Objection letter - 27 Attunga Heights · MCU18/0015

Page 2

Architects




Trina Day



  2. The proposed excavation for roads and buildings will adversely impact the riparian zone and watercourse.

  As an architect I am aware of how much earthmoving and debris will be involved if the scheme goes ahead in its
  current form. Anyone who thinks that cutting into sandy soils and and creating this volume of excavation and fill
  will not cause irreparable damage to the downslope areas of the site which comprise remnant vegetation, riparian
  zones, habitat and a watercourse is naive.

  I recommend that the built area of the site is restricted to only the western edge of the site (where the
  townhouses are located), and that the idea of individual double garages is abandoned as the effect of creating
  and accessing 6m x 6m flat garage platforms below every townhouse is not an appropriate response for a site
  with this topography.

  I also suggest that on a site where the average slope of the land is between 20 and 60 degrees, the idea of
  creating a road with a maximum gradient of 15 degrees is not easily achieved. The only way of achieving this is
  by massive cut and fill, the scope of which I suspect is not fully communicated in the architectural drawings.

  For this site, I believe the developer should consider a less standard approach to vehicular access and parking.


  3. The 50m wide wildlife corridor requested by council has been compromised

  The Planning Report submitted with the DA documents states that at a Pre-lodgement meeting, Council
  requested a 50m wide wildlife corridor free of any development. This corridor is important for the retention of
  natural vegetation, resilience of the creek and fauna habitat.

  The architectural plans show this 50m wildlife corridor at the north of the site. This corridor reduces in width, and
  at the southern end of the site the wildlife corridor has disappeared entirely. Lot 2 has been enlarged and shifted
  to the east boundary and an access road and townhouses 1 & 2 take up the rest of the southern end of the site.

  In addition, this shifting of Lot 2 has meant that there is no public access to the wildlife corridor at all. Noosa has
  great precedents of walking paths wending their way amongst vegetation, and to close off this area to the public
  is a lost opportunity, In addition, public access is required to this wildlife corridor for bush regeneration activities.

  I suggest that Lot 2 is removed from the scheme so that the 50m wide wildlife corridor can continue through the
  length of the site as requested by council at the Pre-lodgement meeting.


  4. There is no valid argument for the proposed subdivision.

  I have scoured the planning report for 27 Attunga Heights and have failed to find any relevant justification for a
  subdivision of this site into multiple lots. The only argument seems to be that the initial scheme for this site, which
  was previously rejected by Noosa Council, also included the idea of subdivision.

  The only possible reason for this subdivision would be to increase the permitted number of dwellings. This is
  not a relevant argument for such a sensitive parcel of land. I request that this proposal for subdivision is
  rejected given that there are no benefits for the environment or the community.




                               NSW Architects Registration 8125           0400 002 434           [email protected]

Page 3

Architects




Trina Day



  5. Lot 2 & 3 are oversized and the building envelopes exceed permitted building heights for detached housing.

  The current scheme proposes that the site is subdivided into 4 lots, with Lot 2 & Lot 3 being zoned as
  Detached Housing.

  Lot 2 is proposed to be 1050sqm and Lot 3 is proposed to be 950sqm. The size of these lots is not justified in
  the planning report, and seem oversized in relation to adjacent detached housing lots such as No 26 Attunga
  Heights which is owned by my client. For comparison, the site area of this adjacent site is 532sqm.

  The only possible reason for proposing larger lot sizes is the desire for larger houses. Again this is not to the
  benefit of the environment or the community.

  The architectural drawings show the proposed building envelopes for the houses on Lot 2 & Lot 3 to be 12m
  above natural ground level. This exceeds Noosa Council building height controls for Detached Housing, which
  stipulates a maximum of 8m building height.

  If council does permit new buildings on these more sensitive areas of the site, then the lot sizes should be
  reduced and the heights of these buildings should be restricted to a maximum of 8m above natural ground
  level as per the Noosa Plan.


  Conclusion

  If development is permitted on this site at all, the proposal should be designed with a best practice building and
  regenerative landscape design approach.

  Specifically, any development on this site should involve no subdivision, reduced building density, removal of
  proposed lots 2 & 3, roads and parking areas eliminated from the steeper areas of the site and would include a
  50m wide wildlife corridor consistent throughout the entire length of the site.

  I recommend that this proposal be rejected by Council on the basis that the scheme is not designed to be
  sensitive to the site and does not respect the desired outcomes of the Noosa Plan for this site.




  Regards,




  Trina Day
  0400 002 434
  c/o 6/80 Duporth Avenue, Maroochydore, QLD, 4558




                              NSW Architects Registration 8125        0400 002 434          [email protected]