Proposals deferred as SEPP 71 applies

Two development applications have been deferred for advice with the introduction of State and Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 71 Coastal Protection on the Peninsula.

The two developments are a guesthouse on Araluen Dr, Killcare, and the proposed Tesrol development on Ettalong foreshore, Ettalong Beach.

The SEPP 71 policy had been made by the Department of Planning to ensure that development in the NSW coastal zone was appropriate and suitably located.

It was also made to ensure that there was a consistent and strategic approach to coastal planning and management and to ensure that there was a clear development assessment framework for the coastal zone.

Gosford Council officers had recommended both developments for refusal.

The guesthouse proposal involved alterations and additions to an existing house and construction of a new detached guest cottage at the rear of the site and construction of landscape steps leading up to the existing dwelling and guesthouse.

Council officers gave five reasons as to why they recommended refusing the development application including non-compliance and inconsistency.

The council report stated that the development did not comply with the objectives of Development Control Plan (DCP) 155 Single Dwellings and Ancillary Structures or the Gosford Planning Scheme Ordinance in that two dwellings on an allotment of land zoned 2a constitutes a detached dual occupancy for which consent has not been sought.

The report also stated that the development did not meet the desired character requirements of DCP 159 (Character, Killcare Cottage Foreshores).

The Tesrol proposal was for a nine storey mixed residential, 89 units, and commercial premise.

Council report stated that the proposed development was considered to be inconsistent with the objectives of the 3(a) and 3(b) Zones as well as the objectives of the Local Government Act 1993, pertaining to Ecologically Sustainable Development.

It further stated that the proposal was inconsistent with the desired future character for the area as defined within DCP 159 Character together with the building heights being advocated in the Peninsula Urban Design Strategy (PUDS).

The report stated that "as it is this proposal, while having been developed from an economic study, provides outcomes that weigh heavily in favour of the applicants to the detriment of the town centre, local residents and visitors alike".

Council officers gave 10 reasons for their recommendation of refusal including excessive height, lack of support from the Central Coast Design Review Panel, lack of parking spaces

The council report stated that due to its excessive height the development would detract from the character of the immediate locality and that it failed to comply with the objectives of the 3(a) Business (General) Zone.

It also stated the development was likely to weaken the implementation of the draft Peninsula Urban "Development" strategy.

The report stated that car parking was an issue with a lack of 21 car spaces and unsatisfactory parking layout.

The report also stated that the development did not comply with floor space requirements and that a detailed waste management plan had not been provided.

Council agenda ENV.82, 92, December 6