090644_Council_Representation_010811 · 132008.169

   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.