Mod 1

The building is still way too large and high for the site and makes no consideration for the surrounding buildings views.

OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
47-50 THE ESPLANADE ETTALONG BEACH, NSW 2257 (LOTS 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 and 116 DP 10650) SECTION 75W AMENDMENT OF MP 09_0121

I am the owner of Apartment 309 in the Mantra Resort opposite this proposal.

The initial approved development was given special consideration although being outside the guidelines recommended by Gosford City Council in 2010. Now the current proposal is seeking to further push beyond the limits granted in their approval and suggest that it is only a minor variation and therefore "deemed acceptable". They do not take into consideration that their 2010 approval is a gross over development of the site on today's standards and yet they still want more. The result is a building with overdevelopment, highly undesirable for now and the future development of the area.
The request is to have open space reduced on what was originally approved. The original approval given was for the provision of minimum open space for the site. This current proposal is looking for a further reduction in open space. Recommended total communal open space is 558sqm whereas proposed total communal open space is 414m2. The proposal states that it "does not comply but deemed acceptable." As the proposal does not state the grounds upon which the reduced open space is deemed acceptable, I object to the reduction and believe it is not in the public interest.
There is a loss of amenity as the gym, community room, indoor pool and void areas are to be replaced by the creation of 14 new apartments. It would appear that the lifestyle of residents is downgraded by having smaller apartment areas with increased number of rooms.
Many apartments as stated in this report, now for various reasons do not comply but are deemed acceptable by the applicant. If all apartments originally complied on the approved application, why are all of these non-compliances now deemed acceptable?
There appear to be errors and inconsistencies within the new application.
Apartments
Compared to the approved design (approval number MP09_0121), the residential component of the mixed-use building is proposed to be reconfigured to allow fourteen additional apartments (see Table 1 of proposal) which is an increase of 31% over the apartments approved.
One-bedroom apartments reduced from 10 as approved to 7 proposed--- ( 3 less)
Two-bedroom apartments increase from 26 as approved to 42 proposed--- (16 extra)
Three-bedroom apartments increased from 9 as approved to 10 proposed --- ( 1 extra)
(incorrectly shown in table 1)
Table 1 states that 10, 3 bed apartments are proposed whereas table 7 states "of the 12, 3-bedroom apartments, one apartment has less than 12sqm of POS.

The total GFA increases by 271.64m2 and the FSR would increase from 2.5:1 to 2.63:1 beyond the guidelines originally approved which will lead to overcrowding on the site.
Parking
The Traffic Study annexed to the current proposal recommends that no extra parking is required if 14 extra apartments are added as per this proposal. I strongly object to this recommendation on the grounds that if the current approval required 75 parking spaces, then increasing the unit number by 14, of which many are 2 and 3 bedroom apartments, would require a minimum of 14 extra car parking spaces.

the development approved by the former Minister does not comply with the development standards for the Ettalong town centre that were set byGosford Local Environmental Plan 2014

. the proposed modification of the approval would not ameliorate the adverse visual and environmental impacts that would result from this overdevelopment of a beachfront site.

. the proposal for Stage 1 of the development between The Esplanade and the laneway (Lots 113 - 116, DP 10650) would be a gross overdevelopment of the beachfront part of the site in this very vulnerable part of the Coast

. Gosford LEP 2014 prescribes a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 1:1 on the lots along The Esplanade, whereas the Tesrol proposal would have an FSR of 2.59:1. The proposed modification would add even more floorspace, thus increasing the FSR to 2.63.

. Stage 1 development would cause significant overshadowing of The Esplanade. In the Modification there would be no reduction in the area overshadowed.

. The height and design of the development, and its proximity to the Mantra Resort, will create a wind tunnel on Memorial Avenue. There is no change proposed to the design that would mitigate the wind tunnel effect.

. Tesrol Ettalong had more than sufficient time to commence the proposed development, therefore, I oppose any extension of time for implementation of development approval MP 09-121 or any modification of the approval.

* There is not enough car parking provided in the proposal to accommodate the impact of the building, particularly as the building will remove existing car parking

Overall it is a gross over development of the site

Ref MP 09-0121. Ettalong
the development approved by the former Minister would not comply
with the development standards for the Ettalong town centre that were set by
Gosford Local Environmental Plan 2014

. the proposed modification of the approval would not ameliorate the
adverse visual and environmental impacts that would result from this
overdevelopment of a beachfront site.

. the proposal for Stage 1 of the development between The Esplanade
and the laneway (Lots 113 - 116, DP 10650) would be a gross overdevelopment
of the beachfront part of the site

. Gosford LEP 2014 prescribes a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 1:1 on
the lots along The Esplanade, whereas the Tesrol proposal would have an FSR
of 2.59:1. The proposed modification would add even more floorspace, thus
increasing the FSR to 2.63.

. Stage 1 development would cause significant overshadowing of The
Esplanade. In the Modification there would be no reduction in the area
overshadowed.

. The height and design of the development, and its proximity to the
Mantra Resort, will create a wind tunnel on Memorial Avenue. There is no
change proposed to the design that would mitigate the wind tunnel effect.

. Tesrol Ettalong had more than sufficient time to commence the
proposed development, therefore, I oppose any extension of time for
implementation of development approval MP 09-121 or any modification of the
approval.


John Wiggin
North Gosford

Can only be good for the area. I really don't see that it will take anything away from the site. We need to create jobs and income to stop shops and local businesses from failing locally. We have to move with the times.
Hopefully the local infrastructure needs will be addressed by council, considering the large contribution I imagine they will get from a development of this size.

Please see attached submission

The ALP Umina-Ettalong Branch has not made political donations of more than $1000 in the last two years. However, it is a branch of the NSW Australian Labor Party which would have received and/or given such donations which are disclosed to the Election Funding Authority.

See attached document.

PDF file attached