Patonga application prompts planning review

Gosford Council has ordered a review of planning provisions for small villages, after considering an application for a two-storey house in Patonga.

The review would "ensure the characteristics of smaller villages are maintained".

"Building bigger houses on smaller blocks is at heart of the issue," said Cr Daniel Cook.

The council approved the development of the house in Bay St, Patonga, at its meeting on September 9.

The development application was presented for council consideration after objections from the public.

The council delayed discussion to inspect the property.

According to the council agenda, neighbours objected to the erection of a two-storey dwelling on the basis of impact on privacy, overshadowing, size and dual occupancy.

The applicant showed council, during the meeting, changes to the design to address some of the objections.

"There has been an endeavour by the applicant to stay with the character there," Cr Chris Holstein said.

Cr Lynne Bockholt said that she thought the development had put council in a bad position.

"Patonga is really a nice little village," she said.

"There are already two storey houses at Patonga.

"It's a lovely atmosphere but it's not consistent.

"We are only picking on this applicant because there is an objection."

Cr Cook said that the development was typical of a number of development applications, particularly in smaller villages.

"We need to review the building envelope.

"Building bigger houses on smaller blocks is at heart of the issue," he said.

Cr Tony Sansom and Cr Holstein moved that the application be approved with two additional clauses:

"Council review the operation of Clause 10(4) of the Gosford Planning Scheme Ordinance and identify the need for training of staff in relation to the use of character statements.

"A review of floor space ratios contained in DCP 155 be undertaken as soon as possible to ensure the characteristics of smaller villages are maintained."

Council carried the motion, approving the development.

A staff report in the agenda addressed privacy issues.

"Impact on privacy is not considered excessive or to warrant refusal of the application," the report stated.

Submissions were also made to Council on the basis that overshadowing would impact the premises to the south of the proposal.

"The applicant has submitted shadow impact diagrams for both the equinox and winter solstice which demonstrate that the degree of overshadowing is not unreasonable," according to the report.

Objections that the development was too big for the site were dismissed with the statement that the development met regulations with regard to two-storey houses.

"Patonga can be considered as an area which is currently in 'development transition' with older dwellings either being demolished and replaced or extensively refurbished and extended as properties in the area increase in popularity and therefore value," the report claimed.

The council report also dismissed suggestion that the development could be used for dual occupancy development as it was prohibited in Patonga.

"The floor plan of the ground floor does not indicate the installation of any kitchen or cooking facilities," it stated.

Alison Branley, Council agenda DH 082, September 12