A three storey boarding house proposed for Ourimbah has been rejected by the Land and Environment Court.
Applicant Zenith Tuggerah Pty Ltd wanted to construct a 53-room boarding house with 25 parking spaces at 2-6 Glen Road, Ourimbah.
The court’s findings included that the amended application was an overdevelopment and was not in the public interest.
The applicant has to pay the Council’s costs associated with responding to amendments of the application.
The original development application (DA) was submitted to Council in November 2020 and referred to the Local Planning Panel in 2021 but the DA was subsequently
The applicant appealed against the deemed refusal of the DA and in December 2021, prior to the hearing, the Court granted leave to the applicant to amend the DA.
The Court also granted leave for the respondent to amend their Statement of Facts and Contentions which was filed in February of this year and again during the hearing.
“The reasons for my determination are principally that the proposed development is incompatible with the character of the local area and does not complement the (existing) streetscape; is an overdevelopment and not suitable to the site and is not in the public interest,” the court ruled.
The court said a cantilevered structure to accommodate a waste bin enclosure and parking, in its proposed location and design, was not suitable to the site in its proposed location and design.
“The proposed development, whilst seeking to maximise economic yield does not adequately address the environmental constraint on the site, which is the watercourse,” the court said.
The court said a three-storey building, with the proposed length and location on the site was not uncharacteristic for the local area which included the commercial area and would not be viewed adversely from residential dwellings along Glenn Road but the proposed extent, elevation, and proximity to the front boundary of the cantilevered portion of the parking area, which also included an enclosed bin storage area was incompatible with the character of the local area and did not complement the existing streetscape.
The court visited the site and also was given copies of residents’ objections to the original DA.
