A developer wants to change planning guidelines for land on the corner of Terrigal Dr and Charles Kay Dr at Terrigal to increase the allowed building height from 8.5m to 32m.
The developer also wants to allow a cafe on the ground floor of an eight-storey building with up to 50 units and amend the maximum floor space ratio from 0.5:1 to 1.4:1.
The site is a vacant triangular lot comprising a site area of 4,262sqm and is zoned R1 General Residential.
The application to Central Coast Council says the Planning Proposal will enable better use of the site for a greater variety and diversity of housing choices in the Central Coast.
“While the skyline of Terrigal is relatively low-density and the proposed building envelope is taller than buildings in the immediate surrounding area, the building sits below the existing tree canopy and the site’s corner location acts as a prominent marker and gateway to Terrigal Town Centre,” the application says.
The site is flood affected but the development is proposed to be built above the one per cent AEP flood depths range.
The proposal is being discussed by the Local Planning Panel on Thursday, November 30, before being tabled at the Council-under-administration meeting on December 12 with the Panel’s thoughts.
The report to the Panel includes a Council report endorsing the proposal.
Administrator Rik Hart will have to decide if the proposal should go to the Department of Planning with his support for a Gateway Determination on the change in the zoning.
If the State allows the Gateway, which lists the matters that the proposal would need to address, the proposal will be open for public comment some time next year.
After that, a final proposal would be submitted to the Department for approval.
Merilyn Vale
Why does a developer think that is okay to put so much money into a planning proposal that is so clearly outside of the guidelines ? It is 4 times the allowed building height ! What other 8 storey buildings are there in the immediate area ? None ! In what way is the autocratic CCC representing the local community if it allows the rules to be continuously bent ? I can’t believe the CCC is endorsing this development. The sooner we have real community representation on the council the better.