A $9M development of a 95 residential lot subdivision at Berkeley Vale has the green light after a Land and Environment Court determination.
The proposal finished up in Court as the applicant, GV Nominee No 1 Pty Ltd, appealed the deemed refusal by Central Coast Council.
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act allows an applicant to take matters to Court within the first six months of lodging an application if Council hasn’t made a decision.
The proposed residential lots in stages two and three of The Glades housing estate at 5 Scribbly Gum St, will range in size from 451sqm to 1126sqm, with an average allotment size of 591sqm.
The Glades housing estate is about 2.8km south-west of Chittaway Bay, 2.9km from Berkeley Vale and 1.4km north-west of Glenning Valley and has an area of 9.499ha.
The staged subdivision will firstly see 56 residential blocks (lots 201-256), internal roads, and one stormwater management facility, with the next stage creating 39 residential blocks, internal roads, and one stormwater management facility.
The land was rezoned for residential development in 2015 and when the first development application (DA) was lodged, a biodiversity assessment discovered a nesting White-bellied Sea Eagle on the property.
Plans were changed to accommodate a 250m buffer zone around the nest which took up some of the residential land.
Afterwards, the ecologists who were monitoring the eagle’s nest found it was no longer nesting there and it was an abandoned breeding site.
The applicant lodged a new DA (465/2020), modifying the previous approval, to be able to develop over that part of the land which had been set aside for the buffer zone around the eagle’s nest.
Along with the new DA, the applicant completed all biodiversity credits, which was part of the original development approval.
Under the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme, it is sometimes required for a developer to offset environmental impacts by paying an amount of money to the Biodiversity Conservation Trust which uses the contributions to embellish other environmental areas.
In the Court ruling by Commissioner Chilcott, it said he was satisfied the development would not significantly impact on the biophysical, hydrological or ecological integrity of the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral rainforest, nor the quantity and quality of surface and ground water flows to and from the wetland and rainforest.
Also, there is no evidence that core koala habitat exists on the site, the Court determination said.
The applicant said the proposed subdivision met the aims and objectives of the Central Coast Regional Plan and was in line with Central Coast Council’s plan for the further residential development of the area, consistent with Council’s rezoning of the land to R2 low-density residential.
“The social impact associated with the proposal is considered to be positive, bringing such benefits as an increased supply of new housing, creation of new neighbourhoods interconnected with walking and cycling facilities,” the report said.
The date of the Court determination was May 6 and consent took effect from June 2 when it was registered on the NSW Planning Portal.
Merilyn Vale and Sue Murray
95 residential lot subdivision at Berkeley Vale approved is absolutely disgusting. How has this been approved?
I agree that we need to find a solution to housing shortages but at the cost of our environment is not OK, particularly our local rainforests.
Why did the ecologists not mention in the story that the sea eagle was more than likely pushed out of its original nest by all the earthworks and activity being carried out around its nest. They also don’t mention that the sea eagle was found dead only metres from its original nest , and near its hastily made, new nest. The ecologist was informed of this and didn’t seem to care.
This also seems like too much of a coincidence…needing a sea eagles nest moved, then the eagle miraculously disappears, but turns up dead.
I am also wondering why council have paid tens of thousands of dollars over the years to map and regenerate this land, only to build 95 new houses on it . Seems like a waste of money, time and resources.
I am also wondering how 95 houses , which could possibly hold on average 6 people, is also classed as low density.
The best part though is how 95 houses won’t have any affect on the neighbouring wetlands and rainforest. So how can they guarantee there will be no chemical or water run off, no dumpings, no evasive weeds, no feral pests,and no encroachment by the landowners; just to mention a few.
Such a shame on council and developers to put greed before natural habitat. Central Coast wis undergoing death by a thousand cuts. Sooner than we realise the entire rim will be citified.
Council must represent the people and environment of the future as well as the greedy developers pressures right now.
New homes for who? How much shelter is needed? Certainly not by removing shelter of other creatures.
Despicable selfish human aggression.
And the “neighbourhood park” on the plans will be completed? I think not. Thanks council and the Land and environment court (what a joke) for getting rid of the bushland opposite my house which was zoned “never” to be built on. And for the ten fold increase in traffic going past my house on Bottlebrush Drive. Disgraceful
Great news hopefully there will be some will be rental properties as there is such a shortage around the area