Drawn-out saga illustrates planning system flaws
The drawn-out almost four-year saga of development application DA/61592/2021 for 16 Warrah St, Ettalong, serves as a starkly ludicrous illustration of the deep flaws within the NSW planning system.
It began its tortuous journey on April 21, 2021, for a simple three-unit multi dwelling and attracted considerable local objection.
With 27 submissions and a 43-signature petition, it was refused by the Local Planning Panel on November 24, 2022, due to a clear breach of minimum lot size regulations in the Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014, and the applicant's unsuccessful attempt to justify this non-compliance.
However, the matter was far from over.
Following a fruitless Section 8.2 review requested by the applicant and yet more amended plans, the applicant perhaps unsurprisingly appealed to the Land and Environment Court with "conciliation" proceedings commencing on May 17 last year.
It's a disturbing outcome of this system that these conciliation conferences, supposedly aimed at speed and economy, so often result in forcing councils into approving developments they have initially rejected for good reason.
The statistics from last financial year speak volumes: 17 out of 20 Central Coast Council refusal appeals were upheld through this process,.
Obscured from public scrutiny, these conciliations, with their inevitable "appeal upheld" outcomes, feel more akin to a rigged trial where the council is always found wanting.
In the case of 16 Warrah St, the previously "unsatisfactory" justification suddenly became acceptable and the appeal was duly upheld on June 14.
The applicant and the legal fraternity were left content, while the ratepayers were left to foot the bill, exemplified by the paltry $10,000 awarded to the Council for the cost of its wasted defence.
The farcical conclusion to this ordeal taking over three years is that the applicant, having navigated this labyrinthine process, has simply opted for an entirely different design - a dual occupancy.
He has submitted as a Complying Development Certificate application which, due to its non-discretionary nature, was approved on the very same day it was lodged, March 31.
One must surely question the sanity of a planning system so easily circumvented and seemingly designed to exhaust and penalise everyone except the determined applicant, leaving us ratepayers to ponder when, if ever, these fundamental absurdities will be addressed.
SOURCE:
Email, 6 Apr 2025
Frank Wiffen, Woy Woy