I work in the area, there is already a parking issue at our workplace for clients and surrounding businesses.
with new apartments there will be a major parking issues especially for the elderly that attend surrounding businesses and church each day. mobility issues. School wuill be affected by also parking and people around the school.

I have reviewed the documents provided for the exhibition, and I support the proposed apartment development at 23–25 Ashton Avenue, The Entrance. The site appears to be underused and in need of renewal, and this proposal would replace it with much-needed housing in a location that is close to services, shops, and beautiful places. In an area like The Entrance, mixed-use affordable housing is especially important because it allows people to live within walking distance of essential services and reduces reliance on cars, especially with the bicycle parking. I see this as a positive step for the suburb and a good example of responsible development that helps the area grow in a practical way.

39 car park spaces is NOT enough for 50 units.......The effect will be the parking overflow will effect my property. We don not need any additional landscaping in this area. This space can provide more parking. Please review your submission

I support the project, I believe it will significantly improve housing affordability and availability in the area

I would however like to see the number of storeys and units significantly increased as well as units set aside for essential workers and social housing.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am a local resident living within the vicinity of the proposed development and have a strong interest in ensuring that new housing delivered within The Entrance contributes positively to the character, amenity and long-term quality of the area.

I support the continued growth and evolution of The Entrance and recognise the importance of delivering additional housing within appropriate locations. However, I have concerns that the current proposal does not yet demonstrate the level of architectural quality, resident amenity and public domain contribution that should be expected of a development of this scale and prominence.

My concerns are summarised below.

Built Form, Bulk and Scale:

The proposed building presents as a large and continuous built form with limited articulation, modulation or visual relief. The overall massing appears bulky and monolithic, particularly given the proportions of the site and the apparent reliance on a double-loaded corridor arrangement extending across much of the building length.

The development does not appear to adequately break down the perceived scale of the building through setbacks, material variation or meaningful façade articulation. As a result, the proposal risks presenting as a continuous wall of development rather than a building that responds sensitively to its coastal context and surrounding streetscape.

The proportions of the site do not appear ideally suited to the proposed double-loaded apartment configuration. The resulting building depth raises concerns regarding equitable setbacks from habitable frontages, access to sunlight, natural ventilation and overall residential amenity. It gives the impression that development yield may be driving the built form outcome rather than the site comfortably accommodating the scale of development proposed.

Architectural Character and Materiality:

The proposed architectural response appears heavily reliant on profiled aluminium cladding as the dominant façade material. In my view, the extensive use of lightweight cladding, without the balancing presence of masonry or other robust and enduring materials, raises concerns regarding the longevity and quality of the finished development.

Given the prominence of the site within The Entrance, a more considered material palette would be expected to contribute positively to the character of the local centre and reinforce a durable coastal architectural identity.

Rooftop Plant and Building Services:

The submitted material suggests that rooftop plant and service areas are not adequately integrated into the overall building form. These structures do not appear to be sufficiently recessed from primary façade edges and are likely to become highly visible from surrounding streets and public and private viewpoints, particularly from The Entrance Road and south-eastern approaches.

Given the elevated nature of the proposal and its visibility from surrounding streets, rooftop plant and service structures should form an integrated component of the architectural design rather than appearing as secondary additions above the roofline. Greater screening and recessive treatment would assist in reducing the visual prominence of these elements.

It is also noted that rooftop plant structures do not appear to be represented within several of the contextual aerial massing views submitted with the application. This makes it difficult for the community to fully understand and assess the true visual impact of the development.

Ground Plane and Public Domain Interface:

The relationship between the building and the public domain warrants further consideration.

The building appears elevated above an open ground-level structure in several locations, creating a "building on stilts" appearance that lacks a strong and engaging street presence. The Campbell Avenue frontage in particular does not appear to provide a high-quality interface with the public domain.

A development of this scale should make a positive contribution to the public domain through active frontages, landscaping and carefully integrated service functions. The current arrangement appears overly dominated by vehicle, servicing and infrastructure requirements, reducing opportunities for a more welcoming and attractive streetscape outcome.

In addition, the location of bulky waste, storage and back-of-house functions adjacent to primary site arrival points creates concerns regarding the long-term presentation of the development. External bulky waste areas can often become informal dumping locations and should ideally be enclosed within secure service areas away from prominent street frontages.

When combined with the proposed substation kiosk and other service elements, the cumulative outcome risks creating an unattractive streetscape environment rather than a positive contribution to the neighbourhood.

The development also appears to provide limited setback from the primary street frontage, contributing further to the perception of bulk and reducing opportunities for meaningful landscape integration. Greater setbacks and landscape buffers would assist in softening the building's presentation and improving its contribution to the evolving character of The Entrance.

Resident Amenity:

The proposed communal open space areas appear confined to narrow residual spaces adjoining vehicle circulation and parking areas. It is difficult to understand how these spaces will function as attractive, usable communal amenities for residents. The proposed arrangement appears more reflective of leftover site areas than purposefully designed communal spaces.

Based on the building orientation and the information provided, there is concern that a significant proportion of south-east facing apartments may experience limited direct solar access to primary living areas and balconies during winter months. The combination of a south-east orientation, deep balcony projections and substantial building overhangs appears likely to further reduce sunlight penetration to these dwellings.

The documentation does not clearly demonstrate how satisfactory solar access outcomes are achieved across the development, and it is difficult for the community to verify the extent to which apartments will receive meaningful sunlight during mid-winter. Given the importance of solar access to residential amenity, further analysis and clarification should be provided.

The proposal indicates compliance with cross-ventilation objectives; however, it is unclear from the submitted documentation how effective cross-ventilation is achieved for a number of the apparent single-aspect apartments, particularly those facing the north-western frontage. Further information should be provided to demonstrate that the nominated cross-ventilation outcomes can be achieved in practice and that the reported compliance figures accurately reflect apartment performance.

Conclusion:

I support the delivery of quality housing within The Entrance and recognise the important role that increased residential density can play in supporting the growth and vitality of the local centre.

However, I am concerned that the current proposal does not yet demonstrate the level of architectural quality, resident amenity, streetscape contribution or long-term durability that should be expected for a development of this scale and prominence. In its current form, the proposal appears to prioritise development yield over built form quality, public domain outcomes and the long-term character of the area.

I respectfully request that Council carefully consider these matters during its assessment and seek further refinement of the design to ensure a higher quality outcome for both future residents and the wider community.

Yours faithfully,
P.Dennis

I, from 2-6 Warrigal Street, The Entrance, am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed 7-storey development at 23–25 Ashton Avenue.

My building 2-6 Warrigal Street The Entrance is a mixed-use building of consisting of 35 residential units and 3 Commercial Units that will be profoundly and adversely impacted by this proposal and in particular the impact that this development on my unit.
While the provision of housing that is affordable is supported by myself, the design and scale of this proposed development represents a departure that is unreasonable from the local planning controls that is compromises the safety of the community as well as viability of commercial activities in the area.

1. Unreasonable Departure from Local Height Standards
The proposed height of approx. 27m (7 storeys) significantly exceeds the mapped height limit of 11–12m set out in the Central Coast LEP 2022. Even with the 30% bonus allowed under the Housing SEPP, a 27m building is excessive for this site and creates a jarring precedent that is out of character with the existing Ashton Ave streetscape.
2. Severe Topographical and Visual Impact (31m AHD vs 42.3m AHD)
• My building currently has a “whole” view of Tuggerah Lake from our 4th floor communal terrace area serving 35 residential and 3 commercial units at a height of 31AHD.
• The proposed development stands at 42.3AHD, approx. 3.5 storeys higher than our communal terrace and will cause a "devastating" loss of a “central water view” of Tuggerah Lake.
• Under the Tenacity principles of View Sharing, the "whole-of-view" from a communal area serving 35 residential and 3 commercial units is a significant high value community asset.
• The proposed development will cause material loss of a residential amenity that directly impacts the equitable value of our homes. There are currently 2 units for sale in my building that highlight Panoramic Ocean & Lake Views as a key selling point.
• The developer has failed to demonstrate a "site-responsive" design; instead, they have used "affordable housing" bonuses to create a "wall effect" that sits nearly 4 storeys above our primary community outdoor amenity.
• While social housing is a public good, it should not be achieved by destroying existing community assets like our shared terrace view or negatively impact on residents units and enjoyment of their own spaces.
• It will also cause a loss of acoustic and visual privacy. Since the building is 4 storeys higher, its windows will look directly down into our common terrace and my own personal balcony.
• I demand that the council's assessment includes a formal photomontage taken from our communal terrace.



3. Critical Risk to School Zone Safety (The Entrance Public School)
The site is in immediate proximity to The Entrance Public School.
• Traffic & Pedestrian Safety: A 50-unit high-density development, combined with a high-turnover medical centre, will flood the local school zone with vehicles. This significantly increases the risk to students during 40km/h peak drop-off/pick-up times.
• Social and Affordable Housing Density Concerns
While social housing is vital, placing such a high-density population (7 storeys) on a constrained site next to a primary school requires a rigorous Social Impact Assessment. The current proposal fails to show how it will mitigate the cumulative impacts of noise, foot traffic, and overlooking on a sensitive school environment.

4. Inadequate Parking for 50 Residents and Medical Centre
The proposal includes a medical centre with up to 10 consulting rooms.
• Commercial Impacts: My building is also mixed-use. The medical centre’s patients and the residential "overflow" will consume the limited street parking required for the ground-floor customers of the commercial units and essential deliveries for residents, directly threatening the viability of local businesses in the immediate area.
• Parking Shortfall: I object to the use of planning concessions to reduce on-site parking in a suburb with no rail access and a high dependency on private vehicles.
• The proposed development has already displaced a car park used by local businesses who are now forced to park on the street.
5. Infrastructure Failure: The Long Jetty Bottleneck
The Entrance Peninsula relies on a "one road in, one road out" corridor. Adding 50 units—plus a busy medical facility, along with all the other proposed developments in the area—exacerbates the Long Jetty traffic bottleneck, which is already a safety hazard for residents and emergency services.
We argue that infrastructure upgrades must happen before any more approvals are granted.
Conclusion
I urge the Department to refuse the application in its current form.
Any development must be scaled back to 3-4 storeys to respect the 11m local limit, provide full on-site parking for medical patients and residents, and ensure a "good neighbour" outcome for the school and the 35 residential families and the 3 commercial businesses in our building.

FORMAL OBJECTION: SSD-84190958
Project: Mixed-use Development, 23–25 Ashton Avenue, The Entrance
To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Closing Date: 9 June 2026
Attention: Director, Housing and Infrastructure Assessments
I am a resident of unit 20, at 2-6 Warrigal Street, The Entrance,
am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed 7-storey development at
23–25 Ashton Avenue.
Our building is a mixed-use building of 38 units that will be profoundly and adversely
impacted by this proposal.
While I support the provision of social and affordable housing, the scale and design
of this project represent an unreasonable departure from local planning controls that
compromises community safety and commercial viability.
1. Unreasonable Departure from Local Height Standards
The proposed height of approx. 27m (7 storeys) significantly exceeds the
mapped height limit of 11–12m set out in the Central Coast LEP 2022. Even with
the 30% bonus allowed under the Housing SEPP, a 27m building is excessive for
this site and creates a jarring precedent that is out of character with the existing
Ashton Ave streetscape.
2. Severe Topographical and Visual Impact (31m AHD vs 42.3m AHD)  Our building currently has a “whole” view of Tuggerah Lake from our 4th floor
communal terrace area serving 38 households at a height of 31AHD.  The proposed development stands at 42.3AHD, approx. 3.5 storeys higher
than our communal terrace and will cause a "devastating" loss of a “central
water view” of Tuggerah Lake.  The proposed buildings height and bulk will also result in Significant Loss of
Solar Access (Overshadowing) in the winter solstice from around 4-6pm
and block views of the sun setting which is a significant material loss of
amenity to our 38 residents during the main times that they all enjoy the
communal area to have dinner and watch the sunset.
 Under the Tenacity principles of View Sharing, the "whole-of-view" from a
communal area serving 38 households is a significant high value community
asset.  The proposed development will cause material loss of a residential amenity
that directly impacts the equitable value of our homes. We currently have 2
units for sale in our building that highlight Panoramic Ocean & Lake Views
as a key selling point. 
The developer has failed to demonstrate a "site-responsive" design; instead,
they have used "affordable housing" bonuses to create a "wall effect" that
sits nearly 4 storeys above our primary outdoor amenity.  While social housing is a public good, it should not be achieved by
destroying existing community assets like our shared terrace area.
 It will also cause a loss of acoustic and visual privacy. Since the building is
4 storeys higher, its windows will look directly down into your common terrace
and personal balconies.  We demand that the council's assessment includes a formal photomontage
taken from our communal terrace.
3. Critical Risk to School Zone Safety (The Entrance Public School)
The site is in immediate proximity to The Entrance Public School.  Traffic & Pedestrian Safety: A 50-unit high-density development, combined
with a high-turnover medical centre, will flood the local school zone with
vehicles. This significantly increases the risk to students during 40km/h peak
drop-off/pick-up times.  Social and Affordable Housing Density Concerns
While social housing is vital, placing such a high-density population (7
storeys) on a constrained site next to a primary school requires a rigorous
Social Impact Assessment. The current proposal fails to show how it will
mitigate the cumulative impacts of noise, foot traffic, and overlooking on a
sensitive school environment.
4. Inadequate Parking for 50+ Residents and Medical Centre
The proposal includes a medical centre with up to 10 consulting rooms.  The proposed development will displace the current car park that is currently
being used by local businesses and the Catholic Church who then will be
forced to find alternate parking in the surrounding streets
 Commercial Impacts: Our building is also mixed-use. The medical centre’s
patients and the residential "overflow" will consume the limited street parking
required for our ground-floor customers and essential deliveries, directly
threatening the viability of local businesses.  Parking Shortfall: We object to the use of planning concessions to reduce
on-site parking in a suburb with no rail access and a high dependency on
private vehicles.
5. Infrastructure Failure: The Long Jetty Bottleneck
The Entrance Peninsula relies on a "one road in, one road out" corridor. Adding 50
units—plus a busy medical facility, along with all the other proposed developments in
the area—exacerbates the Long Jetty traffic bottleneck, which is already a safety
hazard for residents and emergency services.
We argue that infrastructure upgrades must happen before any more approvals are
granted.
Conclusion
I urge the Department to refuse the application in its current form.
We have tried to attach a photograph of the impact this Development will have on our
current “whole” view of Tuggerah Lake however it's not loading.
Any development must be scaled back to 3-4 storeys to respect the 11m local limit,
provide full on-site parking for medical patients and residents, and ensure a "good
neighbour" outcome for the school and the 38 families in our building.
Sincerely,
Unit 20
2-6 Warrigal Street
The Entrance

Dear Sir/Madam,
​I am writing to lodge my total and unconditional objection to the 7-storey development proposal at 23-25 Ashton Avenue (SSD-84190958). Myself and my family are patient at the medical centre which soon is reloacting to 253 Entrance Road, and I am deeply nervous and concerned about how this massive proposal will directly impact our health, safety, and ability to access medical care.

​We respectfully urge the Department to protect the welfare of vulnerable local residents and refuse this development application in its entirety.

​The proposed high-density tower poses significant everyday hazards and distress to patients like myself and family and others for the following reasons:

​1. Extreme Anxiety and Threat to Physical Accessibility
​As a patient dealing with health issues and mobility limitations at times, just getting to my appointments safely requires a predictable, accessible environment.

​The Parking Crisis: We heavily rely on the parking directly adjacent to and near the medical centre. Knowing that this 7-storey building has an absolute deficit of parking spaces (only 39 spaces for ~50 units) makes me highly anxious. The permanent overflow of vehicles onto the street means We will be forced to park blocks away and walk distances that our health at times simply does not permit.
​If attending a medical appointment becomes a physically exhausting or impossible ordeal due to parking gridlock, I, family and many other vulnerable residents, will have no choice but to delay or skip vital healthcare.

​2. Severe Traffic Hazards and Road Blockades
​The scale of this construction means Ashton Avenue and Entrance Road will be overwhelmed by heavy machinery, cement trucks, and massive vehicles carrying construction tools, technology, and materials.

​Logistical Gridlock: The thought of navigating a streetscape frequently blocked or narrowed by oversized vehicles is terrifying for elderly or frail drivers and pedestrians.

​Delays to Emergency Services: It is deeply alarming to think that an ambulance or patient transport vehicle could be blocked or delayed by a construction vehicle during a medical emergency. When large vehicles are given right-of-way on these narrow roads, it puts patient lives in jeopardy.

​3. Health Risks from Dust, Noise, and Vibration Pollution
​A medical clinic should be a safe, clean, and calm place for healing. The environmental pollution caused by a project of this scale will destroy that.

​Respiratory Danger: The massive amount of dust and airborne particulate matter generated during excavation and construction is a direct hazard to patients who suffer from asthma, respiratory conditions, or like myself with weakened immune systems.

​Clinical Discomfort: The constant high-impact noise and ground vibrations will make clinical visits incredibly stressful. It will compromise the quiet environment required for private consultations, treatments, and accurate medical assessments.
​
​This development completely disregards the welfare of the vulnerable residents and patients who rely on the neighboring medical infrastructure. Forcing a massive 7-storey tower into an area without providing the necessary parking or accounting for the safety of patients and nearby schoolchildren is dangerous planning.
​The long-term damage to our quality of life and the direct threat to our healthcare access far outweigh any benefits of this proposal. For the health, safety, and peace of mind of the community's patients, I urge you to reject this application completely.
​Thank you for listening to the voices of the residents and vulnerable patients who will have to live with the consequences of this decision.

Dear Sir/Madam,
​I am writing to lodge my total and unconditional objection to the proposed 7-storey mixed-use development at 23-25 Ashton Avenue (SSD-84190958). As a practicing Medical Professional providing critical rehabilitation services at the Entrance medical centre, soon to be relocated at 253 Entrance Road, I am deeply anxious and concerned about the severe, multi-layered hazards this project introduces to our patients, our staff, and our daily clinical viability.
​I respectfully request that the Consent Authority prioritize community healthcare access and refuse this development application in its entirety.
​The scale of this proposed high-density tower presents immediate operational conflicts that threaten our ability to safely deliver Health services:
​1. Severe Physical Barriers for Mobility-Impaired Patients
​The core demographic of my practice includes post-operative orthopedic patients, individuals undergoing neurological rehabilitation, frail elderly citizens, and NDIS participants with profound mobility limitations.
​The Parking Deficit: The proposal’s failure to provide adequate on-site parking (allocating only 39 spaces for 50 apartments plus commercial space) means residential and visitor overflow will flood the surrounding streets.
​My patients are physically incapable of walking long distances. Forcing a patient who has just undergone a joint replacement or is suffering from acute sciatica to park blocks away due to street congestion is a logistical impossibility. If they cannot park immediately adjacent to the centre, they cannot receive treatment.
​2. Heavy Vehicle Hazards and Blockades to Specialized Medical Deliveries
​The construction phase will require a massive volume of oversized transport vehicles carrying structural tools, technology, and building materials along narrow local pathways.
​Supply Chain Disruptions: My clinic relies on the safe, seamless delivery of heavy, specialized rehabilitation equipment, treatment plinths, and medical supplies. Frequent road blockages and the lack of designated delivery zones will choke our supply lines.
​WHS Hazards for Staff: If delivery vehicles are forced to drop off equipment blocks away due to construction gridlock, my staff will be forced to manually transport heavy clinical equipment through a congested, hazardous environment, raising significant workplace safety concerns.
​3. Disruption to Clinical Care: Environmental Noise, Dust, and Vibration
​My treatment requires precise physical assessments, real-time clinical communication, and a clean, safe environment for recovery.
​Impact on Sensitive Tech: Our practice utilizes high-value diagnostic and therapeutic tools (such as real-time ultrasound and electrotherapy machinery). The severe ground vibrations from large-scale excavation work risk damaging or miscalibrating these sensitive medical tools.
​Acoustic and Air Contamination: The high-impact noise from a 7-storey build will destroy the quiet, professional environment required for private patient consultations and pain management. Furthermore, the inevitable dust and air pollution present an acute health hazard to patients who are already physically vulnerable or suffering from respiratory conditions.
​4. Existential Threat to Clinic Viability and Community Quality of Life
​The combination of prolonged construction chaos, permanent parking shortages, and a hazardous streetscape creates an environment that will actively deter patients from seeking local care. If our patients cannot safely access our facility, or if our clinical environment is continuously compromised by noise and vibration, the long-term operational viability of this medical centre is at risk. Losing essential local Health services will severely degrade the quality of life for residents throughout The Entrance.

Therefore ​this development places high-density residential metrics above the fundamental right of a community to access safe, unhindered healthcare. It introduces permanent infrastructure deficiencies and immediate physical hazards to a sensitive medical precinct.
​As a medical professional with a direct duty of care to my patients, I urge the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to protect our local healthcare network and reject this application completely.
​Thank you for your consideration of this urgent submission.

​Yours sincerely

FORMAL OBJECTION: SSD-84190958
Project: Mixed-use Development, 23–25 Ashton Avenue, The Entrance
To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Closing Date: 9 June 2026
Attention: Director, Housing and Infrastructure Assessments
I Lynette Hart of Unit 20, 2-6 Warrigal Street, The Entrance, are writing to lodge a
formal objection to the proposed 7-storey development at 23–25 Ashton Avenue.
Unfortunately our owners corporation did not have sufficient time to arrange a formal
meeting and therefore owners have been asked to submit individual objections.
Our building is a mixed-use building of 38 households that will be profoundly and
adversely impacted by this proposal.
While I support the provision of social and affordable housing, the scale and design
of this project represent an unreasonable departure from local planning controls that
compromises community safety and commercial viability.
1. Unreasonable Departure from Local Height Standards
The proposed height of approx. 27m (7 storeys) significantly exceeds the
mapped height limit of 11–12m set out in the Central Coast LEP 2022. Even with
the 30% bonus allowed under the Housing SEPP, a 27m building is excessive for
this site and creates a jarring precedent that is out of character with the existing
Ashton Ave streetscape.
2. Severe Topographical and Visual Impact (31m AHD vs 42.3m AHD) 
Our building currently has a “whole” view of Tuggerah Lake from our 4th floor
communal terrace area serving 38 households at a height of 31AHD.  The proposed development stands at 42.3AHD, approx. 3.5 storeys higher
than our communal terrace and will cause a "devastating" loss of a “central
water view” of Tuggerah Lake. 
The proposed buildings height and bulk will also result in Significant Loss of
Solar Access (Overshadowing) in the winter solstice from around 4-6pm
and block views of the sun setting which is a significant material loss of
amenity to our 38 residents during the main times that they all enjoy the
communal area to have dinner and watch the sunset.
 The proposal fails to meet the requirements outlined in the Central Coast
Development Control Plan (DCP), which seeks to protect the amenity of
existing dwellings. 
Under the Tenacity principles of View Sharing, the "whole-of-view" from a
communal area serving 38 households is a significant high value community
asset.  The proposed development will cause significant material loss of a
residential amenity that directly impacts the equitable value of our 38
homes. We currently have 2 units for sale in our building that highlight
Panoramic Ocean & Lake Views as a key selling point.
The developer has failed to demonstrate a "site-responsive" design; instead,
they have used "affordable housing" bonuses to create a "wall effect" that
sits nearly 4 storeys above our primary outdoor amenity.  While social housing is a public good, it should not be achieved by
destroying existing community assets like our shared terrace amenity.
 The proposal will also cause a loss of acoustic and visual privacy. Since
the building is 4 storeys higher, its windows will look directly down into your
common terrace and personal balconies.
 We demand that the council's assessment includes a formal photomontage
taken from our communal terrace.
3. Critical Risk to School Zone Safety (The Entrance Public School)
The site is in immediate proximity to The Entrance Public School.
 Traffic & Pedestrian Safety: A 50-unit high-density development,
combined with a high-turnover medical centre, will flood the local
school zone with vehicles. This significantly increases the risk to
students during 40km/h peak drop-off/pick-up times.  Social and Affordable Housing Density Concerns
While social housing is vital, placing such a high-density population
(7 storeys) on a constrained site next to a primary school requires a
rigorous Social Impact Assessment. The current proposal fails to
show how it will mitigate the cumulative impacts of noise, foot traffic,
and overlooking on a sensitive school environment.
4. Inadequate Parking for 50 Residents and Medical Centre
The proposal includes a medical centre with up to 10 consulting rooms. 
The proposed development will displace the current car park that is currently
being used by local businesses and the Catholic Church who then will be
forced to find alternate parking in the surrounding streets
 Commercial Impacts: Our building is also mixed-use. The medical centre’s
patients and the residential "overflow", Catholic Church and local workers, will
consume the limited street parking required for our ground-floor customers
and essential deliveries, directly threatening the viability of local businesses.
 Parking Shortfall: We object to the use of planning concessions to reduce
on-site parking in a suburb with no rail access and a high dependency on
private vehicles.
5. Infrastructure Failure: The Long Jetty Bottleneck
The Entrance Peninsula relies on a "one road in, one road out" corridor. Adding 50
units—plus a busy medical facility, along with all the other proposed developments in
the area—exacerbates the Long Jetty traffic bottleneck, which is already a safety
hazard for residents and emergency services.
We argue that infrastructure upgrades must happen before any more approvals are
granted.
Conclusion
I urge the Department to refuse the application in its current form.
I have tried to attach a photograph of the impact this Development will have on our
current “whole” view of Tuggerah Lake and sun position but it's not uploading.
Any development must be scaled back to 3-4 storeys to respect the 11m local limit,
provide full on-site parking for medical patients and residents, and ensure a "good
neighbour" outcome for the school and the 38 families in our building.
Sincerely,
Lynette Hart
Owner
Unit 20, 2-6 Warrigal Street
The Entrance