REPORT TO BASIN VILLAGES FORUM re EROWAL BAY VILLAGE DA20/1597 In lieu of AUGUST 2020 GENERAL MEETING [prepared by Chris Grounds, BVF Committee]
Re DA20/1597 Demolition of Existing Structures and Construction of Shop Top Housing Comprising Two Commercial Premises and 17 Dwellings.

Erowal Bay SHOP DA
WARNING: The above graphic is a screenshot from the DA of an ‘artist impression’ and experience suggest important detail may be masked or left out of such graphics, e.g. the one public phone booth in the village on the corner is missing, the verge on the right hand side of the building is actually quite elevated not flat as shown and the road on the right side [King George Street] is only half the width indicated and in its current conditions there is barely enough room for two cars to pass.
Council received a substantial number of 201 Submissions in response to the notification of this $12 million DA received by SCC on June 5 2020. There were some supplementary submissions. All the DA Documents and the all submissions can be seen on the Council’s DA Tracking Site. The DA, as can be seen from the above DA screenshot extract, involves Hotondo Homes but Council has requested a clarification of exactly who is the applicant as a Hotondo South Coast Staff member has signed as applicant. So who exactly is responsible?
The community reaction through submissions is on a per capita basis for the small village [623 pop’n in 2016 Census] is an amazing log of submissions and it is to be kept in mind that so many of the submissions, as my own, were on behalf of more than one person and that people with holiday homes may not be aware of the DA. This occurred despite council not communicating in writing about the DA to the whole village, when it was a concern to the whole village, as the submissions would attest. These submissions also included that of the Basin Village Forum, whose committee includes Erowal Bay residents.
Virtually all, if not all, were against the proposed development.
In addition there was a Petition, which garnered over 1000 signatures opposed to the development.
Council staff consideration of the DA and the extensive opposition to the proposed development has led to a Council communication with the proponent Michael Mascaro being requested by Council to reconsider his proposal in light of the submissions received. [as per DA Tracking ‘View’]
Council has advised Mr Mascaro:
That it has assessed the design quality and considers that the current design does not respond to and enhance the qualities and identity of the area, streetscape and neighbourhood.
The proposed scale, bulk and height is not appropriate to the desired future character of the street or surrounding buildings. The density is not appropriate to site context and not consistent with existing or projected population. The design does not positively influence external amenity for neighbours.
There needs to be further consideration of the local context given the site is in an established area not undergoing significant change or identified for change.
Council requests the proponent consider the submissions and that the development be redesigned to ensure it is compatible with the local area. Council requests the information required be forwarded within 14 days