090644_Council_Representation_010811 · 132008.169

Page 2

Condition 6
Condition 6 requires the external colours and finishes to be of muted/environmental tones that blend
with the natural environment. There are no provisions of the planning scheme that require or limit
colour schemes for development of detached houses. This condition is neither relevant to nor
reasonably required in respect of the development.

Accordingly, we request that Condition 6 be deleted.


Condition 7
Condition 7 restricts the type of hot water system that can be installed. There are no provisions of
the planning scheme that require specific types of hot water systems for a detached house. This
condition is neither relevant to nor reasonably required in respect of the development and places an
unreasonable imposition of the development.

Accordingly, we request that Condition 7 be deleted.


Condition 8
Condition 8 requires a 10m setback to the northern (National Park) boundary. The planning scheme
only requires a 3m setback to this boundary and which has been complied with by the proposal plans.
Further, there are no mitigating circumstances that would warrant an increased setback in this
instance as evidenced by the supporting documentation submitted with the application and the advice
agency response from Department of Natural Resources and Resource Management in relation to the
National Park which did not request any additional setbacks from the 3m shown. A 10m setback
results in detrimental impacts to the proposed design and substantially compromises the design
integrity. This condition is neither relevant to nor reasonably required in respect of the development
and places an unreasonable imposition of the development.

Accordingly, we request that Condition 7 be deleted.


Condition 10
Condition 10 requires all building/structures to be removed from the Coastal Management District
setback. There are no requirements of the planning scheme restricting development within the
coastal management district (CMD) and in fact development within the CMD has been approved and
allowed by Council within the surrounding area under the planning scheme. Further, this requirement
is contrary to the approval of Department of Natural Resources and Resource Management as a
concurrence agency for the Coastal Management District for building within this area as shown on the
proposal plans. This condition is neither relevant to nor reasonably required in respect of the
development and places an unreasonable imposition of the development.

Accordingly, we request that Condition 10 be deleted.


Conditions 11 - 15
Conditions 11 – 15 require the provision of an environmental covenant over land largely within the
coastal management district setback area. The documentation submitted with the application has
demonstrated that the Non Urban Zoned portion of site is not of environmentally significance to
warrant exclusion of the proposed development and is capable of sustaining the proposed
development. The superseded planning scheme already recognises the environmentally significant
portion of the site through inclusion within the Open Space Zone. The proposed development does
not impact the Open Space Zoned area. Councils planning report suggests reasons for the
environmental covenant include:
 Greater setback from wetland – however no requirements from DERM as referral agency for the
    wetland was required;

Page 3

   Removal of building from the Coastal Management District – however DERM as concurrence
    agency for the Coastal Management District has approved development within the area;
 Improve vegetated views from beach – however Council has approved development to the south
    of the site within a similar setback area;
 Reduce vegetation clearing – however the vegetation to the removed is not classified as
    significant vegetation.
An Environmental Covenant places an unreasonable imposition on the land and detrimentally reduces
the ability of the applicant to develop and use the land to a level expected given Councils past
approvals on adjoining Non Urban Zoned lands. This condition is neither relevant to nor reasonably
required in respect of the development and places an unreasonable imposition of the development.

Accordingly, we request that Condition 11 - 15 be deleted.


Condition 16 (b) and (c)
Condition 16 requires preparation of an Ecological Restoration Plan and requires under (b) and (c) for
specific inclusions providing for particular fencing (three strand wire) and signage requirements for the
environmental covenant area. The fencing specification does not allow for adequate security to be
achieved for the site and the signage suggests a public access area rather than a private development
(and which having regard to the representation for conditions 10 – 15 above and not required in any
event). These conditions are neither relevant to nor reasonably required in respect of the
development and place an unreasonable imposition of the development.

Accordingly, we request that Condition 16 (b) and (c) be deleted.


Condition 27
Condition 27 restricts constructions staff from parking in Seaview Terrace, the council carpark in
Seaview Terrace, McAnally Drive and other surrounding streets. It is noted that other construction
projects have and continue to occur in Seaview Terrace and McAnally Drive with construction staff
vehicles parked along the street. Given this established precedent, it is unreasonable not to allow the
same occurrence with the subject development. Parking details can appropriately be addressed in the
Traffic Management Plan required by condition 26 without this additional restriction.


Accordingly, we request that Condition 27 be deleted.


Condition 31 (c)
Condition 31 requires revisions to the Structural Design Concept prepared by Tod Consulting. 31 (c)
requires a contingency plan and alternative design should the piled footing system as designed not be
achievable. The piling and construction methods outlined on Tod Consulting drawings are well
established traditional construction methods that have successfully been carried out of several similar
sites right along the Sunshine Beach dune area. As such the provision of a contingency plan is not
reasonably required in respect of the development.


Accordingly, we request that Condition 31 (c) be deleted.


Condition 33
Condition 33 requires a peer review of geotechnical and structural design components. This imposes
unnecessary additional cost burden on the applicant and fails to recognise the professional
qualifications and experience of the geotechnical and structural consultants. This condition is an
unreasonable imposition on the development and is also not reasonably required in respect of the
development.

Accordingly, we request that Condition 33 be deleted.

Page 4

Conditions 35 - 37
Conditions 35 – 37 require assessment and certification by an independent consultant. The wording
of „independent consultant‟ is ambiguous and does not provide for certainty with the condition. It is
reasonable to expect that the works are certified by a “suitably qualified and accredited consultant”,
which is a standard and appropriate requirement for developments.


Accordingly, we request that Conditions 35 – 37 be amended to delete the word „independent‟.


Condition 42
Condition 42 requires a peer review of the stormwater management plan. This imposes unnecessary
additional cost burden on the applicant and fails to recognise the professional qualifications and
experience of the stormwater management engineering consultant. Further, this assessment and
review role is Councils responsibility as assessment manager for operational works. This condition is
neither relevant to nor reasonably required in respect of the development and places an unreasonable
imposition of the development.


Accordingly, we request that Condition 42 be deleted.


Condition 46
Condition 46 prohibits stormwater infiltration pits. This condition is overly restrictive as it is
common/acceptable practice in sandy soils to adopt stormwater infiltration as a means of dissipating
increased pots development flows. Without infiltration a large on site detention system will be
required with will have impact on both site impact and development cost. This condition is neither
relevant to nor reasonably required in respect of the development and places an unreasonable
imposition of the development.


Accordingly, we request that Condition 46 be deleted.


Item 6
Item 6 details required plan amendments. The plan amendments detailed effectively amount to a
part refusal of the application and is contrary to the first paragraph of the Decision Notice which
states ”Council decided to approve the application in full subject to conditions”.

Accordingly, we request that all amendments which are tantamount to a part refusal be deleted as
this is contrary to the Decision which approves the application in full.


Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct.

Yours faithfully
KHA DEVELOPMENT MANAGERS




Scott Sobey
DIRECTOR