Non-compliant dual occupancy planned at netball courts
A development application seeking approval for construction of a dual occupancy at 84 Broken Bay Rd, Ettalong, which backs onto the Lemon Grove netball courts, has been lodged with Central Coast Council.
The proposal is non-compliant with planning provisions - exceeding the permitted floor space ratio by 18 per cent and reducing the second-storey setback to 50 per cent on one side.
It seeks a floor space ratio of 0.59:1, where 0.5:1 is the maximum permitted.
It also proposes a second-storey setback of one metre, where two metres would be required.
The application includes the demolition of an existing single-storey clad dwelling and shed currently on the site.
These existing structures are described as "having no significant architectural merit or historical significance and being in a level of disrepair".
The site, which adjoins the access road to the netball courts, has an area calculated at 696 square metres and dimensions of 15.24 metres in width and 45.72 metres in depth, with a slope from west to east of 1.57 metres.
Vehicular access is proposed from Broken Bay Rd via a shared single crossing that then splits into two driveways, one for each unit.
The application, prepared by Red Apple Design for applicant Mr Stephen Sallows, states that low-lying plants and shrubs are proposed at the residence entrances.
The development would consist of two double-storey units, each featuring three bedrooms and two-and-a-half bathrooms.
The application notes that the site is located within an established residential neighbourhood characterised by a mix of low to medium density developments, including both double and single-storey houses.
It is claimed that "the use and scale proposed with this development is consistent with and encouraged within the R1 General Residential Zone, while the overall concept and design is proven to meet the objectives of the zone".
The application describes the layout as consisting of "two double-storey architecturally-designed units" with "the facade articulated to eliminate long runs of blank wall".
The name of the architect is not included in the exhibited documents.
It also states that the Kliplock steel roof is concealed behind boxed gutters to "provide a contemporaray minimalist aesthetic".
The private open space areas for both units are each slightly more than double the minimum required area of 45 square metres.
The proposed building height of 8.495 metres is stated as complying with the maximum building height of 8.5 metres applicable to the site.
Site coverage is also claimed to comply, calculated at 33.5 per cent with a minimum 25 per cent soft landscaping requirement.
The application claims that the proposal does not interfere with any views.
It says privacy concerns are addressed with first-floor windows designed with a minimum 1.4-metre sill height to mitigate overlooking neighbours.
Sunlight access requirements are also claimed to be met, with living areas and private open spaces having a north-eastern orientation.
Shadow diagrams are provided.
However, it appears that true north was not used to calculate these diagrams, but an alignment about seven degrees off true north.
As a result, the shadow diagrams for 12pm actually show the shadowing that would occur at 11:30am.
Each unit is planned to have a double enclosed garage which will provide the required two parking spaces per unit.
The application seeks exemption from two planning provisions.
The applicable maximum floor space ratio for the site is 0.5:1, while the proposal is for 0.59:1, exceeding the limit by 18 per cent.
The request for this exemption argues that compliance with the planning control would "necessitate impractical modifications to the building's form".
It claims the proposed floor space ratio represents "a modest approach in designing living areas and bedrooms to provide adequate internal dimensions".
The applicant argues that compliance with the standard is "unreasonable or unnecessary in this case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation".
However, those grounds are not spelt out.
This argument draws on planning guidance and legal principles from court decisions related to varying development standards.
"Additionally, it's crucial to highlight that the consent authority possesses the power to authorize a variation to a development standard, irrespective of the extent of numerical variance," the application claims.
However, a "variance" of greater than 10 per cent has frequently been cited in minutes of the Local Planning Panel as the reason for its involvement.
The application also seeks to build a vertical wall for Unit 1, set back just one metre from the boundary, where the planning provisions would require a second-storey setback of two metres.
The wall extends for more than half the total site length, with an exemption requested on the basis that it is adjacent to a public reserve.
The application claims the setback requirement is "unreasonable or unnecessary".
It claims that the proposed setback is similar to other developments in the area and that there are no overshadowing impacts on neighbouring properties because the boundary in question is shared with a public reserve.
It is also claimed that enforcing strict compliance would have to be at the expense of private open space and deep soil planting, requirements which are met by the proposal.
The application also argues the standard has been "effectively abandoned or disregarded" by the Council, referencing a nearby property where development exists as close as one metre to the boundary adjacent to the public reserve.
The application concludes by stating that the proposal embraces the objectives of the planning instruments and control measures, aiming to create a functional development with high levels of amenity.
It is claimed that the development will "add vibrancy, character, diversity, availability, and affordability to the local housing stock" and is in the public interest.
The application is on public exhibition with submissions closing on June 6.
SOURCE:
DA Tracker, 16 May 2025
DA/549/2025, Central Coast Council