Phone 4342 5333         Email us.

Skip Navigation Links.
Collapse Issue 402 - 19 Sep 2016Issue 402 - 19 Sep 2016
Collapse  NEWS NEWS
Collapse  FORUM FORUM
Collapse  HEALTH HEALTH
Collapse  ARTS ARTS
Collapse  EDUCATION EDUCATION
Collapse  SPORT SPORT

Chamber is wrong on Umina car park

The Chamber of Commerce is completely wrong in opposing the development of the Umina car park.

The present car park is an under-utilisation of the property which, if properly handled, could bring in a good price for Central Coast ratepayers and improve the Umina centre at the same time.

The proceeds might even ease the headlong and unjustified rush to sell off park reserves that will be badly needed as the population grows.

Of course, the sale should be subject to covenants, to protect the public interest, and should be required to conform to the provisions of the Development Control Plan - something that Council has not always been particular about.

The main concern, naturally, is to preserve the 160 parking spaces, and the proposed provision that the free spaces could be eliminated after the development is complete is of some concern.

It is difficult to predict a date five years after 50 percent of the maximum allowed floor space has been used, so who is to say when this will happen or what the results will be.

However, it is easy to see a developer, then, setting parking rates that will make the spaces unaffordable and, then claiming that he should be allowed to reduce the space, because they are not being fully utilised.

Past performance by Council doesn't inspire confidence that this kind of ploy won't be successful, so the wording of the covenant will need careful consideration.

The scheduling of the development, so that the parking spaces are preserved during construction, is something that any halfway-competent architect could easily cope with on a site this size, and this, of course, should be part of the conditions of sale.

In fact, any potential purchaser should be required to submit an outline scheme as part of the expression of interest: this will give some indication of the mix of uses likely to arise on the site.

It would be good to see a couple of residential towers on a site so well served by shops and transportation, and it is easy to envisage a podium of parking and commercial uses, with residential towers rising over a landscaped roof for the use of residents.

The Chamber's distress over the status of the bordering lane is nothing more than a red herring.

The sale only has to be conditional on this access remaining open, and the problem is solved.

In fact, it could be made a condition that the lane be widened, to improve service access to the backs of the West Street properties.

Since it won't affect the allowable floor space on the site, such a condition would be of little concern to a buyer.

Similarly, the fear that a developer might go broke in the middle of the process is a non-problem, requiring only the posting of a performance bond for completion of the work.

The Chamber is clearly flailing around desperately for objections, if this is the best it can come up with.

It is laughable that the Chamber supports the ugly, out-of-character so-called "Tesrol development" in Ettalong and objects to an entirely suitable development in a commercial location at Umina.

One wonders what the voting for the Chamber membership was in arriving at this absurdly inconsistent position.





Skip Navigation Links.

Skip Navigation Links.
  Copyright © 2016 Peninsula Community Access Newspaper Inc