KOGARAH councillors argued about whether the suburb was a city or a village before a development passed last Monday night that did not meet the council codes.
Create a free account to read this article
or signup to continue reading
A nine-storey, 54-unit development at 79-87 Princes Highway had been put on hold because the units were smaller than those outlined in the council's development control plans.
Development controls for Kogarah Town Centre include minimum unit sizes of 85 square metres for one bedroom units, and 100 and 115 square metres for two and three bedroom units.
The proposal has single-bedroom units of 50 square metres and two-bedroom apartments of 80 square metres.
Project architect Chris Tsioulos told councillors "the global financial crisis has changed everything" and generously proportioned units were no longer relevant in the area.
Councillor Miray Hindi voted against the project because it did not meet council guidelines.
"If we approve something like this in total disregard for our development control plans . . . there's nothing stopping someone else coming to ask for the same thing," she said. "It is an over development on this particular site."
Councillor Lachlan McLean argued the development did not suit Kogarah's "village atmosphere" or the council's vision for Kogarah.
"When I think of the development, I think of Rockdale or Hurstville," Cr McLean said.
They were the only two councillors to vote against the proposal.
Councillors Michael Platt and Mark Coure said Kogarah should not be considered a village.
"This is an appropriate development for an appropriate CBD," Cr Coure said.
Should Kogarah be a village or a city?
