Council gives list of reasons for refusing dual occupancy
Central Coast Council has refused an application for a dual occupancy at 17 Brittania St, Umina.
The council gave eight reasons for refusal, including one with 16 parts.
It stated that the proposed development was inconsistent with land use zone objectives, as the proposal was not compatible with the desired future character of the established residential area and did not "promote best design practice regarding the subject site constraints".
It said the proposed development failed to comply with Clause 4.1B of the Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014.
"The applicant's Clause 4.6 written request to vary the minimum lot size for dual occupancy development standard has not adequately demonstrated that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.
"The applicant's Clause 4.6 written request to vary the minimum lot size for dual occupancy development standard has not adequately addressed the matters required by Clause 4.6(3)b) as sufficient environmental planning grounds, specific to the development on the site, have not been provided to justify the variation."
The council's determination stated: "The proposed development is not in the public interest because it is inconsistent with the objective of the particular standard.
"This is on the basis that it fails to comply with certain development standards."
It said the proposed development failed to comply with the development control plan in 16 respects.
These included failing to comply with building envelope requirements, not meeting minimum rear setback for garages, failing to suitably level the site to minimise fill within setback areas, failing to retain visually prominent vegetation within the street reserve.
It had not met the minimum garage parking space dimensions, had failed to suitably design the development for garages to be setback one metre behind the outermost walls of the building to minimise the visual dominance of garages on any building elevation, and had failed to retain sight lines for rear courtyards due to the inadequate setback of the rear garage.
It had not provided a single driveway crossover.
It had failed to provide sufficient private open space area with compliant dimensions for unit 2 and had not been designed to allow adequate sunlight to internal living areas for unit 2.
It had failed to provide a suitable street address for the rear dwelling and compliant fencing along the rear boundary.
It had not been designed to provide adequately articulated walls.
It had failed to provide at least 25% of the site area as a deep soil area and had failed to provide adequate internal storage area.
It had failed to demonstrate adequate manoeuvrability for cars entering the rear double garage.
The determination stated: "The proposed development is considered unsatisfactory with regard to site suitability as the design and layout does not reasonably respond to the site constraints and the site cannot suitably accommodate the proposed bulk and scale, resulting in adverse impacts to the subject site and adjoining locality.
"For the reasons stated above including not being compatible with the constraints of the site, ... it is considered that the proposed development is not in the public interest."
SOURCE:.
DA Tracker, 13 Jul 2023.
DA/1346/2022, Central Coast Council.