> ⚠️ IMPORTANT — No Proposal Description Supplied > The customer's proposal description field was left blank. This document has been drafted using reasonable assumptions for a typical residential development at Wamberal on the Central Coast of NSW. Every assumed fact is tagged `[Assumption — verify]`. Before lodgement, the customer and their planner must populate all tagged fields with the actual DA number, determination date, refusal reasons (verbatim from the Notice of Determination), site measurements, and any specialist report findings. Do not lodge this document without completing that review.

---

Section 8.2 Review of Determination

the subject site

Prepared by: Perry Town Planning NSW Prepared for: [Applicant Name] `[Assumption — verify]` DA Number: DA[XXXX/XXXX] `[Assumption — verify]` Date of Original Determination: [Date] `[Assumption — verify]` Date of This Submission: [Date] Review Lodgement Deadline: Within 6 months of the date of determination (s 8.2(2) EP&A Act 1979)

---

1. Introduction and Procedural Basis

This document constitutes a formal request for review of determination under section 8.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) in respect of Development Application No. DA[XXXX/XXXX] `[Assumption — verify]` lodged with Central Coast Council (Council) for land at the subject site (the Site).

The original determination, being a refusal of consent `[Assumption — verify; or substitute "approval with unreasonable conditions" if applicable]`, was issued by Council on [Date] `[Assumption — verify]`. This review submission is lodged on [Date], which is within the six-month statutory window prescribed by s 8.2(2) of the EP&A Act. The Applicant confirms standing to make this request as the original applicant under s 8.2(1)(a).

Legal Framework

Section 8.2 of the EP&A Act relevantly provides:

> "If a consent authority…determines a development application by refusing to grant development consent or by granting development consent subject to conditions, the applicant may request the consent authority to review the determination."

Under s 8.2(5), the reviewing officer may consider any additional information that was not before the original decision-maker. The reviewing officer must not be the person who made the original determination (s 8.2(3)). This submission is directed accordingly to a senior planner or planning team leader within Council's Development Assessment team who had no involvement in the original assessment.

Concurrent LEC Appeal

`[If the 12-month LEC appeal window under s 8.7 is approaching, insert: "Without prejudice to this review, the Applicant reserves the right to file a protective Notice of Motion in the NSW Land and Environment Court under s 8.7 of the EP&A Act. Filing of that Notice does not affect the conduct of this review."]`

`[If the LEC window is not imminent, delete this section.]`

---

2. Background

2.1 The Site

The Site is legally described as (lot/plan reference redacted) `[Assumption — verify against title search]`, known as the subject site. The site is located in the suburb of Wamberal, which forms part of the Central Coast local government area approximately 85 km north of Sydney CBD.

Site characteristics assumed for this submission `[Assumption — verify all against survey and title]`:

Wamberal is a well-established low-density residential suburb adjoining Wamberal Beach. The locality is characterised by a mix of original fibro and brick dwellings and more contemporary two-storey residential redevelopments. The Site is representative of the prevailing residential character of the locality.

2.2 The Proposed Development

The proposed development the subject of the original DA is: [Describe the proposal — e.g., "demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new two-storey dwelling house with an attached double garage, swimming pool, and associated landscaping works"] `[Assumption — verify against original DA plans and description]`.

Key development statistics as submitted `[Assumption — verify against DA drawings and submitted BASIX Certificate]`:

2.3 Procedural History

During the notification period, [X] public submissions were received `[Assumption — verify from assessment report]`. Council's assessment report was prepared by [Assessing Officer Name] `[Assumption — verify]`.

2.4 Reasons for Refusal — Verbatim Extract

The Notice of Determination dated [Date] refused consent for the following stated reasons `[Insert verbatim from the Notice of Determination — critical: the following are placeholder assumptions only]`:

> Reason 1: The proposed development does not comply with Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) of the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022, with the proposed building height of [X.X] m exceeding the 8.5 m maximum height limit applying to the land. The proposed height variation was not supported by a written request under Clause 4.6 that adequately justified the departure from the development standard. `[Assumption — verify verbatim]`

> Reason 2: The proposed development does not comply with the front setback control in Chapter [X] of the Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022 (CCDCP 2022), resulting in an unacceptable streetscape outcome inconsistent with the established building line of the locality. `[Assumption — verify verbatim]`

> Reason 3: The proposed development does not adequately address the coastal hazard risks affecting the site as identified in the [Relevant Coastal Vulnerability Study / Flood Study], and insufficient information was provided to demonstrate the safety of future occupants. `[Assumption — verify verbatim]`

---

3. Response to Each Reason for Refusal

This section addresses each of the reasons for refusal in turn. The Applicant contends that each reason is either misapplied, capable of resolution through conditions or amended information, or fails to reflect the proper exercise of planning discretion having regard to the merits of the development.

---

3.1 Reason 1 — Alleged Non-Compliance with Building Height (Clause 4.3, Central Coast LEP 2022)

The Refusal Reason States: > The proposed development does not comply with Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) of the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022, with the proposed building height of [X.X] m exceeding the 8.5 m maximum height limit. The proposed height variation was not supported by a written request under Clause 4.6 that adequately justified the departure. `[Assumption — verify verbatim]`

Policy Cited: Clause 4.3 and Clause 4.6, Central Coast LEP 2022 `[Assumption — verify LEP instrument applicable to the site]`

The Applicant's Response:

Ground A — The Clause 4.6 written request was/is supportable and was not properly evaluated

`[If a Clause 4.6 request was lodged:]` The original DA included a Clause 4.6 written request prepared by [Planner / Consultant Name] `[Assumption — verify]`. Council's assessment report dismissed the request on the basis that [reason given by Council] `[Assumption — verify assessment report]`. The Applicant contends this dismissal was incorrect for the following reasons:

1. Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances. The topography of the Site results in a natural ground level that descends approximately [X.X] m from front to rear `[Assumption — verify against survey]`. The relevant Australian datum points from which building height is measured under the LEP definition produce a height figure that overstates the visual bulk of the building when viewed from the street and adjoining properties. A building that reads as two-storey from the street would not read differently from neighbouring properties irrespective of whether the measured height is [X.X] m or 8.5 m. The development standard, applied mechanically to this sloping lot, produces an outcome that is inconsistent with its own purpose.

1. There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. The proposed departure [X]% above the 8.5 m maximum is modest `[Assumption — quantify actual variation]`. The additional height is expressed exclusively on the rear (downslope) elevation, which is screened by the existing/proposed rear boundary landscaping `[Assumption — verify plans]`, and does not result in any additional overshadowing to adjoining properties beyond that which the 8.5 m compliant envelope would generate.

1. The proposed development is in the public interest. Approval of the development with the minor height variation will result in quality housing outcomes consistent with the strategic housing supply objectives of the Council's Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) and the Central Coast Regional Plan 2041.

The Clause 4.6 request accompanying this submission establishes:

• That compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case;
• That there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the standard; and
• That the development will be in the public interest.

Council's assessment applied the building height measurement from [ground level point] `[Assumption — verify]`. The correct natural ground level, established by the registered survey plan at Attachment [X], produces a compliant height of [X.X] m `[Assumption — verify]`. The original assessor's measurement error should be corrected on review. The revised measurement is supported by [Survey / Architectural Certificate] at Attachment [X].

Proposed remedy: The reviewer is respectfully requested to accept the Clause 4.6 written request as adequate justification for the minor variation and to approve the development. Alternatively, if the reviewer considers further refinement is required, the Applicant is prepared to accept a condition requiring amended roof pitch or ridge height reduction to bring the exceedance to no more than [X]% `[Assumption — verify what is achievable]`.

---

3.2 Reason 2 — Alleged Non-Compliance with Front Setback (CCDCP 2022)

The Refusal Reason States: > The proposed development does not comply with the front setback control in the CCDCP 2022, resulting in an unacceptable streetscape outcome inconsistent with the established building line of the locality. `[Assumption — verify verbatim]`

Policy Cited: Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022, Chapter [X], Desired Future Character / Setback Controls `[Assumption — verify applicable DCP chapter]`

The Applicant's Response:

DCP controls are non-statutory guidelines and constitute a flexible framework against which Council must give consideration rather than achieve strict compliance. The weight to be given to a DCP control must be balanced against all other s 4.15 considerations: Parramatta City Council v Hale (1982) 47 LGRA 319; Stockland Development Pty Ltd v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 472.

The proposed front setback of [X.X] m `[Assumption — verify]` is consistent with / responds to the prevailing streetscape context for the following reasons:

1. Precedent setbacks in the subject site. A survey of the built form along the subject site reveals that dwellings in the immediate vicinity are set back between [X.X] m and [X.X] m from the front boundary `[Assumption — verify against aerial imagery / survey of neighbouring properties]`. The proposed setback falls within this range and does not represent an outlier that would compromise the established rhythm of the streetscape.

1. Site constraints justify the variation. The site [describe constraint — e.g., steeply sloping rear, large setback tree, sewer easement in rear yard] `[Assumption — verify]` reduces the effective building area of the site. A standard front setback would push the building envelope into [the flood affected / bushfire asset protection zone / easement affected] portion of the rear yard, which is itself subject to planning controls. The DCP variation is therefore a direct consequence of other planning constraints affecting the site — precisely the type of site-specific circumstance that the flexible DCP framework is intended to accommodate.

1. The streetscape outcome is acceptable. Amended elevation drawings at Attachment [X] `[Assumption — verify]` demonstrate that the proposed building presents an articulated façade, with appropriate landscaping in the front setback zone, which will visually soften the reduced setback and produce an attractive streetscape contribution.

---

3.3 Reason 3 — Coastal Hazard / Flood Risk

The Refusal Reason States: > The proposed development does not adequately address the coastal hazard risks affecting the site as identified in the [Relevant Coastal Vulnerability Study / Flood Study], and insufficient information was provided to demonstrate the safety of future occupants. `[Assumption — verify verbatim]`

Policy Cited: State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, Chapter 2 (Coastal Management); Central Coast Council Flood Planning Area mapping; [Relevant Coastal Vulnerability Study] `[Assumption — verify applicable instruments and studies]`

The Applicant's Response:

The Applicant acknowledges that coastal hazard and flood risk are material planning considerations for this locality. Wamberal has a documented coastal erosion history, and the Applicant does not dispute that these matters required proper assessment. However, the Applicant contends that the original DA provided sufficient information to allow assessment `[or: "was refused on the basis of a misapplication of the applicable hazard mapping"]` `[Assumption — verify]`, and that the additional specialist information now provided resolves any residual uncertainty.

New information — Coastal Engineering and Flood Assessment Report: A specialist Coastal Engineering and Flood Risk Assessment prepared by [Coastal Engineer / Hydrologist] at Attachment [X] `[Assumption — verify; obtain actual report]` is provided with this review submission under s 8.2(5) of the EP&A Act. The report:

1. Establishes the applicable flood planning level (FPL) for the site as [X.X] m AHD `[Assumption — verify]` having regard to Council's adopted Flood Study and climate change projections to 2100. The proposed finished floor levels of [X.X] m AHD `[Assumption — verify]` comply with the FPL requirement.

1. Addresses coastal erosion recession in accordance with the Coastal Management SEPP and Council's Coastal Vulnerability Study. The report concludes that the proposed development is set back sufficiently from the predicted 2100 coastal erosion escarpment to meet the requirements of Chapter 2 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP `[Assumption — verify against actual study outcomes]`.

1. Recommends appropriate conditions including: compliance with the specified FPL, use of flood-compatible materials below the FPL, and submission of a Flood Emergency Management Plan prior to occupation. The Applicant consents to all such conditions being imposed.

---

4. New Information Tendered Under Section 8.2(5)

The following documents were not before the original decision-maker and are tendered as new information for the reviewer's consideration pursuant to s 8.2(5) of the EP&A Act:

The Applicant specifically draws the reviewer's attention to the fact that Attachments A and D are determinative with respect to Reasons 1 and 3 respectively — they were not submitted with the original DA `[Assumption — verify]` and their availability now fundamentally alters the balance of the assessment.

---

5. Re-application of Section 4.15 Considerations

Under s 8.2, the reviewer conducts a fresh consideration of the application under the framework in s 4.15 of the EP&A Act. This section briefly re-applies those heads of consideration in light of the review submission.

5.1 Environmental Planning Instruments (s 4.15(1)(a))

Central Coast LEP 2022:

• The Site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. A dwelling house is a permissible land use with consent in this zone `[Assumption — verify]`.
• Height non-compliance: Addressed by the Clause 4.6 written request at Attachment A. The reviewer is requested to determine that the written request adequately justifies the variation.
• All other LEP development standards (FSR, landscaping area) are met `[Assumption — verify; if non-compliances exist, address them here]`.

• The coastal hazard assessment at Attachment D establishes compliance with the requirements of Chapter 2. The Site is `[within / not within]` the coastal vulnerability area `[Assumption — verify against Council maps]`. The assessment demonstrates that the development satisfies the applicable performance outcomes for coastal development.

• `[Address if applicable — e.g., any TECS or Koala habitat; not typical for established residential lot in Wamberal]` `[Assumption — verify]`

• A valid BASIX Certificate No. [XXXXXXXX] was submitted with the original DA and remains current `[Assumption — verify]`. All BASIX commitments are reflected in the amended plans.

• Front setback: Addressed in Section 3.2 above. The variation is justified on merit and supported by the Landscape Plan at Attachment E.
• All other DCP controls (side setbacks, rear setback, solar access, privacy) comply `[Assumption — verify against DCP and plans; address any additional non-compliances]`.

5.2 Likely Impacts (s 4.15(1)(b))

The proposed development is a residential dwelling house on an established residential allotment. The development is consistent with the surrounding residential built form and does not generate impacts beyond those ordinarily associated with this type of development. Specifically:

• Overshadowing: A solar access analysis `[Assumption — verify whether submitted with DA]` demonstrates that the proposed development does not create unreasonable overshadowing of adjoining properties or their principal private open space areas beyond the nine-month test period.
• Visual bulk and scale: The amended plans and proposed height comply with (or adequately address through the Clause 4.6 request) the applicable controls. The building is articulated to reduce perceived bulk.
• Traffic: The development generates [2] additional vehicle trips in the peak hour — negligible in the context of the subject site `[Assumption — verify]`.
• Stormwater: On-site detention / absorption systems are proposed in compliance with Council's engineering requirements `[Assumption — verify]`.
• Coastal / flood: Addressed comprehensively in the Attachment D report and Section 3.3 above.

5.3 Suitability of the Site (s 4.15(1)(c))

The Site is an established residential allotment within a fully serviced residential neighbourhood. It is zoned for, and is suitable for, residential development. The Attachment D report confirms that the coastal and flood constraints affecting the site are manageable through appropriate conditions and design responses. The Site is suitable for the proposed development.

5.4 Any Submissions (s 4.15(1)(d))

The notification period for the original DA attracted [X] public submissions `[Assumption — verify]`. The Applicant notes the following with respect to those submissions `[Assumption — summarise and respond to any recurring objection themes; common themes in Wamberal include privacy, height, and coastal matters]`:

• Objection to height: Addressed by the Clause 4.6 request. The minor departure does not result in any additional amenity impact that the compliant envelope would not produce.
• Objection to coastal / flood risk: This is a concern for the future occupants of the development and not a matter of amenity for adjoining landowners. The risk is managed through appropriate design and conditions.

5.5 Public Interest (s 4.15(1)(e))

Approval of the proposed dwelling house is in the public interest for the following reasons:

• It provides additional quality housing in an established residential area with existing services and infrastructure.
• It is consistent with the strategic housing supply objectives of the Central Coast Council LSPS and the Central Coast Regional Plan 2041.
• The identified risks (height variation, front setback, coastal hazard) are all capable of management through conditions, and the more appropriate regulatory response is approval with conditions rather than outright refusal.

6. Strategic Context

6.1 Central Coast Regional Plan 2041

The Central Coast Regional Plan 2041, released by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, identifies the Central Coast as a key growth corridor with a significant housing supply target. The plan supports appropriate low-density residential development in established residential areas where services and infrastructure already exist. The proposed development directly advances the housing supply objectives of the Regional Plan.

6.2 Central Coast Council Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS)

Council's LSPS [insert title if known] `[Assumption — verify document title and relevant directions]` identifies [relevant planning priority] as a strategic direction for the area. The proposed development is consistent with this direction by [explain connection] `[Assumption — verify]`.

6.3 NSW Housing Policy Context

The NSW Government's policy emphasis on housing supply, including the Housing and Productivity Contribution framework and the Explanation of Intended Effect for low and mid-rise housing reforms, underscores the importance of the planning system facilitating housing outcomes. Refusal of a well-designed, low-density residential development on a serviced residential lot — on grounds that are now addressed by additional information — is inconsistent with this policy direction.

---

7. Comparable Approvals

`[This section should be populated with actual comparable DAs approved by Central Coast Council on the subject site or nearby streets in Wamberal. The following is a placeholder structure only.]`

The Applicant draws the reviewer's attention to the following development approvals granted by Central Coast Council for comparable residential developments in Wamberal and the surrounding locality `[Assumption — verify against Council's DA register; populate with actual comparable DAs]`:

The Applicant submits that the refusal of the subject DA, in circumstances where comparable developments have been approved with conditions, represents an inconsistency in Council's exercise of discretion that weighs in favour of granting consent on review. The principle of consistency — that like cases should be treated alike — is a well-established ground for review.

`[Note: Populate this section carefully. If comparable approvals cannot be identified, omit this section or limit it to noting that the general built-form character of the locality is consistent with the proposal.]`

---

8. Requested Outcome

The Applicant respectfully requests that the reviewer, having considered this submission and the attached supporting documents, determine the review by:

Primary position: > Overturning the original refusal and granting development consent for DA[XXXX/XXXX] `[Assumption — verify]`, subject to reasonable and appropriate conditions of consent.

Without limiting the generality of that request, the Applicant specifically consents to the imposition of the following conditions, which address the legitimate concerns raised in the refusal reasons and remove any residual grounds for refusal:

1. Development to be carried out substantially in accordance with the amended plans at Attachment C (Rev [X], dated [Date]).
2. Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the applicant shall submit amended drawings confirming the finished floor level complies with the Flood Planning Level of [X.X] m AHD as determined by the Attachment D report.
3. All building materials and finishes below the flood planning level to be flood-compatible materials in accordance with the Floodplain Development Manual.
4. Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, a final Landscape Plan for the front setback treatment shall be submitted to and approved by Council, and all landscaping is to be implemented prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate and maintained thereafter.
5. Development to comply with all commitments in BASIX Certificate No. [XXXXXXXX].
6. Standard Central Coast Council engineering and stormwater conditions.
7. [Any other conditions the Applicant is willing to accept] `[Assumption — verify]`.

---

9. Conclusion and Reservation of Rights

For the reasons set out in this submission, the Applicant respectfully contends that the original determination to refuse Development Application No. DA[XXXX/XXXX] `[Assumption — verify]` was incorrect and should be overturned on review.

The grounds of refusal have each been addressed:

• Reason 1 (Height): A Clause 4.6 written request has been prepared and is tendered as new information. The minor variation is justified on merit.
• Reason 2 (Front setback): The variation is consistent with the prevailing streetscape context and is supported by a Landscape Plan. DCP controls are guidelines to which weight is to be given, not absolute standards.
• Reason 3 (Coastal/flood hazard): A specialist Coastal Engineering and Flood Risk Assessment has been obtained and is tendered as new information. The assessment establishes that the development is appropriate for the site with conditions.

The Applicant reserves all rights to lodge a Class 1 appeal in the NSW Land and Environment Court under s 8.7 of the EP&A Act in the event that the review is unsuccessful. This reservation is a standard procedural step and is not intended as a threat or as any reflection on the professionalism of the reviewing officer.

The Applicant thanks Council for the opportunity to seek review and looks forward to a prompt and favourable determination.

---

Submitted by: Perry Town Planning NSW On behalf of: [Applicant Name] `[Assumption — verify]` Date: [Date] Contact: [Planner Name, Phone, Email]

---

Attachments Checklist

• [ ] Attachment A — Clause 4.6 Written Request (Height of Buildings)
• [ ] Attachment B — Registered Survey Plan confirming natural ground levels
• [ ] Attachment C — Amended Architectural Plans (Rev [X])
• [ ] Attachment D — Coastal Engineering and Flood Risk Assessment
• [ ] Attachment E — Landscape Plan — Front Set

Sources & legislation

Every claim in this report is grounded in the following authoritative documents. Click any link to read the in-force version directly.

• EP&A Act 1979 — Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) — Primary statute governing NSW development consent (DA, CDC, Exempt Development).
• EP&A Regulation 2021 — Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW) — Regulation under the EP&A Act — DA fees, application requirements, designated and integrated development.
• Codes SEPP 2008 — State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 — Defines the Housing Code, LRHDC, Industrial & Business Code, Subdivision Code and Exempt Development codes — the CDC fast-track pathways.
• Housing SEPP 2021 — State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 — Apartment Design Guide (Ch 4 + Schedule 9), Stage 1 LMR cl 166 (Ch 6), Stage 2 LMR (Ch 3), affordable housing bonus, secondary dwelling rules.
• SoE Order 2024 — Statement of Expectations Order 2024 — Caps average DA determination at 115 days from 1 July 2024, dropping to 85 days by 1 July 2027.
• NSW Planning Portal — NSW Planning Portal Spatial Viewer — Free property planning report tool — the source document we parse for our analysis.
• Council LEP — Local Environmental Plan (council-specific) — Land Use Table, FSR, height of buildings, minimum lot size, heritage and other local controls.