►
From YouTube: Central Coast Local Planning Panel June 08, 2023
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
This
meeting
has
been
recorded
and
webcasted
and
you're
encouraged
to
bear
this
in
mind
when
choosing
what
to
say,
there's
to
be
no
other
recording
or
filming
of
this
meeting,
unless
the
prior
permission
of
the
panel
has
been
obtained,
the
panel's
decisions
from
the
meeting
and
audio
recording
should
be
available
on
council's
website
ordinarily
well
within
seven
days
from
this
meeting.
I
just
ask
everyone
now
to
please
turn
your
electronic
devices
to
silent
and
ensure
that
you're
free
from
any
interruptions
so
just
to
introduce
the
panel
members
for
the
meeting
today.
A
Now
the
panel
has
been
provided
with
assessment
reports
prepared
by
Council
staff,
as
well
as
public
submissions
on
the
applications.
The
site,
orientation
and
briefing
session
has
also
been
undertaken.
Council
staff
have
briefed
the
panel
on
key
issues
that
the
applications
raise
now
in
terms
of
public
representations
and
representations
from
the
applicant.
Today
we
have
the
following
people
registered
to
address
the
panel.
A
The
first
speaker
will
be
Erin
Kelly
against
the
recommendation,
and
the
second
registered
speaker
is
Ravi
Sharma
for
the
recommendation
and
he's
the
applicants
representative,
so
I'd
just
like
to
welcome
everyone
and
in
terms
of
process.
We
will
hear
from
the
speakers
on
the
for
on
on
this
only
agenda
item
first
and
then
we
will
hear
from
the
applicants
representative.
Our
usual
practice
is
to
allow
individual
members
of
the
public
three
minutes
to
speak
on
the
matter
and
that
time
could
be
extended
with
the
agreement
of
the
panel
should
it
be
required.
A
Once
members
of
the
public
have
spoken,
the
applicant
will
be
given
a
maximum
speaking
term
of
15
minutes
to
respond
should
they
wish
to,
as
the
panel
has
been
provided,
with
copies
of
all
submissions
received
in
response
to
the
DA.
There's
no
need
to
repeat
all
of
the
points
made
in
those
submissions.
A
I'd
also
ask
that
each
speaker
be
heard
in
silence
while
they
are
addressing
the
panel
and
that
courtesy
and
respect
be
observed
throughout
the
meeting.
There's
to
be
no
personal
criticism
directed
at
any
speaker
or
Council
staff.
Any
such
criticism
will
be
contrary
to
the
panel's
code
of
conduct
and
will
not
be
accepted.
A
Panel
members
may
ask
questions
of
the
speakers
to
clarify
our
understanding
of
what
is
being
said
and
after
hearing
from
speakers,
the
panel
may
ask
questions
of
council
officers
to
clarify
that
matters
raised
after
hearing
from
the
speakers.
The
panel
villager
and
the
meeting
to
confer
if
we
were
meeting
in
person,
we
might
then
reconvene
the
machine
to
hand
down
our
decisions.
But
given
this
is
an
electronic
meeting,
we
will
instead
seek
to
have
the
panelist
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.
I
prefer
the
public
meeting
or
to
be
dealt
with
electronically
foreign.
So
we'll
start
with
agenda
item
1.1.
That's
Declarations
of
Interest
I
just
remind
panel
members
of
the
requirements
in
the
code
of
conduct
for
panel
members
about
conflict
of
interest
declarations,
so
no
conflicts,
written
conflicts
of
interest
have
been
received.
A
Agenda
item
two
is
a
confirmation
of
the
minutes
of
the
previous
meeting,
so
the
minutes
of
the
panels
meeting
of
the
local
planning
panel
held
on
the
11th
of
May
2023,
which
were
endorsed
by
the
chair
of
those
that
meeting
have
been
submitted
for
noting
we
can
now
move
on
to
agenda
item
three.
The
development
application
in
the
public
meeting,
which
is
agenda,
item
3.1,
so
so
the
first
speaker
that
we
have
registered
is
Erin
Kelly,
so
Erin
you've
got
about
three
minutes
to
speak.
A
I
did
note
that
the
intro
notes
also
didn't
include
something
that
we
normally
say,
which
is
that
the
panel
doesn't
ask
you
for
your
address.
Obviously
we
have
written
submissions,
sometimes
people
members
of
the
public
like
to
disclose
their
address,
but
there's
no
requirement
to
do
that.
So
it's
completely
up
to
you
whether
you
want
to
disclose
that
or
not,
but
we
don't
require
it
so
over
to
you
when
you're
ready.
C
Great,
thank
you
so
much
and
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak
today
as
well.
Look
I
am
a
privileged
member
of
a
resident
of
brick.
Wolf
Road
brickworth
road
is
a
historic
and
one
of
the
most
unique
streets
on
the
Central
Coast.
It
is
home
to
this
historic
board
Memorial,
which
was
unveiled
in
1925
Heritage
Pines
with
the
1920s
cottages,
and
it's
made
up
of
unique
block
sizes.
Because
of
this
uniqueness,
there
are
blocked
for
me,
6.5
meters
wide
and
the
average
single
dwelling
block
width
is
around
10
to
12
meters.
C
These
properties
have
been
held
in
families
for
decades,
and
any
recent,
redevelopments
or
Renovations
have
all
been
single
dwellings.
I
would
like
to
again
raise
my
concerns
and
voice
the
concerns
of
residents
who
oppose
this
development,
since
the
1980s
larger
blocks
have
been
redeveloped
with
units.
These
developments
have
taken
into
consideration
the
uniqueness
of
the
street
with
the
majority,
keeping
the
iconic
pitch
in
their
roof
lines
and
they've
also
provided
ample
green
spaces
that
go
along
with
that
beautiful
Waterfront
of
woy.
C
This
development
does
not
meet
the
design
quality
principles,
one
and
two
it's
as
designed
as
not
considered
the
local
context
or
reflect
the
current
or
future
state
of
brickworth
road,
which
will
remain
single
dwellings
due
to
the
narrow
allotments
and
the
the
current
unit
complexes
that
are
there.
They're
not
held
under
one
title
so
there'll
be
little
to
no
Redevelopment
of
these
units
in
the
near
future.
The
application
Compares
this
development
to
units
on
oval,
Road,
Blackwell,
Road
and
Railway
Street.
C
These
are
not
unique
streets
and
they
do
not
have
this
historical
significance
or
Community
draw
card
that
brick
Wolf
Road.
Has
this
unit
complex
will
not
be
leading
the
way
in
the
Redevelopment
of
this
street
as
they
suggest
in
their
application.
Instead,
it
will
be
a
large,
concrete
box
that
will
stand
out
like
a
sore
thumb.
It
would
dwarf
a
historic
War
Memorial
in
our
heritage
listed
Pines.
It
will
also
overshadow
the
6.5
meter
wide
neighboring
allotment.
C
It's
77,
brick
Wharf
Road,
where
there
is
a
quaint,
original
Cottage
currently
stands
and
those
occupants
use
their
vegetable
garden
every
single
day.
The
development
is
three
stories
and
it's
still
over
height,
even
when,
given
the
generous
allowable
height
of
11
meters,
the
shadow
diagrams
that
they're
actually
not
current,
is
they
do
not
reflect
the
new
single
dwelling
that
was
built
at
79,
brick
Wharf
Road.
Last
year
the
development
encroaches
boundary
limits.
It
does
not
meet
the
floor,
space
ratio
by
8.9
percent.
C
It
is
increasing
impervious
areas
and
on
already
waterlogged
block,
which
doesn't
align
with
Council
recommendations
in
the
flood
mitigation
plan,
the
rear
parking
cannot
be
accessed
without
driving
through
flood
waters
during
King
Tides.
Their
plan
for
Green
Space
is
pretty
much
a
border
of
plants
around
concrete.
The
communal
area
is
quite
questionable,
as
it's
in
a
corridor
between
apartments
and
the
covered
area,
potentially
for
bins
at
the
front
of
the
property
is
on
the
boundary
line
next
to
the
footpath,
and
it
will
take
away
from
the
streetscape.
C
The
developer
is
asking
Council
to
overlook
a
number
of
planning
requirements
instead
of
reducing
the
size
and
scale
of
30
minutes
to
meet
these
requirements
all
because
of
more
appropriate
development
would
not
be
financially
viable.
I'm
asking
on
behalf
of
the
community
members
who
voice
their
concerns
through
the
portal
to
not
Overlook
the
community
and
take
into
account
the
unique
and
historic
street
that
is
brickworth
Road.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
A
All
right,
thank
you
very
much.
Aaron.
Okay,
thank
you
all
see,
okay,
so
then
we
move
on
to
the
next
speaker
Ravi.
So
as
the
applicants
represent
you,
as
you
know,
you
have
up
to
15
minutes.
Should
you
need
it
so,
whenever
you're
ready.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
fellow
panelists,
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
before
you
in
regards
to
the
residential
flat
building
proposal
presented
before
everyone
this
afternoon,
I'm
the
town
planner,
acting
on
behalf
of
the
the
new
owner
of
the
the
site,
Mr
Tony
ballg.
E
Firstly,
I'd
like
to
say
that
both
myself
and
the
designer
Mr
David
Rowe
from
powered
Leslie
and
Associates,
our
local
practitioners,
who
who
know
the
Wawa
area
quite
intimately,
we've
grown
up
in
the
area
and
I
actually
attended
boy
public
school
and
have
have
had
friends
in
in
brick,
wall
for
brickworth,
Road
and
now,
when
I.
After
all
these
years,
I'll
take
my
seven-year-old
daughter
for
a.
E
Brick
wall
Freud
on
the
cycle
track
from
Fisherman's
Wharf
along
around
to
birds,
Road
on
along
the
Waterfront
I,
come
back
and
look
at
the
the
area
and
the
austere
residential
development
along
the
street
is
screaming
for
urban
renewal.
There's
a
lot
of
older
housing
stock
in
the
in
the
in
the
street
that
someone
presents
a
monolithic
and
austere
contact
presentation
and
the
RFB
before
us
actually
is
considered
a
breath
of
fresh
air.
E
In
this
context,
I
believe
the
street
has
a
superb
Outlook
I,
acknowledge
that
for
the
North
and
overlooking
the
Waterfront
Reserve
over
Brisbane
water
and
is
therefore
deserved.
That
warrants
a
well-designed
residential
development
that
takes
in
advantage
of
this
inherent
context
that
we
all
appreciate
again.
E
The
proposal
has
been
meticulously
planned
and
designed
and
documented
on
how
how
it
affords
a
contemporary
RFB
that
is
considered
it
to
someone
an
overachievement
in
terms
of
the
presentation
of
to
the
public
domain
along
the
street
and
the
neighboring
sites
when
compared
to
the
typical
medium
density,
housing
topologies
that
have
recently
been
constructed
and
approved
on
the
periphery
of
the
warway
Town
Center,
with
the
gun
barrel,
sort
of
townhouse
design
with
minimal
Landscaping
flanking
the
the
the
the
built
form.
E
Rather,
this
design
provides
a
great
Landscaping
opportunities
and
and
alleviates
traffic
and
parking
access
to
Brick
Wharf
Road.
It
takes
advantage
of
the
the
re-access
that's
been
established
for
for
residents
along
this
stretch,
and
it
allows
the
established
native
canopy,
true
Canada,
with
the
books
box,
gums
out
the
front
to
be
retained.
E
It
allows
the
obtain
I
want
to
obtain
view
solar
access
that
and
accessibility
and
cross-ventilation
to
accommodate
Aging
in
place
for
the
occupants
of
each
dwelling.
It's
it
must
be
said.
The
site
is
benefited
by
being
close
within
close
proximity
of
the
warway
Town
Center,
and
that,
from
a
strategic
perspective,
the
local
strategic
planning
statement
classifies
were
always
a
strategic
Center
for
a
key
growth
Center
as
a
key
guide
Center.
E
So
one
of
the
aims
of
the
Strategic
statement
is
to
support
population
growth,
housing
growth
and
and
emphasizes
revitalization
of
the
warboy
town
center
and
and
housing
within
the
periphery
of
the
center.
If
anyone
knows
the
history
of
world
war,
it's
somewhat
a
bit
stagnant
and
after
decades
it's
becoming
a
little
bit
commercial
vitality
and
diversity
is
lacking.
So
it's
noted
that
the
housing
renewal
of
the
site
would
Accord
with
this.
E
This
statement,
as
well
as
the
the
recently
published
worldwide
Waterfront
master
plan,
that's
seeking
an
upgrade
of
the
Urban
Design
along
the
precinct
and
within
the
public
sphere,
along
the
Waterfront
from
The
Bayview
Pub
down
to
the
Lions
Park,
so
in
in
regards
to
the
LEP
and
DCP
compliances
that
we
acknowledge
there's
some
minor
numerical
variation
sort.
E
However,
it's
noted
that
the
proposal
meets
the
the
aims
and
objectives
of
the
relevant
plan
controls
and
this
this
assessment
has
actually
been
a
rigorous
two-year
process
that
I
must
acknowledge
councils,
balanced
approach
and
rigorous
approach
in
assessing
this
application,
it's
been
very
difficult
and
that
you
know
at
the
end
of
the
day
that
finally
believe
that
the
proposal
concurs
with
the
or
the
requirements
of
the
objectives
of
the
planning,
controls,
relevant
planning
controls
and
on
that
the
arsb
warrants
approval,
so
I.
E
A
F
I'll
just
ask
one
question:
chair:
Mr
Sharma,
you
said
some
of
I've
just
been
looking
at
the
streetscape
and
I
was
quite
surprised
when
you
said
the
built
form
is
quite
monolithic.
I
actually
thought
it
was
quite
low
density
and
quite
passive.
Where
are
the
structures
that
you
say
are
monolithic.
E
I
don't
know
the
addresses,
but
I
know
the
street
intimately
and
I'll
look
at
some
of
the
probably
Circa
1970s
RFB
developments
Rick
reconcile
I
can
I
can
give
you
those
addresses,
but
this
certainly
there's
certainly
a
few
in
the
in
the
street
that
we
can
provide
I,
don't
have
to
look
up
when.
F
I'm,
looking
at
the
street
now
and
I
can
see
some
brick
and
tile
they're
lower
scale,
their
lower
height,
their
their
less
intrusive
I,
would
have
said
they're
of
a
different
era.
I
get
that
but
I
I
I'm
I
wanted
to
know
whether
there
was
anything
I'd
miss
because
I,
don't
recall,
seeing
monolithic
structures.
E
Particular
certainly
there
that
I
I
see
I,
probably
once
a
fortnight
I
go
down
that
stretch
and
I.
There
are
some
very
austere,
circus,
70s,
residential
flat
buildings
that
are
that
are
they're
even
dwelling
houses,
the
some
Dwelling
houses,
they're
quite
bulky
and
Mansion
style.
F
I
mean
I,
don't
need
you
to
find
them
I.
Just
wonder
if
there's
something
particular
yeah
look
you
mentioned,
but
whilst,
whilst
I'm
here
and
I'm
asking
questions
I'm
I
am
concerned
about,
why
is
it
that
you
think
it's
appropriate
to
increase
the
GFA
on
the
site.
E
Okay
in
regards
to
the
exceedance
of
50
square
meters,
essentially,
as
outlined
in
the
4.6
and
concurred
in
council's
report,
the
these
additional
area
floor
area
isn't
a
grab
for
additional
occupancy
or
unit
yield.
It's
simply
to
provide
you
know,
internal
accessible
cartilage
for
for
the
units
that
are
more
comfortable
and
I
below
the
unit.
E
Three
and
four
are
designed
to
be
adaptable
to
allow
to
meet
the
premises
standards
and-
and
in
light
of
that
that
that
minor,
I
guess
departure
would
afford
that
ability
to
provide
those
units
that
those
areas,
those
circulation
spaces,
are
typically
tight
and
difficult
and
yeah.
That's
the
Crux
of
the
I
guess
the
departure
I.
F
E
Yeah,
in
light
of
the
width,
the
light
the
size
of
the
light
it's
very
difficult
to
provide.
You
know
six
units
that
would
be
of
typical
I,
guess,
GFA
and
and
therefore
pushes
out
with
we've
got
the
ability
to
provide
parking
at
the
back.
So
we've
we've
done
that
into
to
to
and
and
provide
appropriate
sweet
paths
to
comply
with
as289,
8.1
or
street
parking
and
therefore
it
sort
of
pushes
the
setbacks
to
some
degree,
isn't.
F
E
The
corridors
allow
accessible
persons
with
disabilities
to
access
the
building
and
to
provide
appropriate
circulation
spaces.
Without
you
know,
without
impediment-
and
that's
that's
now
a
standard,
that's
highly
sort
of
I.
F
E
In
regards
to
the
built
form
that
can
be
proposed
in
another
typology
say
if
it
was
a
two-story
development,
you
know
you
know:
two-story
typical
RFB
building
the
sit
backs
could
be
much
greater.
We're
not
acknowledge
that
it's
assessed
under
this
set
set
65
guidelines
or
our
Residential
Building
guidelines
and
privacy
elements
and
setbacks.
E
However,
we
we're
just
over
in
regards
to
the
to
coming
under
that
scrutiny,
and
if
there
was
another
topology
that
could
be
pursued
a
townhouse
development
with
a
gun
barrel
driveway,
we
could
go
pointing
on
to
the
ground
floor
to
four
and
a
half
meters
and
then
probably
the
Upper
Floor.
If
it
was
around
the
eight
and
a
half
you're
looking
at
1.9
meters,
so
they
could
afford,
we
could
I
could
be
a
jeweler.
E
It
could
be
a
three
bedroom,
a
three
unit
development
that
could
be
pursued
in
on
this
site,
or
maybe
four
and
with
a
much
greater
impact.
So
in
light
of
I
guess
the
scale
and
the
bulk,
and
but
it's
been,
it's
been
scrutinized
in
terms
of
the
many
impacts
in
terms
of
privacy,
outlooks
and
in
terms
of
shadowing
visual
Balkan
scale.
There's
been
a
lot
of
elements
and.
C
E
Work
in
regards
to
I
guess
alleviating
amenities
impacts
to
the
neighboring
sites.
Obviously,
as
you
can
see,
there's
been
a
lot
of
work
going
regards
to
providing
a
well-articulated
modulated
presentation
to
the
to
the
public
domain
of
the
street.
It's
with
generous
setbacks
to
the
front
facade
broken
by
decks
and
screening
and
horizontal
vertical
elements
landscaping
again
we're
providing
parking
to
the
rear
that
which
allows
the
retention
of
landscaping
and
the
established
trees
within
the
streetscape.
E
So
all
these
all
these
factors
come
into
to
the
design
in
regards
to
presenting
a
development,
although
slightly
over
on
the
GFA,
the
impacts
from
that
departure
are
considered
minor,
if
not
negligible,
and
it
and
again
you
know
this
is
quite
a
quite
a
quite
a
you
know,
as
the
other
speaker
noted,
according
a
well-established
site,
in
regards
to
some
the
the
amenity
that's
afforded
by
you
know,
being
a
waterfront
across
the
Waterfront,
so
it
it
goes
to
the
the
getting
six
units
in
it's
it's.
It's
not
a.
E
You
can
easily
see
that
the
the
departure
is
not
purely
for
additional.
You
know
yield
and
a
lot
of
I
guess
the
capitalization
of
the
site.
It's
then
it's.
It's
warranted
that
you
know
six
units
would
be
acceptable
and
you
know
it
has
to
be
economically
feasible.
We've
already.
B
E
During
the
course
of
this
assessment,
one
the
previous
applicant
has
had
to
depart
the
scene
because
it
the
holding
costs,
were
too
much,
and
so
fortunately,
I
guess
the
D.A
survive
or
someone
else
coming
in
to
to
purchase
the
site
and
and
and
inherit
this
da
so
and
it
to
be
honest,
even
they
even
he's
struggling
because
of
a
you
know,
the
interest
rates
and
land
costs
and
labor
rates
Etc
struggling
to
make
it
economically
viable.
E
A
Thank
you
for
that,
and
so
there's
that
enough
information
in
relation
to
that
question:
Sue,
yeah!
Okay,
great
did
you
have
any
other
questions
of
Mr
Sharma,
no.
B
Madam,
chair
can
I
just
ask
one
question
about
the
building:
that's
the
status
of
the
building
on
the
site.
The
application
was
made
for
the
demolition
of
the
building
and
for
the
construction
of
a
residential
flat
building.
Have
you
amended
your
application?
E
No,
but
obviously
it's
that
could
be
easily
be
updated
to
to
state
simply.
You
know
in
the
directional
construction
of
a
residential
flat
building
I
believe
it
was
removed
lawfully
during
the
course
of
I'm.
B
Not
asking
that
I'm
just
asking
you've
made
a
number
of
you've
resubmitted
the
application
on
a
number
of
occasions,
I'm
not
sure
when
the
building
was
demolished
you
have
I
was
just
checking
to
see
if
you
have
amended
the
application
to
delete
reference
to
the
demolition
of
the
house.
E
B
E
A
You
Grant,
have
you
got
a
question.
D
Thank
you
chair
just
in
relation
to
the
Clause
4.6
requests,
so
there's
two
one
in
relation
to
the
height
now
as
I
understand
it.
That's
that's
in
relation
to
the
leftover
and
is
that
is
understanding
correct.
It's.
D
A
E
D
I
I
was
just
what
what
caught
my
attention
was,
whether
if
it
was
just
the
roof
that
that
provision
in
the
LEP
about
an
architectural
roof
each
may
be
able
to
be
used.
So
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
particularly
concerned
about
the
request
in
respect
to
the
the
course
4.6
for
the
height,
but
in
respect
to
the
four
space
ratio,
I'm
I'm,
I,
sort
of
struggle
as
to
the
justification.
In
my
mind,
there
are
two
main
tests,
of
course
4.6
requests.
D
Firstly,
that's
compliance
with
development
standards,
unreasonable
or
unnecessary
I'm.
Just
I
I,
listen
closely
to
what
you
had
in
answer
to
Stu
francis's
questions
and
I'm,
just
struggling
with
I
suppose
the
reasoning
you
know.
Why
is
it
that
compliance
with
the
standards
are
unreasonable
enough
unnecessary
in
this
case,
and,
secondly,
I
I'm,
not
quite
sure
and
I,
think
it's
clear
from
your
written
requests?
What
are
the
environmental
planning
grounds
that
that
that
that
that
make
non-compliance
satisfactory.
E
Okay,
in
regards
the
first
point:
I'm
not
being
I,
guess,
unreasonable
or
necessary.
I
should
say
is
that
as
I
said,
it's
within
the
scene
and
outlined
in
council's
planning
assessment
report
that
the
bulk
of
the
building
is
is
somewhat
appropriately
sort
of
mitigating
and
articulating
regardless
on
the
proposed
succeedance
it
doesn't,
it
doesn't
won't
increase
in
intensity.
E
E
The
units
exceed
the
minimum
size
required
by
the
adg,
doesn't
have
any
that
doesn't
have
any
unreasonable
amenity
impacts
in
results
to
the
that.
From
the
with
the
additional
floor
space.
It's
it
it,
the
Upper
Floor
it's
transitional,
it's
teared
in
and-
and
it
would
be
acceptable
in
regards
to
providing
the
that
additional
four
space
given
I,
guess
the
nature
of
the
site
and
the
additional
well.
D
All
right
so
so
is
the
is
the
primary
argument
that
compliance
with
the
standards,
unreasonable
or
unnecessary,
or
both
okay,
going
to
the
second.
E
Point
that
there's
environmental
reasonings
behind
it
in
regards
to
the
site
itself
being
located
in
close
proximity
to
the
foreshore
and
having
a
high
acid
sulfate
soil
classification
in
accordance
with
the
LEP.
If
we
could
get
a
basement
in
and
which
would
you
know,
rfbs
quite
often
do
and
then
and
have
all
parking.
E
Obviously,
the
objective
behind
that
is
to
have
all
parking
concealed
so
that
you've
got
a
presentation,
as
we
have
now
of
all
all
units,
preset
fronting
the
streetscape,
mitigating
the
hard
stand
surface
or
the
or
the
access
to
the
road
is
a
plus
as
well.
So
not
only
are
don't
we
have
a
driveway
going
to
the
strip
to
the
the
the
site.
E
We
don't
have
the
additional
environmental
impacts
that
would
be
afforded
with
you
know,
I
saw
a
removal
and
dumping,
and-
and
obviously,
if
that
was
the
case,
if
we
could
get
a
basement
in
we
in
accordance
with
the
lap
provision,
you
would
be
entitled
to
a
point
seven
to
one
floor
space
ratio.
E
We
we're
not
able
to
do
that
in
regards
to
due
to
the
acid
sulfate
soil
classification
in
the
low
water
table,
so
we
we
reverted
back
to
0.6
notwithstanding,
we
don't
have
the
ability
to
get
to
Point
seven,
because
we
can't
get
a
basement
in
it
presents
to
the
street
as
as
we
know,
we
as
a
there's
parking
not
presented
to
the
street
and
it
doesn't
have
a
driveway
accessing
brick
wall
frame,
so
it
meets
the
intent
without
having
a
basement.
E
So
that's
that
is
an
argument
in
regards
from
an
environmental
perspective,
There's
a
constraint
there
that
doesn't
allow
us
to
achieve
what
was
the
intent
for
GFA
on
the
site.
However,
we
still
achieve
the
intent
of
what
they,
what
the,
what
the
rationale
is
behind
having
a
basement
for
the
apartment
sign.
B
A
Thanks
Grant
just
staying
on
the
FSR
issue.
A
I
know
we
saw
some
clarification
from
Council
in
the
assessment
report.
It
talks
about
GFA
or
FSR,
diagrams
compliance
diagrams
being
submitted
and
we've
been
provided
with
a
copy
of
those
and
also
a
clarification
on
whether
those
diagrams
show
the
the
whether
the
circulation
space
and
those
corridors
were
counted
as
as
as
GFA
and
and
as
Francis
indicated.
A
We
understand
that
it
looks
like
you've
proposed
some
kind
of
Louvre
screens
on
the
ground
floor
so
that
there's
so
technically
it
wouldn't
be
counted
as
GFA,
but
the
other
aspect
related
to
the
garages,
noting
that
you're
providing
additional
part
parking
additional
to
what
the
the
council
requirements
are
and
as
per
the
definition,
you
would
need
to
include
any
parking
that
is
additional
or
count,
though,
as
GFA
now.
A
So
I
just
wonder
what
your
response
is,
whether
you
have
calculated
that
at
parking
GFA,
that's
additional
beyond
the
adaptable
garage
size
as
part
of
your
GFA
for
the
purpose
of
calculating
FSR,
as
that
currently
been
excluded.
E
A
belief
that
it
probably
wouldn't
have
been
it
would
have
been
calculated.
Yes,
I
think
the
double
Garage
in
its
entirety
would
have
been
I
guess
presented
as
providing
access
for
a
person
with
a
disability
to
for
that
parking,
accommodation,
okay,.
A
My
other
question
relates
to
the
roof
Gardens,
which
are
on
the
first
floor
of
the
two
apartments
at
the
rear,
so
they
sit
there's
two
of
them
that
they
join
neighboring
properties
and
they
sit
on
top
of
I.
Guess
a
single
garage
each
what's
the
and
they
immediately
adjoin
an
outdoor
area
with
a
drying
area
to
service
the
apartments
that
they
are
accessed
from.
A
How
do
you
propose?
How
does
the
design
propose
access
for
the
residents
of
those
apartments
to
maintain
those
rooftop
gardens?
You
know
weeding
cutting
back
dead
Parts.
All
of
that
sort
of
thing
I
mean
I,
assume
with
that
there
could
be
some
kind
of
irrigation
system
to
water.
But
how
is
the
maintenance
aspect
proposed,
because
I
know
that
there
are
no
screens
privacy
screens,
then
if
they
were
to
be
accessible
for
maintenance
purposes,
then
then
you've
got
obviously
increased
opportunity
for
overlooking
from
those
spaces
into
the
adjoining
properties.
E
Let's
say
the
Body
Corp
would
have
to
come
into
effect
there
to
maintain
those.
If
not,
the
residents
would
be,
as
in
the
bylaws
required
to
maintain
those
Gardens.
A
E
Yeah
I'd
have
to
take
their
own
notice
and
talk
to
the
designer
I.
Don't
know
if
he's
available
in
regards
to
practicalities
of
that,
but
yeah
there'd
have
to
be
some
kind
of
guide
or
stunt
some
yeah
access
there
for
them
to
maintain
those
Gardens.
A
And
did
you
I
understand
that
those
structures
you
I
through
the
design
development
phase
in
response
to
councils
concerns
you
have
while
still
not
compliant?
You
have
slightly
pulled
back
those
garages
from
the
boundary
there
was.
Obviously
there
is
a
overshadowing
impact
associated
with
each
of
them.
Did
you
contemplate
whether
those
parking
spaces
could
be
open,
stand
spaces
or
more
lightweight
structures
instead
to
what
impact
that
might
have
on
preserving
some
solar
access
to
the
adjoining
properties,
rear
yards.
E
That
would
be
one
for
David
as
well,
but
from
initially
yes,
you're,
yes,
correct
Madam,
chair
in
regards
to
the
garage
is
one
boundary
initially
and
council's
architect
yeah.
There
was
a
point
where
it
wasn't
supported,
so
we
we
pulled
them
back
to
earlier,
obviously,
access
and
for
maintenance
and
some
landscaping
around
those
structures.
That
was
acknowledged
that
the
parking
structures
were
consistent
with
parking
structures
that
were
established
within
the
reset
backs
of
follow
Lots
the
majority
of
the
Lots
within
brick,
Wharf
Road.
E
Along
that
stretch,
there
was
no
there's
no
discussion
in
relation
to
maybe
an
alternative,
lightweight,
open
structure
to
be
considered
for
for
parking
accommodation.
E
So
we
just
we
just
simply.
Obviously
liaise
would
we'd
council's
planner
and
Architects
and
they
came.
We
came
to
a
point
where
the
officer
I
guess
the
offset
to
the
side.
Boundaries
were
accepted
for
the
garages.
A
A
Is
it
a
design,
question
Sue,
because
my
question
is
not
to
do
a
design.
My
my.
F
E
E
Have
David's
available
to
speak
to
that
again?
It's
all
modeled
through
the
the
computer
system
and
it
produces
in
regards
to
the
height
and
elevation
of
the
proposed
structure
to
the
to
to
the
I
guess
the
elevation
of
the
the
Sun
during
the
well.
F
E
Do
you
think
that's
right,
looking
at
them
the
when
you're
looking
at
a
single
story,
structures
the
I?
Guess
it
from
the
point
of
where
they're
taken
like
obviously
they're
further
to
the
north,
then
the
the
length
of
the
Shadow
would
be
I'm.
Looking
at
June,
for
example,
June
the
21st
at
9
30
a.m.
E
A
A
E
I
think
it's
just
a
loyalty:
oh
the
knowledge.
What
you're
saying
that
it
would
spill
over
at
that
height,
but
the
delineation
is
is
in
regards
to
I'd,
have
to
speak
to
David,
about
that
yeah
I
can
see,
it's
got
the
extent
of
the
shadowing,
but
the
blue.
Yes,
there
might
be
just
some
kind
of
computer
thing.
A
It's
just
hard
to
see:
what's
existing
exercising,
I
mean
I,
think
from
one
of
the
plans,
that's
showing
that
it
was
developed
when
the
site
had
been
the
existing
building
had
been
demolished
as
well.
So
they
obviously
from
the
current
situation,
but
the
proposed
just
doesn't
look
accurate.
E
A
E
Yeah
we
can,
we
can
provide,
obviously
clarification
on
separate
plans,
Maybe,
okay,.
A
A
Okay,
so
the
next
matter
just
to
to
ask
you
about
ravi's,
relates
to
a
question
that
came
up
in
the
briefing
and
that
was
just
clarifying.
You
might
know
the
answer
to
this
and
council's
been
looking
into
this
as
well,
but
obviously,
as
you
said,
the
application's
been
going
for
more
than
two
years,
as
was
launched
more
than
two
years
ago,
and
and
presumably
you've
been
on
that
Journey
that
whole
time.
So
you
might
know
what
discussions
have
occurred,
but
it
relates
to
two
aspects.
A
Really
one
is:
has
landowners
consent
been
granted
by
Council
to
access
the
proposed
parking
area
at
the
rear
of
the
site
from
the
adjacent
Council
car
park,
and
when
that
question
technical
question
has
been
asked,
the
officers
they've
had
a
look
at
it
and
they
couldn't
see
anything
on
record
with
this
application
that
there's
been
any
consent
granted
in
relation
to
that
at
this
stage,
and
the
second
aspect
of
this
is
then
so
obviously
that's
landowners
consent
for
the
lodgement
of
the
application.
A
The
second
aspect
is
the
demonstration
of
any
legal
right
of
access
from
that
adjacent
car
park,
noting
that
it's
Community
Land.
So
do
you
have
any
response
to
those
two
pieces
of
information.
E
Okay,
yes,
in
regards
to
access
to
the
rear
of
the
site,
we
back
before
we
even
prepared
the
D.A.
We
had
a
protea
meeting
Council,
including
councils.
E
Development
engineers-
and
this
matter
was
discussed
categorically
and
before
we
even
proceeded,
we
received
advice
after
his
discussions.
We
I
guess
it
would
be
the
property
property
section
in
Council.
B
E
There
was
no
objection
to
obtain
vehicular
access
to
the
site
for
for
the
proposed
RFA
development,
so
we
proceeded
and
launched
the
da
it
was.
It
was
not
in
the
minutes
of
the
pretty
Aid
advice
that
was
provided
that
we
required.
E
The
owner's
consent
from
Council
to
obtain
for
the
application
for
the
part,
B
yeah,
look
at
owner's
consent,
and
this
is
the
first
we've
been
asked.
This
question.
B
E
Is
to
us
that
that
this
is
required
as
you're
aware
from
your
site
visit
you,
but
this
and
just
by
looking
at
yeah,
obviously
Fair
Aero
photography
that
all
those
lights
along
with
Road
have
garages
backing
onto
the
the
site
to
obtain
access
from
the
rear.
So,
in
light
of
I
guess
the
advice
we
got
from
Council
initially
in
a
formal,
pretty
a
we
proceeded
without
without
any
cons,
concern
or
consideration
that
this
would
be
required.
A
Do
they
you
mentioned
that
the
the
pre-da
minutes
don't
specifically
call
out
that
you've
got
to
get
the
consent,
but
do
they
do
they?
Does
it
list
that
that
matter
was
discussed
at
the
pre-da.
A
Something
that
we
could
ask
Council
to
have
a
look
at
what
find
the
minutes
of
those
perhaps
Elsa.
If
we
could
just
ask
also
what
council's
processes
I
know
some
councils
when
they
receive
applications
such
as
this
it,
the
the
consent
of
council's
property,
section
comes
through
the
referral
process
once
the
application
has
been
submitted,
but
I
just
I'm,
not
sure
if
every
Council
does
it
the
same
way
and
and
how
Central
Coast
does
it.
G
Yeah,
that's.
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
that
that
would
be
the
process?
We
have
a
dark
process,
the
Lord
oh
well,
they
do
the
previous
and
they'll
take
they
bring
in
the
DA's
I.
Think
in
this
circumstance,
Engineers
sit
on
that
process
when
the
Da
comes
in
and
due
to
the
historic
advice,
I
suppose
and
and
also
from
the
previous,
it
was.
The
notes
on
the
site
visit
suggest
that
the
access
is
applicable
is
is
allowed
through
the
council
car
park
at
the
time
they
didn't
raise.
G
It
was
missed,
I
think,
on
the
regards
to
the
owner's
consent
to
access
through
the
counter
car
park.
A
A
A
Then
it
moves
on
to
their
being
able
to
demonstrate
that
there
is
a
legal
right
of
access
from
that
adjacent
car
park
and
I
guess
with
some
with
with
some
certainty
Etc,
and
we
can
all
see
that
obviously,
there's
existing
car
garages
and
and
parking
are
pretty
much
on
almost
every
every
lot
along
there.
A
A
G
This
we
have
started
to
look
into
it
as
it
was
raised.
The
matter
was
I
think
we
initially
thought
it
would
take
a
signature.
So
yes,
but
since
looking
at
it
further,
it's
going
to
take
a
little
bit
longer
than
just
getting
more
information
required
from
the
property
section
before
I
could
probably
give
a
full
answer
to
that.
One.
A
Okay,
has
any
any
of
the
other
panel
members
have
any
thing
that
they
wish
to
question
or
add
in
relation
to
that
I
know
Tony.
That
was
something
that
you
raised
originally,
so,
whether
there's
anything
that
I
missed
in
paraphrasing
that
question,
that
no.
F
B
That's
why
I
write
I
I
I'm
very
familiar
with
the
site
being
there
many
times,
brick
Wolf
Road
and
the
car
park.
But
when
you
look
at
the
map,
it's
Community
Land,
so
I
don't
know
we'll
just
have
to
leave
it
with
Council
to
provide
that
advice.
A
Sorry,
Mr
Sharma
I
mean
I
appreciate.
This
is
now
coming
up
a
couple
of
years.
After
obviously
the
application
has
been
lodged,
but
you
if
the
panel
was
never
mind
to
approve
the
application
we
wouldn't
need
to.
If
it
hasn't
it's
that
there
isn't
any
I
guess
legal
right
of
access
need
to
understand
that
there
is
a
process
and
that
there
is
certainty
that
that
can
actually
be
achieved
because
the
design
relies
on
that
being
provided.
A
I
don't
have
any
further
questions.
Is
there
anything
else?
That's
popped
up
that
anybody
would
like
to
add
yeah,
okay,
so.
A
So
I
would
now
like
to
formally
close
this
meeting
of
the
Central
Coast
local
planning
panel
I'd
like
to
thank
all
of
those
who
attended
and
took
apart,
including
my
fellow
panel
members,
members
of
the
community
representatives
of
the
applicants
and
Council
staff,
and
this
part
of
the
meeting
will
close
and
if
I
can
ask
the
panel
to
reconvene
in
the
separate
Link
at
quarter
past
three,
so
in
10
minutes
time
does
that
suit?
Everyone.