House approved for Araluen Dr

Gosford Council has approved a development application for the demolition of an existing house and the construction of a house at 168 Araluen Dr, Hardys Bay.

Council deferred the matter on December 2 to its meeting on December 9 so that a site inspection could be completed.

At the meeting, Council viewed the plans and objectors to the development were heard.

Objectors said that if the development was allowed to extend further forward that the required 6m setback it would set a precedent for future developments for the street.

Council was told this would mean the applicant would either have to redesign the house or move the whole structure back towards large trees in the backyard.

Council decided that the overall design was sympathetic to the character of the street and approved the development.

Cr Bockholt said that the development would be the first of nine in the street to break the precedent,.

She was recorded in dissent.

"What was the point of urban design framework?" she said.

"At the very first test, we fall at the first hurdle."

Cr Wales said that there would be a greater impact with a setback of six metres.

"You are going to see driveways along the water," she said.

Cr Doyle said that if you look down the street you would see a number of precedents.

"The design is sympathetic. It is set back in two stages.

"What we are talking about is a deck.

"If we push the whole thing back, we are going to see a long driveway."

The council agenda noted that Araluen Dr was a "mix of development ranging form old-style cottages to larger modern homes" and that the "street-front building lines vary with many encroaching on the six metre setback."

"Both homes on either side have decks up to 3.5m setback to the street boundary with a setback of 5m to the building proper."

"The setback and facade treatment reduces privacy issues and eliminates any potential view loss problems for both adjacent neighbours."

There were five public submissions.

Answering an objection to overshadowing the property to the south, the staff report to Council noted that all dwellings in that section of Araluen Dr cast a shadow over their neighbour and the design of the house had taken steps to reduce overshadowing.

In relation to height, the report noted that the initial plans did not comply with building height envelope requirements but had been amended to fully comply.

In relation to privacy, the report noted that a full height privacy screen has been provided to the northern side of the upper floor balcony to maintain privacy.

Adjoining owners also raised the concern that the design would have an impact on existing views from adjoining premises.

The report commented that the proposal had been sited and designed paying regard to existing views.

In relation to stormwater, the report noted that all roof and sealed surface stormwater would be required to be collected and disposed of to Araluen Drive.

Alison Branley, Council agenda DH.122, December 11