Patonga Hotel should never have been approved

As a former resident of Patonga and one of the many people who vehemently opposed the original development and building of the Patonga Hotel, I note the most recent proposals to expand the now existing hotel and the development of a reception centre above the fish shop with a certain dismal degree of, I told you so.

Only the most gullible ever believed that the development of the Patonga tavern as it was originally named would not have a serious and deleterious impact upon the tranquil lifestyle enjoyed by those who live in Patonga.

Obviously the hotel should never have been approved nor built at its present location in a residential section of Patonga and most certainly would not have been built had not the then Gosford councillors (some of whom still serve) adopted extremely unusual and downright deceitful methodology in dealing with the original application(s).

In terms of inappropriate and puzzling building development approvals, the Patonga Hotel must surely rank with that other wonderful and mysterious Gosford Council approved development, the Oyster Treatment Shed, situated on Brisbane Waters that somehow morphed into a two storey restaurant.

While many of the Patonga community opposed the original development which is situated amongst family homes and has absolutely no provision for parking, for reasons perhaps best known to themselves, councillors chose to adopt a very obscure and seldom used section within the local building code which states that normal building, zoning, floor space ratios and parking requirements are negated if the building of the development is necessary to provide sufficient income to support and maintain a heritage item.

Surprisingly the heritage item that was so badly in need of support just happened to be a fully functioning, profitable general store/bottle shop that was to all extents and purposes demolished immediately after the final approval to build the hotel was granted.

Now a hotel exists to provide sufficient income for the owners to be able to support something that no longer exists, apart from at best, the remainder of one "heritage" wall and a few other oddments from the original buildings.

Gosford Council's own architect recommended some years ago that the hotel be removed from the list of Gosford Shire's heritage items as it was his opinion virtually nothing of significance of the original buildings remained.

Which raises the question, if there is nothing of the original heritage item left to support why was approval granted to build the hotel?

For reasons unknown, this recommendation was not approved by Gosford Council and one is left to wonder if the current owners still receive the benefits provided to those in the shire who own heritage listed buildings.

While it may be nice for visitors to the area to enjoy the amenities of the hotel and the wonderful views of Broken Bay while drinking and dining the hotel has caused nothing but angst, noise, congestion, traffic and parking chaos and complete disruption to the adjacent and nearby residents and the Patonga community as a whole.

If readers who live in a normal residential street can imagine what it would be like to have a hotel and a reception centre built next door to their homes, particularly a hotel and reception centre that provides no parking whatsoever, whose patrons use the streets as parking lots and the footpath as a congested dining area, I think they might understand the feelings of those opposed to the expansion of the existing nightmare.

Owners of adjacent and contiguous properties have seen the value of their property investments plummet since the hotel was built and the fish shop expanded and their real estate will continue to diminish in value if the proposed developments are approved.

Now it is intended that all of the above mentioned problems be exacerbated for property owners and indeed the wider community in Patonga by the proposed further expansion of the hotel and the fish shop-reception centre.

In the existing application there is no mention of providing parking for patrons apart from the inference that more public space can be appropriated and the village streets used for parking to generate profits for a private company without consideration of the people who live in those homes in those streets.

The original development should never have been approved as it is a gross over use and in fact misuse of a very limited unsuitable space that has seriously affected the ambience and amenity of one of the gems of the central coast.

I would seriously warn the people of Patonga who are opposed to the proposed expansion of the site(s) to be extremely vigilant when dealing with Gosford Council lest they receive the same disgraceful and deceptive treatment that we did when we opposed the original application and not to be deluded for the briefest moment that common sense or community interests will prevail.

Email, 29 Mar 2016

Vic Jefferies, St Huberts Island