Original source · versioned page text
Objection 26th July 2020 Application Ref 51938.3225.14
Attached to the e-mail PM Submission - Michael Hingston - 51983.3225.14.
July 26th 2021
Noosa Council
PO Box 141
Tewantin QLD 4565
RE: Application Reference: 51938.3225.14 (or per Noosa Council website 51983.3225.14)
Unit 9-10/30 Hastings Street, Noosa Heads, Lot 30 on SP307674
Objection by Michael Hingston - Owner of Unit 20, 30 Hastings Street, Noosa Heads QLD 4567.
Dear Noosa Council
Please let me make this clear I am not anti-development. I myself have an approved plan within council
to renovate my Beach House. Many properties within the complex have maximized their space in a
contemporary manner utilizing the existing footprint; providing appropriately scaled ‘short term
holiday leasing’ as required by councils 2020 Noosa Plan within The Hastings Street precinct. What’s
more this has been achieved without changing the general amenity and with consideration to guests
and other owners.
This objection raises the following issues:
1. The development is not:
‘Consistent with predominant character of the surrounding area, maintaining visual continuity and
pattern of building and landscape elements in the street’
- The applicant’s comparisons to Hastings Street and Noosa Parade streetscapes in response to
the citing above does not take into account the proposed buildings immediate surroundings,
that being the internal streetscape of The Hastings. Council should not ignore this aspect of the
complex.
2. Loss of Privacy – Privacy screens are not fixed nor the required height
- The “Operable timber screens for privacy” shown on the proposed drawings do not comply
with QDC MP1.1 Design and Siting Standards for Single Detached Housing on lots under
450sqm which states they must be a maximum 25% opening. Nor do they comply with Noosa
Plan 2020 Safety and Amenity PO21 acceptable outcome AO21.4 requiring screens to be 1.7m
permanently fixed screening to avoid potential to overlook private open space or habitable
windows within 10m.
- Further, the notes referring to units 20 and 21 having existing obscure glazing is completely
incorrect. These windows have clear glazing and thus can be seen into and are NOT obscured.
Owners of both beach houses have no desire to obscure their glass as it would limit natural
light which not only gives natural light amenity to those rooms but the hallways they also feed.
- The sheer volume of the building will shade adjacent buildings and given close proximity to
adjacent buildings, there will be a lack of privacy. Obscure glazing or privacy screens should be
permanently fixed (not moveable) to avoid potential for overlooking into private open space
or habitable windows within 10 meters.
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 1 page
Page 2
3. Footprint and scale of building is wholly incompatible with existing structures
- Renders provided of the proposed impact are disproportionate and deceiving in scale and
colour. The bulk of the structure significantly impacts not only individual lots, but also the
amenity of surrounding common areas causing shading and loss of sunlight.
- The impacts on Units 8, 12, 20 and 21 are immense with existing windows facing 15 metre
walls and banks of windows and a proximity in some cases of less than 9 metres between
buildings.
4. Loss of visual, natural amenity and increased noise pollution
- This monolithic structure abuts the common driveway which is not acceptable – no greenery
nor no set back. As I walk down the driveway I will, as well as guests and residents, face a 15
metre structure – concrete to driveway.
- My amenity is severely impacted by the proposed development. With less than 9 meters
between beach houses via the driveway there has been no consideration given to the loss of
privacy, potential noise pollution from the proposed rooftop spa and bar and the sheer impact
of a 15 meter structure without set back.
- More importantly I am greatly concerned by the potential noise on the rooftop deck that will
disrupt my right to peace and quiet enjoyment if this building is ever built.
5. I respectfully ask council recognise, respect and acknowledge the desire held by a majority of
owners against this development within our Community Title scheme.
- Applicant’s motion rejected in meetings:
1. Annual General Meeting -31 May 2019
2. Extraordinary General Meeting -28 February 2020
3. Annual General Meeting -29 May 2020
- In the event that Body Corporate approval is required in order to make application to Council,
such approval has not been obtained
Overall with the resistance by the applicant to considered collaboration with fellow owners and by the
sheer scale, total disregard to setbacks and amenity I ask the council not to approve this behemoth of a
structure and return to the applicant the proposition of a new build taking into account the above and
other objections lodged.
Kind Regards,
Michael Hingston
Owner Beach House 20.