ANSON STREET 4 STOREY DEVELOPMENT
Scroll down for more information & diagrams.
Comment can be emailed to council@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au or posted to Shoalhaven City Council, PO Box 42, Nowra 2541, and marked as comment on DA16/1830 Island Point Rd (Anson St) St Georges Basin.

Following below is text from Submission send by Basin Villages Forum to Shoalhaven City Council, on 12 April, 2017.
The General Manager,
Shoalhaven City Council
PO Box 42
NOWRA, NSW 2540
Dear Mr Pigg
Re: DA16/1830/7 Anson Street, St Georges Basin
Basin Villages Forum is at best disappointed that such minor changes have been made to this DA. The Community does not believe that their concerns have been heard or understood by the Applicant.
The application is still inconsistent with Section 79C of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act , SEPP65 and SEPP71
Our issues remain:
HEIGHT:
While it is permissible in the SLEP2014 for a maximum height of 13m on this land, it does not equate to good town planning.
The height permissible was a decision made by the elected councilors on the floor of Shoalhaven City Council, against staff recommendation and community support. The height remains inappropriate for the area, it generally being an 8.5m limit across the precinct.
The height of 13m is out of character in this area. All areas in this precinct are a maximum of 8.50m. This proposal will be seen from the water and all local view
- points. It will stand as an inappropriate blight on the landscape. All previous developers have respected the visual amenity of the area and not sought to gain an increase in height.
The community considers the Shadow diagrams incorrect, believing the diagrams do not correctly show the impacts on the adjacent over 50s affordable housing of Rosevale Village. The diagrams need to be reassessed.
Rosevale Village contains 54 homes with approximately 90 residents, many of whom will have their solar access severely compromised. The older residents have chosen this village for their retirement years and are now faced with a large development proposal that will greatly impact on their lives. The over shadowing and possible impact the construction will have on their homes, with the requirement to dig out 7 metres for underground parking on a site in close proximity, is creating a great deal of stress for these homeowners.
URBAN DESIGN
Height alone does not make this building unacceptable. 3 storeys and it would still not suit the area. The community is asking for good town planning that will serve the area into the future.
Most members of the community are keen to support medium density but would like this to be done in a desirable way that maintains the character and ambience of the area.
SEPP 65 and its Associated Apartment Design Guide Line.
Stated Aims of this document include
This application in its current form does not meet any of these aims. It does not respond appropriately to the character of the area. Traffic and transport issues remain unresolved.
Further, SEPP 65 goes on:
Establishing the desired future character is determined through the strategic planning process in consultation with the community, industry and other key stakeholders. Understanding the context during this process is crucial to support change and determine appropriate building types and planning controls.”
There has been no strategic planning that involved community consultation in regard to this site. The community would like the opportunity to be involved with determining the future of their area.
Environmental Concerns 79c
The landowner has not provided required surveys for Critically endangered orchid species. There is an Environmental Assessment done by Dr Kevin Mills on this land but we believe it was in 2011 prior to the De Battista’s subdivision request. Partial land clearing was commenced and permitted after the owners subdivision approval was granted but it has been highlighted that a critically endangered orchid species Speculantha venticosa occurs within 200m of this site.
Suitable surveys for this species have not been undertaken. The landowner was advised of this requirement. The site is now so badly damaged that there is no longer any chance of any orchids being found.

• This action demonstrates a blatant disregard for the process required to assess a DA.
A second species Melaleuca biconvexa is known to occur on the site and must also be assessed on this site during the DA assessment phase of this project. We understand that the Applicant has to submit study and show how Melaleuca biconvexa can be protected on this site.
Fire Risk
Under the current title provisions, the community believes that the bushfire risk is not adequately addressed. The Rural Fire Service should be involved in the DA process.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Part 4 Clause 16   Stormwater
The consent authority must not grant consent to a development application to carry out development on land to which this Policy applies if the consent authority is of the opinion that the development will, or is likely to, discharge untreated stormwater into the sea, a beach, or an estuary, a coastal lake, a coastal creek or other similar body of water, or onto a rock platform. The community therefore requests on these grounds (and others stated) that this application be
refused.
This application lies within the catchment of St Georges Basin, sitting on sloping land within 300m of the foreshore. Every large development this close to St Georges Basin has resulted in a major pollution requiring emergency responses. St Georges Basin has suffered repeated siltation inundation events from developments in the catchment.
It is therefore appropriate that at this DA application stage there is a comprehensive site construction management plan that addresses any likelihood of a pollution event that will affect St Georges Basin waterway. An isthmus has developed on the foreshore as a result of repeated siltation events. The community is happy to provide photos that show the change over time from badly managed developments.
This proposal includes digging 7m below natural ground- level and there will inevitably be water issues. These have not been addressed and are of major concern to the community.
The community is also concerned about the long-term management of the storm water. There is only a minimum of soft landscaping and it is therefore only reasonable that adequate storm water detention is managed on site.
The community does not believe this important issue has been suitably addressed in the DA application.
Anson St is in parts a very narrow carriageway. It does not have the capacity to cope with development at this concentration. There must be a cumulative approach to assessing the traffic impact in this residential area. There are several developments in the area that will impact on the road network. These include the recently subdivided area of Links estate and the approved subdivisions at both 74 and 92 island Point Rd.
There will be a substantial increase generated by this application and added to subdivisions in progress the road infrastructure will be overstretched. Anson St in particular will be adversely affected by any increase in traffic.

CARPARKING
In the DA there is provision for 107 carparks for 56 units. This is less than 2 per unit and does not provide any storage for boats or trailers etc.
There are 7 visitor carparks on site. It should be noted that Anson St is a No Parking area and these 7 would have to facilitate all visitor carparking. This seems hopelessly inadequate.
This application is not supported by State Planning instruments, Shoalhaven City Council nor the community.
It should not be considered in its current form and it is a dangerous precedent to go ahead with the like of this application without any strategic planning to support it and its future viability.

Yours sincerely


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From - Cathy Bern, Section Manager - Development
Shoalhaven City Council
 
There is no Court decision. 
 
Summary
 
1.     The section 34 conference was terminated on 1 March 2017. 
 
2.     The matter now goes to a full hearing.  The short minutes of order provided a timetable for certain things.  This include the application making an application for leave to rely on amended plans by 17 March 2017.
 
3.     We received amended plans via our lawyers on 16 March 2017
 
4.     We are in receipt of a draft notice of motion seeking the Court’s leave to rely on them.
 
5.     We could oppose the motion on the basis that the changes are so substantial, that it is in effect a new application.  However we are doubtful that such an argument would be successful as the amendments are improvements, as far as we can see at this early stage, to the original design.  Accordingly, our lawyers have advised us to consent to the leave being granted to amend the application.
 
6.     We are not being asked to indicate our support for the amendment. 
 
7.     We are only being asked if we consent to the applicant amending the application so that it is the amended proposal which will be considered by the Court.
 
8.     We are expected also, via the Court’s order to give public notice of the amended plans between 24 March – 14 April 2017
 
9.     We are also expected to provide a report to Council on the representations received on or before 26 April 2017
 
10.  The respondent (Council) is required to file and serve its amended statements of facts and contentions by 5 April 2017.  The applicant is required to file its statements of facts and contention in reply, if any by 12 May 2017.
 
11.  Expert reports are to be filed and served by 24 May 2017.
 
12.  Experts are to confer and file and serve their joint reports by31 May 2017.
 
13.  The proceedings are fixed for hearing on 28 and 29 June 2017.
 



NOTICE TO APPLICANT OF DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION BY REFUSAL
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979
DA16/1830

TO: Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd
PO Box 738, NOWRA NSW 2541
being the applicant(s) for DA16/1830relating to: Island Point Rd, ST GEORGES BASIN -Lot 6 -DP 1082382

REFUSED USE AND/OR DEVELOPMENT:
Four storey residential flatbuilding development consisting of two buildings comprising a total of 58 residential units (18 x 2 bedroom units and 40 x 3 bedroom units), two levels of basement parking.
DETERMINATION DATE:15-November-2016
REFUSAL DATE:15-November-2016
Pursuant to the Section 81 of the Act, notice is hereby given that the above application has been determined by REFUSAL for the following reasons:
1) The proposal exceeds the 13m height limit which is contrary to clause 4.3 of the SLEP2014.The areas of concern are the front elevation of building A and the rear elevation of building
B. Accordingly, the development application is unsatisfactory with regard to the provisions of clause 4.3 of Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
2) The clause 4.6 variation request to exceed the 13m height limit is not supported as it does not meet the objectives of clause 4.3 for the following reasons.
a. The height variation of 0.46m to the front elevation of building A is not supported as the proposal does not meet the objectives of clause 4.3 that the height of buildings are compatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality and the proposal does not minimize the visual impact to existing development.
b. The height variation of 0.107m for the rear of building B is not supported as the proposal does not meet the objective of minimising loss of solar access to existing development.
Accordingly, the development application is unsatisfactory with regard to the provisions of clause 4.3 of Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
3)The proposal is inconsistent with State Environmental Planning Policy 65 –Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development which requires Council to take into consideration the Apartment Design Guide. The proposal is inconsistent with the following design criteria and design guidance of the Apartment Design Guide:
a. Part 3B -Objective 3B-1-Design Guidance which states that overshadowing of neighbouring properties to the south is minimised during mid-winter. The proposal restricts solar access to existing development to the south to an extent that a minimum of three hours of sunlight is not provided to the dwellings. This is considered to be an adverse impact on residential amenity.
b.Part 3F –Objective 3F-1 -Design Guidance which states that apartment buildings should have an increased separation distance of 3m when adjacent to lower density residential developments and zones. The adjacent sites to the west of the development site are zoned R2 Low Density Residential and currently contain single dwelling houses per lot. The proposal does not comply with this design guidance to increase the setback from 6m to 9m for the first and second levels of the proposed buildings.
c. Part 4B –Objective 4B-3 –Design Criteria which states that at least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated. The proposal does not comply with this criteria as only 34 out of 58 apartments are naturally cross ventilated (58.6%), which is one apartment less than that required to meet the minimum 60%.
d. Part 4G –Objective 4G-1 –Design Criteria which states that at least 50% of the required storage is to be located within the apartment. Based on the storage calculations provided none of the apartments have 50% storage located in the apartment. The figures provided in the assessment also do not correlate to the figures provided on the basement floor plans. Some of the apartments appear to have only 20% storage located in the apartment with 80% of storage located in the basement. In six apartments only 1.29m3 of storage space is located within the apartment instead of the required minimum of 4m3.
Accordingly, the development application is unsatisfactory with regard to the provisions of clause 29(2) of State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 –Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development with regard to the provisions of (Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
4) A complete flora and fauna assessment as required by Section 5A of the EP&A Act has not been undertaken to determine whether the proposal will have an adverse effect on the critically endangered orchid Pterostylis ventricosa. Accordingly, the development application is unsatisfactory with regard to the provisions of (Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
5) Insufficient information has been submitted with the development application to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposal will not have adverse environmental impacts on the natural environment. Without this information the likely impacts on the natural environment cannot be adequately assessed (Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
6) The information submitted with the development application does not satisfactorily demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed use. (Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979).
7) Having regard to the development proposal’s inconsistency with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 –Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, and Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014, the granting of development consent is not considered to be in the public interest (Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979) noting also the adverse impacts on residential amenity.
RIGHTS OF REVIEW AND APPEAL
Development Determination under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Under section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 an applicant may request the council to review its determination except where it relates to a Complying Development Certificate, Designated Development or Integrated Development.
The request must be made within six (6) months of the date of the receipt of the determination, with a prescribed fee of 50% of the original DA fee.
Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 confers on an applicant who is dissatisfied with the determination of a consent authority a right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court, which can be exercised within six (6) months after receipt of this notice.







INBOX-9349-1
INBOX-9349-1
INBOX-9349-2
Anson Letter Page 1
Anson Letter Page 2
Screen shot 2016-07-17 at 11.44.57 AM
Screen shot 2016-07-17 at 11.44.18 AM
Screen shot 2016-07-17 at 11.43.39 AM
Screen shot 2016-07-17 at 11.43.21 AM
Screen shot 2016-07-17 at 11.42.54 AM