An independent panel has released a scathing assessment of Wollongong Golf Club’s plans to build a two level driving range, declaring the plans against the public interest.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Dismissing a recommendation from Wollongong City Council staff, Independent Planning and Assessment Panel members last week voted unanimously that the tourism project should not be approved in its current form.
A recommendation published after a public meeting highlighted a litany of failings associated with the driving range plan.
For instance, it had failed to properly consider noise and social impacts, was not “architecturally complementary” to the existing golf club building, would unreasonably impact neighbours due to bright lighting and its hours of operation, and had underestimated safety impacts of flying golf balls.
Listing 11 separate reasons for refusal, the panel said the plan was “not considered to be in the public interest”.
Last August, the club revealed its intention to cash-in on overseas golfing tourism and after-dark games by adding 44 hitting bays over two-levels to its beach-side course.
While the proposal sparked excitement from many Mercury readers – and a strong endorsement from the region’s tourism body Destination Wollongong – hundreds of senior citizens living nearby worried it would affect their quality of life.
Advising IHAP before the public meeting, council staff said the development was “unlikely to result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the surrounding area” and recommended approval.
Taking a diametric view which sided with the residents of IRT LInks Seaside, the panel said it was “concerned about the lack of social impact assessment, inadequacy of the visual impact assessment, and the veracity of the [noise] report” presented by the club.
They said the design of the driving range bays “lacks architectural merit” and that they “appear to turn their backs on the existing clubhouse and will to some extent impede views of the golf course from the upper level bar and deck”.
The panel said they were wary that the safety impacts of flying golf balls had been “underestimated by the applicant” as a study on the balls’ trajectory assumed a “high percentage of handicap golfers will use the driving range”.
“Contrary to this, the applicant advised that an estimated 50% of patrons would be playing golf club members (i.e proficient golfers),” the IHAP recommendation said. “It is also unclear whether the trajectory study factored in the consumption of alcohol.”