MCU15/0070.01 - Attachment 2

Dear Denis

we have now had a chance to canvas the various parties in Park Crescent who joined our protest about the development approval granted to Mr Jamieson for 38 Park Crescent Sunshine Beach.

In summary:

While the new proposed arrangement is an improvement, our collective view is that it will still look out of place compared with the detached houses in the street, and as well it will unnecessarily affect adjacent residents adversely.   When viewed from the street, the windowed area below the roof line still makes the residence look like a 2 storey property, and still exceeds the 8m (in fact it is 8.825m) above natural ground level criteria along gridline 3 (although it is 7.87m at gridline 2).
We understand Mr Jamieson’s desire for natural light to the stairwell behind the windows  but the stairwell is enclosed and seperate from the main living area and hence it does not increase natural light there.  The height of the roof increases the detriment to his neighbours, but is not necessary for the architectural aim which we believe could be readily satisfied with windows with a smaller top to bottom dimension which would allow a lower roof line addressing the street while still achieving adequate falls.
The change to the rear of the property will benefit Mrs Wood at 36 Park Crescent who has herself been so mindful of her neigbours' amenity.
We have noted that Mr Jamieson still requests a concession regarding the screening on the southern boundary with 1.4m of screen fencing extending into the 1.5m setback.
We believe there would be a substantial benefit to a number of residents, particularly those directly across the road from 38 Park Crescent, if you were able to trade a concession being granted by Council for the intrusion into the 1.5m setback against a lowering of the high point of the roof achieved by pivoting the roof downwards around the 11.710m ANG point along gridline 4.  We do not believe that this would adversely affect the architectural integrity of the design in any way.

We are sure that you understand that we think that the initial planning decision to treat the detached house as a duplex was wrong, and have formed the view based on advice received that it was arguably illegal, but we also understand that Council would be reluctant to overturn a decision already made.

As luck would have it, Mr Jamieson has himself modified his proposal for commercial reasons.  We think that given the poor decision-making, Council should attempt to achieve the best outcome for all parties by negotiating the compromise we have described in the final bullet point above.

Were you able to achieve an improvement in this way, the parties on our side would be happy that the rights of all parties, particularly Mr Jamieson’s, would have been respected.

We thank you again for giving us the opportunity to comment on this new proposal and look forward to seeing the outcome.

Regards

Richard Chesterman