Shellharbour Council has opposed the proposed development for 2-4 John Street Shellharbour Village. Kellie O’Brien.
A high-rise development potentially 60 metres high proposed for “heritage-sensitive” Shellharbour Village has caused outrage within the community, prompting Shellharbour City Council to vote to oppose the plan.
Councillor Kellie Marsh put forward a motion to write to the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) and Member for Shellharbour Anna Watson expressing concern over the 2-4 John Street high-rise development, which was unanimously supported at a recent council meeting.
Her motion outlined its potential to “undermine strategic planning, community confidence in the planning system and council’s efforts to provide housing supply through a strategic led approach to housing”.
Cr Marsh said it had sparked “outrage in the community”, with the proposal containing 56 units built over two lots totalling 1100 sqm. It’s also surrounded by single and two-storey homes, and across from the Shellharbour Beachside Holiday Park and Beverly Whitfield ocean pool.
“Community Care Group, residents and business owners are all concerned about the ambience of Shellharbour Village being ruined by this development,” she said.
She said the project had not come before council, instead being given “state significance” status by the Department of Planning and Environment and now to be assessed by the HDA.
“The Housing Delivery Authority’s goals are to basically fast-track developments which leapfrog over all council strategic plans, rules and regulations, which I have a major problem with, considering those plans were put in place by our expert staff, in consultation with councillors and our community as well,” she said.
“All of that will just be leapfrogged for these huge monstrosities.
“It’s not what we want for the village.”
She said Shellharbour was doing an outstanding job in comparison to other local government areas in providing housing.
“You only need to look at what’s happening at Shell Cove, and the housing that’s happening at Tullimbar and Calderwood,” she said.
“We’re certainly providing enough here, and there’s certainly more to come.
”It’s just going to put more pressure on infrastructure that we don’t have in place.”
She said Shellharbour didn’t need “carte blanche developments thrown in” that would ruin people’s privacy, choke up roads, and place further pressure on stretched services such as childcare and medical services.
Cr Homer agreed that while they had a fully-fledged housing crisis, a lot of work was being done in Shellharbour to deliver housing options.
“Shellharbour Village is probably one of the most heritage sensitive areas in the city,” he said.
He said the building had the potential to go up to 60 metres high, which was the equivalent of 19 storeys, and was driving the “pretty fierce advocacy” he was receiving from the village.
After a request from Cr Lou Stefanovski, staff explained the process for the applicant, which included being given two years to submit environmental assessment requirements, which would then be submitted to the Department of Planning.
At that time, it would go through a formal exhibition period and council, like the community, would have an opportunity to provide a formal submission.
Cr Rob Petreski said a large development on such a small block was “out of character and scale for the village”.
“I understand the need for housing and we do obviously need housing, but not at any cost,” he said.
“It has to be an appropriate development for the appropriate area.”
He agreed a development of that magnitude would place considerable strain on infrastructure, including roads and public parking spaces.
“The amount of parking spaces required for there, if there was just one per unit, that would already be 56 parking spaces,” he said.
“They would need a significant parking lot to supply 56 parking spaces.
“What my concern is, it’s around the corner from the shop and from the pool, and there’s lots of public parking spaces there.
“So if they weren’t to supply the appropriate amount of parking spaces for the development, inevitably people are going to use public parking spaces and that’s not what they’re there for.”
He said there had not been much community consultation to this point.
“Hopefully, if it does pass – whatever next stages it has to go through – that it will at some stage come back to us for consultation and feedback,” he said.
“I don’t think anybody here would be in favour of such a development.”
Council unanimously supported writing to the HDA and Anna Watson with their concerns.
