Updated A decision on the controversial $32 million Ozone apartments development at Cronulla has been deferred by the regional planning panel and may end up in court. The developer has been told to provide more information on how the adverse impacts of the project, in particular the view loss for residents in surrounding homes, assessed as “moderate” to “devastating”, have been addressed in relation to the objectives of the LEP. The proposal will also have to go back to the council’s Design&nbsp;Review Forum for further consideration after its previous criticism of the project. After a marathon four-hour hearing, the Sydney South Planning Panel gave the applicant 30 days to provide the extra information. The deferment is a major blow to the developer, who has been selling units off the plan in advance of development application (DA) approval. The penthouse was purchased this year for a record $7.5 million, easily beating the previous&nbsp;off the plan record price for Cronulla, which was in the Wavelength development for $6.3 million. The Ozone development is surrounded by other prestigious apartment blocks, The Cecil, Breeze, Belgrave and Mare Blu. Residents in these blocks argued strongly in written submissions and at the panel meeting for the proposal to be rejected, Secretary of The Cecil’s strata committee&nbsp;Jim Flaherty said later council planning staff, who recommended approval, were left “red-faced” by the decision and the developer “stunned”. “It is almost unheard of that a planning panel not accept a council’s recommendation to approve a DA,” he said.&nbsp; “The proponent was so confident of approval that ‘DA Approved’&nbsp;stickers went up on the site billboards, only to be quietly removed soon after. “This is indicative of the arrogance of this developer, which has been selling vigorously off the plan for some months despite three design reviews by the Council’s Design Review Forum expressing grave concerns about the quality of the proposed design.” Mr. Flaherty said the Design Review Forum’s last report&nbsp;ended with the words ‘in its current form, the panel does not support the proposal’.&nbsp;&nbsp; “Yet, inexplicably, the council’s assessment report,&nbsp;two&nbsp;weeks later, glossed over these concerns and recommended acceptance of the proposal with the words, it is ‘acceptable with regard to most……considerations’,” he said. Mr Flaherty&nbsp;said the developer had paved the way to bypass the&nbsp;planning panel process and appeal to the Land and Environment Court.&nbsp; “A hearing of the court had been scheduled in mid-December by the developer prior to the Sydney South Planning Panel assessment meeting as a hedge against just such a delay or outright rejection,” he said. Mr Flaherty said one of the “more outrageous statements&nbsp;in the council’s assessment report was an attempt to justify the provision of inadequate communal outdoor spaces with the statement that the site is close to Cronulla Park”. “It is unacceptable that a developer attempts to co-opt public parks to compensate for inadequate design in its relentless pursuit of maximum floor area,” he said. “Residents in surrounding buildings are extremely upset that this development, and an even worse proposal on an adjacent site also with Council, are allowed under the upzoned provisions of the new LEP and DCP in 2015.&nbsp; “It is now apparent that designs permitted under these planning instruments will rob many long term residents of the amenity, which they purchased when downsizing for their retirement, like open views, solar access and a lack of traffic chaos in their neighbourhood.”&nbsp; Mr. Flaherty said the council’s assessment report did not give enough weight to the interests of local residents. “It inexplicably did a backflip on its previous position and, at the last minute, favoured the interests of the developer,” he said. Earlier Residents in some of Cronulla’s most prestigious apartment blocks will suffer a loss of views ranging from “moderate” to “devastating” if a&nbsp;new development goes ahead. Despite a barrage of protests, Sutherland Shire Council planning staff have&nbsp;recommended approval for the Ozone project,&nbsp;a&nbsp;&nbsp;nine-storey block, containing 32 apartments and three levels of basement parking at 5-9 Ozone Street. Sydney South Planning Panel will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, November 21, to hear final submissions before making a decision. The council report, released ahead of the meeting, said it was an “unrealistic expectation” for residents on some levels in nearby buildings to retain views for a number of reasons, including the area was upzoned in the 2015 local environmental plan (LEP). The blocks where views will be lost from some levels include Cecil Apartments,&nbsp;Breeze,&nbsp;The Belgrave and Mare Blu in Gerrale Street, and&nbsp;1 Ocean Grove Avenue. The report said the view loss for&nbsp;all six affected apartments on levels 1-3&nbsp;of Mare&nbsp;Blue would be “devastating”. “Total water view loss will occur from every window and balcony apart from the northernmost apartment on level three,&nbsp;which will retain only a very narrow view corridor to the ocean along the northern street setback of the proposal,” the report said. “The view loss does not occur as a result of any non-compliance with planning controls but rather as a result of the subdivision of this block of land creating a narrow site along its western edge, which is now occupied by Mare&nbsp;Blue.” The report said the view loss in other cases&nbsp;would be “moderate” or “severe”. The Ozone development has already been strongly marketed, with interested buyers invited to register. Three older style, three-storey blocks of flats occupy the site at present. The&nbsp;council report said submissions from 62&nbsp;households were received. Some&nbsp;amendments were made after meetings with the council. The report said the main issues identified in submissions were traffic and parking, overdevelopment in Cronulla, bulk and scale, view loss and overshadowing. The issue of view loss had been raised in 27 of the submissions. Residents claimed more than 130 objections had been lodged. A Breeze resident told the Leader said&nbsp;she and her husband, who has a terminal illness, bought their apartment mainly so they could enjoy the views. “We inquired about the likelihood of this outlook changing and were told that the Land and Environment Court&nbsp;had made a ruling that where a view exists&nbsp;it is to be shared, not obliterated,” she said.