Rezoning rationale is to hide mistake

It is interesting to note the reasons Council staff have given for recommending that the rezoning of old Ettalong Beach Memorial Club site go ahead.

One of these reasons is that the public submissions do not support either proposal.

Further, the report states that public submissions have not offered practical or viable alternatives to the exhibited plan.

As one of the objectors to the rezoning, I was unaware that I needed to come up with an alternative to what was proposed.

However, the main aspects of the report that most strongly indicate the need to reject this rezoning proposal are that staff have already decided what the "preferred outcome" for this site is.

This "preferred outcome" appears to be based on two main factors: what will give a hefty-enough profit for the developer, referred to as "viability", and the need to "minimise the scale and bulk" of the existing Outrigger resort, referred to as "providing a transition", and "screening" the existing building.

Amongst the report's rhetoric, it is clear that a building, the Outrigger Resort, has already been approved by spot rezoning, and that this building is hideously incongruent with its surroundings.

The report's rationale appears to be that allowing more monstrosities to cluster around the existing one will diminish this incongruence.

As a former resident of Queensland's Gold Coast, I am well aware of both the physical and community disadvantages of high-rise buildings along a waterfront strip.

Further, the staff's "preferred outcome" overrides the preferred outcome of the people who live here, and who already are short of the required amount of open space.

If the existing planning controls prevent the developer being able to reap the high profits desired, then the development should be refused.

As I said in my submission objecting to this proposal, if the existing building needs its scale and bulk diminished, then that building should not have been approved.

Further, trying to fix the mistake of its excessive scale and bulk by going outside planning controls to approve another oversized building is not a sensible solution.

Why not accept that the first spot rezoning should not have occurred, and stop approving more overdevelopment in the hope that no-one will notice that the first one was a mistake?

Shirley Hotchkiss, Umina