132008.169.1 Notice of submission John Stainton & Judi Bailey

Page 2

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the intent of the superseded Planning Scheme under which it has deliberately been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

Page 3

notes attesting to various items of supposed "non" compliance by existing dwellings with
various elements of the planning scheme.

Whilst our client acknowledges that there should and will be some form of development on
the land the subject of the application, what is currently proposed is done at the expense
of the surrounding properties and at odds with what has been contemplated for the site
over the various planning schemes.

In relation to the dwelling constructed at 72 Seaview Terrace, we note Plan 180_sk203 A
shows "adjacent dwelling retains views to National Park from Upper Terrace" and
"adjacent dwelling retains views to National Park from Lower Terrace" and shows arced
view lines. These view arcs appear to have been created by adopting a point on the
northern terraces of the existing dwelling and extending lines touching the outer edges of
the proposed building. These "viewscapes" do not however take into account the "off
white textured walls as shown on the south elevation, 180 sk_213A. Looking at the
existing balcony levels and the proposed top of wall levels shown, the views shown as
being retained are not possible. These "privacy walls' when combined with the proposed
western dwelling amount to a solid wall of some 39 metres in length, 3 metres from the
boundary. When one considers the current amenity of this area, the proposal is
considered unacceptable.

Presumably the walls are required because of the proximity of the proposed dwelling. A
relocation of any proposed dwelling further away from the common boundary would allow
deep planted vegetation to be utilise without the need for extensive engineering.

We note Point 4 of the Information Request sent by the Sunshine Coast Regional Council
on the 24th of November 2009. Whilst the statement is in relation to the western boundary,
it should apply to the southern boundary as well. In addition to 2 metre high boundary
walls on the common boundary, a part of the curved external wall of building and stairs
are constructed within the 3m setback zone.

We note that Table 8.1 of Section 8.10 requires a 3m boundary setback in the Non Urban
Zone. However Section 8.10.3 of the same section goes on further to state

"Notwithstanding any of the provisions contained within Sections 8.10.1 and 8.10.2, the
Council may dispense with or modify all or any of the requirements, if it considers that
such dispensation or modification is justified having regard to
(a) The existing or proposed future development of the area;
(b) The existing or proposed amenity of the area;
(c) The distance between any constructed road and the proposed building;
(d) The distance between any existing buildings on other sites and the proposed building;
and
(e) The location of any existing vegetation which will buffer the proposed building.

It is our contention that the proposed set back of 3 metres along the southern boundary is
clearly inadequate. If any development is approved on the site, the Sunshine Coast
Regional Council should use the available discretion to condition a suitable side boundary
setback. A side setback of 6 metres is required by the Rural Settlement designation of the
site under the current planning scheme, and reinforces the above contention.

The location of the proposed building on the "high side of the property" has created
amenity issues in relation to the dwelling located at 72 Seaview Terrace. Whilst currently
enjoying a panoramic vista from the Pacific Ocean through to the Noosa National Park,
the proposed development will result in a panoramic vista from the Pacific Ocean through
to a 40m length of variously coloured wall. Again, the size, type and design of the

Page 4

proposed dwelling and associated built form does not accord with the stated objective of a
"casual beachside locality".

Furthermore, we note that the large area in the north east corner of the "Non Urban" part
of the block shown as " vast area of undeveloped land to encourage native flora and
fauna" could just as easily be provided along in the north west corner of the site, and the
whole development moved in a north easterly direction. The impacts as a buffer to the
National Park would be presumably the same.

Construction Access and Impacts:

As has been noted in the application, the site access is from the cul de sac head of
Seaview Terrace, and via a narrow driveway adjoining several properties. The method,
type and style of construction predicates there will be a continued and ongoing
requirement for earthwork machinery, construction machinery, and all associated
construction personnel to access the site regularly. Associated with the construction
personnel will be the requirement for parking.

Whilst we acknowledge that the Tod Report attached to the Information Request has
provided details to assist in the management of these matters, it will require constant
compliance by the SCRC to achieve what has been detailed. In practice, what will
eventuate will be a constant source of conflict between the construction personnel and the
existing occupants.

In addition there will be considerable impacts in relation to hours of operation, dust, dirt
and noise. Any proposed development will need to be conditioned to reflect the
requirement to mitigate the impacts of these to acceptable levels in relation to the existing
owners and their properties.

Conclusion:

As stated previously, it is recognised that some form of development should and will occur
on the subject site.

The proposed development is clearly at odds with the published aims, objectives and
intents of the Planning Scheme under which it has been asked to be assessed. The
proposed development represents an unacceptable conflict with the stated engineering
and environmental constraints listed, which are considered unacceptable in its current
form.

Yours faithfully
BENNETT &r RANCIS PTY. LTD.

On behal^of IYlshludi Bailey and Mr John Stainton