Neighbour hires planner to object to Ferry Rd proposal

A neighbour of a proposed three-storey development in Ocean View Rd, Ettalong, has hired a planning consultant to lodge an objection to the proposal.

The proposal would see a three-storey mixed use development containing ground floor retail floor space, ground floor vehicle parking and 12 residential units built at the corner of Ferry Rd.

The objection was written by Macken Strategic Planning Solutions of Marrickville on behalf of a property owner in Ferry Rd.

The submission called for the council to reject the proposal because it did not comply with planning provisions for height and bulk and the requirement for underground parking.

It said the amalgamation of two separately-zoned lots should not be permitted.

It also said the application for the development did not contain all the relevant information, including future uses of the property, so affected parties could make an informed opinion of the proposal and understand its potential impacts.

"This site has been subject to several development proposals over recent years, all of which have been rejected by Council because they do not comply with the relevant planning controls," the submission stated.

"This latest application should also be rejected as it too is non-compliant with the relevant planning codes and is not in the public interest.

"The proposal lodged with Council is a bulky and over height development which does not reflect the existing built form of the neighbourhood, which is predominantly one and two storey, stand-alone, housing.

"Its design presents poorly to the street with above ground parking providing much of its frontage.

"While a portion of the site is permitted to be three storeys, the current proposal presents as a four-storey development with the roof top entertainment area and pool.

"The transition from the neighbouring properties represents particularly poor urban design.

"For these reasons we believe the proposal should again be rejected by Council."

The submission commented that the proposal was substantially over the permitted maximum "floor space ratio", a control which was "both reasonable and necessary", making "the proposal particularly bulky and out of character of the existing streetscape".

"The excessive bulk of the proposal is aggravated by the breaching of the maximum height limit allowed in the planning controls.

"The building does not represent good quality design or built form, the extra overshadowing is not minor, and the building does not 'provide(s) an appropriate transition in built form and land use intensity'.

"It should be noted that the house immediately adjacent this proposal is just one storey and three metres high.

"The suggestion that at grade parking 'demonstrates a high quality urban form' should be challenged by Council's urban designers.

"The presentation of two driveways and above ground parking along Ferry Rd is particularly poor urban design especially as this is the main gateway for tourists visiting Ettalong.

"The proposal is not accompanied with a strata sub-division plan, nor have there been any exhibited architectural drawings provided to affected parties.

"As such, it is impossible to ascertain whether the future uses of the property will be for permanent residential accommodation.

"The provision of several small, single room, 'bed sits', would suggest that the actual future use will be for temporary accommodation, either as short stay tourist accommodation or as a boarding house.

"The proposal is also seeking to amalgamate two separate lots, each of which are subject to different zoning and planning controls."

The submission said that the amalgamation represented a significant departure from the existing built form and streetscape which was "not anticipated nor encouraged" in the council's planning controls.

"Many of the problems associated with the proposal stem from this undesirable site amalgamation and no justification has been provided to support it.

"Many of the important impacts of this proposal cannot be fairly assessed and many are hidden among the ancillary documentation.

"For these reasons we believe that Council cannot legally approve the development."

A number of other submissions have been lodged objecting to the size of the proposed building.

SOURCE:

DA Tracker, 24 Nov 2020

DA 59732/2020, Central Coast Council