Scroll down for more information & diagrams.

VIP: Please send more Submissions - Cutoff is 4th August!
We have provided two versions:

- The first (brief) one can be used if you have already lodged a submission.
The General Manager,
Shoalhaven City Council.
PO Box 42
Dear Mr. Pigg,
RE: Submission for DA16/1830 - LEC Notification, Anson Street, St Georges Basin
Further to my previous submission for DA16/1830, please note that I wish to maintain my original objections in relation to the developer's current notification of amended plans submitted for review and assessment as part of the Land & Environment Court proceedings for DA16/1830 - Island Point Road ST Georges Basin - Lot 6  DP 1082382.
Yours sincerely,

Finish the letter with your name, address, and letter date.

- You should use the second (detailed) version if this will be your first submission on this issue.
The General Manager,
Shoalhaven City Council.
PO Box 42
Dear Mr. Pigg,
RE: Submission for DA16/1830 - LEC Notification, Anson Street, St Georges Basin
Further to the above matter, please note my objections below by way of submission for your consideration.
This development proposal in its current format of 4 storey/13mt height will be totally out of character with current village structures and cause significant changes to the village lifestyle appeal which has attracted most of the residents and tourists to this area. If approved, it will also create many social issues, least of which are:
• Transport - there are currently very minimal buses servicing this area so residents would have to rely on their cars for everyday use which will cause traffic congestion to and in Anson St, Island Point Rd, including access to the highway and other surrounding, narrow streets in the neighbouring villages of Sanctuary Point, Basin View, Vincentia, Huskisson etc.
• Employment - there is currently a high unemployment level, not only in the Bay and Basin area, but also in Nowra (regional centre).
• Emergency Services - Police, RFS & SES are struggling to keep up with the current emergency demands in the Bay & Basin area - note that both RFS & SES are manned by volunteers, whilst we only have 11 FTE Police officers operating out of Huskisson Police Station.
• Medical Services are struggling to keep up with the needs of the community with some GP appointments taking weeks to obtain; the nearest Accident and Emergency Department is up in Nowra (40 mins by road) and there are few ambulances which service this area.
• Schools - are already at over capacity to accommodate the current population.
• Recreation areas will be overloaded if this high density development is approved as there is no provision on the site for such areas.
• Noise Pollution - from the cooling towers and car park ventilators.
• Shadowing to already existing retirement village.
• Community Services - already exhausted
Yours sincerely
Finish the letter with extra dot-points if you wish, and your name, address, and letter date.

Both versions are also in the attached PDF.

Email your Submission to

New diagrams:
elevations & material finishes
Axonometric view
The following is a summary of the more substantial changes made to the proposal 
·         A reduction on the gross floor areas of buildings A and B.
·         A reduction in the number of units from 56 to 54. The proposal now comprises 33 x 3 bedroom units, 19 x 2 bedroom units and 2 x 1 bedroom units.
·         A reduction in the number of basement car spaces to 100.
·         Alterations to the internal floor layout of the units.
·         An increase the setback to Anson St of the top floor
·         A redesign of the common open space areas between the two buildings.
·         Each building to have two lifts instead of one to reduce the length of corridors.
·         Increased private open space areas for units
·         Increased separation between the two buildings.
·         Floor to ceiling heights increased.
·         Building height to be contained within the 13m height limit.

The Basin Villages Forum’s Submission dated 3rd August, 2017 can be viewed here (pdf) -
BVForum DA1830 Submission

Following below is text from Submission sent by Basin Villages Forum to Shoalhaven City Council, on 12 April, 2017.
The General Manager,
Shoalhaven City Council
PO Box 42
Dear Mr Pigg
Re: DA16/1830 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:
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.
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.
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
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.

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

Anson Letter Page 1
Anson Letter Page 2
Screen shot 2016-07-17 at 11.43.21 AM
Screen shot 2016-07-17 at 11.42.54 AM