PlanningAlerts

29 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. With more families moving here and boosting our economy it is good to to see more new flat building units. Hopefully rents can be well priced and not over priced.

2. I am making this submission as a South Street, Umina Beach resident.
   I am not in favour of a six villa development.

   I live in South Street Umina Beach. I cannot see any documents relating to this development. Six units is too many for this 784sqm site if it is to allow for off-road parking for possibly 12 or more residents. Visitor parking for at least 3 visitor cars needs to be made available as is seen at 31 South street which has 6 units and six garages.
   South street already leaves no ability for residents to park outside their home during the 7 days of the week. Bunnings staff, Bunnings shoppers, West St businesses and shoppers, beach goers all fill up the current spaces.
   Three villas would be acceptable on this single residential block. Six villas also leaves no room for significant gardens or trees to offset the increase in hard surfaces. What is the vegetation component of this development?

3. We are perplexed as to how 6 units will be squeezed onto this block. We live over in Berith St & are continually seeing our street parked out by local residents & shoppers more than visitors. It appears, these days, each family has 2 cars. If 6 units go ahead, then where will one car each go let alone other cars and those of visitors? How about scaling back this DA to 3 units to allow for adequate parking, a garden & shade trees on our hot sand plain? More greenery adds value by the way.

4. 6 units on this size block is too many. Where will potentially 12 residents park their cars on a street that is already full from Bunnings shoppers, beach goers and west street businesses?
   I think up to 3 is a more appropriate amount for this size block and still allows for adequate landscape area.

5. I am a South Street Resident and find it unbelievable that a six unit development can be squeezed into a house block. The parking in South Street is already stretched beyond capacity due to Bunnings and the close proximity to the beach. Another matter of great concern is the lack of green space in a development of this size on a house block.
   With the proposed shared zone development of the lane at the other end of South Street this defeats the purpose of adding at least 12 more cars. I believe that the usual 3 unit development
   for a house block in this area should be adhered to.

6. I am making a submission regarding the development at 42 South Street, Umina Beach. I believe the six units will negatively impact the liveability of our area. There is inadequate room for parking already and a formally identified Urban Heat Island in this location due to a lack of shade trees.
   With such a heavy footprint, there will surely be no room for appropriate set backs and trees. This will greatly diminish our liveability and the value and desirability of our suburb. Please reduce the size of this development substantially.

7. I am a resident of South St Umina and would like to make the following submission regarding the proposed development of 42 South St. It would seem highly unlikely that placing 6 villas on this site could possibly meet building codes criteria. Each villa would require a garage, visitor parking provided and the complex would need to meet the required hard surface/soft landscaping ratio. Plans and details need to be provided to all residents of South St due to the existing problems already experienced in this street of parked cars. This is due to close proximity to the beach and shopping centre and in particular staff working in Bunnings occupy many parking spaces in the street.

8. I am a frequent pedestrian of South St , long time resident of Umina Beach, and attest to too many cars currently blocking up this street as shoppers, visitors and residents all compete for the limited space. It is a hot street to walk as the vegetation has diminished and hard surfaces have increased and traffic has increased. cars are parked on both sides of the street day and night already so six households is too many for this size block in South St . While the building works proceed there will be less room to park and walk during this time also. It would be smart to prioritise an increase in vegetation in South St to partly mitigate the heat sink effect experienced currently in this area. Money spent on smart and beautiful vegetation features will be the best investment for the developer and improve the outcome for developer, owners, residents and the community. An investment which literally grows, being vegetation and habitat will outperform any infrastructure which is oversized for the size of the land. It will be highly welcomed and will only appreciate in value. Have a discussion and compare the likely outcomes. Cost vs benefit analysis anyone?

9. I am making this submission because I am not in favour of a six villa development at 42 South Street.
   As former resident of South St and local community member, we have already noticed the huge increase in the number of cars parked on this street in recent years. With the size of this block, I do not see how adequate parking can be provided for residents of six villas. I am also concerned about the environmental impact of a development of this scale in terms of reduced trees and vegetation, causing a further increase in heat.
   Please reconsider approving this development!

10. I object to proposed Development Application at 42 South St, Umina Beach, DA60728/2021. I live nearby. However, I predict it will be approved by Central Coast Council, the precedent having been set with two earlier DA’s, being:
    (1) Construction Of A Two Storey Boutique Boarding House With 11 Rooms. Alterations To Existing House To Create Manager’s Residence. Six Car Parking Spaces Demolition Of One (1) Dwelling And Out Building at 454 Ocean Beach Road. See the link below for the objections raised: https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/1191688#add-comment
    (2) Multi Dwelling Housing 8 Units. See the link below for the objections raised:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/1332922
    In those submissions it is stated; inter alia; There is a reason public health legislation has minimum accommodation standards, it’s because chronic overcrowding creates health issues. 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.
    For those hoping these six units in the current application may in some way create cheaper accommodation, there is no hope of that between West Street and the Beach, with the value of the block already well exceeding a million dollars, and a $3.19 million construction cost, how will that make “cheaper” accommodation as developers strive to maximise profits from one block of land?
    All residents of Umina beach I know object to the current DA application. South Street Umina Beach is already clogged with cars from existing town houses and other homes lacking sufficient off street parking. This results in residents parked cars, and in some cases, box trailers, mobile homes, and boats on trailers permanently parked in the street with wheels clamped for security. That problem is compounded by visitors, Bunnings customers, people attending the Dentist at 52 South Street, and people attending the beach. The only way to address this problem is to introduce a 4 hour parking limit to entire length of South Street.
    Central Coast Councilors have a history of approving micro accommodations without apparent thought to their constituents, who object to the DA’s destroying the live-ability, and green ambience of the area. One wonders at the lack of comment by the various community groups, in this and the earlier DA’s mentioned herein?

11. My wife and I live in one of three single story villas at 44 South Street Umina Beach NSW. We have lived here for approximately 15 years. The majority of light entering the villas comes from the north facing windows and doors. One window into the kitchen area, one glass double sliding door with two glass side panels into the living room and another glass sliding door with one glass panel into the master bedroom. Our back yard is on the north of the building. Any two story structure on the block to our north, number 42 South Street would deny us of much of that light and all privacy. Furthermore, we have struggled for years to afford solar power, with panels on the north roof and were in the process of seeking quotes.

    We strongly object to the application for six units in two stories being built on number 42 South Street. As has previously been stated, South Street already suffers much traffic from Bunnings and Fyffe Lane, the entrance to our garage, is already a dangerous thoroughfare and South Street has no parking available most days. Adding another dozen cars daily to that mix will make traffic impossible to safely navigate.

    We respectfully request that our objects be seriously considered. We have lived in the Umina Beach area for 48 years as home owners and rate payers and we believe that should also be considered.

12. i see people are very hypocritical on new developments. They are saying the new development will block light and cause traffic ect ect, well the villa or townhouse you are now calling your home wasnt there either originally? and im sure it blocked sun to neighbouring homes and added more traffic. guys its progress, dont become a nimby.. let people develop blocks in there suburb.its not fair to stop that,very selfish.

13. As a resident of South Street Umina, I am writing to lodge my objection to the proposed 6 villa development at Number 42. As other correspondents have stated, the parking situation at present is over capacity for the amount of residents in the street. This then forces some residents to park illegally in the laneways at the rear of the properties.
    I think that the owners of said property should have the right to develop their land if they want to, but, should maintain the status quo that currently exists in the immediate vicinity which is three villas for a block of land of that size..

14. South Street Umina already has severe problems with parking and access, the addition of another 6 units, with all of the associated cars will make south street completely unusable. Also the the block area is extremely small for a 6 unit complex, is the council again going to ignore local planning laws to allow a development that significantly impacts residents.

15. I am writing to express concern about the development proposed for 42 South Street Umina.

    The present insufficient parking for Bunnings is already causing chaos in residential South Street as cars now park up and down South Street when Bunnings is full - and that is a daily occurrence.

    Trucks manoeuvre in the street all day.

    Cars use South Street as a cut-through to Trafalgar Avenue. With the approved “shared zone” along the already one-way Esplanade, more cars will be manoeuvring down South Street, making u-turns.

    There are already several multi-unit developments and with the residents (often two cars per unit) and their guests, the capacity of the road is already at a maximum.

    Medium density development is unstoppable, but adding to the already huge number of units in South Street is a mistake.

    Thank you for considering my comment.

    Melissa Chandler

16. I am concerned about the overcrowding impact of six unit developments on single blocks, particularly the proposed development of six units at 42 South Street, UMINA Beach. If approved it will establish a precedent for development of 6 unit (or even larger) buildings on other South Street and other UMINA Beach blocks originally designed for single dwellings. Development on South Street is already close to intensive with negative impacts because of traffic volume and parking. While it is clear that more three unit properties are inevitable please don’t commence a move to 6 unit properties unless on multiple blocks.

17. Like others I believe 6 units is too many for a small block
    Congestion on South St and surrounding streets is already high.
    Try driving down West St
    However I believe council officers will pass it no matter how many objections are made.
    Just look at the five storey building corner and West and Morris St,42 objections passed automatically by council officers and Elected Councillors did nothing
    I wonder what the people who call everyone a NIMBY will do when the development is next to them

18. Saying that 6 units is too much for a single block is rubbish. Umina is full of thousands of blocks with townhouse developments. The planning module allows for this in the development rules and regulations for allocated townships on the Central coast under Gosford Council. This new development planned for 42 South st has 6 units but also basement carpark for 10 cars.There are another 9 single house blocks on South street that are allowed to be developed. It sounds like nimbys are against any developments but they are living in one? Umina is allowed to build to 6 storeys under planning law.The commercial centre is zoned for this reason to build for the future. Dont become a nimby and be against any new development. You should welcome development in umina. It replaces aging homes with new dynamic modern buildings.

19. I totally agree with Roger D. We holidayed here as kids as did my parents. My parents moved to Ettalong 40 years ago I moved back here 5 years ago. Although I love to see the older homes stay as they have and add character and in keeping my childhood memories alive. The Central Coast still has that village appeal and beautiful beaches and holiday appeal. Nearly every one of us has lived in a town house or unit. Progress is good for the local economy, schools, etc ,etc, The old saying is nothing stays the same for ever. This area is a community for all age groups. To see Umina and Ettalong also Woy Woy come alive again is absolutely fantastic !!! A few years back Ettalong was becoming a ghost town now it is thriving again along with Umina. We need progress and more young families to keep the area alive. Council do make sure trees are kept and if not they make sure other trees are planted in their place.
    Kind regards Brad

20. Brad and Roger, as many comments have noted, the issue is not about stopping progress, but that 6 units on a single house block is too many.

21. Brad, Roger....no one is objecting to improvements and development.
    Our population grows, we need housing and shops.
    Easy to grasp.
    What you fail to grasp is that TOO great an imbalance between development and infrastructure and you have suburbs that are ugly and nasty to live in.
    The reason you came here on holidays was not because it had buildings; it was (I’m guessing) the sense of freedom and the beach.
    It’s sad to think that you feel that sense of freedom and access to nature should be reserved for previous generations.
    You’ve got your lovely memories,
    Keeping development realistic in pace and size, and demanding high standards abs good landscaping helps ensure OUR children and grandchildren have a beautiful place to enjoy in futures.
    It also improves property values in the long term.
    Drive to Pearl Beach and see with your own eyes what is possible if people respect the place they live rather than carve it up and sell to the highest bidder.
    Thank you.

22. A 10 car basement under a 6 unit build, or a 3 unit build, does not provide any assurance that South Street can sustainably support this development. Large basements further affect the ability of the landscape to sustain vegetation and habitat balance. Large basements built as car parks, invite potential residents to own/use a car despite this streets potential to provide everything locally and enable lower reliance on car ownership and use. Umina is a wonderful suburb for residents to practise car-less living. Developers can make use of this specific local feature to add value without relying on the same old hat formula of "car spaces". Developers , get with it, and be part of terrific creative future living styles that present and future residents are impressed with and appreciative of. Make it a business decision as well as a life decision.

23. South Street development, With all the commenters to what Roger and I have said about the development I think everyone should go back and read Rogers comment HE appears to be be very knowledgeable about council and development in the Umina area his comment was not negative to me it sounds like council has approved these developments on these size blocks in the past. I totally agree with Roger and yes I do have great holiday memories here and far as I can see nothing has changed apart from progress like all other areas in all states. I love living here,!!

24. Debra resident in South Street.
    I have not received any DA the first I have learned of this proposed development is through this planning alerts via a neighbor.
    Firstly do we know that these emails are going to the relevant council email address for this DA? This link is only for the Gosford email server. Has anyone received official notification about this DA from the council, I certainly have not and live in the street?
    I am strongly opposed to what amounts to overcrowding on a normal size building block. The area does not cope as it is for parking, our visitors struggle to find a parking lot,. I moved to the coast over two years ago and no Dr in Umina would take on any new patients there simply is not sufficient services to cope with additional people even if the development was a suitable size. This block is not suitable for six units and it is not in keeping with the general area it will definitely impact to the detriment of the existing residents in South St. Who is actually going to assess this development given that the previous council has been stood down?
    To consider such a heavily condensed development like this is heading for disaster. HAS ANYONE CHECKED THAT IT EVEN COMPLIIES WITH COUNCILS OWN ZONING LAWS? I BET IT DOESN'T.

25. Debra resident in South Street.
    I have not received any DA the first I have learned of this proposed development is through this planning alerts via a neighbor.
    Firstly do we know that these emails are going to the relevant council email address for this DA? This link is only for the Gosford email server. Has anyone received official notification about this DA from the council, I certainly have not and live in the street?
    I am strongly opposed to what amounts to overcrowding on a normal size building block. The area does not cope as it is for parking, our visitors struggle to find a parking lot,. I moved to the coast over two years ago and no Dr in Umina would take on any new patients there simply is not sufficient services to cope with additional people even if the development was a suitable size. This block is not suitable for six units and it is not in keeping with the general area it will definitely impact to the detriment of the existing residents in South St. Who is actually going to assess this development given that the previous council has been stood down?
    To consider such a heavily condensed development like this is heading for disaster. HAS ANYONE CHECKED THAT IT EVEN COMPLIIES WITH COUNCILS OWN ZONING LAWS? I BET IT DOESN'T.

26. Roger D

    As you would know if you have looked at the majority of the previous DAs for the area for similar developments, developers apply for a variety of waivers from local council by laws (and NSW planning laws) to fit a development of this size on a small block like this. These include setbacks, so they can build closer to the boundary, vegetation plans, impacts (particularly shading or visual impacts to neighbour), and traffic plans (the use of one hour of traffic data from 2018 to justify a 2020 development is currently being examined), everyone else has to abide by the rules, why not developers who are taking the money and running, not caring about the impact to the community. Historically the council just says yes and ignore the by-laws without considering the impact on others, hopefully for once they will listen to the “council shareholders” as the current council administrator likes to call the rates payers.

27. I have lived in Trafalgar Avenue Umina Beach for the past 54 years having Fyffe Lane to the rear of my property.
    Last year Council requested residents who had these lanes to the rear of their properties to complete a survey regarding noise, traffic, speeding vehicles, graffiti, crime, access to their properties, parking in the lanes, pedestrian access and usage, necessary council signage, speed signage, water runoff and subsequent flooding into adjacent properties.
    There were also questions asked regarding redirection of vehicles away from the lanes and whether it might be considered placing barriers across lanes to prevent vehicles using lanes at all.
    These lanes were originally used as access for the "dunny carts" to take away the pans before we had the sewer attached. They were not meant for constant traffic as is the case with Fyffe Lane and the egress from the rear of Bunnings by all and sundry. In addition, most blocks in South Street and Trafalgar Avenue which back onto Fyffe Lane have been developed to the maximum with no lawns, gardens or shade trees.
    I cannot understand how Council could envisage another 6-12 vehicles from this proposed development of 6 units, joining this throng and where exactly visitor spaces for this development would be located. Is it to be South Street as there is no room for parking in Fyffe Lane.
    Parking is a nightmare with holiday visitors parking caravans, boats, trailers and campervans in surrounding streets when the beach and shopping car parks overflow.

    Underground parking begs the question of the high water table we have in this area.
    Will this mean pumps being turned on to prevent these car parks flooding, as they must at applicable intervals, for surrounding residents to endure? I am aware this not uncommon.

28. I'm am a resident in South Street Umina Beach and wish to state my objection to the proposed six units to be constructed at 42 South Street.
    The impact on our environment with over twelve extra cars in an already overcrowded street is unacceptable due to customers parking while shopping or visiting the beach.
    The number of units on such a tight block is also unrealistic in comparison with three units on most new sites in the area built at the present time. This will impact negatively both athseticley and environmentally on the street and it's residents. Any excavation for underground parking would also have a negative impact on the shallow water table in the area.

29. Being a local resident for 3 +years, this development is too ambitious and pleased to see from the comments many residents feel the same.
    We all understand suburbs/councils need to move forward and developments are part of this, however the demographic & infrastructure will not support this build.
    It’s plan to see during holiday periods, Umina Beach & West St are pushed. There is already lack of infrastructure off and on West St for this additional building of this size. There’s a few people mentioning that 6 units on 1 block of land will not heavily impact the area, clearly have not done research on any overall impact OR have have seen development in areas that can support projects of this size. I assure you, West Street cannot handle this and if you would like Umina Beach for owners, renters and holidays makers whilst remaining liveable, I would avoid a high build of this nature.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Central Coast Council (Gosford). They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment