Association lists 12 objections to Patonga plan

A formal objection to the Draft Patonga Crown Reserves and Dark Corner Cottages Plan of Management has been prepared by Glendinning Minto and Associates for the Patonga Progress Association.

The objection to NSW Trade and Investment - Crown Lands details 12 reasons why the draft plan should not be adopted.

The first of the 12 reasons for objection was non-compliance with the brief.

Glendinning's report stated that the draft plan had not been prepared in accordance with the Expression of Interest (consultant's brief) for the preparation of the plan prepared by Gosford Council and the Department of Lands dated September 2008.

Insufficient community consultation was also listed as a key issue.

The report stated that as a result of insufficient community consultation the proposal failed to identify who the key stakeholders and land users were, what existing land uses occurred, what the existing impacts resulting from those land uses were and what the key on-going user requirements were.

The third point of objection was the lack of a steering committee.

"Appropriate consultation would have identified that the issues associated with the subject reserves are of such complexity that a steering committee should have been established by the trust manager for the preparation of the plan," stated the report.

"Community groups such as the Progress Association would be expected to be included on such a committee."

The report also noted that due to the nature and issues associated with different elements, it was not appropriate to have a single plan of management and that Dark Corner Cottages should be excised from the plan and included in a separate Plan of Management.

Proper identification of the affected lands was also raised as an issue.

According to the report, it was apparent from documentation included within the Plan and provided by the Council that it was not clear to the Council or Crown Lands where the cadastral boundaries of the particular lots were located.

"This is particularly relevant in relation to the separation of the caravan park lot from the surrounding access lot.

"Lot 7004 is understood to have a width of 30m measured from High Water Mark, however, this is not reflected on the Council provided survey plan or on the landscape masterplan."

The Progress Association was also unsatisfied with the identification of the permitted use of the land.

"Critical to this matter is that each of the identified parcels of land is being used in accordance with its gazetted purpose.

"It is our understanding that Lot 7004 (the lot adjoining the beachfront and creek) was originally created for public access while Lot 7006 (caravan site) was created for public recreation.

"This is reflected in the composition of different trust managers for each lot with Lot 7006 being managed by the Patonga Caravan and Camping Park Reserve Trust while Lot 7004 is managed by the Patonga Recreation Reserve Trust," stated the report.

The report also called for the removal of encroachments, stating that the existing caravan park encroaches beyond its boundaries and that the plan seeks to endorse and expand upon such encroachments.

"The Plan of Management made reference to the potential for additional uses including the provision of permanent forms of tourist accommodation within the caravan park, however, does not provides details of those additional uses."

The Glendinning report stated that this was contrary to the Trust Handbook.

Funding was also identified as an issue as was maintenance of resident access and parking.

"The plan makes no reference to how any of the strategies proposed are to be funded and does not provide for a budgeted program for maintenance and development work in accordance with the Trust Handbook.

"The Plan fails to properly identify the existing and important role that Lot 7004 plays in providing access and car parking for residents of Patonga Creek.

"The Plan in effect seeks to remove or at the least compromise this existing situation.

"There is no detailed assessment of the number of spaces required, the number of spaces currently provided or the number of spaces proposed.

"The Plan fails to properly identify existing issues relating to the parking of vehicles associated with the operation of the caravan park and the hotel and as a consequence will only exaggerate those issues rather than providing an effective solution.

"Once again there does not appear to have been any detailed surveys undertaken to identify existing car parking demands associated with either use.

"In the absence of this information how can it be determined if the proposal will provide for an effective response?

"The car parking strategies proposed are deficient in number, are not supported by Council's Traffic Engineers in relation to those proposed for Patonga Central and are heavily slanted in favour of the caravan park."

Presentation, 18 May 2013

Glendinning Minto and Associates