New planning panel gives more favourable advice on proposed hotel at Cronulla

A new planning panel has supported the concept of the proposed hotel at Cronulla and believes it has strategic merit, while saying a number of concerns require further investigation.

The panel voted 2-1 to express qualified support. The community representative dissented.

The panel's role in the rezoning application was to give advice, so the matter returns to the council, which will decide whether to submit it to the state government for approval.

The panel's decision is more favourable to the applicant Sammut Developments than the original recommendation, which was set aside after a panel member was found to have a perceived conflict of interest.

A new panel considered the Planning Proposal on January 21 and published its decision this week.

The new panel's concerns included the significant increases in building height and floor space ratio from what is prescribed in the LEP and the absence of a council- approved strategic plan and master planning for the precinct.

Other concerns were the lack of parking and the proposed voluntary planning agreement with the council.

"In terms of potential overshadowing of Monro Park and the Anzac Memorial, it is critical that solar access to the park is carefully managed to ensure winter solar access is at an acceptable level, having regard to other potential developments in this locality," the panel said.

In support of the concept, the panel noted that growing the tourist potential at Cronulla had been a long standing economic goal of the council.

"The majority of the panel also agrees that the provision of commercial space and a hotel would most likely facilitate employment and revitalisation to the southern end of Cronulla mall," the panel said.

The community representative on the panel, Peter Flynn, said the proposal "will create a high density anomaly in the Cronulla business centre".

"This may have the effect of creating a precedent for other sites to argue for similar treatment," he argued.

"It may also potentially suppress the redevelopment of the remaining sites in the precinct.

"This is not considered to be the promotion of the orderly and economic use and development of land."