132008.169.1 Notice of submission John Stainton & Judi Bailey

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