Residents' group opposes Tesrol DA

The Peninsula Resident's Association Inc. has called for the refusal for the proposed Tesrol development at Ettalong Beach.

The association made a submission to Gosford Council on October 17 outlining its reasons for refusal of the resubmitted amended plans.

Association president Ms Frances Armstrong said that development application had been reviewed by members of the association which "would like to register its objection to the development application" based on several key issues.

The issues included building heights, design, mass, Gosford Planning Scheme Ordinance, resource energy and water efficiency, car parking, flood plain issues and compliance with government guidelines and policies.

The association stated that the proposed development "does not integrate into existing development in the Ettalong Town Centre".

"The Tesrol DA is in excess of planning recommendations and policies for waterfront development and sensitive coastal locations," the report stated.

"Although overall heights have been reduced from the original DA, the revised heights of 25.100m and 18.900m from ground level to ceiling level are equivalent to eight and six normal floor levels respectively.

"The depth of the roof structure and plant rooms is extra.

"The height of the building not only exceeds the maximum (appearance of up to three storeys as indicated in DCP 159 - Character) but it still exceeds the maximum height four to five storeys being advocated in PUDS (Peninsula Urban Directions Strategy)."

The recommendation from the association was that no section of the building exceed five levels from the ground and that the Ettalong Hotel be the standard for maximum height within the Ettalong CBD.

The association also stated in the report that the building would be a visual eyesore when seen from Pittwater, Kariong, Hardy's Bay, Wagstaff, Pearl Beach and surrounding areas.

The association recommended that council insist on an approved, appropriate composition of materials, colours and textures that would "harmonise with the seasonal palette of the surrounding natural environment of mountain background and marine foreground".

"We recommend the building be painted/finished in colour/s blending with the surrounding natural environment eg gum greens/bark taupe/sand ochre," the report stated.

It stated that the mass of the building was excessive in relation to the adjoining environment.

It also stated the proposed development did not comply with the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 1:1 specified in the Gosford Planning Scheme Ordinance.

"The proposed development has an FSR of 2.79:1 which is a variation of 1.79:1 which is (an extra) 179 per cent," the report stated.

""While the FSR has been reduced (in comparison to a previous application), the variation to the floor space as it applies is excessive and results in a development which is not in keeping with the character and scale of the general development trends of the area.

"The proposal will create an undesirable precedent and will undermine the planning objectives of the locality."

The association also noted a concern about the development's affects on water supplies stating that the DA made no mention of compliance with council's recommendations or the sustainability of its design.

The association questioned whether water recycling or solar heating was being considered as part of the development.

It also questioned suggestions that a lack in car parking could be taken up with street parking stating that it was "not acceptable nor is it appropriate to allow a contribution in lieu of providing car parking spaces".

The association commented that the proposed development went against the NSW Draft Regional Strategy which recommends that no residential development be within the 1:100 floodplain.

It also stated that the development application was non-compliant with council's own PUDS guidelines and State Government policies.

"If council expects citizens to respect its requirements and guidelines, they should be aware that residents expect the same of council," the report stated.

The association stated that it did support certain aspects of the revised design including the break between buildings on the Memorial Ave elevation and a pedestrian walkway linking the Esplanade with the main street of Ettalong, but still recommended the development be refused.

Press release, October 19 Sheelagh Noonan, Peninsula Resident's Association Inc