Bridge decision deferred

Gosford Council has resolved to defer making a decision on constructing a bridge between Lace Ave and Myola Rd, Umina.

Council resolved on Tuesday, December 5 to defer the matter to Tuesday, December 12

A recommendation had been made by council officers that no further action be taken to construct the shared cycleway-pedestrian bridge.

It also recommended that the developer be repaid contributions of $75,000 after three years if the bridge had not been constructed by that time.

Council officers had recommended that council not proceed with the project as a preferred bridge would cost council $105,000 more, and even then it would not be part of council's endorsed cycle route.

An amount of $75,000 had been available by way of a developer payment, determined by the Land and Environment Court, to construct the bridge.

The proposed shared cycleway-pedestrian bridge dated back to the original approval of the seven-stage "North Pearl" subdivision which included a condition of consent requiring the construction of a full width roadway across Ettymalong Creek joining the roads.

Construction of the roadway was deferred until the final stage of the subdivision, with the consent of council.

The developer then approached council to waive the condition of development consent relating to construction of the roadway at this location.

The matter was reported to council by its director of environment and planning at the time, who decided that the bridge could be replaced with the requirement for a shared cycleway-pedestrian bridge.

The developer then appealed the resolution in the Land and Environment Court, which determined that the applicant make a contribution of $75,000 to council prior to the release of a subdivision certificate for the construction of the cycleway-pedestrian bridge.

Local residents had also had concerns with the building of the bridge.

One concern expressed related to a lack of demand for the bridge, the destruction of vegetation, the adequacy of existing access in the area, the attraction of a "hoodlum element" and the loss of privacy.

A petition of 14 residents opposed to the proposed bridge had also been received by council.

Their concerns were that the bridge would be of no value, it would "attract local youth on motorbikes" and it would disturb nearby residents by becoming a meeting place for youth.

A council staff report stated that the case presented by the residents opposed to the construction of the bridge was not considered to be sufficiently strong as would justify abandonment of the project.

It also stated that the developer could not be compelled to contribute additional funds to those determined by the Land and Environment Court.

It stated that the availability of $75,000 in development contributions did allow a $180,000 bridge to be built at a $105,000 cost to council but it was considered difficult to justify the level of expenditure on what was considered a secondary priority cycleway/pedestrian bridge.

It stated: "On balance, it is recommended that the shared cycleway-pedestrian bridge not proceed."

Council agenda CIT.62, December 5