1 Agate Avenue, Pearl Beach, NSW

Dwelling & demolition of existing dwelling

External link Read more information

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

(Source: Central Coast Council, reference DA/862/2023)


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

  1. Blair Swan commented

    We are not opposed to development of the site. The proposed dwelling is excessively voluminous for the site and street frontage, offering a significant increase in bulk and density that is out of line with existing street amenity. The proposed dwelling is of significantly greater height and depth than adjacent properties including the DA approved 3 Agate Ave dwelling. The proposed dwelling would like impact eastern and western solar amenity for adjacent properties.

    Proposed removal of fifteen existing and established trees from the site is considered excessive. Notwithstanding that six of these could be removed without consent, the overall degradation of tree canopy, visual amenity and wildlife/birdlife environment should not be supported.

    Many of the trees proposed for removal are of very good health, moderate age and are structurally sound. A dominant feature of Pearl Beach is the extensive tree canopy which not only provides significant wildlife refuge but also assists with temperature regulation in hotter months. Removal of these features degrades the amenity of many more residents than just adjacent properties.

    Removal of the trees proposed will drastically and permanently alter the visual amenity of Agate Ave and (likely) lower Pearl Beach Drive. It is not indicated where suitable replacement planting would be established. The trees proposed for removal range between 15 – 20 metres in height, making any replacement planting insignificant as compensation for at least 20 years.

    The majority of trees proposed for removal are Melaleuca quinquenervia which are known to contribute to effective rainwater management. Mature Melaleuca tree canopy provides relief to rain reaching soils below, while leaf litter further contributes to overall reduction of soil saturation. East coast Australia has experienced significant La Nina weather events in recent years and reduction of effective rainwater management should not be supported.

    Further consideration on stormwater management is required should rainfall be excessive and rainwater tanks reach capacity. Southern side of Agate Ave has very insignificant natural fall and water pools regularly in the nature strip between property boundaries and road edge. Discharge of excess rainwater from a very substantial roof catchment into public domain with known surface flooding issues should not be supported. Particularly at the expense of removal of a contributory solution (Melaleucas) to this issue.

    We welcome a more considered approach to development of this site, with primary consideration given to preservation of significant trees on the site and existing and future street amenity.

  2. Ashley & Chris Fraser commented

    Although notionally supportive of a new build, the size of this proposed build is out of character with the other properties on the street.

    We specifically redid our plans to retain sunlight to both neighbours either side of us, however this extremely large double story house proposed for 1 Agate Avenue will block all easterly sun until 12 noon to the block on the west side and equally the westerly sun for the block to the east side from noon onwards. The existing trees currently allowing dappled sunlight will be removed and the new build will block out any sunlight with the size of the house going back so far & so tall.

    The proposed pool is situated immediately alongside our proposed back porch at 3 Agate Ave giving us no reprieve from any noise echoing from the pool occupant’s. If we put up planting on the east boundary to try & block the noise & give us privacy it will block out any remaining sunlight in addition to the over-shadowing, we are losing due to the proposed large build.

    As we saw during last year’s flooding, the blocks on the south side of Agate Ave are very much water prone. Denuding them of trees will exacerbate this and further consideration needs to be made in consultation with the council as to drainage improvements on the south side of Agate Ave. Under these conditions, installing an in-ground pool is likely to meet with hydrological problems and likely exacerbate flooding issues. Consideration needs to be made for the pool outlet as any chemical release has nowhere to flow from this block, unless additional storm water drains are installed under adjacent blocks down the south side of the road. Based on present (lack of) drainage the plan to install a pool is environmentally questionable.

    We feel a garden pool is unnecessary on such a small block when there is already an existing free rock pool available at the beach. Our preference would be no pool due to noise and flooding concerns, but as a minimum, we would request for the pool to be relocated to the Eastern side of the block and for any pool equipment to be located on the Eastern (or rear) boundary in a soundproof enclosure at maximum distance from neighbouring properties.

    The overhang on the bottom portion of the roof appears to be inside the 1000mm side of the house being very close to our boundary fence. Has consideration been given for the feasibility of any future requirement for scaffolding along the side of the house?

    We are concerned about the impact on our privacy from these upper balconies at both the front and back of the house which are overlooking our front & back gardens. Also, the window from the room at the southwest corner of the proposed building will also overlook our rear garden. Even though there is some proposed vertical screening on the balconies it is still possible to see through.

    The proposed concrete foundation will prevent water absorption and in conjunction with the loss of trees will add to the existing water run off problems. Although helpful, no amount of new planting will make up for the loss of absorption from the trees taken out and a giant cement slab being put in.

  3. Stephen Parsons commented

    I wish to make the following points:
    (i) Excessive clearing of precious Melalueca quinquenervia trees to the detriment of the canopy, loss of mature, valuable trees and loss of habitat for birds and small animals. I recommend taking only the trees not needing consent. Mature trees contribute to good water management.
    (ii) Shading of the house to the west in the morning by reason of height and proximity and later in the day, removing sunlight from the easterly neighbour.
    (iii) Groundwater and other bad aspects of installing a pool. Pools create noise for many hours of the day even when not being used. Pool motors issue a low but incessant hum. I know, there is one next to us and one across the road. Chemical release from a pool is problematic.
    (iii) Additional flooding of the southern side of Agate. Agate Av is a wet street owing the original course of the lagoon exit. More water will add to the problem.

  4. Cathy lyons commented

    Proposed development
    We are not opposed to development of no 1 agate ave .
    We do have issues with the proposal .
    *size of the dwelling completely out of character with the street scape in both height and width . According to plans the eaves of the house would be on the fence line of the neighbouring houses . The height would block out eastern and western sun to adjacent properties .
    *The trees proposed for removal range between 15 – 20 metres in height over 15 in total.. these trees play a significant role in the rainwater management.
    The removal of theses established trees will impact on the bird life of our native black cockatoos and owls.

  5. Grant & Kristina Lee commented

    We are supportive, in principle, with the development of the site. The coastal look and feel of the property is aesthetically pleasing. Also don't mind the 2 story dwelling or the pool as it does appear to be set back from the boundaries as well as ensuring compliance with sunlight requirements - although I would understand if the immediately adjacent property owners desire a greater % than the minimum standard.

    We are NOT supportive of the removal of the multitude of established trees from the site, impacting the canopy of Pearl Beach as well the effective rainwater management, as mentioned in the comments above.

    Across the 2 developments #1 and #3 Agate (3 being recently approved, however arborist report does not appear to be disclosed in the DA), there are a total of 30 trees proposed to be removed (15 in #1 and 15 in #3), including 13 Melaleucas (6 in #1 and 7 in #3). This will significantly impact the tree canopy for which Pearl Beach is known, the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood, with an ongoing impact to the wildlife in the area.

    It would be desirable to see these developments consider how the footprint of their foundations can be established without impacting the large majority of significant trees within their boundary.

  6. Nigel Tisdale commented

    I am supportive, in principle, with the development of the site. However the current proposal should be revisited to address following concerns:-
    1. Size of build is not in character with other houses in the street
    2. Proposed 2 storey development will cause extensive shading of surrounding properties which need as much light / heat as possible to control ground moisture levels. Agate Ave is prone to flooding (last year the grounds around the houses on that side of the road were waterlogged for 6 months of the year.)
    3. Ground moisture levels will be detrimentally affected by the proposed removal of the large number of trees. DA needs to include reports from environmental experts on the affect of tree removal.
    4. Mature trees contribute to good water management. Removal of mature trees should be prevented.
    5. Pool - Chemical release and drainage from the pool will be problematical given the low lying nature of the ground and the existing flooding issues. Any inclusion of a pool must included approved dedicated drainage systems to ensure correct disposal of pool water / chemicals. Pumps (both filtration and drainage) should be screened and soundproofed to ensure neighbours and not adversely affected by increase in noise levels
    6. Visual privacy for neighbours must be persevered. Privacy is NOT just an issue of how close the build is to the boundary (setbacks) but also the height of the build, the materials used (ie large glass windows / balustrades) and also the proposed use of areas that overlook neighbours. (ie 2nd story levels - incl balconies - with seating capacity overlooking neighbour living areas).
    7. The proposed development is not in keeping with the designation of Pearl Beach as a low density development area. The increasing approval by Council of developments that exceed the 40% footprint coverage guideline is significantly changing the character of the village.

  7. Ann Parsons commented

    1. Lagoon History
    Historically the lagoon between Coral Cres and Diamond Rd flowed across Amethyst Ave through the neighbouring blocks before finally flowing into Middle Creek and then out to sea.
    The lagoon was later diverted to go under Coral Cresc and then out to sea. These blocks of land were then developed and because they were a water course have water retention issues.
    2. Acid Sulfate Soils
    Council will not dredge the lagoon due to presence of Acid Sulfate Soils. Given the history of the lagoon it is likely that 3 Agate Ave and neighbouring land also has Acid Sulfate Soils.
    My understanding is that a pool cannot be built on land identified as having Acid Sulfate Soils. Building a pool on a water course will also cause water problems.
    3. Tree Removal
    The Melaleuca Quinquenervias are important for flood mitigation and mitigation of acid sulphate soils.
    Many birds, animals and insects particularly native bees rely on the flowers from these trees. Given the recent outbreak of Varroa mite in the area which has resulted in the eradication of European honey bees it is vital that the environment of Native Bees is not destroyed but nurtured.
    Currently a colony of flying foxes are enjoying the Melaleuca Quinquenervia flowers.
    We back onto the lagoon which is an Endangered Ecological Community' more specifically E37i known as Coastal Swamp Forest the southern most one in NSW.
    We enjoy watching and hearing the hundreds of birds each day which rely on the nectar from the flowers and building their nests in the tree hollows.
    Pearl Beach has recorded 200 bird species and is a twitcher’s paradise. Over the years bird species have disappeared due to loss of habitat.
    The Grevillea banksias, Callistemon salignas, Elaeocarpus reticulatis, Glochidion ferdinandiis also attract birds, bees, butterflies and provide nests.
    Constant tree removal will also contribute to Pearl Beach’s temperature rising and more air conditioners being used to cool houses. This is evident when you go to Umina with very few trees and in summer it is a lot hotter.
    4. General Comments
    Surely a house could be built around the trees and make them a feature. Patonga Boathouse is a good example of how the beautiful Norfolk Pines have been made a feature.
    I don’t understand people coming to Pearl Beach because of all the beautiful trees and then proceeding to knock them down.

  8. Daniel Poredos commented

    We are not against development of the site in general, however the house seems excessive in size and adversely impacts on the adjoining properties in particular but also on the immediate area. This new house will block out all direct afternoon sunlight for our entire backyard due to its size. Similarly, number 3 Agate Ave will have the same problem but in the morning to midday period. It seems unfair for two properties to both lose half their backyard sunlight due to the size of the new dwelling.

    Our other concerns are:

    Boundary - The eaves and gutters on the bottom level on both eastern and western sides of the of the house are too close to the boundary. The building code states this distance should be no less than 450mm.

    Storm water- The roof water to be discharged to street. The street has general poor runoff, however with heavy rain, pools of water form regularly and remain for days at a time due to poor drainage. The grounds last year remained waterlogged for more than half a year. The additional rain water collected from this large house will exacerbate this problem, as will the loss of the Melaleucas which are known to help drain swampy soil.

    Native wildlife and vegetation- There is concern of the removal of such a large number of established trees and the adverse effect on the native wild life. Melaleucas alone are an excellent windbreak and are a food source for a wide range of local insects and birds.

    Pool - We are concerned by the impact of the pool overflowing and the damage caused to the environment by the chemicals used in the pool, which will end up on the front nature strip. The other impact of the pool is the extra background noise of the pumps on the neighbouring properties no matter where the pool and pumps are positioned.

    Asbestos removal- Waste management plan indicates 0 volume of Asbestos. We believe there is asbestos due to the age of the current dwelling on the property. If this is the case there needs to be an asbestos waste management plan to safely remove the asbestos from site according to the relevant guidelines.

  9. Penryn Maddrell commented

    I do not support the development plans currently proposed for 1 Agate Ave Pearl Beach for the following reasons:

    1. Pearl Beach waterways contain the most northerly example of the endangered Sydney ecological wetland system. I believe an Environmental Impact Statement would be required before any Melalueca Quinquenervia can be removed along this creek.

    2. Agate Ave is prone to flooding. The houses on this side of the street can remain waterlogged for 6 months of the year. The 15 mature trees on this block, especially the melaluecas, assist ground water management. The melaleuca canopy partially intercepts and absorbs rainfall, preventing it from reaching the ground. The melaleuca leaf litter on the ground raises the soil level and assists the drying of waterlogged sites.

    3. These trees also need protecting because they provide food, habitat and canopy for our diverse wildlife population.

    4. A slab construction is not suitable for a flood prone block

    5. The size of this development is not in keeping with the designation of Pearl Beach as a low density development area. It’s time Council adhered to the 40% footprint guideline for this area.

    I would welcome an environmentally sensitive development on this site, where primary consideration was given to the health of the creek, the preservation of existing trees and a size not exceeding the 40% footprint.

  10. Gary Phillips commented

    This development looks to be maximising the allowed usage of the plot above all else. There appears to be no consideration for the environment to which it will be built. The trees behind the existing property provide an important ecological role within the native Pearl Beach environment in supporting the wildlife that live here and water management in an area that is often impacted by access water from the lagoon. A pool is also being included which increases the number of trees affected. All this for a house that will probably be occupied a few weeks a year at most.

    With this development and all the others I have seen during the last 6 years in Pearl Beach, including the one next door at 3 Agate, I estimate that more than 200 trees have been removed from Pearl Beach in this short time. If this continues Pearl Beach will end up like Umina. If you buy in Pearl Beach and do this why not just buy something in Umina.

  11. DUNCAN BRIDEL commented

    When you come to Pearl Beach...enjoy our trees...build a single story "cute" holiday (??) cottage, to fit our environment, ...if you want to swim.. the beach is 100mm down the road.....Don't destroy the ambience of Pearl Beach. !!

  12. Peter Romey commented

    The Pearl Beach Environment Group (a subcommittee of the Pearl Beach Progress Association) is preparing a submission in response to this DA for 1 Agate Avenue.
    We understand from a discussion with the CCC planning officer that the deadline for submissions is 24 May, but the DA website fails to provide this critical information. We have asked that our concern about this omission be recorded, and we note the advice in return that the website will be upgraded to include the deadline for submissions.
    In preparing our submission we are also at a disadvantage because the documentation on the website does not include the landscape plan, despite the SEE referring to this. Nor do the architecturals include a ground floor plan, and we are unable to interpret the footprint of the proposed new residence (the roof plan erroneously notes the outline of the ground floor, which is in fact the footprint of the existing cottage). Moreover, there is no cross section or shadow diagrams included, which are essential in understanding the form and shadow impacts of the proposed residence.
    We ask that this additional information be made available on the CCC website please.

  13. Andrew Cordwell commented

    I agree with all the above comments. In particular, the proposed development appears not to take into account the following fundamental matters:

    * The size of the proposed dwelling is out of character with the exiting streetscape of Agate Ave.
    *The storm water management of the southern side of Agate Avenue is extremely poor with the CCC having no plans to improve the drainage. During the past La Nina episodes, the front yards from 3 Agate Ave to the intersection with Coral Cres were for months under water.
    *The unnecessary and excessive destruction of the mature melaleuca quinquenervia trees.
    * Blocking the sunlight for significant hours of the day to the adjacent dwellings on the northern and southern sides.

  14. Catherine Lancaster commented

    The proposal could and should be redrafted so as to reduce this oversized box (proposed to be 12.42 m in height and using close to 2/3 of the site - including the pool). This may require the loss of one of the 5 bedrooms and the pool. There are no floor plans on exhibition so I am unable to make any further suggestions….
    This needs to be done in order to create a proposal that is more sympathetic to the streetscape and the look of Pearl Beach.
    Pearl Beach is characterised by the number of canopy trees and indeed this is important for the retention of wildlife especially close to the lagoon. This area in particular is characterised by a stand of Melaleuca Quinquenervia trees which are of great significance and add to the uniqueness of the landscape. The proposal certainly ignores this aspect.
    In addition, the proposed development does not it address the fact that this land is prone to flooding. Indeed, it was waterlogged for much of 2022. The creation of substantial hard surface areas + a pool + the loss of many mature trees will have a significant impact on sensitive land in the vicinity of Pearl Beach Lagoon.

  15. Colin John Wood commented

    In regard to this building application I would like to mention my concerns. We border the proposed development and are worried that the size of the concrete slab and removal of so many trees will cause drainage issues during construction and when complete. There is already a mosquito problem in this area and it can only get worse if the natural drainage of this area is reduced to this extent. Colin Wood.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Central Coast Council. 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

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is part of the digital library from the local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small 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