Skip Navigation Links.
Collapse Issue 543:<br />02 May 2022<br />_____________Issue 543:
02 May 2022
_____________
Collapse  NEWS NEWS
Green Grid could see Peninsula tree planting projects
Residents' association makes eight submissions
Biodiversity and archaeological studies at Woy Woy tip
New bush firefighters at Pearl Beach
Floating Landcare removes weeds from remote beach
Local traditional custodians challenge council 'accord'
Shade tree group plants 700th tree
Reid launches campaign at Umina with 300 supporters
Scholarships open for young people with disabilities
Council announces staging of Umina oval upgrades
Kerbside bulk waste collection resumes
Nine seniors receive local achievement awards
Applications wanted for National Parks advisory group
Ferry engine replaced after 35,000 hours
Work in progress
Mary Mac's Place holds autumn fair
Fire brigades remove tree from road
Rotary to hear about online project management tool
Welcome return to public Anzac Day services
History cruise departs from Patonga
Crafts centre starts crochet class
Peninsula records second highest March rainfall
Collapse  PLANNING PLANNING
Ettalong lacks open space, study finds
Five-level residence proposed at The Sanctuary
Six-unit development would remove 'high value' trees
Planning panel unanimously rejects Paton St proposal
Exceptional multi-unit proposal complies with setbacks
GUST highlights benefits of trees in tight spaces
Work starts on $3.85M leisure centre upgrade
Collapse  FORUM FORUM
Megacity thought bubble lacks substance
Collapse  NEWS NEWS
Cases level off at 1000
Collapse  HEALTH HEALTH
Flown to Westmead after injury at college
Couple tell of journey with Alzheimer's
Missing a much-loved face
Anzac ceremony held at hospital
Lesbian workshops held at Ettalong
Collapse  ARTS ARTS
Classic cinema club starts in Pearl Beach
Collapse  EDUCATION EDUCATION
College wins $500 youth week award
Cross country run held at the school
Big day for school photographers
Childcare AGM
Mother's Day stall
Parents invited to targeted programs evening
Collapse  SPORT SPORT
Roosters play Erina Eagles in 'tale of two halves'
Woy Woy suffers 51-5 rugby union defeat
Cycle group to hold 45km 'relaxed' ride
Appeal for $7000 drinking fountain
Southern Spirit Cricket awards presentations
Paul was 'swimmer of the meet'
Bailey Meti 'pipped at the post'
Boardriders' mums treated to champagne breakfast
Bridge club plays Easter Pairs and Anzac Pairs
Bridge club holds mixed pairs championship
Ettalong Major Pairs games
Little athletics holds annual meeting and presentations
Age group swimming champions
A great day at the office
Vacancies in SEU soccer teams
Officials wanted for State bowls championships
Swans play at Killarney Vale
Two-bowl mixed triples event played at Umina
Veteran Pairs played after weeks of rain
Through to volleyball quarter finals

EXTRA!!!

[Download]

Planning panel unanimously rejects Paton St proposal

The Central Coast Local Planning Panel has unanimously refused development application 61493/2021 for 95 Paton St, Woy Woy.

The application was for a multi-dwelling housing development, which would have retained the existing dwelling on site and added two further three-bedroom dwellings.

The application was recommended for approval by council planners.

The decision was made at the Panel's online meeting on April 21 which heard four speakers against the application and owner Mr Thomas Bowyer speaking for the application.

One of the speakers against, Mr Ventry Bowden, a neighbour, spoke of the complete lack of privacy that would ensue when he was sandwiched between two multi dwellings.

He said that a lot of things had changed in Paton Street over the years and they were not always good such as speeding "rat runners" and the rise of multi dwellings.

Ms Sue Fletcher spoke about the numerous non-compliances contained in the application.

She also complained that the changes made to the drawings by the applicant after the initial exhibition were not clear and they should have been re-exhibited.

She mentioned another case where non-compliant development that had been approved had led to serious flooding problems 10 years later.

Ms Fletcher said that the community was not asking for design excellence just adherence to minimum standards.

Mr Francis Wiffen spoke about the amount of work that the Council itself had put into producing the planning provisions and how it would become meaningless if this application, with so many non compliances, was approved.

He also challenged the basis of the applicant's 4.6 variation on lot size.

He said a large area that should have been deep soil would now be covered in concrete.

It was therefore untrue to claim that there was no increased environmental impact caused by using a smaller lot size, he said.

Applicant Mr Bowyer claimed that there were only 10 unique submissions and the rest were copies.

He argued that if a duplex was built it would result in even smaller setbacks than the ones being complained about.

He also spoke about how Woy Woy already had a housing crisis before the pandemic and that it had got a lot worse with the migration of Sydneysiders to the Coast.

When questioned by the panel on why he had decided to retain the original house he replied that it was for affordability reasons.

He stated that since he put in the application a year ago construction had become even more expensive by a large margin.

Other possibilities for the site, such as a duplex or secondary dwelling were not economically viable, he said.

The Panel's reasons for rejecting the application included the statement: "Compliance with the minimum lot sizes standard would not be unreasonable in the circumstances of the case because the proposed development does not meet the underlying intent of the control and is not a compatible form of development that results in reasonable environmental and amenity impacts, and there are insufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening that de-velopment standard.

"Further, the Panel considers that the proposed development will not be in the public interest because it is inconsistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives for development within the R1 General Residential zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out."

Other reasons given by the Panel included that "the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site by virtue of the ... nature of the built form (retaining the existing dwelling), inadequate landscaping, lack of deep soil planting ... lack of provision of adequate private open space".





Skip Navigation Links.

Skip Navigation Links.

Sign up here
to be notified
of the next

Peninsula
News
EXTRA!!!


http://bit.ly/PNExtra
     Phone 4342 5333     Email us. Copyright © 2022 The Peninsula's Own News Service Inc ABN 76 179 701 372    PO Box 585 Woy Woy NSW 2256