The Local Planning Panel has rejected two development proposals with both described as over developments of their sites.
Developers wanted to add two 3-bedroom homes behind an existing house at 95 Paton St, Woy Woy and, in a completely separate development, developers wanted to knock down four town houses at 14 York St, East Gosford and replace them with a 23 room boarding house.
The panel said the Woy Woy proposal was an overdevelopment of the site for a number of reasons including the nature of the built form including retaining the existing dwelling; inadequate landscaping and lack of deep soil planting along with poorly located bin storage and inadequate parking turning paths.
The panel was also critical of the proposed internal ceiling heights and the lack of adequate private open space.
Four residents spoke against the plan when the panel met last week and written objections totalled 64 for the development application dubbed “Paton Place” in a reference to the American1960s television soap opera, Peyton Place.
The panel said it did not agree that the applicant had demonstrated that compliance with a particular clause of the development standard was unnecessary in the circumstances.
“Compliance with the minimum lot sizes standard would not be unreasonable in the circumstances of the case because the proposed development does not meet the underlying intent of the control and is not a compatible form of development that results in reasonable environmental and amenity impacts, and there are insufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening that development standard,” the panel said.
“Further, the Panel considers that the proposed development will not be in the public interest because it is inconsistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives for development within the R1 General Residential zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.”
The Panel said the 14 York St, East Gosford site boarding house proposal was “an overdevelopment of the site by virtue of the dimensions of the site and the form and design of the proposed single building”.
“The narrowness of the site, inadequate side setbacks and the development’s height unreasonably exacerbates overshadowing of adjoining sites,” the panel said in one of four reasons for the refusal.
“The building as designed, incorporating a breezeway on the eastern elevation, not only introduces an elevated amenity impact in terms of noise and visual privacy for adjoining lots but also adds bulk to the building.
“Likewise, on the western boundary the introduction of balconies close to adjoining boundaries presents a poor amenity relationship particularly as regards to noise and privacy.”
The Development Application sought consent for the demolition of the existing two storey townhouses and the construction of a four storey, 23 room Boarding House.
Both decisions were unanimous.
Merilyn Vale