The Central Coast Local Planning Panel was set to consider a review of its refusal of an amendment to a Terrigal development on May 26, with a determination expected to be handed down within days.
Approval was originally granted for a five-storey commercial and shop-top housing development at 5-7 Church St, with the applicant subsequently requesting an amendment which would see the addition of a sixth storey penthouse, increasing the number of residences from 12 to 13.
That amendment was refused in June last year following the receipt of 62 submissions of objection, but the applicant is now requesting a review of the decision, refuting each of the four major reasons given by the panel for refusal.
Purchased from the then Gosford Council in 2015, the development site is located one street back from Terrigal Esplanade, with a primary street frontage to Church St and rear site frontage to Hudson Lane.
The first reason given last June for refusal was that the proposed modification significantly increases the height and floor space of the approved development and exceeds the development standards of Clause 4.3 and 4.4 of the Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014.
But the applicant says this is substantially the same development which was originally granted consent and has provided a legal opinion from Peter Tomasetti SC to back the claim.
“There can be no doubt in my view that the proposed development is substantially the same development as that which was approved,” Tomasetti’s opinion stated.
“To add an apartment to an approved building already containing 12 apartments without material alteration to the approved scheme below the new level, is in my view, a classic example of a modification.”
The applicant said the proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives of both maximum building height and floor space ratio development standards.
The panel’s second reason for refusal was that the modification does not comply with the objectives and development standards of the B2 zone State Environmental Planning Policy 65, Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014, or Gosford Development Control Plan 2013.
But the applicant says the proposal is consistent with the B2 objectives because: it retains ground floor business premises to serve the needs of the local community and provide employment opportunities within Terrigal Village Centre; it is in close proximity to bus routes circulating within Terrigal Village Centre and is within walking distance of all local facilities, services and the coastal foreshore; it provides shop-top residential accommodation; and the built form is substantially unchanged from that of the originally approved development and is consistent with the desired future character of the zone.
The applicant also says the proposal provides for the “efficient and sustainable use of the subject land, located in an urban setting and which has no ecological values requiring protection” and provides for a mix of uses appropriate to Terrigal Village Centre as a tourist destination.
Another reason for refusal was that the proposed modification would have additional impacts on adjoining sites resulting in additional view loss and amenity impacts.
But the applicant said the panel gave determining weight to an objection on behalf of the owners of No. 15 Kurrawyba Ave, which is currently being developed for a six storey mixed-use building, who claimed the proposed penthouse level would result in a loss of ocean/beach views which would be otherwise available from Levels 4 and 5 of that development.
“It is contended however that the Council did not give reasonable consideration to the applicant’s view loss assessment, which concluded that potential view loss from Levels 4 and 5 of 15 Kurrawyba Ave, was minor and reasonable in the circumstances,” the applicant says.
“For the same reasons that the Land and Environment Court has established the planning principle that it is not reasonable to expect to wholly retain existing lateral views over a neighbouring property upon its redevelopment, it is also unreasonable for a development, which itself substantially exceeds the RL 18.5m maximum building height development standard and is located one entire town block landward of the beachfront, to expect to retain an existing unencumbered beach/water view over that town block.”
The applicant also says there is no significant reduction in the available views of the Wamberal Beach surf zone or the Wyrrabalong Trig coastal headland resulting from the proposed modified development.
In response to he panel’s fourth reason for refusal, that approval is not in the public interest, the applicant says the proposed modification is consistent with the relevant objectives of the applicable environmental planning framework and does not cause any adverse amenity or loss of utility impacts on any adjoining commercial building.
There are no adjoining residential buildings.
A decision from the panel is expected in coming days.
Terry Collins