Tavern plans should be reassessed

The remarks attributed to Mr Robert Osborne in the article which appeared in the last issue of the Peninsula News entitled "Patonga store plans thwarted" are, to my mind at least, absolutely astonishing.

Mr Osborne is quoted as saying that white ants, concrete cancer and poor foundations have thwarted plans to retain the structure of Patonga general store, during redevelopment of the site as a tavern.

Nowhere is he quoted as saying that he demolished the heritage listed building (or caused it to be demolished) without reference to Gosford Council, Council's Heritage Committee or those members of the public concerned with preserving our heritage, all of whom are outraged at the unbelievable destruction of a landmark building.

Neither is Robert Osborne quoted as explaining that the Council's original approval in November 1998 for the construction of a tavern on land zoned 2a (residential) was based mainly upon the proposition (under section 45c) that the development of the tavern was needed to provide sufficient income to allow the owners to properly preserve the listed heritage item: Patonga General Store.

Now that there is no heritage item to preserve perhaps Gosford Council may care to reassess the original development application under the normal rules, regulations and zoning requirements that normally apply to such developments.

In the meantime perhaps those who are interested in the preservation of our local history, heritage listed buildings and items might care to ask Gosford Council and Council's Heritage Committee what they intend to do in relation to this matter.

Vic Jefferies, Umina