development area. The increasing approval by Council of developments that exceed the 40% footprint coverage guideline is significantly changing the character of the village.

We are supportive, in principle, with the development of the site. The coastal look and feel of the property is aesthetically pleasing. Also don't mind the 2 story dwelling or the pool as it does appear to be set back from the boundaries as well as ensuring compliance with sunlight requirements - although I would understand if the immediately adjacent property owners desire a greater % than the minimum standard.

We are NOT supportive of the removal of the multitude of established trees from the site, impacting the canopy of Pearl Beach as well the effective rainwater management, as mentioned in the comments above.

Across the 2 developments #1 and #3 Agate (3 being recently approved, however arborist report does not appear to be disclosed in the DA), there are a total of 30 trees proposed to be removed (15 in #1 and 15 in #3), including 13 Melaleucas (6 in #1 and 7 in #3). This will significantly impact the tree canopy for which Pearl Beach is known, the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood, with an ongoing impact to the wildlife in the area.

It would be desirable to see these developments consider how the footprint of their foundations can be established without impacting the large majority of significant trees within their boundary.

Proposed development
We are not opposed to development of no 1 agate ave .
We do have issues with the proposal .
*size of the dwelling completely out of character with the street scape in both height and width . According to plans the eaves of the house would be on the fence line of the neighbouring houses . The height would block out eastern and western sun to adjacent properties .
*The trees proposed for removal range between 15 – 20 metres in height over 15 in total.. these trees play a significant role in the rainwater management.
The removal of theses established trees will impact on the bird life of our native black cockatoos and owls.

I wish to make the following points:
(i) Excessive clearing of precious Melalueca quinquenervia trees to the detriment of the canopy, loss of mature, valuable trees and loss of habitat for birds and small animals. I recommend taking only the trees not needing consent. Mature trees contribute to good water management.
(ii) Shading of the house to the west in the morning by reason of height and proximity and later in the day, removing sunlight from the easterly neighbour.
(iii) Groundwater and other bad aspects of installing a pool. Pools create noise for many hours of the day even when not being used. Pool motors issue a low but incessant hum. I know, there is one next to us and one across the road. Chemical release from a pool is problematic.
(iii) Additional flooding of the southern side of Agate. Agate Av is a wet street owing the original course of the lagoon exit. More water will add to the problem.

Although notionally supportive of a new build, the size of this proposed build is out of character with the other properties on the street.

We specifically redid our plans to retain sunlight to both neighbours either side of us, however this extremely large double story house proposed for 1 Agate Avenue will block all easterly sun until 12 noon to the block on the west side and equally the westerly sun for the block to the east side from noon onwards. The existing trees currently allowing dappled sunlight will be removed and the new build will block out any sunlight with the size of the house going back so far & so tall.

The proposed pool is situated immediately alongside our proposed back porch at 3 Agate Ave giving us no reprieve from any noise echoing from the pool occupant’s. If we put up planting on the east boundary to try & block the noise & give us privacy it will block out any remaining sunlight in addition to the over-shadowing, we are losing due to the proposed large build.

As we saw during last year’s flooding, the blocks on the south side of Agate Ave are very much water prone. Denuding them of trees will exacerbate this and further consideration needs to be made in consultation with the council as to drainage improvements on the south side of Agate Ave. Under these conditions, installing an in-ground pool is likely to meet with hydrological problems and likely exacerbate flooding issues. Consideration needs to be made for the pool outlet as any chemical release has nowhere to flow from this block, unless additional storm water drains are installed under adjacent blocks down the south side of the road. Based on present (lack of) drainage the plan to install a pool is environmentally questionable.

We feel a garden pool is unnecessary on such a small block when there is already an existing free rock pool available at the beach. Our preference would be no pool due to noise and flooding concerns, but as a minimum, we would request for the pool to be relocated to the Eastern side of the block and for any pool equipment to be located on the Eastern (or rear) boundary in a soundproof enclosure at maximum distance from neighbouring properties.

The overhang on the bottom portion of the roof appears to be inside the 1000mm side of the house being very close to our boundary fence. Has consideration been given for the feasibility of any future requirement for scaffolding along the side of the house?

We are concerned about the impact on our privacy from these upper balconies at both the front and back of the house which are overlooking our front & back gardens. Also, the window from the room at the southwest corner of the proposed building will also overlook our rear garden. Even though there is some proposed vertical screening on the balconies it is still possible to see through.

The proposed concrete foundation will prevent water absorption and in conjunction with the loss of trees will add to the existing water run off problems. Although helpful, no amount of new planting will make up for the loss of absorption from the trees taken out and a giant cement slab being put in.

We are not opposed to development of the site. The proposed dwelling is excessively voluminous for the site and street frontage, offering a significant increase in bulk and density that is out of line with existing street amenity. The proposed dwelling is of significantly greater height and depth than adjacent properties including the DA approved 3 Agate Ave dwelling. The proposed dwelling would like impact eastern and western solar amenity for adjacent properties.

Proposed removal of fifteen existing and established trees from the site is considered excessive. Notwithstanding that six of these could be removed without consent, the overall degradation of tree canopy, visual amenity and wildlife/birdlife environment should not be supported.

Many of the trees proposed for removal are of very good health, moderate age and are structurally sound. A dominant feature of Pearl Beach is the extensive tree canopy which not only provides significant wildlife refuge but also assists with temperature regulation in hotter months. Removal of these features degrades the amenity of many more residents than just adjacent properties.

Removal of the trees proposed will drastically and permanently alter the visual amenity of Agate Ave and (likely) lower Pearl Beach Drive. It is not indicated where suitable replacement planting would be established. The trees proposed for removal range between 15 – 20 metres in height, making any replacement planting insignificant as compensation for at least 20 years.

The majority of trees proposed for removal are Melaleuca quinquenervia which are known to contribute to effective rainwater management. Mature Melaleuca tree canopy provides relief to rain reaching soils below, while leaf litter further contributes to overall reduction of soil saturation. East coast Australia has experienced significant La Nina weather events in recent years and reduction of effective rainwater management should not be supported.

Further consideration on stormwater management is required should rainfall be excessive and rainwater tanks reach capacity. Southern side of Agate Ave has very insignificant natural fall and water pools regularly in the nature strip between property boundaries and road edge. Discharge of excess rainwater from a very substantial roof catchment into public domain with known surface flooding issues should not be supported. Particularly at the expense of removal of a contributory solution (Melaleucas) to this issue.

We welcome a more considered approach to development of this site, with primary consideration given to preservation of significant trees on the site and existing and future street amenity.

Although I have no particular issues with the alterations to the property I would like to understand why a large and beautiful Melaleuca Guinquenovia (Paperbark) needs to be impacted and in this case removed completely. It is very large, in very good health, has a life status of medium and a status of high for preservation. It does have some low branches that may interfere with the proposed structure but why not consider removing them instead of the whole tree. If it because of foundations then reconsider the location of the proposed additions as they are not attached to the main house or using a construction method that will not harm the roots of this beautifull tree. This tree adds much character to and a home for many species fauna in Cornelian Road, along with contributing to the tree canopy and thus temperature during the summer in Pearl Beach.

This proposal is sympathetic to the existing structures, the site layout and nearby properties and location. The trees proposed for removal add little amenity and will be adequately compensated in planting proposals. This feels like an appropriate and well considered development proposal for the property and Pearl Beach village.

I agree with all Ms Harvey's comments.

As well as the environmental impact of the development, please consider the following.
Google Earth clearly shows that our Peninsula has fewer trees and therefore, less shade than the City of Sydney!!
We all know that the more dwellings a property has, the greater benefit the developer gets and, in the short-term, the Council, but please, please think of the long-term effects on us all. I implore Council to reduce the number of units to make room for shade trees on this site. It has been proven that our quality of life as well as our mental health is improved by an abundance of trees.

Thank you for your consideration of my concerns.

Dear Council Planners:
After latest record heat island effect recordings for the Peninsula, can the "Monument" colour of the tin roofs be changed to "Surf Mist" or "Evening Haze" to reduce the reflected heat?
Can the driveway NOT be poured/painted black for the same reason?
Where is there room provided for planted gardens and decent outdoor space?
Are solar panels to be included facing to the north?
Lastly, with the release last week of the flood inundation maps for this area, is this development high enough from the expected super-tides from east-coast lows?
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

I can unequivocally state that 4 garages with headlights and noises during the mornings and evenings will be excessive to the direct neighbours the current trees on the property some are natives , the fact that the sewer pit at the rear of the of 15 Allfield road has been accessed by council at least 3 times in 3 years for major blockage which has caused vermin as well as putrid stench in large areas that these neighbours in Allfield road is concerning because residences will exacerbate the amounts of sewerage into the sewer main at rear causing the pump out station near the high school to fail or block. As direct neibours we have invested in brand new colorbond fences which do not have any damage whatsoever and this integrity must be maintained during construction, building works noise must be maintained to standard as must dust and the asbestos removal from the garage shed done correctly and within health guidelines, the garage currently has zero gutter but roof tile could easily fall over our adjoining boundary fence damaging it and the privacy further, I have 3 bedrooms facing the garages thus creating light pollution for my family, at front adjoining boundary fence is built from brick and does not have any cracks from subsidence I would expect this to be maintained and the colorbond fence would be suited to be added to the top of the brick wall to give privacy to master bedroom from all vehicle lights . Finally the noise of these vehicles which could be minor or huge will cause noise to my home at Allfield road woy woy and I make a request in Ernest for double glazing to these side bedroom windows as well as noise proofing to my ceiling areas so my way of life and my new neighbours does not clash. I am making these points because the size of the building is outside scope and council planning as I have read in planning article advertised. Finally placing 4 two story townhomes would be squeezing that block and causing overflow parking and hardly any outdoor area would turn the driveway into one so while I do not oppose the idea of building or improving on the land it must be respectful of immediate neibours in Allfield rd Woy Woy 2256. We have invested many 100s of thousands into renovating a beautiful home in a wonderful suburb I respectfully request all our points be given very close attention. Regards mr mrs A & K .

Can you please send through a copy of the planned works

This building is the previous garage to 19 Diamond Rd Pearl Beach
The submitting of a new proposal on Christmas Eve is clearly aimed at not attracting attention or objections
All 5 surrounding neighbours objected to his last proposal. It went to the planning Panel with in excess of 30 objections. I expect the new proposal which has not been notified to neighbours or seen by anyone as yet will lead again to the planning panel. It will probably be an over development on a tiny piece of land as was his last proposal and will be vigorously scrutinised and probably objected to if we EVER get notified.

Using the lane as the entry doesn’t work as people park and travel in lanes that aren’t designed for that

Can we please make the lane one way? With all these extra dwellings using the lane as their "front" and residents/visitors parking in the lane, it is becoming impossible to use it for two way traffic.

absolutely not! that area is the high point for this part of the catchment and we will all be flooded with all the non porous homes, driveways, roofs and roads, et al in the 87 lot subdivision. Completely inane, and already residents suffer flooding, this will only increase this issue and more frequently, even in the with slightest rain event. this area is build in a flood zone, planning knows that so be planning sensible and keep it as vegetation

Another development that will impact the water levels in the wetlands inbetween Jenson rd and Tacoma. When will council get it into heads that every time you add more houseing around the wetlands more water is collected and needs to go somewhere hence why we flood form the wetlands..... More roofs = less water soaking into the ground that would normaly hold it. This is prety funny considering we received a letter in the mail reffering to the Tuggerah lakes flood study

Great to see council sticking to its policy of leaving some pockets of rural land around Wyong. First a 24 story development, now an 87 block subdivision, whats next??
I guess will see an upgrade of the Pollock Avenue goat track to handle all the extra traffic.

Please forward a Plan of actual building construction of pool and gazebo as to where in yard( property) will be built …Thankyou Craig Brown

How can I make a comment when you have provided no details of the Application???
I have been to your site and still can't find anything there either???

Red Apple Design is back again. Same application as before under a slightly different title. The street is tight as it is. It would ruin the area having 3 "dwellings" on a 850m2 block, not to mention car parking spaces. There is no where to park a car on the road at the moment, not to mention the extra bins which can only be picked up on one side of the road as the truck cannot turn around and has to reverse down. There is no room on the road, let alone another 6 bins out for collection, on a very steep road. It would ruin and devalue the houses already present. Fair enough to build a house, I'm sure the other neighbours would agree, but not 3 dwelling boxes with no car parks purely for profit. Given that this borders C3 area which is top of King st upward, seems a bit insane that you would allow profiteering boxes be built right next to a conservation area. Don't let the beautiful landscape be ruined.

We are very much against this planning as we feel the street is already at capacity, and our driveway is used as a turning point at the top of the hill, with it being a dead end. The Town houses would also obstruct our view and create even more noise in the valley. As someone that works from home, the noise from the construction would be extremely stressful also.