The proposal lodged with Port Stephens Council calls for six units across two adjoining properties measuring approximately 1199.5 square metres on Kingsley Drive, which residents claim is an over-development and out of character.

Residents opposed to the development have cited issues including overshadowing, bulk and scale, drainage, impacts to character of the existing area, and location of proposed driveway and visitor parking.

When contacted, the applicant Joseph Speziale, said that he had not had any contact and that he had no knowledge of any concerns. "Therefore I cannot comment."

However, a council spokesperson told the Examiner that a preliminary assessment had identified a number of issues and that the application was "currently on hold pending a response from the applicant in relation to the concerns raised".

The council spokesperson has confirmed that members of the public were provided the opportunity to comment on the proposal for a 14-day period in May when it was made publicly available on the council's DA tracker website.

The spokesperson went on to say that the proposed development defined as 'multi dwelling housing' was permissible in the R2 zone with consent from the council in accordance with Local Environmental Plan.

"There are no specific development controls limiting the depth of excavation. The earthworks controls under the Development Control Plan would apply and engineering certification would need to be provided to ensure any works were satisfactory," the spokesperson said.

"The proposal has included a sufficient number of carparking spaces in accordance with the requirements of the council's DCP.

"However, ongoing assessment is being undertaken to determine whether sufficient space has been allocated for vehicle maneuvering".

Residents representative Elizabeth Schiemer said that the strong opposition to the proposal ranged from a lack of open space and excavation issues to concerns with the driveway width, drainage, carparking and loss of privacy.

"There is a fear that the proposed lot sizes do not meet minimum standards and that the proposal is not compliant with minimum upper-story setback," Ms Schiemer said.

"As part of our submissions we have also called on the council to check that the proposal does not contravene open space guidelines and the minimum width allowable for driveways.

"Boat Harbour is known for its hard rock and many of the adjoining neighbours would like to know if and how much digging or blasting will be required, what machinery will be used and whether or not this excavation work will damage neighbouring fences.

"There are also questions such as would privacy screening be required? Will the extra cars encroach onto the reserve opposite the property?

"And what about privacy, would a lack of landscape screening together with the size and height of the structures lead to a loss of privacy, light and sun?"

Residents also claim that the section of roadway in front of the Kingsley Drive property - due to its close proximity to a sharp bend and its narrow structure - would pose a traffic safety issue for motorists and pedestrians.

When contacted about the decision process, the council spokesperson said that the application had not been called before the council and "is to be determined under delegated authority".