►
From YouTube: Central Coast Local Planning Panel November 24, 2022
Description
The Central Coast Local Planning Panel (CCLPP) is an independent panel of qualified people to review and assess development applications for the Central Coast Local Government Area, providing increased transparency, integrity and confidence in the development application assessment process.
Please note that confidential sessions within a Local Planning Panel meeting will not be webcast.
The webcast of Local Planning Panel meetings is not, and shall not, be taken to be an official record of Central Coast Council or of any meeting or discussion depicted therein. Central Coast Council does not accept liability for any defamatory remarks or inappropriate comments that are made during the course of a meeting. Recordings of CCLPP meetings are copyright protected and cannot be reused or reproduced without approval from Council.
https://www.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au/council/meetings-and-minutes/local-planning-panel
A
A
Could
I
ask
everyone
please
to
turn
your
electronic
devices
to
silent
and
to
ensure
that
you're
free
from
any
interruptions
so
just
to
introduce
the
panel
today,
there's
myself
current
I'm,
the
chair,
Grant
Christmas
who's,
an
expert
professional
panel
member
Greg,
Flynn
who's.
Also,
an
expert
professional
panel
member
and
Tony
tucksworth
who's,
the
nominator
Community
panel
member.
A
There
are
no
apologies
for
today,
this
meeting
I'm
just
checking
sorry
conflicts
of
interest,
I'm
just
noticing
it's
not
in
the
notes,
but
the
I
just
like
to
advise
everyone
that
the
panel
has
submitted
conflict
of
interest
forms
ahead
of
this
meeting
in
relation
to
the
three
items
that
are
in
this
public
meeting
and
no
conflicts
of
interest
have
been
recorded
in
relation
to
these
three
items,
just
moving
on
to
the
development
application.
So
today
the
meeting
will
consider
the
following
development
applications
in
this
public
meeting.
A
Today
we
have
the
following:
seven
people
registered
to
address
the
panel
so
for
agenda
items
3.1,
which
is
16
Warren
Street
at
Long
Beach.
We
have
one
speaker,
Greg
Smith,
from
km
design,
Partners
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
for
agenda
item
3.2,
which
is
78
Bluebell,
Drive,
warnborough,
alterations
and
additions.
We
have
two
speakers.
We
have
Deborah
Bell
against
the
recommendation
and
Scott
solar
are
also
against
the
recommendation
for
agenda
item
3.3.
A
We
have
for
34
Warren
Street
at
Long.
Beach
I
have
registered
four
speakers,
so
the
first
is
Debbie
sanatha
for
the
recommendation.
Frank
Francis
within
for
the
recommendation.
The
third
speaker
is
Alana
Jones
on
behalf
of
the
implicant
and
Greg
Smith,
from
km
design,
Partners.
Also
on
behalf
of
the
applicant,
so
welcome
everyone.
A
We
will
hear
from
the
speakers
on
the
first
agenda
item.
Then
we
will
hear
from
the
applicants,
representative
or
representatives
and
so
on.
Our
usual
practice
is
to
allow
individual
members
of
the
public
three
minutes
to
speak
on
the
matter.
This
time
may
be
extended
with
the
agreement
of
the
panel.
A
I
also
ask
that
each
speaker
be
heard
in
silence
while
they
are
addressing
the
panel
and
that
courtesy
and
respect
be
observed
throughout
this
meeting.
There
is
to
be
no
personal
criticism
directed
any
speaker
or
Council
staff.
Any
such
criticism
would
be
contrary
to
the
panel's
code
of
conduct
and
will
not
be
accepted.
A
Such
criticism
also
adds
nothing
into
the
process
of
considering
the
matters
at
hand.
Panel
members
may
ask
questions
of
the
speakers
to
clarify
our
understanding
of
what
is
being
said.
Your
privacy
is
important
to
us
and
you
are
under
no
obligation
to
disclose
your
personal
information
or
provide
your
address
in
a
public
forum.
A
However,
should
you
wish
to
provide
information
in
relation
to
your
locality
to
assist
the
panel
on
understanding
your
concerns?
That
is
entirely
up
to
you.
The
panel
has
had
the
benefit
of
copies
of
unredacted
solutions,
and
we
will
therefore
refer
to
relevant
information
provider
where
available
and
possible.
A
After
hearing
from
the
speakers,
the
panel
may
ask
questions
of
council
officers
to
clarify
that
is
raised
and
then,
after
hearing
from
the
speakers
on
each
agenda
item,
the
panel
will
adjourn
the
meeting
to
confirm
if
we
were
meeting
in
person.
We
might
then
reconvene
the
meeting
to
hand
down
our
decisions,
but
given
this
is
like
an
electronic
meeting,
we
will
instead
seek
to
have
the
panel's
decisions
up
on
council's
website
as
soon
as
possible.
A
At
the
conclusion
of
the
adjournment,
we
may
decide
to
either
make
a
decision
on
the
matter
or
if
more
information
is
required
by
the
panel,
the
decision
may
be
deferred
either
for
a
further
public
meeting
or
to
be
dealt
with
electronically
agenda
item
1.1.
Oh
my
apologies.
This
is
where
the
Declarations
of
interest
is
so
I'd
remind
panel
members
of
the
requirements
of
the
code
of
conduct
for
panel
members
about
conflict
of
interest,
declarations
and
I.
A
A
E
You
chair
I'll,
try
and
keep
it
as
brief
as
possible,
so
we
can
keep
keep
moving
through
the
meeting
I
just
personally
like
to
start
by
addressing
the
reasons
for
refusal
as
outlining
the
report
by
Council
the
Clause
4.6.
It
states
that
does
not
adequately
address
the
provisions
of
the
Clause
4.6
to
demonstrate
that
there
are
sufficient
environmental
planning
grants,
adjusted
by
contravention
to
the
minimum
lot
size
standard
under
Clause
4.1.
E
Now
going
back
a
bit
of
background
on
Warren
Street
itself,
I've
previously
been
involved
and
had
approved
six
developments
in
that
streak,
all
of
similar
lot
size
and
similar
variations
to
lot
size
all
of
similar
floor
space
ratio
and
all
of
similar
setback.
Variations
going
back
through
the
reports
where
those
Town
planners
have
approved
those
developments.
E
E
E
Points
three
The
Proposal
is
not
consistent
with
the
r1's
own
objective
on
the
glep
again
draw
your
attention
to
the
six
previously
approved
applications
in
the
street,
all
varying
lot
sizes
between
724.6
square
meters
and
730.4,
or
with
a
floor
space
ratio
between
0.45
and
0.5
to
1.
all
with
a
six
meter
prone
setback,
all
with
side
setbacks
of
1.1
liters
to
1.2
meters,
all
with
three
setbacks
from
2.8
to
3.9.
E
So
I'm,
not
again,
I'm,
not
saying
how
this
application
doesn't
isn't
consistent
with
the
R1
zoning,
when
the
previous
seats
had
been
that
that
that
question
applies
to
number
four
as
well,
because
it's
the
same
the
same
situation.
It
says
it
doesn't
comply,
it
doesn't
doesn't
meet
the
objectives
of
the
sap,
but
they
haven't
outlined
how
it
doesn't.
When
six
times
it's
been
approved,.
E
E
I
replied
to
that
email,
saying
that
council's
Engineers
had
requested
these
directly
to
the
engineer,
we'd
engaged
to
prepare
the
plans
and
asked
her
how
long
she
had
to
have
before
she
had
to
have
the
information
to
the
panel
to
which
she
replied.
There
are
several
weeks
of
lead
time
in
a
manager,
peer
review
and
in
his
walk
past.
The
point
of
me
being
able
to
edit
my
report,
he'll
be
officially
advised
of
the
planning
panel
dates.
A
E
It
I
just
it's
not
they're,
not
identically
the
same
but
they're,
very
similar
and
and
but
we're
being
obviously
I.
Don't
know
if
it's
because
we've
got
over
10
objections
and
we've
got
to
go
to
the
planning
panel,
but
there's
been
no
I,
suppose
feedback,
often
to
us
as
to
how
they're
so
different
from
these
other
ones
that
have
been
through.
E
That
that
that's
that's
pretty
much
all
I
need
look
at
by
the
panel
to
be
honest,
is
is
how
this
application
is
so
different
to
recommend
refusal
from
the
six
previously
approved
in
the
street
two
identity,
18
and
20
worth
so
they're
both
went
through
so
directly
next
door
and
and
yet
we've
all
we've
been
told,
is
this
one
doesn't
comply
with?
The
zoning
doesn't
comply
the
objective
of
the
DCP,
so
that
would
be
all
for
me.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
Mr
Smith,
just
before
I
open
it
up
to
questions
from
the
panel
or
Mr
Smith.
I.
Think
I.
Just
note
that
there
is
some
of
these
questions
are
probably
questions
that
we
we
will
ask
of
the
council
officers
because
they,
your
address,
really
directs
some
of
that
towards
their
interpretation
or
or
assessment
of
of
these
matters.
A
A
B
E
B
A
Of
course,
I
just
remind
everyone
that
every
application
is
assessed
on
its
own
individual
merits,
so
I
think
that
there's
obviously
relevance
in
understanding
application
of
controls
and
where
there
might
be
some
similarities,
but
at
the
same
time
every
design
is
different.
So,
okay,
any
any
questions,
Tony
or
Greg
of.
C
Madam
chair
they
had
a
question.
I
was
going
to
ask
who
said
I
totally
cute,
okay,
that
we
need
to
just
get
clarification
from
staff,
but
we've
just
clarified
that
they're
all
by
the
750
I'd
like
to
know
whether
it's
not
exactly
the
same
types
of
developments.
Three
three
unit,
multi-unit
housing
as
well
as
you
know
when
were
they
approved,
do
they
were
they
all
approved
under
the
current
controls,
so
I
I
welcome
stuff,
stuff
advice.
A
E
F
Hi
Cara
yeah,
look
in
terms
of
the
seeks,
I
haven't
kind
of
looked
at
all
six,
but
I
did
look
at
four
of
the
six
that
Greg
had
mentioned
in
my
report,
so
I
think
it's
on
page
33
of
the
the
agenda
and
I
think
the
difference
is
the
Clause
4.6
could
be
supported
if
there
was
a
design.
I
was
happy
with
there's
multiple
issues
on
this
site,
some
of
which
are
designed,
some
of
which
are
information,
but
the
four
that
I
looked
at
had
greater
setbacks
than
this
one.
F
So
we're
looking
at
at
least
three
major
setbacks,
or
at
least
a
varied
setback
on
the
rear
elevation.
This
one
has
a
particular
issue
with
the
southern
kind
of
reset
back,
because
there's
a
development,
that's
really
tight
up
against
the
that
boundary,
so
the
overshadowing
comes
into
it
as
well.
So,
and
if
you
can,
if
you
look
at
the
arrow,
you
can
see
that
particular
site's
kind
of
probably
in
the
worst
spot,
compared
to
others,
where
there's
a
bit
more
space,
so
I
mean
that's
really.
A
F
Yeah
look
I
just
had
a
really
quick
look
on
the
portal.
I've
got
a
set
of
plans
with
a
title
and
a
date
in
my
system
and
then
I
looked
at
the
same
set
of
plans
with
the
same
title
and
date
on
the
planning
portal
and
the
ones
on
the
planning
portal
are
neither
stamped
but
I've
done
a
cross-reference
and
thought
yes.
I've
I've
got
the
right
sort
of
plans
because
they've
got
the
same
title
revision
date
and
revision
C,
so
I'm
not
quite
sure,
what's
happened
there.
So
apologies.
F
A
A
F
To
that
or
I
I
think
that
was
to
do
with
the
sweatpars
for
the
vehicles.
Correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
I
was
kind
of
trying
to
look
things
up
while
listening
to
that
so
yeah,
the
sweat
paths
did
come
in
and
there
was
discussions
with
the
engineers
behind
the
scenes.
But
by
that
time
I'd
already
rent
up
my
report
and
I
had
said
to
the
applicant
like.
F
Hopefully
we
can
use
these
for
any
kind
of
any
applications
moving
forward
on
this
site
there
review
or
whatever
else,
but
it
just
wasn't
a
good
use
of
my
time
to
revise
the
whole
report
and
take
out
one
reason
for
people.
So
I
just
didn't
accept
those
plans.
They'd
come
in
like
months
after
they'd
been
requested,
and
it
was
yeah
I
mean
that's
all
I
can
say:
I've
got
a
kind
of
made
a
decision
not
to
accept
those
plans,
and
that's
all
that
was
okay.
A
E
G
E
So
the
main
feel
on
the
site
will
be
in
the
middle
as
the
the
sections
and
elevations
indicate
where
the
natural
ground
line
is
as
opposed
to
where
the
the
finished
ground
line
will
be,
and
it
does
have
a
bit
of
a
hollow
number.
18
had
the
same
issue
issue,
but
so
the
only
retaining
will
need
to
be
installed
by
us
would
be
on
the
Eastern
side.
A
A
C
E
C
A
C
C
Yeah,
it's
just
that
the
the
argument
for
the
4.6
is
saying.
Recent
approvals
of
multi-unit
development
design,
site
Etc
have
been
approved
in
similar
situations
and
at
least
19
and
talked
about
another
five,
just
to
see
I
just
like
that
as
a
staff
at
all
lies
of
all
that
those
were
19
identifying
the
4.6
basically
similar
to
this
in
scale.
All
of
the
issues
plus
a
lot
size,
similar
types
of
development,
I.E,
three
unit
development
and
have
they've
been
approved
recently.
H
Not
sure
I
can
answer
that
I
think
in
through
the
further
memo
that
was
received.
All
the
information
it
was
received.
I
think
we've
established
that
they're
not
similar
they're,
not
there's
a
quite
the
lumber
of
them
that
refer
to
different
types
of
designs
and
different
types
of
site
areas,
a
smaller
sites
like
similar
site
areas
but
different
orientations
and
have
different
amenity
impacts.
So
as
much
as
we
can
all
say
they
they
could
be
similar
in
some
respects,
but
majority
I
think
there
was
only
about.
A
Okay,
well,
thank
you
for
that.
Thank
you,
Mr
Smith,
for
your
for
your
answers.
We'll
move
on
then
to
agenda
item
3.2
78
Bluebell,
Drive
walnborough,
so
we
don't
have
any
speakers
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
registered
for
this
item.
So
we
have
two
speakers
that
are
registered.
One
is
Deborah
Bell,
And1
solo,
both
against
the
recommendations.
So
Deborah,
we'll
start
with
you.
Whenever
you're
ready,
you've
got
three
minutes.
G
A
I
Thank
you
firstly,
I'd
like
to
thank
Scott
solo,
who
will
be
speaking
following
me
on
behalf
of
the
concerned
neighbors
and
residents
in
more
detail.
I
just
have
a
few
points
that
I
would
like
to
personally
make
so
my
name
is
Deborah
Bell
and
I've
lived
on
Bluebell
Drive
for
40
years.
I
do
love
it
and
that's
why
I
believe
it's
important
to
protect
wambra,
Lagoon
and
its
surrounds,
so
I
feel
it's
worth
the
effort
to
balance
the
development.
That's
going
to
happen
with
the
conservation
of
our
unique
and
delicate
environment.
I
I
Further
building
an
environmental
codes
and
goals
and
regulations
are
carefully
set
through
lengthy
consultation
and
expert
collaboration,
and
this
is
for
very
good
reason.
Approving
variations
in
many
cases
undermines
the
Integrity
of
the
approval
process
itself
and
with
our
pristine,
fragile
natural
environment.
The
one
bra
Lagoon
such
variations
set
unhealthy
precedents.
I
Everyone
then
seems
to
want
higher
bigger,
so
it
has
the
potential
to
put
our
area
on
a
slippery
slope
of
irrecoverable
disaster.
Once
variations
are
approved,
there's
no.
Turning
back
the
regulations
and
guidelines
that
I've
read
through
seem
to
be
set
to
ensure
that
development
is
compatible,
the
height
the
bulk,
the
scale
to
the
existing
and
desired
Future
character
of
the
location
abiding
by
these
rules.
Etc
takes
in
the
needs
of
not
just
the
developer,
but
the
neighbors,
the
communities
and
the
future
Generations
the
force.
Your
houses
should
not
be
the
dominating
landscape.
I
A
D
C
A
J
Hi
can
I.
Can
you
guys
hear
me
all
right?
Yes,
we
can
all
right
all
right,
hello,
hi.
My
name
is
Scott
solar,
I'm,
representative
Bluebell
Drive
as
well
and,
as
Deb
has
said,
I've
been
entrusted
with
by
our
residents
and
local
community
members
to
speak
here
today
regarding
the
proposed
development
of
78
Bluebell
Drive,
many
of
my
local
neighbors
were
uncomfortable
or
unsure
about
attending
a
meeting,
particularly
in
this
digital
format.
So
they
do
apologize
but
yeah.
It's
I
understand
there.
J
So
to
give
a
picture
of
my
position
within
this
community,
I
am
a
local
teacher
and
my
wife
is
a
local
medical
practitioner.
My
family
and
I
work
regularly
with
neighbors
to
organize
and
run
the
annual
neighborhood
Gatherings
that
take
place
on
the
grassy
area
on
the
corner
of
Pit
Road
and
Blue
Bell,
just
up
from
78
Blue
Bell.
J
J
J
J
So
I'd
like
to
finish
by
saying
I
hope
you,
the
panel
and
committee
and
chair,
will
take
into
consideration
the
families
community
and
Native
Wildlife.
We
call
this
area
home
ensure
that
the
non-compliant
proposed
requests
be
firmly
denied
because
it
does
not
comply
on
many
levels
to
the
current
legislation
and
standards.
A
Much
thank
you
very
much.
Well.
That
concludes
that
a
number
of
speakers,
the
speakers
that
we
have
registered
on
that
item,
so
we'll
now
move
to
agenda
item
3.34,
Warren
Street
in
Long
Beach.
We
have
two
speakers
for
the
recommendation
and
then
we
have
two
speakers
on
behalf
of
the
applicant.
So
if
we
start
with
the
first
Speaker
Debbie
sanatha
Debbie,
when
you're
ready.
G
Can
I
first
just
say
that
I
have
read
the
lpp
planning
report
for
this
da
in
relation
to
non-compliance
is
being
addressed
and
Landscaping
deficiencies
being
addressed
at
last.
Thank
you.
It's
good
to
see
these
non-compliances
being
addressed,
I'm
pleased
that
the
lpp
recognized
the
lack
of
sufficient
side
and
rare
setbacks
as
these
fail
to
allow
for
deep
soil,
which
in
turn
allows
for
canopy
trees
to
be
planted.
If
you
don't
have
deep
soil,
you
will
see
the
Deep
soil,
then
you're
not
going
to
get
a
true
clinical
truth.
G
G
I
started
in
the
gospel
DCP,
Chapter
2.1
on
character.
The
aim
is
to
conserve
visually
prominent
trees
along
back
fences,
Street
frontages
and
verges
can
I.
Please
ask
if
this
control
is
being
met.
I
would
like
clarification
on
whether
the
street
tree,
which
is
a
cheese
tree
or
Kitty
and
ferdinandi,
is
to
be
retained
or
removed.
I'm
sorry
I
wasn't
able
to
find
that
in
the
report
these
trees
are
one
of
the
umina
coastal
sand,
plain
Woodland
species,
which
is
a
threatened
ecological
community.
G
My
concern
is
that
far
too
often
Street
trees
are
cited
for
removal
to
accommodate
the
new
build.
This
is
concerned
because
almost
every
new
D.A
results
in
the
site
being
cleared
of
all
vegetation.
The
only
remaining
vegetation
is
often
the
street
tree
developers
must
not
dismiss
the
value
of
a
tree,
the
amenity
it
offers
the
neighborhood
and
the
asset
that
it
is
for
a
healthy
environment
and
the
livability
of
the
suburb.
In
this
da
under
Landscaping.
It
suggests
that
the
Council
Tree
officer
requests
that
two
mature
Street
trees
that
have
been
planted.
G
It's
not
clear
what
species
would
be
planted,
nor
what
size
pot
these
would
be
anything
less
than
100
liters
in
size.
It's
not
mature.
However.
The
standard
public
consent
from
the
Central
Coast
CEO
suggested
25
liter
replacement
tree
is
required.
This
is
inadequate.
The
best
result
would
be
that
the
street
tree
remains,
so
the
community
does
not
need
to
wait
30
years
for
it
to
reach
the
same
maturity
as
the
existing
cheese
cream.
G
Street
trees
allow
walkability
in
the
suburb,
which
is
currently
threatened
by
too
many
true
removals
being
improved
during
the
d8
and
the
TA
process.
An
example
of
a
street
tree
being
retained
is
at
22
South,
Street
New
minor
Beach,
which
I
understand
was
a
DA
certified
by
Clark
and
Daryl.
Another
example
of
the
street
2
being
retained
is
a
32
kurung
Street.
This
practice
aligns
with
Central
Coast
council's
Greener
place
of
strategy.
Unfortunately,
far
too
often
all
vegetation
restrictories
are
removed.
G
I
would
like
to
see
developers
practice
true
retention,
and
this
is
an
opportunity
to
do
this
in
this
design.
Around
70
of
the
site
is
hard
surfaces
which
does
not
allow
for
sufficient
Green
Space
I
appeal
to
the
lpp
to
ensure
that
the
character
of
leafy
Gardens
is
continued
in
this
locality.
We
cannot
retain
a
leafy
Gardens
character
with
only
soft
Landscaping
canopy
trees
are
a
must.
Thank
you
for
listening.
A
Thank
you
for
that
Debbie.
Well,
does
anybody
have
any
questions
of
Debbie?
We
will
obviously
ask
at
the
end
of
the
at
the
conclusion
of
the
speakers
on
this
item
for
Council
officers
to
respond
on
that
aspect
of
the
proposal.
Should
the
applicant
not
be
able
to
answer
that
question
during
their
address
any
other
questions
in
the
panel.
B
G
B
B
K
Oh
there
good
afternoon,
members
of
the
panel
and
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
speak.
It
seems
to
be
quite
the
coincidence
that
today
there
are
two
days
from
the
same
street
on
the
agenda.
One
R
Street
both
of
them
are
for
Gun
Barrel
developments
and
both
of
them
have
thankfully
been
recommended
by
the
council
for
refusal.
K
K
Looking
at
the
spreadsheet
we
produced
the
first
one
was
back
in
2016
at
number
27.
that
one
was
only
one
story.
The
first
of
the
two-story
versions,
as
far
as
we
can
ascertain,
was
approved
on
the
1st
of
February
2019,
and
that
was
Da
55443-2018
at
32
Warren
Street
that
one
attracted
just
one
submission.
However,
attached
was
a
petition
objecting
to
the
proposal
containing
76
signatures.
76
one
can
only
assume
that
the
resident
who
organized
a
petition
was
unaware
of
the
EPA
regulations
concerning
the
evaluation
of
non-unique
submissions.
K
K
K
The
neighbors
Scarpa
one
councilor's
assessment
in
relation
to
multi-dwellings,
made
the
statement
that
multi-dwellings
increase
property
values
to
other
houses
in
the
street,
I'm
sure
that
they
do,
but
at
what
human
cost
people
having
to
abandon
the
house.
They've
lived
in
possibly
for
most
of
their
lives.
K
Another
point
about
the
clustering
of
gun
barrels,
which
I'm
sure
is
not
lost
on
planners,
is
the
sheer
mind-numbing
waste
of
land
each
one
of
these
pairs
of
gun
barrels
could
have
shared
a
driveway.
Now
we
have
six
separate,
concrete
driveways
each
one
of
them,
including
access
across
the
nature
strip,
equaling
about
200
square
meters
of
concrete,
that's
600
square
meters
of
concrete,
that's
completely
and
utterly
unnecessary
in
Practical
terms,
the
equivalent
of
one,
the
entire
property
Mr.
A
K
K
To
give
you
a
tropical
idea
of
just
how
much
that
is,
a
professional
football
pitch
is
7140
square
meters
to
the
unnecessary
concrete.
The
Bihar
would
therefore
cover
more
than
half
of
a
football
pitch.
Anybody
who
thinks
that
this
is
in
any
way
sane
that
themselves
lost
their
marbles.
Please
do
not
approve
this
the
aid.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
C
A
Okay,
well,
thank
you.
We
don't
have
any
further
questions
at
this
stage,
we'll
now
move
on
to
the
third
speaker,
Alana
Jones
on
behalf
of
the
applicant,
and
we
also
have
Greg
Smith
on
behalf
of
the
applicant.
So
in
total
you
have
a
maximum
of
15
minutes.
It's
up
to
you,
how
you
organize
your
time
and
split
that
time
between
yourself
so
Alana.
If
you'd
like
to
start
whenever
you're
ready.
L
Oh
thank
you
very
much
good
afternoon
and
thank
you
for
allowing
me
the
opportunity
to
address
the
panel
with
count
regarding
council's
recommendation
against
our
proposed
development
at
34
war
of
history
at
a
Long,
Beach
I'm,
the
owner
of
the
property,
and
we've
been
a
bit
blindsided
to
you
by
council's
recommendation
to
refuse
this
development.
We
purchased
This
Land
Based
on
the
extensive
precedence
of
the
same
types
of
development
and
previous
acceptances
of
the
variations
required
to
complete
this
development.
It
was
designed
with
similar
Concepts
and
character.
As
surrounding
developments
and
other
recent
approvals.
L
We
use
the
same
team
who've
done
these
approvals
in
the
hope
that
they
would
be
successful
in
getting
it
through
and
we
can
have
consistency
and
congruency
in
the
community
as
previously
United.
In
today's
meeting,
all
six
compatible
developments
have
been
approved
under
the
current
scheme
in
the
last
two
years,
and
all
of
those
are
on
blocks.
No
no
bigger
than
Outlook.
Now
a
statement
of
environmental
effects
outlines
many
precedent
approvals
and
reiterates
compatibility
with
the
design.
L
Our
multi-unit
housing
building
design
would
not
result
in
any
adverse
environmental,
Community,
social
or
economic
impacts
to
the
site
or
surrounding
areas.
The
Proposal
entails
increase
in
the
development
density
that
is
suitable
for
the
locality
and
the
land
use
zoning.
The
application
would
be
compatible
with
the
intention
and
the
rationale
as
outlined
in
the
department
of
planning's
publication,
the
Metropolitan
plan
2036
further
outlined
in
the
Central
Coast
Regional
plan.
The
proposal
would
be
to
measure
it
to
building
setbacks
that
have
recently
been
approved,
established
and
permitted.
L
I
want
to
know
that,
despite
this
taking
over
15
months
since
being
lodged
in
August
last
year,
we
strongly
now
feel
that
we
have
not
been
adequately
assessed.
This
is
because
the
applicant
has
submitted
a
final
set
of
documents
with
all
the
various
change
is
requested
by
the
assessing
officer.
That's
been
provided.
However,
it's
clear
in
the
report
that
the
various
Council
offices
required
to
look
at
that
have
not
had
a
chance
to
do
their
review,
including
the
water
and
sewer
entry
officer.
I.
L
L
L
Our
expected
time
frames
have
gone
out
extensively,
not
only
costing
us
greatly,
but
now
facing
the
real
possibility
of
being
refused
council's
unwillingness
to
work
with
developers
and
council's
time
frames
are
making
the
area
very
unattractive
to
develop
within
and
very
hard,
despite
Central
Coast
needing
a
lot
more
housing
in
the
area.
Central
Coast
Council
have
shown
by
a
multiple
precedent,
approvals
their
desire
to
increase
the
density
not
only
in
this
street
but
in
the
R1
Zone
on
these
block
size
and
the
variations
have
been
deemed
appropriate.
L
Previously,
we
are
wanting
to
help
improve
the
community
by
constructing
new
dwellings
at
Council
desperately
needs.
We've
also
demonstrated
numerous
precedences,
where
the
same
variations
have
been
accepted,
using
the
same
justification
with
setbacks,
block
size
and
character
and
I
urge
the
panel
to
not
refuse
our
development.
Today,
the
report
identifies
that
this
development
is,
in
principle,
suitable
for
this
site
to
directly
and
briefly
address
the
reasons
for
refusal.
The
first
one
is
that
the
bearing
the
minimum
lot
size
is
not
adequate.
L
L
L
The
reason
three
is
that
it
is
not
consistent
with
the
R1
objectives.
This
is
regarding
character
and
best
play
best
practice
designs
and
is
largely
discretionary.
I
want
to
highlight
that
similar
designs
have
been
approved
on
numerous
occasions.
The
Precedence
is
more
than
telling
of
what
it,
rather
than
a
discretionary
taste,
and
demonstrates
that
we
are
consistent
within
what
is
happening
in
the
R1
Zone
currently
by
following
the
path
that
has
been
shown
as
it's
acceptable.
L
The
comments
throughout
the
report
do
say
that
a
development
like
this
is
in
principle
Justified
and
accepted
within
the
outline
Sony.
The
scenic
quality
in
character
I
believe
that
the
inconsistencies
have
been
Justified
and
substantiated
with
similar
evidence
that
has
previously
been
deemed
acceptable,
they're
all
in
line
with
other
approvals
and
developments.
The
current
area
incorporates
a
variety
of
mixed
roof
designs.
The
skillian
design
is
becoming
more
popular
within
the
community
and
therefore
seems
to
cover
both
current
and
future
desired
character.
L
L
The
applicant
believes
that
their
proposal
does
improve
living
standards
for
multiple
families
by
increasing
the
density
on
this
spot,
and
it
has
been
flagged
as
the
area
where
this
is
appropriate
by
being
in
the
R1
Zone,
unfortunately
being
surrounded
by
you
know
less
developed
places.
It
is
the
next
place
to
develop
in
the
coast,
and
that
is
where
density
is
going
to
increase.
L
Reason
5
is
insufficient
information.
It
has
been
provided.
The
same
information
has
been
provided
that
has,
in
the
past,
been
very
acceptable
to
council
to
get
those
others
through
so
I'll.
Let
our
planner
address
that
more
directly,
but
if
I
don't
understand
how
this
is
no
longer
acceptable
and
reason,
six
is
inconsistent
with
the
current
and
future
desired
character
and
not
in
the
public
interest.
L
I
believe
the
desired
character
is
discretionary
as
we've
discussed
above,
but
it
is
well
within
the
public
interest
I'm
about
to
see
how
it
is
not
in
the
public
interest,
and
the
report
does
not
appear
to
adequately
address
this
concern.
If
anything,
the
report
justifies
that
it
is
well
within
public
interest.
L
The
report
contains
the
following:
planner
comments:
traffic,
the
existing
Road
network
has
the
capacity
to
accommodate
the
additional
density
in
actual
environment,
no
threatened
species
of
habitation
economic
and
social
impact.
It
says
in
two
separate
parts
of
the
report
that
our
development
will
contribute
to
the
necessary
supply
of
housing
needs
and
that
no
unreasonable
social
impacts
will
arise
from
the
proposed
development
suitability.
No
environmental
hazards
are
around
and
the
zoning
is
a
residential
purpose
which
is
suitable
for
what
we
are
doing.
L
L
E
This
one
really
stumped
me
because
with
this
has
never
been
discussed
between
the
self
and
the
planner
through
the
whole
process,
the
whole
application
process,
Council
Sewell
main,
is
located
on
the
Warren
Street
side
of
the
property,
so
the
North
and
will
be
approximately
3.9
meters
away
from
unit
one
to
the
closest
unit
to
to
Warren
Street,
with
a
still
manhole
being
located
in
32
wire
streets.
Driveway.
E
I
will
note,
though,
that
the
development
engineer
supports
the
subject
subject
to
support
the
application
subject
to
conditions
which
is
a
general
approval
process
I.
Once
the
development
application
is
approved,
a
condition
is
we
launch
a
305
to
receive
a
throw
six
letter
which
is
then,
where
we
address
the
zone
of
influence
or
building
over
or
adjacent
to
council
sewers?
E
E
E
What's.
The
square
objections
apparently
mentioned
how
many
bedrooms
it
says
it
has.
Has
four
bedrooms:
I
I,
don't
know
how
an
objector
would
would
know
what
the
floor
plans
are.
They're,
not
supposed
to
see
the
floor
plans
due
to
proxy
reasons
and
just
page
275
in
the
report,
where
it
says
the
landscape,
the
landscape
and
site
plan
haven't
been
to
the
water
and
sewer
or
council's
tree
offices.
E
E
The
same
is
on
number
30
or
the
six
unit
development
and
the
curb
and
gutter
is
still
going
to
go
in
the
same
spot,
so
it
would
have
to
would
have
to
come
down
as
far
as
over
developing
which
the
second
speaker
touched
on.
The
new
LEP
is
actually
abolished
the
minimum
size
to
put
units
on.
So
it's
something
Council
clearly
wants
is
more
units
the
same
as
you
can
now
do
dual
occupancies
on
r2land.
So
just.
E
A
B
Sheriff
I
can
just
ask
a
great
sniffy
question
about
the
last
point
he
touched
on
so
Greg.
So
what
is
what
you're
saying
is
I
understand?
It
is
under
the
what
the
new
Central
Coast
LEP.
There
is
no
minimum
lot
size
for
these
sorts
of
development.
Is
that
correct?
Yeah
did
I,
have
a
floor.
Space
ratio
control.
Anything
like
that?
Yes,
yes,
I
will.
Oh
okay,.
E
B
E
E
B
A
Okay,
all
right.
Well,
we
might
just
ask
some
questions
of
council
officers,
then
we'll
just
I'll
just
start
from
from
the
top
and
and
if
anybody
wants
to
jump
in,
that's
feel
free,
I
think
we've
just
heard
from
Greg
Smith
in
relation
to
the
matter
raised
by
Debbie
around
the
street
tree,
whom
he's
confirmed
that
they're
not
proposing
to
retain
it.
A
A
A
Let's
have
a
look.
Obviously,
we
talked
talked
about
the
lot
size
again,
which
we
saw.
We
obtained
some
clarification
from
Council
offices,
on
which
I
assume
is
the
same
information
that
we
talked
about
with
the
other
application
of
Morris
Street,
so
the
19
referred
to
in
the
course
four
points:
exp
variation,
the
six
subsequent
approvals
that
have
occurred
since
the
application
I
think
was
lodged
now
going
to
the
point
of
about
the
plans
not
being
stamped
and
being
therefore
failed
to
verify
their
time
frames.
A
M
Generally
speaking,
in
terms
of
my
specific
development
assessment,
the
plans
we
did
work
a
lot
through
with
Greg
trying
to
get
some
of
the
specific
items
sort
of
in
a
fashion
that
there
would
be
supportable
because
from
day
one
we
I
did
mention
that,
due
to
the
scale
and
the
accumulated
effects
of
all
the
non-compliances
were
detrimental
to
the
development
assessment.
So
I
did
try
and
work
with
him
quite
consistently
in
trying
to
get
it
to
a
better
stage.
M
Now
the
final
we
did
go
through
back
and
forth
back
and
forth
several
times,
so
the
last
set
of
plans
he
sent
through
to
me
were
on
the
28th
of
August
and
I.
Guess,
one
of
the
other
big
issues
that
I
had
in
terms
of
the
Clause
4.6
and
why
it
wasn't
acceptable
was
that
that
not
only
requiring
the
site
variation
but
also
an
FSR.
M
They
have
a
a
star
rating
over
a
certain
amount,
and
if
we
don't
have
that,
that's
basically
why
you
can't
really
say
that
they,
you
know
they
do
comply
and
the
stamp
plans
he
sent
through.
For
the
last
amended,
plans
were
sent
on
the
26th
of
October,
which
was
a
day
before
I,
had
already
submitted
my
report
to
the
panel
for
revision
for
peer
review.
M
This
is
very
important
because
throughout
the
different
I
guess,
back
and
forth,
revisions
aren't
and
dates
are
not
generally
changed
and
I
am
quite
sort
of
strict
in
the
fact
that
they
have
to
give
me
a
final
set
of
architecturals
engineering
landscape
plans
and
as
a
minimum
of
the
statement
of
their
environmental
effects
to
all
be
coordinated
throughout
with
the
new
amended
plans,
and
that
has
being
done
and
it
does
get
lost
with
you
know
they
change
this.
They
change
that,
and
it's
not
reflected
here
and
it's
not
reflected
there.
M
The
statement
of
environmental
effects
does
refer
to
four
bedrooms
and
the
plans
do
show
only
three
bedrooms:
I
consistently
asked
for
an
updated,
and
you
know,
statement
of
environmental
effects
which
I
never
got
and
the
one
that
we're
sort
of
used
for
the
assessment
was
the
original
one
in
terms
again
also
of
what
was
the
other,
oh
in
terms
of
the
additional
six
I
think
Diaz
that
he's
mentioned.
I
would
just
like
to
bring
to
the
attention
of
the
panel
that,
as
we've
said
in
respects,
to
merit-based
design.
M
All
of
those
that
are
odd
numbers
are
completely
not
applicable
in
this
case
because
for
starters,
they're
orientated
and
they're
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
street,
so
in
terms
of
site
planning
in
terms
of
the
the
way,
the
orientation
of
the
of
the
the
floor
plans
and
everything
are
totally
different
to
those
on
the
northern
which
are
facing
the
northern
side.
So
this
is
why
it's
important
not
to
basically
just
say.
Oh
this
one's
been
approved
that
one's
been
approved.
M
Each
one
is
very
different,
and
so
we've
got
at
least
three
or
four
of
those
DA's
he's
mentioned
that
are
not
applicable
because
they
are
with
a
different
or
site
orientation.
In
terms,
I
did
look
closely
to
number
32,
which
was
the
one
that
was
mentioned
and
I
can
say.
The
Clause
4.6
should
have
used
that
one,
as
maybe
a
proper
analysis
for
their
Clause
4.6,
but
in
general
I
can
say
it's
the
the
the
Clause
4.6
is
very
generic,
and
it
doesn't
really
address
in
detail.
Why
they're?
M
M
You
know
this
is
the
minimum
that
we're
supposed
to
be
accepting,
and
this
development
application
is
not
compliant
with
setbacks
with
articulation
with
deep
soil
with
solar
access.
Solar
access
is
very
important.
Two
of
those
dwellings
will
not
have
sun
in
Winter
for
sure,
and
most
probably
I'd
say
90
percent
in
summer
and
part
of
that,
as
I
explained
to
the
panel
previously,
is
because
of
the
da
that
was
approved
on
number
32.
That
will
any
little
bit
of
sun
that
the
new
application,
or
the
proposed
application
could
have.
M
It
would
have
would
be
taken
away
because
of
the
extended
Sun
diagrams
that
the
one
that
has
been
built
on
32
will
provide
onto
the
other
to
the
other
site.
So
in
terms
of
site
planning,
it's
really
important
that
they've
got
the
separation.
Merit
base
is
really
when
we
can
see
that.
Okay,
you
might
be
a
little
bit
over
this
for
a
little
bit
over
that,
but
you
are
getting
amenity.
You
are
getting
decent
private,
open
space,
you
are
getting
the
sunlight,
that's
the
minimum
requirement
and
you
are
getting
you
know.
M
A
If
we
just
go
back
to
the
no
thank
you
for
the
detailed
response
going
back
to
the
the
matter
of
the
plans
being
stamped
and
the
I
think
both
Greg
and
Alana
have
talked
about
submission
of
different
plans
with
with
forgotten
and
there's
been.
Obviously,
language
used
in
terms
of
thing
plans
not
being
accepted.
A
So
could
you
just
clarify
for
the
panel
the
plans
that
are
have
been
assessed
and
that
the
panel
has
before
it
are
they
other
than
the
the
the
stamp
or
looking
at
the
the
the
stamp
in
terms
of
the
basics
requirements?
Are
they
is
there
any
new
material
that
the
applicant
has
submitted
in
Amanda
plants
that
do
not
form
the
basis
of
the
assessment
before
the
panel
today,
but.
M
For
the
stamped
ones
that
he
provided
on
the
26th
of
October
in
general,
no,
they
would
be
pretty
much
that
that
would
be
the
latest,
but
that
set
of
plans
he
just
sent
through
I
I
didn't
receive
any
further
information.
I
didn't
receive
the
updated
statement
of
environmental
effects
or
any
other
item
that
would
have
had
to
be
updated.
Sometimes,
reports
refer
and
install
the
or
have
included
inserted
the
the
plans
themselves
on
this
occasion.
That
hasn't
been
done.
M
A
M
M
That's
correct
and
generally
once
he's
provided
all
the
update
information
as
a
package
that
gets
sent
through
again
to
the
all
the
other
officers
that
were
looking
in
this
case.
It
would
have
been
tree
officer
and
also
water
and
sewer.
Water
and
sewer
item
isn't
a
a
big
issue,
but
it
is
something
that
had
to
be
looked
at
that
could
be
finally
conditioned
or
catered
For.
It's
just
a
matter
of
making
sure
that
they're
not
over
and
again
it
goes
back
and
I.
M
So
it
could
be
that
if
it's
only
just
defenses
no
need
to
you
know,
but
we
need
the
final
design
with
the
street
I
guess
the
way
they're
going
to
finally
address
the
streetscape
for
them
to
actually
look
at
it
now.
This
is
why
it's
really
important
to
have
a
good
quality
of
of
plans
and
annotations
on
those
plans
and
that
everything
is
coordinated
throughout
the
whole
documentation.
A
I
I
understand
what
you're
saying
and
I
and
I
you
know.
I
know
that
it's
not
just
about
a
set
of
plans,
it's
actually
about
the
coordinated
information
of
plans
about
having
an
SCE
and,
of
course,
4.6.
That
relates
to
the
the
plans
that
are
before
the
assessment,
but
I
would
like
to
provide
the
opportunity
now
for
Greg,
Smith
and
Alana
Jones
to
to
have
perhaps
clarify
or
summarize
any
of
those
key
changes
that
they
have
made
in
those
plans
and
I.
A
E
E
E
That's
correct
it,
barring
the
discrepancy
in
the
full
space
ratio
where
I
work
with
Susanna
to
we
decreased
unit
three
slot
hand
unit
one
slightly
on
the
second.
On
the
first
floor,
the
the
design
hasn't
changed,
and
this
is
why
I
don't
understand
where
water
and
sewer,
because
it
also
means
our
current
Associates
Engineers
plans,
haven't
changed
the
picture
in
the
same
spot.
Everything
like
that
has
not
changed
through
the
whole
design.
A
Okay,
so
I
just
want
to
get
to
that
point,
because
you
mentioned
when
you're
talking
about
the
sewer
mind
that
the
engineers
referrals
supported
the
application
subject
to
conditions
and
then
Susanna.
You
just
mentioned
that.
Obviously
a
further
referral
of
the
stamp
plans
hadn't
gone
through
the
engineers,
but
the
engineers
had
some
concerns
so
could
could
Susanna?
Could
you
just
clarify?
A
M
Then
then
the
then
there
was
amended
plans
and
those
amended
plans
are
now
showing
just
a
metal
fence.
So
with
that
establishing
that
again,
you
know,
metal
fence
is
quite
easy
to.
You
know,
take
down
in
case
I
needed
to
do
something
or
if
it
is
within
the
one
meter
of
the
you
know,
sewer
lines
or
within
the
area
of
the
sewer
line,
not
the
same
with
with
walls.
M
M
E
D
M
E
A
Sorry,
it's
YouTube.
You
need
to
address
the
panel
rather
than
each
other
and
right
so
we're
obviously
asking
the
questions,
because
there
seems
to
be
some
confusion
and
it's
really
to
clarify
to
the
panel
what
the
situation
is
in
relation
to
which
plans
and
what
referrals
but
I,
think
we've
got
enough
information
now
in
relation
to
where
that
matter
is
up
to,
and
we
just
now
cross
over
to
the
other
manner.
That's
come
up
from
it
was
raised.
A
It's
been
raised
by
actually
everyone,
but
in
in
terms
of
you
know,
Scenic
quality,
character
and
I
know.
There's
different,
obviously
different
addresses
in
relation
to
this,
and
it
probably
goes
to
the
matter
of
the
planning
controls.
Obviously
that
are
that
are
in
place
and
upon
which
each
application
is
assessed,
which
is
obviously
on
their
merits.
A
But
in
terms
of
I
guess,
it'd
be
good
to
hear
from
Council
officers
just
with
regard
to
this
matter,
of
desired
Future,
character
and
and
also
in
in
relation
I
guess
to
some
of
the
the
information
that
Francis
Whitman
was
putting
forward
in
terms
of
some
of
the
other
applications
and
and
I
guess
the
matters
behind
that
with
regard
to
character.
But
a
strategy
I
just
like
to
know
in
terms
of
it,
and
we
know
that
the
controls
have
have
changed.
A
But
this
application
has
still
been
considered
under
the
the
savings
Provisions
but
Council.
Where
is
Council,
currently
undertaking
any
kind
of
strategic
planning
review
of
this
area?
In
terms
of
like
what
do
you?
What
do?
The
the
objectives
and
and
some
of
the
new
controls,
for
instance,
indicate
in
terms
of
a
desired
Future
character,
because
we're
hearing
different
concerns
or
outcomes
both
from
local
residents
and
also
from
the
applicant.
M
H
M
That's
the
setbacks
are
what
are
going
to
determine
I,
guess
or
the
building
envelope
in
terms
of
what
the
density
or
what
can
happen
within
the
site.
I
think
that's
the
main
difference
so,
but
in
terms
I
can
read
for
my
development
application.
The
FSR
maintains
it.
It's
still
going
to
be
the
same
in
terms
of
height
it
Still
Remains,
the
Same
8.5
and
2
Stories.
M
Yeah,
the
reset
back
again
is
4.5
and
the
the
private
space
in
terms
of
sunlight
will
also
be
the
same
of
you
know.
Having
50
of
the
principal
private,
open
space
and
also
sunlight
into
the
dwellings
themselves,
will
be
exactly
the
same
for
for
everything
yeah.
So
the
the
variations
will
be
exactly
the
same
on
this
development.
H
Well
still,
let's
see,
but
not
previous
DCP,
there
isn't
currently
any
any
I
think
we've
got
a
shortage
of,
unfortunately,
strategic
staff
as
well,
so
I
had
to
update
all
that
I
think
it's
something
that's
going
to
be
looked
at
in
the
future,
but
at
the
current
time
we
don't
have
anything
that
I
know
in
plan
to
look
in
that
look
at
into
that
at
the
moment.
So
we
haven't
got
any
change
to
the
character
statements
that
we've
got
currently.
A
Okay,
so
in
terms
of,
and
obviously
we
heard
that
and
it's
in
our
assessment
report,
we
didn't
just
hear
it
today-
the
that
there
are
some
changes,
obviously
in
the
in
the
new
controls,
with
respect
to
not
having
a
minimum
lot
size.
Etc.
There's
no
change
to
permissibility,
though,
is
there
that's
in
the
new
controls,
you'd
still
able
to
have
dwelling
dual
occupancies
multi-dwelling
housing?
A
F
That's
fine,
Susanna
and
I've
actually
looked
at
this
issue.
Just
in
the
last
few
weeks.
They
basically
the
the
DCP
controls
in
the
the
new
controls
in
the
Central
Coast,
do
have
slightly
different
setback,
controls,
private
Open,
Space
controls,
they're
similar,
but
I
would
say,
the
setbacks
are
a
little
bit
more
relaxed.
However,
there
obviously
has
to
be
read
in
combination
with
the
private
open
space,
deep
soil,
ETC
control.
F
So
while
there
is
a
allowance
that
at
some
points,
there'll
be
a
900
mL
setback
on
a
side
boundary,
you
can't
do
a
full
side,
boundary
of
900
mL
because
you
just
simply
won't
meet
some
of
the
other
controls
which
talk
about
protons
based
deep
soil
Etc.
Now
there
is
a
new
I
guess,
a
new
heading
in
the
gcp
that
talks
about
site
coverage
and
there
is
a
definition
of
site
coverage.
F
But
then,
when
you
actually
look
at
the
control,
it
talks
about
soft
landscaping
and
deep
soil,
so
it
does
Define
site
coverage,
but
then
it
actually
the
control
focuses
on
the
amount
of
soft
landscaping
and
deep
soil
and
it's
25
of
the
site,
and
so
that's
obviously
doesn't
include
driveways
and
any
basically
any
hard
sand
area
is
so
Suzanne
and
I
kind
of
going
through
that
and
how
that's
going
to
apply
going
forward
as
well.
So
there's
yeah.
F
A
D
A
The
new
controls
more
than
imminent
and
certain
was
there
around
so
there
it
is.
They
are
still
relevant
matters
of
consideration
in
the
assessment
of
the
application.
So
they
argument
they
are
given
weight
and-
and
some
substantive
rating
in
this
in
relation
to
these
applications
did
any
of
the
other
panel
members
wish
to
ask
any
further
questions
or
clarification
of
any
of
any
of
the
speakers
or.
B
Madam
chair,
there
was
just
the
issue
about
I.
Think
Alana
Jones
is
about
the
skillian
roof
design
of
this
proposal.
I
was
thinking
and
the
note
I've
got
is
she
she
I
may
be
misquoting
it,
but
I
thought
she
said:
numbers
19,
20
and
21
Warren
Street
had
a
skillion
roof
design
I
just
other
Council
Office
is
able
to
clarify
whether
that's
the
case
or
not.
M
I
haven't
looked
at
the
other
ones,
but
in
terms
of
Skilling
and
roofs
per
my
planning
report,
they
are
a
a
good
modern
design,
but
that
the
I
guess
the
effect
of
the
skillion
roof
itself
is
to
allow
sunlight
and
natural
airflow
at
a
higher
level.
And
for
that
you
would
need
to
have
obviously
I
guess
higher
level
windows.
But
it's
been
negated
at
this
stage
because
he's
closed
up
the
it
has
like
a
the
he's
closed
up
the
with
a
ceiling
in
there.
M
So
it's
it's
not
being
used
in
terms
of
what
the
architectural
sort
of
component
should
be.
So
he's
he's
used
it
just
as
a
you
know,
just
as
a
roof,
but
not
really
in
the
terms
of
what
it
could
be.
It
could
have
used
better,
maybe
a
as
as
we've
I've
put
in
the
in
the
report,
Gable
roofs,
which
would
have
given
them
a
lower
Ridge
level,
and
maybe
that
he
could
have
worked
better.
M
B
M
That
is
correct.
That
is
correct,
I
mean
it
could
have,
it
could
have
been
if
he
was
trying
to
capture
sunlight
at
a
higher
level,
so
basically,
for
example,
that
he's
having
more
sunlight
into
his
sitting
area
or
a
bedroom
or
a
Hall,
that's
overlooking
into
the
underneath
living
area.
It
would
be
perfect,
you
know
it
would
be
great
because
he's
actually
capturing
that
sunlight,
that
otherwise
wouldn't
be
there
or
even
you
know,
extra
ventilation.
But
it's
been
closed
in.
B
D
M
A
Sure
I
guess
this
just
goes
back
again
to
the
points
that
we
were
just
talking
about
in
terms
of
having
locality,
specific
Provisions
or
local
character
statements
in
the
new
gcp,
and
perhaps
Elsa
can
answer
this.
Is
there?
Are
there?
Is
there
a
specific
locality?
Is
there
a
lot
of
these
specific
division
for
for
this
area
or
for
questions
within
different
products?
H
A
bit
behind
on
the
times
of
what's
happening
on
the
on
on
the
street
as
such
I
mean
we're
not
we're
not
that
still.
We
know
that
in
that
area
there
is
various
types
of
designs
and
we're
not
we're
aware
that
many
things
of
different
different
quality
have
been
approved,
Etc
but
I.
Think
in
these
examples
and
I
think
there
is
a
there
is
the
impacts
of
cumulative
impacts
that
have
happened
over
these
type
of
designs
and
we're
not
saying
they
haven't.
H
Previous
things
haven't
been
approved,
but
I
think
we've
shown
that
there's
been
different
circumstances,
maybe
there's
one
or
two
that
similar,
but
not
nothing's,
ever
similar
I
suppose
the
impacts
are
never
exactly
similar.
What's
happened.
Next
door
is
never
similar
to
what's
on
each
different
one,
I
think
just
it's
just
it
it
we're
not
we're
not.
H
We
don't
want
to
redesign
anybody's
either
so
I
think
Suzanne
is
like
we're
not
going
to
tell
the
person
that
they
should
have
something
either,
but
it's
just
looking
at
the
impacts
and
and
then
also
in
these
examples,
is
it
just
information
whether
it
was
submitted
close
to
when
we're
meant
to
be
doing
submitting
it
to
the
local
planning
panel,
but
but
we
also
pressure
from
the
local
planning
panel
to
put
applications
up
as
well,
so
we're,
and
these
both
of
these
have
been
going
for
a
while.
But
we've
been
trying
to
be
supportive.
H
A
A
These
items
today
and
in
particular,
that
the
extensive
discussion
that
we've
had
both
for
up
with
the
applicants
and
the
community
speakers
in
relation
to
the
ones
in
Morris
Street
in
particular
and
and
obviously
in
terms
of
Bluebell,
so
I
thank
people
for
their
for
their
time.
I
know
it
has
gone
a
little
bit
over.
A
A
I
will
now
formally
like
to
close
this
meeting
of
the
Central
Coast
local
planning
panel
and
to
thank
all
those
who
attended
and
took
part,
including
my
fellow
panel
members,
members
of
the
communities,
representatives
of
the
applicants
and
Council
staff,
and
the
panel
will
now
adjourn
to
deliberate
on
those
three
matters
and
an
additional
two
electronic
meeting
that
didn't
trigger
coming
to
a
planning
panel.
Now
it's
3
40..