A developer has joined calls for Central Coast Council to take a consistent approach to development applications, which ensured they complied with its published planning provisions.
“All we want is for council to set a level playing field for all developments in the Ettalong area and to stick to their strict guidelines that were applied to our development,” said Mr Barry Smith, managing director of Abrotat.
His development, on the Centrelink site at 237-245 Ocean View Rd, was approved in February last year and consisted of a five-storey, part six-storey, mixed use construction for 53 dwellings, ground level commercial tenancies, parking for 85 cars, a swimming pool and gym for tenants and a roof platform for plant and equipment.
Mr Smith has made a submission about the proposed development at 227-231 Ocean Beach Rd, Ettalong, currently being considered by the council.
The application made by Jedaclew Pty Ltd would consist of a six-storey development with commercial tenants and 26 apartments and would replace old single storey commercial buildings, one at least that has potential heritage value according to some long term locals.
Jedaclew wants zero setback to Ocean View Rd and setbacks to the northern boundary of about 7.8m and varying setbacks to the east and west.
Its height would be 18.8m, more than 10 per cent above the standard set in the Gosford Local Environment Plan.
In a submission to the council, Mr Smith said he did not object in principle to the proposal as “we firmly believe that Ettalong needs these style of projects so Ettalong can move forward,’’ but he wants the same standards to be applied to the proposal that were applied to his development.
He said that his development took close to two years of negotiations and drawing changes at great cost to appease “council stringent planning controls and conditions”.
Mr Smith changed setbacks on his proposal after meetings with council.
“We expect the same stringent controls to be applied to the above application as boundary setbacks and height are way out of council guidelines,’’ he said.
Should council allow non-compliance in this case, “we will assume that council will readily accept a revisit of our development so we can change back to our original setbacks and extend the height”.
Mr Smith is not the only objector wanting council to stick to their guidelines. New action group Residents for Responsible Ettalong Development estimate about 70 people submitted written objections during the council exhibition period of the proposal which is now closed.
One submission to council summed up the feelings of many, complaining about the height due to shading on adjacent buildings and the footpath and road.
Another talked about the “significant blocking of local mountain views from both Ocean View Rd and importantly from the walkway along the beach”.
“This would change tourist perception of the area,’’ the objection stated.
It mentioned the effect on residents with the blocking of the southerly winds which bring relief from the hot weather to the residents beyond Ocean View Rd.
“In summary, this proposal represents an ugly departure from the attractive tourist nature of the commercial centre of Ettalong Beach.
“The nature of this proposed building creates a disconnection with the existing community rather than integrating with it.
“Ettalong Beach is not near any major rail or road transport systems and doesn’t require high density housing structures, which this application proposes.”
Another submission ended with the entreaty: “Please save our village.”
The application should come before a council meeting for a decision because it received more than 50 objections but is still being assessed by the planning department.
DA Tracker, 7 Mar 2019
DA 55896 Central Coast Council
DA 49986/2016 Central Coast Council