Edition 465
11 March 2019
New group calls for compliant development A new action group has formed calling itself Residents for Responsible Ettalong Development.
The group has issued an invitation to Ettalong residents to attend a public meeting on Tuesday, March 19, at the Ettalong Bowling Club from 8pm. Spokesman Mr Peter Gillis said the new group hoped to attract a huge membership to fight inappropriate development at Ettalong. “The residents of Ettalong Beach are extremely concerned that recent and pending development applications are of a height, bulk, and scale which are not suitable for the tourist village nature of the area, and would detract from Ettalong’s natural beauty,’’ he said. “These applications would create a disconnection with the existing community, rather than integrating with it, and their scale would effectively change the micro-climate of the area due to their height and bulk. “We will be asking Central Coast Council to stop approving non-compliant development applications and consider the collective impact of multiple high density, high-rise developments in Ettalong Beach.’’ Mr Gillis said the coast’s regional strategy outlined by the council in its town centres report named Woy Woy as a town centre
Melanie Masterson, Martin Mitchell and Peter Gillis
while Ettalong Beach and Umina were called villages and described as lower order centres compared to town centres offering a “lesser order of goods and services in a smaller-scaled setting. “But despite this formal hierarchy and Ettalong’s lower-order status
in that hierarchy, proposed mixed use-residential apartment development applications such as the one at 227-231 Ocean View Rd (DA 55696) far exceed in proposed height, size and density, those approved and actually constructed in Woy Woy – a designated key
town centre. “On this scale differential alone, proposed developments such as this one and other similarly-sized proposals should be rejected by residents directly impacted and by the council itself as being inappropriate and in contravention
of council’s own planning policies, procedures, objectives and guidelines,’’ he said. Mr Gillis said more than 70 objections had been sent to council about the development proposed for 227-231 Ocean View Rd so the organisers hoped for a good roll up to the meeting. He urged residents to come along to the meeting and hear and see for themselves the areas of land along Ocean View Rd that are earmarked as potential development sites. The new group, started by Mr Gillis, Martin Mitchell from Umina Beach and Melanie Masterton from Ettalong, wants residents to let council know they are not happy with the lack of cohesion in their approvals. They say residents are worried by the collective impact of proposed high-rises within a 1.4 mile area including the proposed six-storey 40-unit development on the Centrelink site and newly-built seven storey Atlantis building. They want development that is appropriate for the village. The group has a website at rrettalong.org and an email address is info@rrettalong.org.
SOURCE: Media release/meeting, 6 Mar 2019 Peter Gillis, Martin Mitchell, Melanie Masterton Residents for Responsible Ettalong Development
Developer joins calls against non-compliance 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 fivestorey, 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 noncompliance 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.
SOURCE DA Tracker, 7 Mar 2019 DA 55896 Central Coast Council DA 49986/2016 Central Coast Council
THIS ISSUE contains 64 articles - Read more news items for this issue at www.peninsulanews.info Office: 120c Erina Street, Gosford Phone: 4325 7369 Mail: PO Box 1056, Gosford 2250 E-mail: editorial@centralcoastnews.net Website: www.centralcoastnews.net