Umina development refused again

An artist's impression of the proposed development at Umina Beach

A proposal for the construction of commercial premises and shop-top housing at Umina Beach has once again been refused by the Central Coast Local Planning Panel (LPP).

At its meeting on October 24, the panel voted unanimously to uphold its former refusal of the proposal, which would see four levels of housing sitting atop commercial premises at street level on a T-shaped block at1-3 Alfred St and 315 West St.

The development would provide 14 apartments.

A Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) lodged with the application said the development would provide much-needed commercial space and housing in the Umina CBD.

The site presently contains an existing single-storey chemist shop with a shopfront to West St and parking at the rear with access to Alfred St.

To the rear of the chemist shop, with frontage to Alfred St, is a prefabricated building used as a pathology collection facility and an older single-storey brick house.

The proposal is for demolition of the prefab building and house and relocation of the parking spots at the rear of the chemist shop.

A new commercial development fronting West St would retain the chemist shop and be topped by four levels providing two one-bedroom units, four two-bedroom units and eight three-bedroom units.

But the panel reinforced its refusal, saying the proposal is non-compliant with the Gosford LEP 2014, SEPP65 and Gosford DCP 2013 and would constitute an “undesirable precedent” for future development.

“The proposed development pattern does not promote efficient use of land (and its) footprint may have a potentially negative impact on the future development potential of adjoining sites,” the LPP minutes say.

“The proposed height of five storeys includes some non-compliances with the minimum floor to ceiling heights under the Apartment Design Guide and exceeds the four-storey limit for the site set out in the Gosford Development Control Plan 2013 (GDCP2013).

“No compelling reason has been put forward to justify the exceedance of these height limits in the applicable planning controls.”

The panel also found that proposed building setbacks/building separation do not comply with planning control and that the development would not “promote the orderly and economic use and development of the land”.

Also refused by the LPP at its October 24 meeting were two separate proposals for three-unit multi dwelling housing at 16 and 34 Warrah St, Ettalong Beach.

Source:
Minutes LPP meeting, October 24

2 Comments on "Umina development refused again"

  1. It’s a disgrace that bad quality prefab and worn out single houses are being kept instead of this very nice development. An obsession with building height is preventing excellent design improving the dingy Umina Beach shopping precinct.

    • umina beach shopping precinct is the opposite to dingy in that the absence of multi storey buildings allow the street to continue to have ample light, acoustic ambience, an open air feel. Taller buildings would diminish the ambience of the street to both pedestrians and traffic.

Comments are closed.