Department rejects cost request

The Department of Lands will not help Gosford Council with the financial costs the incurred by defending an appeal against the refusal of the Development Application for a jetty and ramps at 64 and 66 Shelly Beach Rd, Empire Bay.

Council resolved to write the department of lands in August last year to seek their support for the costs of defending the $40, 000 case, which they lost.

The Director General of the Department has written back to Council informing them that in April 2002 the department gave general terms of approval and the department did not object to the proposal.

While an amended DA was lodged after this approval was given, the department informed Council that they weren't changed enough to warrant another consent by the department.

However part of Council's refusal of the original DA was based on objections by the department.

Council is still awaiting a response from agriculture and fisheries departments with the same request for assistance for defending the appeal.

The amended application was to remove an existing seawall and public walkway, construct a jetty, and to alter and add to a jetty and sea wall on Crown Land below mean high water mark.

This was to occur at Nos 64-66 Shelly Beach Rd, Empire Bay, and amended to include a boat ramp above the mean high water mark

It was refused because NSW Fisheries objected to the proposal and advised that a permit to reclaim any waters would not be issued.

It did not comply with the requirements of the Brisbane Water Plan of Management and the proposal would have removed existing public access to the waterfront and replaced it with dangerous and restricted public access.

The proposed pathway was considered dangerous by both Council and the Department of Lands and Water Conservation (DLWC).

The proposed boatramps were unsuitable in the location, did not comply with the requirements of Council, DLWC or NSW Fisheries and would create a proliferation of waterfront structures along a short 30 metre section of waterfront, according to the council.

The council argued there was overwhelming public objection to the proposal and approval of the proposal would not have been in the public interest.

The Land and Environment Court disagreed, upholding an appeal against the refusal by Council.

Council resolved on Tuesday, April 27, that no further action would be taken to pursue a contribution from the Department of Lands.

Cr Bell moved and was seconded by Cr Maher that assistance and advice by government agencies in determining integrated developments will form part of a review of practices by Council.

A report will be presented to Council on these matters.

Council Agenda, FS 047, April 27