Mod 4 - Lots & Road Layout Changes

NSW Planning and Environment
Attn. Ms Fiona Gibson

Re: DA 32-01-2003. Whitehaven Avenue, Magenta Shores 2261

Dear Ms Gibson,

As long-term property owners at Magenta Shores Estate we are extremely concerned about the development of 51 lots at 19 Whitehaven Avenue Magenta. Magenta is a high quality golf course estate.

In Particular:

1) The development appears to be high density, low cost housing, which is totally out of character with all existing development at Magenta Shores.

2) It proposes 51 lots as opposed to the approved Mirvac Master Plan of 32 lots

3) The application was judged "deferred development" by Wyong Council on the grounds density must be reduced from 51 to 45 lots, plus make a number of other changes in regard to building heights etc.

4) The cost per dwelling will be significantly less than existing dwellings at Magenta Shores.

5) Insufficient, improper space has been allowed between buildings (less than 1 metre). This will create a "wall of buildings" on both sides of the Avenue.

6) Insufficient space has been made for parking, which will result in excessive on street parking.

7) No allowance has been made for proper streetscaping or any open green space like the rest of Magenta. The development will stick out like a sore thumb.

The proposed development does not fit with the amenity of the residential estate and is totally out of character with existing development. It does not meet the objectives of the approved local environment plan for the precinct. The approved Mirvac Master Plan allows for 30 lots not 51 lots for this subdivision.

We welcome further development at Magenta that will enhance and diversify the community. However the standard of development and construction must fit within the Magenta Shores milieu.

We do not welcome low cost, high-density inappropriate development into this very special place which current owners bought into.

Yours faithfully,
Stephen and Ranwi Morris
26 Huntingdale Drive
Magenta Shores 2261

We are permanent residents of Magenta Shores and welcome future development here if it is within the guidelines that all residents have to abide by- being the approved Master Plan where 36 lots were approved for this area.
The 51 lots that the developer is fighting for, instead of 36, on the same total site, mean that smaller lot sizes, more traffic, more visitors and residents with no more additional parking, and no more green space or leisure facilities. These are issues at the resort now, which will be made more difficult if approved.
The developer has said there are 4 car spaces for each villa/terraces which is a stretch of the truth, when most villas/terraces only have 1 garage with 1 car space in front, most of the beach houses have double garages, hence 2 extra car parks in front of the garages, 4 spots not space for 6 cars. Parking is a major reason this development should NOT be extended to 51 sites from 36.
The developer also quoted the residency figures of the census of 2011-the development had many unsold houses and lots which distorts the figures.
We object to the change of the master plan from 36 lots to 51 without adding extra parking and green space.
Yours sincerely
Malcolm & Helen Hill

The proposed 51 lots subdivision is inconsistent with the approved 2004 Masterplan and the proposed development conveniently `cherry picks' default planning controls which were not specifically developed for Magenta Shores. The reduction to 45 lots, as approved by the Central Coast Council, does not adequately address this level of inconsistency in relation to the impact such an increase in density might have on infrastructure and community facilities.

The proposed development also does not meet the External Presentation Requirements (Condition 2.9.1 of the 2004 approval) which requires buildings to be low rise dwellings, generally no taller than two storeys.

Specific issues are as follows:
* The proposed development of a 51 lot subdivision represents a significant increase (42%) from the 36 lots proposed as approved under the Masterplan consent in 2004. The deferred commencement consent by Central Coast Council to reduce the number of lots to 45 is still a significant variation to the approved Masterplan. If permitted as a precedent it would result in very significant density increases across the site without any consideration of infrastructure and community facilities required. The land sizes of the beach homes are significantly less than the existing beach homes in Whitehaven Avenue and floor space ratios significantly more. The impact of increased density and demand for infrastructure on the site should be acknowledged and addressed. A new Masterplan should be required for the remainder of the site with involvement from the current community.

* The bulk and scale of the four beach houses (Type D) is excessive and not in-keeping with the current development theme which is required under the Masterplan approval and the CMS. These Type D buildings:
o exceed the maximum 10m height limit in the DCP and technically present as four storeys;
o are definitely not `....low rise, generally no taller than two storeys, so as to be subservient to the main frontal dune` as required under condition 2.9.1 External Presentation of the Masterplan Approval; and
o rely on a proposed variation/abuse of the `secondary dwelling' provisions which results in unacceptable scale and bulk of building.

* The proposed variation of the `secondary dwelling' provisions not only provides unacceptable building bulk and scale it creates a precedent for 3/4 storey buildings (which appear as four storeys from the street). These dwellings have 7 bedrooms and FSR's ranging from 1-1.12:1, (see Appendix 2 of SEE dated Nov 2015) and are, in my opinion, totally out of character with existing development. They also increases the dwelling yield to over 50% on the site from the approved 2004 Masterplan (55 dwellings (including 4 `secondary' dwellings as compared with 36 originally approved as single dwellings) under the 2004 Masterplan). These buildings should be defined as duplexes and as such are prohibited under the LEP or alternatively refused on the basis of non-compliance with the secondary dwelling provisions which were originally introduced as a form of `affordable housing' which is not what these dwellings are intended to provide.

* To ensure minimum disruption to residents and to comply with the Community Management Statement construction access must be restricted to the existing access on the eastern boundary of the site with no heavy vehicles permitted within the existing residential areas.

The original masterplan was a carefully considered document and the density was deemed appropriate for the site. Nothing has changed. The submission tries to argue that the density is not increasing but just being redistributed. This is misleading and not the case. In addition, the recent DA which tried to increase the density was firmly rejected by way of the deferred development conditions. It is also incorrect to imply that the DA density was reduced just because it breached the masterplan. The increased density was rejected because most of the residents argued for maintaining the objects and integrity of the original masterplan