All recent comments on applications from Central Coast Council, NSW

This proposed development would have negative impacts on Kooindah Waters and local residents.

1: The current Kooindah Waters sewerage system is in capable of handling the inflow from this number of additional residents.

2: Pollock Avenue is a rural road which is susceptible to flooding, It has no painted lines or curbs and is not suitable for the additional traffic which will be generated. Additional traffic will add to the dangerous nature of Pollock Avenue during Netball season.

3: Kooindah Boulavard was built based on resident numbers of the original development and is not suitable for the traffic which will be generated by high density high-rise. The parking proposed in the development application is not sufficient for the estimated resident numbers of the building and will have negative impact on Parry Parade and surrounding roads.

4: The "Sundial Effect" is a polite way of saying the building would cause significant shading across the environment. This would also have the potential to impact local fauna and flora as well as residents of Kooindah and Meander Village.

5: The building height and design is not in line with with any other development within Wyong. Toukley has a 5 story limit and I request a review as to if the same limits could be applied to the Wyong area.

6: All of the studies submitted as part of the DA have been previously submitted in 2017/2018. As part of a new development application these need to be updated and studies / impact analysis redone. The original proposal for 50 Parry was a mirror on the wing on the northern side of the clubhouse. Claiming this development was "always planned" is false.

7: This tower would be glaringly visible from Mearder Village and highlight socio economic disparity.

How will this impact the wetlands that have already been inpacted by the development of the whole Kooindah site. I live in Tacoma and flood from the wetlands so i would like to know what consideration has been taken to not increase the water levels in heavy rain? Also as commented above are the roads gioing to be upgraded to handle the inceased traffic flow?

Please could some of the trees be preserved? Ettalong is already the hottest suburb on the Central Coast due to the removal of mature trees to make way for development. Other Sydney suburbs consider trees an "asset" because they add value to properties and suburbs- and go to great lengths to protect them and work around them to accommodate new development. If the trees on this property could be maintained the owners would save money in the long run- and have the gift of shade and cooling provided by mature trees.
Replacing mature trees with shrubs and hedges do not have the same beneficial effects for human and wildlife.

While it is good to see DA's to replace old homes past their used-by dates, there are three small trees on the boundary (one at the front and two at the back) that could easily be worked around to give the new residents instant shade and livability. Ettalong Beach has lost too many mature trees and gardens over recent years that did not need to be stripped out in the demolition stage creating a hotter area for all residents to endure.
Please, let's be creative and keep your trees.

Hello - I'm a local Point Clare resident and wish I could love the new shopping centre, however the parking situation is already chaotic and unsafe as it is, without the added traffic and parking from the childcare, medical centre and gym. As well as it being a badly designed carpark, it's very difficult to get in to park around lunchtime because of all the food places, which is fine, but I only shop there early morning or evening because of the heavy traffic into carpark, wait time to get a parking spot and then the difficulty in reversing out of the car space, as there are lots of blind spots, cars banked up behind you and not a lot of room to manoeuvre. Why was this carpark allowed in such a busy centre? There are much better designed Coles carparks in Lisarow and Wyoming.

This development complies with a number of the requirements of the specific Central Coast Council DCP section for Pearl Beach (Section 5.10) but it departs in a number of critical aspects.

Firstly, the DCP focuses on the special character of PB and in particular it states that "The tree canopy is the intrinsic unifying feature of the area and it is critical that it be maintained." This objective is then supported by a number of specific clauses. The proposed dwelling requires the removal of a large proportion of trees on the property and it even requires the removal of several street trees. It seems to be a project home that has been shoehorned onto the site. For example, if the garage were switched to the northern side almost all of the trees in the front yard and the street footway could be retained. The arborist's report is deficient and it basically acquiesces by stating that a tree has to be removed because of the development and this is just accepted without any contrary discussion.

The second aspect is the southern side setback. Clause 5.10.9 requires a side setback of 1m plus 25% of any building height above 3.8m. The height of the dwelling is 8.5m and so a side setback of 1m plus 1.18m = 2.18m would be required. The side setback is given as 1.285m which is well below the requirement.

I request that the DA be rejected on the above grounds and the applicants be suggested to modify their design to increase the side setback to the required amount and to modify the design so that trees, especially street trees, are retained.

This enormous building is a formulaic project home with no consideration for it's natural location. The driveway is lazily designed so as to require the removal of 6 trees. Council should use its discretion to require that some moderation be shown in retention of as many trees as possible out front.

The essence of Pearl Beach is a village that is respectful of it's natural environment. This development most likely complies with the DCP & LEP however it is not very respectful of site.
- it proposes the removal of most if not all of the trees, some of which are 50+ years old
- the building is so close to the boundary on the southern side that no plants will be able to be planted
- the house & it's garden on the southern side will be overshadowed to some extent all day, missing out on the valuable northern sun.
Every development needs to set a high standard for those that follow.

The designers are extremely deficient in consideration of the street amenity. The rowners no doubt wish to enjoy the block of land because of its beautiful aspect and situation. The smaller the development the greater the enjoyment of the property, street & area as a whole. The larger the design, the less connection with the land and community. Removing the trees and changing the driveway will erode the home's current connection and enjoyment of this physical address. Urging the designer and owner to design for the resident of this property, not as an isolated person(s) inside their property at all future times, but as a person(s) in touch with their community and well-being as part of the beautiful environment they are fortunate to have chosen. This property remains for a long time once built. The existing trees are already established there , forming an integral part of the home and do not need to be removed but included .

My main area of concern is the amount of environmental effect the development will have and in particular the removal of two large canopy trees. The development appears to be as big as the CCLEP allows it to be but to the determent of the environment. The proposal states the following but I fail to see how any of these are met by this application due to the removal of 10 trees.

CHAPTER 2.17 CHARACTER AND SCENIC QUALITY

*To maintain and enhance the residential amenity and character of the surrounding area. - I do not believe it maintains or enhances

*These areas should remain low-density residential hillsides where scenic quality of the existing bushland canopy is conserved. - I fail to see how the bush canopy is conserved if the two largest tree providing the canopy are removed.

*Ensure that prominent hillside settings are not dominated by new structures. Surround each dwelling with a leafy, sloping garden to conserve existing trees that are visually-prominent features of ridgelines or local streetscapes,. - How is this achieved when the visibly prominent trees of the Streetscape are being removed? Several are on the Council Strip.

*Maintain the informal qualities of streets that are flanked by shady trees, with wide verges and no kerbing. - How does this maintain the shady trees if they are being removed?

*Preferably, provide parking in open carports or detached garages that are screened by shady trees, or on steeper sites in part-basement levels. - The garage will be clearly seen as they are removing all the trees from the front of the property

With the removal of the 10 trees how are any of the following statements about the development true, practically when they have not done enough to avoid it? They could position the property more to the north and have the garage on the right instead of the left and use the existing driveway area without needing to remove trees. They could have set the property further back to avoid the removal of the large Bangalay Tree. If the Bangalay tree has some large dead wood then just remove the deadwood not the whole tree. They could make the property smaller and avoid the removal of the large Swamp Mahogany at the back.

The proposal addresses a number of the above characteristics including:
1. The preservation of trees and the local streetscape.
2. Maintaining the street trees wherever possible.
3. Enhance streetscape quality
4. The proposed new dwelling will make a positive contribution to the streetscape.
5. There are not expected to be any adverse impacts on the natural or built
environments as a result of the development.

And lastly the two largest trees being removed (J & W) have large canopies i.e. 12 and 14m. The plans show them quite small compared to the others, particularly W.

1.There is an inconsistency among the Elevation Diagrams re building height,

Elevation 1 is extracted to the Statement of Environmental Effects to show compliance with the building height of 8.5m.

Elevation 2 also shows compliance.

However Elevations 3 and 4 show ridge height of 13.689m, well above the 8.5m limit.

This difference needs to be addressed.
2. The side setbacks do not comply. If this continues then the whole street will be affected.

3. The proposed building pays insufficient regard to the preservation of amenity and characteristics of the village through retention of canopy trees.

What is the plan for Pollock Avenue, to be able to handle the extra traffic?

What is the plan for Pollock Avenue, to be able to handle the extra traffic?

The traffic congestion around that area is dreadful and the parking another issue. So I gather people will take up spaces in the nearby coles and Woolies, further displacing locals.

This site is surrounded by residential houses and the residents will hear noises and lights every weekends till 10 pm and everyday during school holidays. What are joke!!

Regarding the Top Shop Housing proposed for 18 Davistown Road. I completely agree with Keith Lambert.The area is already over utilised with insufficient parking to cater for the established businesses.The Little Teapot Cafe & other shops already located on this road supply no off street parking for themselves and their patrons which make it near impossible for the local residence to park outside their own homes, often making it difficult & dangerous to reverse out onto Davistown road. We have witnessed the local wildlife eg. Ducks miraculously escaping being run over as they cross the road, due to not being seen by the drivers & cars travelling way above the 50km speed limit. The Truck deliveries to these commercial businesses & the increased usage have already impacted the condition of the narrow road & increased the noise level for this quiet community. Of course all these scenarios escalate 2fold over weekends & the holiday period. Davistown rd at Lillypilly Rd is already highly dangerous & any more increase in traffic will only escalate this notorious intersection. l live almost opposite no.18 Davistown road & oppose any increase in dwellings that will have a negative impact to the local precinct & pose a risk to all who reside here including the wildlife.
I believe that granting this application & allowing another business to open in this particular area will be a failure by the Gosford council & at the detriment to the residents of Davistown as l believe Davistown is at capacity & the environment cannot cope with such a huge increase in built infrastructure. Simply take look at the recent flooding in the area & the impact it has caused to the inadequate roads.

My partner & I live directly opposite the proposed development site. We are full-time residents and one of our living areas and master bedrooms face towards Agate Avenue and 3 Agate Avenue.
We have reviewed the proposal that has been submitted and wholeheartedly support the proposed dwelling design. The dwelling is sympathetic to the site and surrounding sites. The proposed natural materials for cladding and landscaping are appropriate and aesthetically pleasing. We feel that this development will enhance the visual amenity and ambience of Agate Avenue overall and do not have any objections to the proposal site development.

The Parking study for this application is flawed and can not be considered enough to approve such a high impact application. This area is already on notice with Central Coast Council. The junction with Paringa Avenue requires no stopping zones to be installed as vehicles park all around that junction and force the bus to turn in to on coming traffic (I have nearly had a head on crash with it). The Junction with Lilli Pilli is also a dangerous junction for those turning right onto Davistown road due to parked cars.
If you consider these two junctions either side of this proposed development, plus the bus stop and all the required no parking zones, there is not enough parking as it is. How can this development be considered without off street parking. Parking under, shops above would create less impact, but probably not enough money for greedy developers.

Parking is the main issue with this application. A deficiency of 6 car parking spots on their property at 18 Davistown road is a problem. This is not meeting Central Coast Council's own parking criteria. In reality the number of cars that will need to park on Davistown Road to access this building will be greater than the 6 they already have a shortfall for. That area of Davistown Road is already heavy with street parking not only with visitors to the area but also many of the original houses in that vicinity have very small frontages necessitating residents to also use street parking. The parking survey the applicant commissioned appears to have been done on 1 day only, between 9am and 5pm on a weekday .... why such a limited survey? Are these the only hours this building will be accessed and will it only be accessed on a weekday; if not this is not a true reflection of the parking and it isn't really an accurate statement if only 1 day was taken into account. The survey was carried out on the 4th February 2021 during COVID 19 which would have also caused the number of cars parked in the street to be lower in that area as fewer people were venturing out to socialise. There is no safe parking in Lilli Pilli Street, Davistown end and there are already issues before Central Coast Council in regard to the danger of turning right into Davistown Road from Lilli Pilli Street due to cars parked in the street. Parking in Paringa Avenue close to Davistown Road also has its own safety issues due to cars parked in the street which I believe is before Central Coast Council.

I agree there’s no parking In the DA application their should be allowance for off street parking if this is not the case this application should not be approved

Iv lived here here for 19 years and building another shop like that will just cause more traffic if you’re going to build another shop like that maybe think about more parking

The street you are planning on building this on is always full by lunch time it will cause more traffic and make it a lot more harder for the bus to get down

If your planning on doing something like this actually have a proper think about it.

I lived in this house for 18 years and trust me, putting another shop or apartment in here is not going to be good for anyone because the amount of cars that will bank up onto the main road for parking is going to make the already narrow road even harder to navigate around which will probably just cause an accident which is already bound to happen. And if they plan on building low to the ground don’t do it because we built an extension room onto the back and the only thing it would do would be flood

Re Planning alert for DA/1948/2022 (Council Ref CC/1417/2022) and my above comments. The problem is now resolved. At the time I wrote my original comment, the new owner’s solicitor/conveyancer had not notified the Community Association of the change of ownership so the new owners were not on the strata roll and the property was still recorded as belonging to the previous owner. This anomaly has now been rectified by the new owners and they are now registered on the strata roll and their proposal with recommended amendments has been put before the Building Approval Subcommittee for consideration and has been approved as complying with the required conditions in accordance withthe Community Association guidelines. So, there are no further objections to this proposal and my previous concerns can be disregarded.

Kind regards, Dr Jane Walmsley

I have an objection to a part of this DA 1747/2022 as far as the handling of storm water is concerned.
The plans allow for the storm water off the roof to be removed via the existing storm water drains. The existing storm water during heavy rains is traveling across the fenceline and contributing to flooding in the lower floor of our dwelling. The existing storm water pipes appear to go into an outfall on the Northern side of No 24.
The plans allow for the overflow to be discharged to the street. At this point of the avenue, the street is not curbed and guttered and is generally level with the front yard of No 24. Any water discharged into the street at this point would be likely to travel back into the yard of No 24 and then on to either No 22 or No 22A, contributing further to the flooding.
I would like Council to ensure that a stormwater pipe of approximately 200mm diameter is installed to collect all the water from the proposed dwelling and any other future dwellings built on this block . Drain inputs to be positioned along the drain to collect any surface water and discharged to the shoreline of the bay.

Good morning
We are the next door neighbours of the property currently being built on 8 Lucinda Ave.
We are 7 lucinda killarney vale
We originally got plans for two town houses that were going to be built but the plans seem to have changed but we didn’t get notified of this.
The new plan is a two story luxury house that is being built up to combat flooding in the area. Due to the substantial elevation of the property the second story of the house will substantially tower and shade our house leading to the eventual loss in value of our property.
We have also just had solar panels placed on our roof and if the new proposed building towers over our house the panels will no longer work, this being a loss of income for us.
We didn’t hear anything of this plan until a builder was on the property and beginning the project.

We would like to propose that the property be built to equal height of other buildings in the area. This may mean due to elevation that it remains a 1 story house.

We would like to take this matter further to ensure our property is not negatively impacted.

Look forward to hearing your response
Kindest regards
Andrew