Officers attack public submissions

Gosford Council officers have attacked deficiencies in submissions opposing a rezoning application for the old Ettalong Memorial Club site at the corner of Memorial Ave and Ocean View Rd.

Responding to a submission that the planned development would be a gross overdevelopment of the site, council officers argued that the submission did not consider the relationship of either of the development designs considered by council to the adjoining club and resort development.

They argued that the "development of either of the proposals when viewed in the context of this relationship commences a 'transition' between the club/resort and the Ettalong town centre".

The report argued that the transition would be improved if council adopted the recommendations of the Peninsula Urban Directions Strategy relating to building heights/urban design controls for the Ettalong town centre.

Another submission commented that the rezoning should be refused and the remainder of the site should be restricted to the provision of Special Uses-Carparking and much needed open space in this centre.

The council planners rebutted this suggestion: "The preferred outcome for this site is for it not to be used as a carpark and a small area of open space but to accommodate a development that provides a built relationship to the remainder of the town centre."

The staff report refuted a suggestion that it was improper for council officers to use public funds to hire a consultant to advance a developer's interests.

They claimed: "What Council (staff) sought to do was to advance some of the already developed options for future development in light of the unique circumstances of this site.

"General agreement between the consultant, Council (staff) and developers over the recommended height for a site does not indicate a lack of planning or any other improper action."

Several submissions supported DCP 159 which imposes a restriction of height to three storeys.

Council officers commented: "The character statements contained in DCP159 provide an urban design based height limit for development on the site that has as its basis the objective of protecting the pedestrian scale of the centre and the amenity of the Ettalong town centre's streets.

"These objectives can be met through higher, appropriately designed development," the officers claimed.

The Central Coast Design Review (SEPP 65) Panel opposed the rezoning as "a gross overdevelopment".

"The design is a poor response to the site and context of the Ettalong town centre."

The panel said open space at the intersection should be "substantially enlarged to provide a genuine town square for Ettalong".

The panel supported the continued investigation of the council planners' "alternative development scenario".

It said such a significant land use change with major implications should be informed by background studies addressing transport, infrastructure and other issues.

The Council plannners commented that "the changes suggested by the Panel would appear to render the development economically unviable".

"In relation to compliance of the original building envelope with SEPP 65 itself, Council has previously considered the issues involved, and this will also need to be considered by DIPNR as part of their assessment of the application prior to gazettal."

The application proposes to rezone the land from Special Uses 5(a)-Club, Hotel/Motel and ancillary activities to General Business 3(a), and to remove the existing 1:1 floor space ratio control and the 2/3 storey height controls that apply to the site, to permit a mixed residential, commercial and retail development varying in height from two to seven storeys.

The development would be sited on the land where the previous four-storey Ettalong War Memorial Club building was located.

Council agenda EP.34, May 3