Plans for a seven unit development in Oxley Drive remain in limbo.
Wingecarribee Shire Council planning staff had recommended approval of the development application for land at 25 Oxley Drive, Bowral, with a deferred commencement consent, subject to various conditions.
The DA had been deferred at a February council meeting due to concern about overshadowing of neighbouring properties and flood concerns.
A revised plan submitted to the May 13 Ordinary General Meeting of Council showed a change of roof line on units 3-7 from a 25 degree pitched gable and hipped roof, to a 5 degree skillion roof.
- Battle for Berrima slams Hume Coal explainer report to the Independent Planning Commission
- Fee-free courses to help bushfire impacted Highlanders
- Wingecarribee Shire Council legal costs pass $90,000 for a month
- Gubbins Pulbrook Mitre 10 day of celebration secures funds for RFS
- Here's why you have to wait for a flu shot: vaccines hit 'true shortage' levels
- COVID-19 Informer: Welcome to Freedom Friday - well, in NSW.
- Chevalier College students secure a near perfect result in Beef School Steer Spectacular
- Out-of-town inquiry could help maintain Southern Highlands property market
The roof line of the two front units remained unchanged.
A report to council identified that a stormwater easement was also required which would burden the adjoining southern land and benefit the subject property.
Council's recommendation for approval was subject to proof of registration of that stormwater easement to the satisfaction of Council prior to general conditions of consent being enacted.
Addressing the May 13 meeting on behalf of the neighbours of the proposed development site Christine Ducker said that it was not believed the concerns of neighbours had been adequately dealt with by the developer.
She said the neighbours had been advised by their architect that the new proposed skillion roof design "created other problems because of the eaves."
Ms Ducker said the neighbours were offended by the suggestion that the skillion roof line would not be appropriate at street level, but it was okay for them to look at it.
"The neighbours believe that this development needs to be totally reassessed and redesigned from scratch," she said.
Her suggestion for a redesign was supported by Councillor Ian Scandrett who moved that the DA be refused based on several issues.
These included concerns about loss of amenity for neighbours, poor amenity for occupants, concern about solar impacts and pedestrian safety.
"This is an example of jamming too many buildings on a site. This is what is going wrong in the area," Cr Scandrett said.
"It's happening at the expense of neighbours and amenity and I have great concerns."
Councillor Grahame Andrews said he noted advise from council staff that the DA met the Development Control Plan (DCP) and Local Environment Plan (LEP).
"This development complies and the applicant has gone away and come back again with a redesign the roof on units 3-7," he said.
"This could be a matter of back to court again. I hope not."
Councillor Garry Turland suggested that the applicant could split and relocate unit 7 further down the site to help reduce possible overshadowing of the neighbours.
A spokesperson for the applicant Alison Stephens of Coble Stephens Architects said the site was particularly challenging.
She said the units had been built into the ground and the roof had been lowered to reduce the bulk significantly.
Ms Stephens said the location of each unit had also been carefully considered to allow for parking and turning space, with flat areas for garages and a suitable gradient for the front two accessible houses.
"It boiled down to getting the driveway gradients as low as possible," she said.
Council adopted a recommendation to again defer the matter to allow the applicant to address the issues raised by objectors in terms of overshadowing and overall building height as viewed from adjoining properties.