The Local Planning Panel has rejected an application to build six units at 75 Brick Wharf Rd, despite a recommendation from Central Coast Council for approval.
First lodged more than two years ago with several modifications since, the application for three levels of two and three-bedroom apartments on a lot backing on to a public carpark attracted multiple submissions of objection.
Resident Erin Kelly addressed the Panel’s June 8 meeting, outlining Brick Wharf Rd’s unique character as home to a war memorial unveiled in 1925, heritage pines and 1920s cottages.
She said small-width residential blocks had been held in families for decades, with recent developments all being single storey.
The development’s design had not considered the local context and would be “a large concrete box that will stand out like a sore”, she said.
Kelly outlined residents’ concerns about height and floor space ratios, streetscape appeal and the flood-prone nature of the site.
A representative for the applicant also addressed the Panel, fielding questions on shadowing and rear-site access via the public carpark.
The representative said all properties along the road had garages at the back which used the carpark for access.
A Council report to the Panel said even though the proposal did not comply with setback guidelines, a 6m setback on each side would not be viable on the relatively narrow site.
It also said the proposed density of the development was “acceptable, despite exceeding the floor space ratio development standard”.
But the Panel remained unmoved, voting unanimously to reject the proposal on several grounds.
It said the applicant had not demonstrated that there was legal access to the site from the public carpark; that there were sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening floor space development standards; or that the development would be in the public interest.
The Panel said non-compliance with various controls would represent an over-development of the site resulting in “unreasonable impacts on the adjoining heritage building, over-shadowing and loss of privacy”.
The Panel also cited insufficient setbacks, carparking concerns and insufficient detail on how proposed rooftop landscaping would be maintained, made secure and safe, and not contribute to loss of privacy.
It said the proposal did not satisfy the relevant design quality principles of SEPP65 and the provisions of Section 3F – Visual Privacy of the Apartment Design Guide.
Source:
Local Planning Panel minutes, June 8 meeting