132008.169.1 Notice of Submission Bennett & Francis for Jude Productions

10/02 2011 THU 15:13 FAX +61 7 3239 5499 Bennett and Francis joo2/004

Amongst the key concepts listed at the end of the intent are “3. Development forms
designed to respect the natural landform and landscape of the Eastern Beaches locality.”

This protection of the natural dune structure of the area is reinforced further in Section
9.5.1 which states “Land Designated Rural Conservation has significant constraints which
generally preclude its suitability for house site areas. The land may also feature significant
environmental values.”

Section 9.5.1.3 further states “There are two parcels of land included in the Rural
Conservation designation in the eastern beaches locality- The northern land has
significant engineering constraints and some environmental value.”

Clearly the proposed development does not provide a low impact solution respecting the
landform and landscape of the locality. Extensive cut and engineering solutions are not
considered low impact solutions. The Structural Design Concept Report prepared by Tod
Consulting details extensive and environmentally damaging engineering works in the Pre-
construction, Initial Site Access and Parking, Contiguous Piling, Excavation Works,
Foundation and Screw Piling, Pool/Terrace/ Bedroom 5 Building and Structural Works,
required to achieve structural integrity for the proposed dwelling.

We note that Plan 180_sk203A contains a series of notes that attempt to justify the
proposed development in comparison to existing developments in the area. On the right
hand side of the page, the second note down states “Proposed dwelling occupies
significantly less area of its site than any other dwelling of same zoning, therefore low
density, low scale and low impact”. This note is clearly not correct as one has to only look
at the plans and read the reports supplied as part of the Information Requests to realise
that at 2790 sq m of development, the proposed development is none of the above.
Irrespective of what is constructed around it, the proposed development does not achieve
the intent of the superseded Planning Scheme under which it has deliberately been
lodged.

The unsuitability of the site for the proposed development is further reinforced with its
designation as Non Urban under the Noosa Shire Planning Scheme. The Non Urban Zone
is described as “This zone includes land, which is generally in close proximity to urban
areas, where that land is considered to be unsuitable for urban development. Land
included within this zone will be adversely affected by excessive slope, inundation by flood
waters, poor subsoil conditions giving rise to foundation difficulties, etc, which have been
determined to be of such significance that urban uses should not be permitted. Land
included in the designated Sand Dune Problem Areas, Steeply Sloping Land and Areas
Subject to River Flooding upon the Scheme Maps and which feature high levels of
constraint, are included in this zone.”

Again, clearly the proposed development does not accord with the intent of the Non Urban
Zone. The proposed bulk, scale, material types and method of construction conflict with
the intent of the Non Urban Zone.

It is our contention that the proposed development has not demonstrated that the
constraints to the development of the site, clearly articulated in the Strategic Plan and in
the Noosa Shire Planning Scheme, are adequately addressed by the proposed
development.

Building Location and Southern Boundary Setback.

We assume that Plans 180_sk203A and 180_sk205A have been prepared in attempt to
justify the mass, area and bulk of the proposed development. The plans contain numerous