Development issues not addressed, councillors told
Issues raised by council staff in a "pre-development meeting" about a proposed Ettalong five-storey development have not been adequately addressed, objectors have told Central Coast councillors.
Community action group Residents for Responsible Ettalong Development has followed the closing of objections to a proposed development at 227-231 Ocean View Rd with letters to all councillors urging them to reject the application.
The action group, which represents more than 100 residents, formed earlier this year in reaction to the proposed five storey building.
It has outlined its members' concerns, using council's own comments made to the developer at a pre-development advisory meeting.
Site owner Jedaclew Pty Ltd proposed a commercial development with basement car parking and shop top housing of 26 units.
The record of the meeting shows council's advice was the height of the building was to be reduced to five storeys overall and to two storeys at the residential zone interface.
Council staff quoted the development control plan which said the maximum 8.75m high and two-storey facade applied to all frontages to properties that had an interface with a street or laneway or common boundary with a residential zone.
Council requested full compliance with the control plan at the residential zone interface.
Later the council report said: "It is understood this is a narrow site however this is a site constraint and does not justify non-compliance with controls".
It encouraged the applicant to continue with perusing the acquisition of 235 Ocean View Rd, Ettalong Beach, to provide more opportunity for redeveloping the subject sites.
It wanted evidence that offers were made to acquire the land.
If it didn't buy the land, its application would have to address lot isolation and its potential to be developed given that the site beyond it, at 237-245 Ocean View Rd had approval for a five storey mixed use development.
Council also addressed issues with setbacks, quoting Australian Design Guide recommendations.
"Non-compliance results in detrimental impacts on the private outdoor spaces on the east and also the development potential of the site to the west,'' the report said.
The 12 page report finished with the statement: "It is unclear if the proposal complies with density controls. However, the non-complying setbacks, height, and building envelope encroachments indicate it is an overdevelopment of the site."
Applicant Mr Alex Bishop had an architect, two designers and an engineer at the meeting with him while council staff were town planner Amanda Hill, an engineer, and experts in waste, water and sewerage, and planning instrument SEPP 65.
In the letter to councillors, the Ettalong Beach group pointed out how the development proposal that was later submitted to council did not realistically address the issues outlined at the pre-development meeting.
Residents' group spokesman Mr Peter Gillis said the proposed building was still six storeys and about 21 metres high when a realistic lift overrun was included.
He said the street frontage facade was four storeys and 12.5 metre high when it should be two storeys or 8.5m and the interface with the residential zone was three storeys at 9.5m in height when it should be two storeys and only 8.5m in height.
The setbacks on the east and west were inadequate and the setbacks to the adjacent residential site to the north was also still less than required.
"The proposed building is more than 20 per cent over-height, with grossly inadequate setbacks, non-compliant frontage, and does not comply with the ADG 'built form and scale' requirements,'' he said.
"The developer has consistently defied Council's request for compliance in their submission in February, and in their revised submission in May 2019.''
He urged the councillors to reject the proposal.
Prior to submissions closing on June 6, a member of the group submitted 58 signatures on a petition which noted the monolithic design, its overshadowing of pedestrian areas and lack of traffic analysis which did not take into account other newly constructed buildings and approved development applications or applications under consideration.
A change.org petition had 230 signatures last week with signatories mentioning the loss of the village feel.
Council's draft urban spatial plan which is due to be tabled tonight (June 24) proposes that Ettalong development should mainly be low to medium rise development with a focus on townhouses and villa development.
Priorities were identified as supporting local business and retaining the existing amenity.
Media release, 20 June 2019
Peter Gillis, RRED
DA Tracker, 20 Jun 2019
DA 55896, Central Coast Council