Astounded at architect's recommendation

As one of the many who were opposed to the original development of the Patonga Hotel, I was utterly astounded to read in a previous issue of the Peninsula News that Gosford Council's architect recommended the hotel no longer be listed as a heritage item.

Perhaps I should explain to those many people who are still wondering how it became possible for a hotel with dual occupancy to be developed on residential land zoned 2A in such a tiny village, where dual occupancy is not permitted, there is no parking and it is surrounded by homes.

In the beginning, it was a general store which was undoubtedly of great heritage value to the tiny village of Patonga and in fact was a valuable part of the history of the shire.

The owners decided to apply to build a tavern on the land which caused great angst and division within the very small community of Patonga, who almost all rightly thought such a development on the site had no chance of approval.

It seemed entirely impossible that Gosford Council would even consider the application let alone approve the construction.

However, unbeknownst to those opposing the development, there exists within the Council's planning code the little known and therefore seldom understood Section 45C.

This section says that if you have a heritage item and have financial difficulty in maintaining that item then you can apply to build something on the site that will provide sufficient funds to enable you to maintain that heritage item.

My understanding is that this section was intended to enable people to build perhaps a cafe, a tea room, souvenir shop or kiosk to enhance and help support a historic building or heritage item.

However, in this instance, Gosford Council agreed that it was necessary to permit the building of a hotel complete with dual occupancy so as to provide the owners with sufficient funds to maintain the small heritage listed general store which coincidentally also operated as a licensed bottle shop.

Section 45C also carries with it the authority to make most normal building regulations, floor ratios, zonings and parking requirements redundant.

Because those who opposed the original application were not made aware that the matter was not to be dealt with in a normal fashion their objections were more or less negated from the outset and by the application of this little used and lesser known section the original development application to build the hotel was approved in 1997.

If you are familiar with the site, you may be moved to ask: "Where is the Patonga general store that was so historically important that Gosford Council had no alternative but to approve the development of a rather large and ostentatious hotel?"

Well, surprise, surprise, the Patonga general store and bottle shop were unfortunately demolished just prior to the hotel being built and no longer exist.

There was some brick work a window or two and a few other incidentals salvaged from the wreckage and it was claimed at the time that these items represented sufficient heritage value to justify the building of the hotel, though, why a hotel had to be built and operated to generate enough funds to maintain these scant items still remains a mystery to me.

Now we have Gosford Council's architect recommending that the hotel or more precisely the few relics of the Patonga general store should be no longer listed as items of heritage value or importance "as alterations and additions to the hotel have degraded any heritage value".

Now if the architect's recommendations are accepted by Council and the heritage listing is removed, we end up with a hotel that has been developed and built outside of normal zoning laws, land use regulations, floor space regulations, building regulations and parking regulations, to enable the maintenance of something that no longer exists.

If the heritage site is delisted where does this leave the hotel in relation to zoning laws?

Email, 22 Feb 2011 Vic Jefferies, St Hubert's Island