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".

SOURCE:

Local Planning Panel agenda 3.2, 21 Apr 2022

DA/61493/2021, Central Coast Council

Skip Navigation Links.