Environment group opposes Tesrol project

The Peninsula Environment Group has objected to the proposed Tesrol development in Ettalong.

The group has made a submission to the Department of Planning objecting to the eight-storey building proposed for the corner of Memorial Ave and The Esplanade in Ettalong.

Group president Mr Mark Mann said the proposal should be refused for a number of reasons.

"In August, 2006, the Director General Department of Planning NSW reminded council that 'any variation under SEPP 1 needs to be consistent with the purpose of the standard, which in some cases may be to limit building bulk and scale'.

"It is interesting to note that council was looking at using SEPP 1 to override LEP requirements.

"The Peninsula Urban Directions Strategy was prepared with funding from NSW Planning. "For Ettalong it recommended: town centre five storeys to reflect the height of the Ettalong hotel with The Esplanade foreshore restricted to two to three storeys.

"The Central Coast Regional Strategy defined Ettalong as a village with town centre height limits of four to five storeys and a local catchment population of up to 4000 people.

"The new Gosford LEP reflects the need to move from ad-hoc re-zonings to a planning system providing certainty for residents and developers."

Mr Mann said council's Draft LEP set building heights for Ettalong at 17 metres or five storeys.

"The DLEP uses these documents as the basis for future planning on the Woy Woy Peninsula.

"Ettalong Beach and Umina are classified as village centres.

"Additionally, the new Gosford Draft Development Control Plan brings together all existing DCP's in one document.

"Our submission used the recommendations set out in the DLEP (and the DDCP) as the appropriate planning guidelines against which the Tesrol application should be judged."

Mr Mann said it was also important to highlight the fact that the current plans had not been presented to the Central Coast Design Review Panel for its views.

"Earlier plans submitted by the applicant were found to be 'clearly an excessive overdevelopment and.... would not set a good example for the future built form character of Ettalong [and] should be substantially lower in height, bulk and density...'," Mr Mann said.

"The current plans still represent an excessive over-development of the site and have not been recommended by the CCDRP."

According to Mr Mann, the proposal also did not address a number of other concerns including traffic, economic and zoning issues.

"The economic benefits referred to in the proposal refer to earlier expectations that a fast ferry service to Sydney would commence from Ettalong.

"This proposal has now been withdrawn and fuel/climate change matters will probably prevent it being resurrected in the future.

"Development of the Ettalong beach club was promised as a salvation for the Ettalong commercial centre but this has not proved to be the case.

"Employment levels at the new club are less than the old club.

"It is therefore difficult to be certain what economic benefits the proposed development would bring.

"There must be real concern that the considerable additional retail space proposed in this application will be difficult for Ettalong to absorb.

"A number of retail premises have been unoccupied for a considerable time in Ettalong and the development of Woolworth/Aldi supermarkets in Umina will put additional pressure on the Ettalong commercial centre.

"Retail cafe/restaurant outlets in the proposed development will also put considerable pressure on existing CBD cafes/restaurants.

"When the Ettalong Beach Reserve Plan of Management was approved in 2007 the consultant who prepared the plan recommended that 'a traffic study and parking management study be urgently undertaken'.

"Such a study has not been undertaken.

"The loss of a large number of car parking spaces as a result of the proposed development requires council to address parking requirements in Ettalong.

"The proposal does not address this matter.

"The proposed development is in a 50-year flood hazard zone and will also be impacted by the NSW Government/Gosford Council acceptance of rising sea level parameters of 90cms by 2100.

"The implications for this development of flooding/sea level rises are not addressed in the submission."

Website, 2 Jun 2010 Mark Mann, Peninsula Environment Group