Two proposed developments were rejected at the Local Planning Panel meeting on November 9.
Both proposals went to the panel with council recommending refusals.
One application to construct three x two-storey attached units at 8 Priestman Avenue, Umina Beach lacked appropriate detail, according to council.
These included insufficient information to demonstrate compliance with the maximum building height standard and a miscalculation of the gross floor area.
The panel said the proposal was inconsistent with a number of clauses of the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan.
The other proposal for three fast food restaurants and a tyre outlet on the former site of the tourist information centre at Kariong also lacked enough detail, according to council staff.
Issues included:
• Impact on ecology and tree loss and non-compliance with the requirements of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016;
• Visual impact from Central Coast Highway;
• Incompatibility with the landscape character of the area;
• Insufficient information to allow a proper assessment of the application; and
• Matters raised in more than 80 public submissions.
The panel said the proposal did not respect the special natural characteristics of the site.
“The extent of proposed earthworks and roadworks (both within the site and on the Central Coast Highway) would result in significant adverse impact on the existing trees, biodiversity, visual and scenic quality of the site, and streetscape,” the panel said.
It also noted the need for strategic planning for the entire Mount Penang site by the Hunter and Central Coast Development Corporation, and in particular the road
network, “the absence of which presents challenges for developers and council alike,” the panel said..
network, “the absence of which presents challenges for developers and council alike,” the panel said..
The third item was confidential.
It was about a “deemed refusal” which means the applicant has taken the matter to the land and environment court rather than wait for council to assess the matter.
Applicants choose to go to court after a time period if Council hasn’t made a decision.
This one was for three units at Blue Bay.
It attracted a dozen or so objections during the exhibition period, some complaining the former church should stay, see photo below.
Council was given delegated authority to give legal instruction to an external legal counsel on the matter.
