Three townhouses proposed to replace single dwelling

Artist's impression of the two-storey townhouses for Piper StArtist's impression of the two-storey townhouses for Piper St

A $900,000 multi-dwelling housing development consisting of three townhouses has been proposed for 4 Piper St, Woy Woy.

A statement of environmental effects, prepared by SJH Planning and Design to support the application, said the site was located less than 300m from the regional shopping centre. “The site offers excellent access to all retail, services and facilities including transport infrastructure that Woy Woy provides,” the consultant’s report said. The locality is described as “going through a transition toward medium-density residential development consistent with statutory zone ambitions.

“The site contains an older style single storey dwelling and outbuildings, ground yard space devoid of signifi cant vegetation typical of older housing stock in the locality,” it said. It is proposed to demolish all existing structures and vegetation on the land to construct three two storey dwellings. All three townhouses will have three bedrooms located on the first floor along with bathroom and linen press. One bedroom will have an ensuite and all three will have builtin robes. The ground floor will consist of entry, powder room, dining room, lounge room, kitchen, garage and laundry, stairwell and an alfresco area integrating with private courtyard.

Double garaging would be provided for Units 1 and 2 with oversized garaging for Unit 3 to provide parking for five vehicles. The land is zoned R1 General Residential which permits the development with consent, provides for a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.85:1 and a height provision of 11m. The site has an area of 676.6 square metres which is 73.4 square metres (9.7 per cent) less than the 750 square metre minimum lot size required for multi-dwelling housing. The proposal complies with maximum overall height limitations and FSR but has ceiling heights of 2.4m which is is 0.26m less than the 2.7m minimum required in planning controls. The consultant’s report justifies this failure to provide minimum ceiling heights by stating: “All first fl oor space is devoted to bedrooms, while each townhouse has ‘open’ stairwells with voids above ground floor entry vestibule space which, together with careful attention to floor planning, window position, alfresco and garden features including espalier planting, enhances internal amenity fulfilling the objective of the higher (2.7m floor to ceiling) height requirements within the Development Control Plan (DCP).

“Strict compliance would not result in any appreciable increase in living amenity given the inclusion of generous void space visually connecting ground and first floor. “The proposed ceiling heights will not result in any appreciable loss of amenity to the residents. “No particular benefit is achieved by strict compliance with the minimum preferred ceiling height.” The site is identified as subject to intermittent catchment flooding. “The development will be in accordance with Council’s requirements to respond the minor flood impact,” the consultant’s report said. The proposed development has setbacks that do not comply for its North (front) boundary, West (side) boundary and South (rear) boundary. “The proposed setbacks do not compromise outdoor recreation space, privacy or amenity either for the residents or neighbours,” according to the consultant’s report.

“The numerical requirements of the DCP evidently relate to and might be more applicable where consolidated sites with basement car parking, higher density and higher buildings would mandate and justify the increased setbacks, that is, in circumstances where increased setbacks are required to complement the greater scale of the development and preserve the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties which are adequately and appropriately protected in this instance. “There is no immediate prospect of consolidation of the subject site with those adjoining and strict compliance with the more stringent setbacks promoted by the DCP are not feasible. “Strict compliance with the preferred setback requirements is unnecessary. “Residential accommodation of the nature advanced in this application is in demand for an emerging and identifiable group of ‘empty nesters’, early retirees and those with a preference for ‘lock it and leave’ accommodation with small maintenance obligations.

“For the reasons outlined above Council is requested to accept variation to numerical DCP requirements, as required. “The residential marketplace and in particular, that on the Woy Woy Peninsula, is becoming increasingly more sophisticated and demanding in response to the improved accessibility and affordability of new contemporary housing in an area well serviced with local facilities and accessible to and from the Sydney metropolitan area,” the consultant’s report concludes. “A consequence of that sophistication is the now more broadly accepted provision of medium density housing and in particular townhouse style accommodation.

“Townhouse accommodation is preferable to many than that alternative that might be available in medium density (residential fl at/ multi-storey) development. “The proponents, with some marketplace expertise, have identified the locational attributes of this site within walking distance of the Woy Woy CBD/Bus/Rail and Ferry services, as one with high appeal to the identified marketplace. “The proposed development is generally consistent with the requirements of the Gosford LEP 2014 and Gosford DCP 2013. “The proposed development is compatible with the site and locality and will provide a quality addition to the housing stock in the area and we look forward to Council’s favourable consideration and approval of the application.”

SOURCE: DA55239/2018, 3 Oct 2018 Gosford DA Tracker, Central Coast Council

Similar stories