433 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257

Multi Dwelling Housing 8 Units

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website over 1 year ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: Central Coast Council (Gosford), reference 011.2019.00056948.001 )

8 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Raelene Kintre commented

    I'm interested but don't see any information on these "micro apartments". Not a motel, not a serviced apartment so who will be living in a single room with bathroom? What size are these? Are they for long-term or short-term residents/tourists etc. Once again it is apparent that "boarding rooms" and associated persons are going to be the future of the Peninsula. Total cost of works $650K, then I also fear a very cheap and nasty structure.

  2. Lesley Harvey commented

    Raelene is correct to ask what dimensions are micro-apartments? As there are no documents attached, can the developer please submit these? Where will there be shade to the western end? All to often, plans show greenery but it rarely eventuates. If this project goes ahead, can. Council ensure shade (Umina is now rated at one of the hottest places on the Central Coast & Green Places aims should be applied) AND on site parking for 8 cars not .5 per unit?

  3. Roslyn Jennings commented

    Another development that's a concern. "Micro Apartments" will they be rented or sold? Is it another way of introducing Boarding Houses in to the community.
    Is the Applicant Mr T Ludeche the same Mr Tom Ludeche who has built units on the northern Beaches and said " he wouldn't build anything that he wouldn't live in himself"?Would he live in this development?
    $650K to build sounds cheap in today's building costs and once again the Pennisula is being ruined.I'm against this type development in Umina Community.

  4. Kreasan Gounden commented

    I oppose the development of 433 Ocean Beach Road, Umina

    Please consider the community response to both developments for recent development applications for the following applications against the below residential properties; All public submission should be considered due to the similar location and proposed occupancy and similarities of this development.

    • 5 Osborn Ave , Umina https://plan.s.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au/Pages/XC.Track/SearchApplication.aspx?id=011.2018.00055206.001

    • 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina - https://plan.s.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au/Pages/XC.Track/SearchApplication.aspx?id=011.2019.00056417.001

    We currently live behind the proposed development on 1 Osborn Ave. We have not received notification of this development and neither have other surrounding properties. We oppose the development due to the following concerns which have also been addressed against the development applications listed above.

    Privacy; The rear of our property which will be visible from the rear of the proposed application as all living spaces and Pool of our property currently face the elevation of the back of the proposed dwelling. I have two young children and this possess a privacy and security concern for my family. This would also overlook the childcare centre at the rear of 3 Osborn and our block which would also be visible from the rear of the proposed dwelling.

    Sunlight to the rear elevation of the proposed development will block the sun which would affect our heating, potential solar , and would also block sunlight in to our outdoor living spaces

    Will reduce the valuation of our property in relation to the above concerns as well as neighbouring on micro apartments, boarding housing, which will be cheaply constructed. How will the construction address impacts of high residential issues surrounding the following points ;

    • Car Park Space
    • Number of Dwellings
    • Noise
    • Privacy
    • Traffic
    • Environment

    Thanks

  5. Kevin Woods commented

    I object to the development application at 431 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach. Eight “Micro” units, on a block that is only 676 square meters, with total floor space of only 255 square meters is a third world standard and totally out of character and inappropriate for Umina Beach.
    UNIT 1 GROSS FLOOR AREA 29.4m² - STUDIO
    UNIT 2 GROSS FLOOR AREA 29.4m² - STUDIO
    UNIT 3 GROSS FLOOR AREA 34.3m² - STUDIO ADAPTABLE
    UNIT 4 GROSS FLOOR AREA 34.3m² - STUDIO ADAPTABLE
    UNIT 5 GROSS FLOOR AREA 29.4m² - 1 BEDROOM
    UNIT 6 GROSS FLOOR AREA 29.4m² - 1 BEDROOM
    UNIT 7 GROSS FLOOR AREA 34.3m² - 1 BEDROOM
    UNIT 8 GROSS FLOOR AREA 34.3m² - 1 BEDROOM
    COMMON AREA GROSS FLOOR AREA 14.8m²
    PROPOSED TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA 255.6m²
    PROPOSED TOTAL SOFT LANDSCAPE AREA 220.3m² (32.6%)
    These “Micro” Units are not much bigger than a prison cell. The agreed Australian national minimum standard for a 2 person prison cell is 12.75 square metres. There is a reason public health legislation has minimum accommodation standards, it’s because chronic overcrowding creates health issues.
    There is a lack of information in the notification documents provided to Council and those documents provided are not drawn to scale and are not for construction purposes. There appears to be no description of the contents and purpose of each unit. Does each unit have a bathroom? Does each unit have a kitchen? Does each unit have a Laundry? Does each unit have a toilet? Will each unit have a separate title enabling them to be sold separately? Are all Units under one title and this proposal yet another boarding house application? As the old saying goes; “if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it may be a duck”.
    There are only four parking spaces proposed for eight units. Occupants will be forced to park in the McDonalds Car Park opposite, or in nearby streets.
    I look to Council Officers and our elected Council Officials to decline the application. Eight “micro” units on an average block will help create the slums of the future. If approved it will create a precedent where developers will seek to build more and more of these third world type enclaves on the peninsula creating social problems, not easing them. The peninsula area will become overcrowded and the natural ambience of this beautiful beachside suburb will be lost.

  6. Concerned resident commented

    Multi Dwelling Housing 8 units
    433 Ocean Beach Road

    I oppose this development because of it's size, appearance, potential occupancy rates, security, type of residents, position of the development and their contribution to the character, lifestyle, economy and well being of the community. This type of development does not contribute or enhance the Umina Beach Village character
    The touristic and family friendly feel of the area will be compromised and heavily impacted and it's identity lost to this type of development.
    This location does not meet the Central Coast Draft Affordable and Alternative Housing Strategy (2018) requiring this type of developments be located close to large service centers and efficient public transport.
    The council strategy also recommends affordable housing should be located within 800 metres of railway stations and focusing in business areas like Woy Woy and Gosford.
    Council is also required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to take into account the social and economic impacts of a development application and to consider if a proposed development is in the general public interest.
    We do not have any government bodies or agencies and insufficient police presence in the area.
    There are insufficient social agencies, mental health services, Medicare, Centrelink or welfare services near by.
    There are insufficient job opportunities in the area with most locals having to travel away from the area for employment.
    This development only has four parking spaces with no parking available for its potential 16 residents.
    They are low cost small area apartments which could attract tenants with different attitudes and behavior that might be disturbing to local residents and the community in general.
    I don't understand how this type of development could even be considered or accepted by council when it is so close to a primary school, two surf life saving clubs, the biggest children and family recreation centre in the peninsula with it's extensive parklands, a very popular beach frequented by visitor from all places, tourist parks, Hope church, CWA, and Umina Sunday markets.
    Council should not approve this type of development because of the apartments size, building area, location and proposed use as it does not match the general type of buildings in the area.
    This development does not comply with many of the planning rules because of it' appearance, size, parking provisions, setbacks, privacy aspects, location and by being located in one of the busiest roads in the peninsula.

  7. Penny Rogers commented

    While there is a need for more affordable housing alternatives in the area, this development application raises several concerns. The first is its location, on one of the busiest stretches of Ocean Beach Road, a section that is subject to frequent congestion and has outgrown its effectiveness, and in one of busiest areas of the Peninsula. While space will be allowed for on site resident and visitor parking, ensuing problems of access in and out of the property will add to current congestion and place pressure on surrounding streets, residents and services. Secondly, it is unclear from the application the intended target group(s) for the multi dwelling property, the type of affordable housing development proposed, its ownership and management, how it fits with the Council's affordable housing strategy and plans and how it meets State and Council affordable housing requirements relevant to the type of accommodation once these matters are clarified. Thirdly, the proposed density of 8 "micro" dwellings/apartments relative to block size does not comply with the with minimum lot size requirement under the Gosford Local Environment Plan by almost 10 per cent (750m2 in Plan versus a block size of 676.1m2), as acknowledged in the supporting documents. This in turn raises questions about the appropriateness of the development's design in providing a good living environment for occupants that promotes their comfort, privacy, safety, quality of life and social cohesion, and the viability and sustainability of the "micro" apartments as an affordable housing option. The Council should support affordable housing that incorporates good apartment design that is attractive for occupants and makes the neighbourhood more attractive. This application does not do this.

  8. Ron Keenan commented

    Im concerned at the fact that these Micro Units will be used incorrectly & will also devalue our area. I understand they are required but, why in such a prestige area? Surely there are better places. Imagine the chaos of vehicles entering/exiting at what is now a bloody mess already. Just adding 2 more cars to the mix will create chaos. Please do NOT allow this construction.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts