Proposed housing development for seniors and disabled knocked back

An artist's impression of the proposed development

The Local Planning Panel has upheld a recommendation from Central Coast Council to refuse an application for a three-storey 45-unit housing development for seniors and disabled residents at North Gosford.

The proposed development, at 40 Bradys Gully Rd, sought to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a three-storey residential flat building comprising 40 two-bedroom self-care seniors units and five one-bedroom units.

It was also to include a rooftop communal open space terrace and ground level courtyards and landscaping.

Meals, cleaning services and personal and nursing care were to have been available on a “user pays” basis.

A report to the panel said 19 submissions of objection to the proposal were received, along with a petition containing 21 signatures.

Objections included a proposed 100 per cent departure from the single-storey development standard for the rear 25 per cent of the site and a 10 per cent departure from the Floor Space Ratio development standard.

“It is noted that the applicant has received multiple requests for withdrawal based on significant issues and there has been ongoing delay in the submission of amended plans and supporting reports,” the report said.

A map showing the location of the proposed development

Other key issues identified included non-compliance with the Maximum Building Height control and Apartment Design Guide setback controls.

There was also limited solar access to communal open space, lack of information on landscape plans, reliance on lightwells to provide amenity to a number of bedrooms and no provision for a staff room.

Insufficient information had been provided in regard to: access; engineering; traffic; stormwater; waste; sewer provision; retention, removal and protection of trees on site; landscape plans; and ecology.

The panel also found the proposed access to basement parking was inadequate and unsuitable for aged and disabled residents.

The decision for refusal was unanimous.

Source:
Central Coast Local Planning Panel minutes, August 10 meeting