Planning panel knocks back six-storey Ettalong proposal
An application to build a commercial development with 26 "shop top" housing units in Ettalong has been refused by the Central Coast Local Planning Panel.
The panel decision went against the recommendation by council planning staff for approval in a resolution which split the panel three to one.
The $9.6 million six-storey development was proposed by owner Jedaclew Pty Ltd over three lots at numbers 227, 231 and 233 Ocean View Rd.
Among the reasons for refusal were that it was "not in the public interest" as it was "not consistent with the objectives" of Gosford planning provisions and the NSW apartment design guide.
It also failed to "promote economically sustainable development" because it "would isolate the adjacent site at 235 Ocean View Rd, and may diminish the potential development potential of that property".
The panel reasoned that an amalgamated site would provide a higher density development, which would be more desirable.
"The isolated site would be of such a size that its potential floor space when redeveloped could potentially be half of the maximum floor space ratio of an amalgamated site," the panel stated.
Among other reasons given by the panel were that the application failed "to justify departure from ... the development standard for height of buildings".
It did not demonstrate that compliance with the development standard was "unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances".
"The height of the development does not provide an appropriate transition in built form, and circumstances of the site do not justify the height standard being exceeded," the panel stated.
"The proposed development is not consistent with the objectives for development in the B2 Local Centre zone.
"An adequate range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses are not provided.
"The proposed development does not increase the quantity of commercial floorspace on the site.
"The proposed development provides poor amenity for future residents and visitors, and would have adverse impacts on the neighbouring low density residential properties.
"The development fails to meet, or adequately justify departures from, Gosford Development Control Plan 2013."
The panel comprising chair Ms Donna Rygate, expert members Ms Linda McClure and Mr Stephen Leathley, and community member Ms Lyn Hunt were split three to one in their decision.
Mr Leathley favoured approval of the application.
Among the reasons given for his dissension were that the design was "considered to be of high quality and has been supported by both the independent architect and Council officers".
The height variation was "supported by the Council officers and was not raised as an issue by the independent architect during the SEPP 65 assessment".
"It will not impact on the streetscape or adjoining residential properties and will satisfy the underlying objectives of the standard," he said.
The planning provisions had no requirement for "height transition".
"The development provides adequate setbacks to adjoining residential properties to the east and north, and a high level of landscaping.
"The amount of space proposed for the business premises is ... commensurate with the site's location."
While the isolated site was an undesirable outcome, "the owner of 235 Ocean View Rd has not objected to the development, and ... the site can remain as is or be redeveloped."
The application drew more than 70 objections when it was advertised for comment early last year.
The community group Residents for Responsible Ettalong Development was among those opposing the development.
Its spokesman Mr Peter Gillis addressed the panel as part of its consideration of the application.
SOURCE:
Minutes, 4 Feb 2021
Central Coast Local Planning Panel