A site in Burns Rd, Ourimbah, is not a suitable site for a boarding house, according to the Local Planning Panel, which refused a development proposal when it met on December 14.
The refusal comes more than two years after a previous application for a proposed boarding house comprising 18 rooms at 17 Burns Rd was refused in 2020.
The current proposal for 10 rooms was submitted shortly after the dismissal of an appeal for the previous proposal in the Land and Environment Court in 2021.
The Panel said the reasons for the latest refusal included the lack of owners’ consent from all parties to reducing the width of a 5m-wide right-of-carriageway over Lot 10 and Lot 11 and the Panel was not satisfied that the development proposal complied with flood planning provisions or essential service provisions.
The site was not suitable for the proposed development and was not considered to be in the public interest, the Panel said.
Key issues included a large portion of the site being constrained by various easements and carriageways such as an easement for drainage, with a width of 3.05m, extending the length of the western boundary and an easement for electricity supply for the existing overhead power line being a 30m-wide easement containing Ausgrid infrastructure that diagonally transects the site.
About 30 submissions were received during the public exhibition period.
The site is located to the south of Burns Rd and has an overall site area of 2247.3sqm with dual street frontages to Burns Rd and Cambridge Circle.
The property was initially identified as a future road corridor and held in the ownership of (then) NSW Roads and Maritime Service as a new road corridor connecting Burns Rd (north) to Cambridge Circle (south).
The land was considered surplus to requirements and sold in 2018.
Land adjoining the eastern, western and southern boundaries of the site generally holds single storey, low-density residential dwelling houses.
Central Coast Council’s report to the Panel noted that additional affordable housing was required in the region, but said it must be well designed, well managed and well located.
“Whilst the proposal would in part provide additional affordable housing, its design and location are not considered appropriate for the R2 low density residential zone and is incompatible with the site constraints,” the report said.
“As such the development is not considered to provide for the housing needs of the community.”
Merilyn Vale