132008.169.1 Notice of submission Victor Weinberg

Page 2

Section 9.5 of the Strategic. Plan addresses the site's Rural Conservation designation and provides
greater guidance for development on this site through objectives and implementation criteria. The
first (and only applicable) objective of this designation is to:

          "protect the environment values of the land in the Rural Conservation designation and ensure
          those values are not adversely impacted as a consequence of the development on or adjacent
          to the land."

The first implementation criteria under this objective states that land with this designation has
significant constraints which generally preclude its suitability for house site areas. The seco uli criteria
indicates that the protection of the environment values will be the paramount factor in determining
the suitability of any application. The third criteria specifically references the subject land noting that
it has significant environmental constraints and some environmental value and that no further
subdivision is envisaged.

Clearly the applicant is not proposing to subdivide the property. However, it is believed that the
applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that the proposed development will not have
considerable impacts on this site and the surrounding environmental areas. I do not believe that the
application yet meets the above mentioned objectives and implementation criteria.

REGARDING SETBACKS


The PLANNING SCHEME at section 8.10 states that the minimum setback to Western Boundary for
Non Urban zoning is three (3) meters. Any setback closer than the currently proposed seven (7) to
twelve (12) meters would be UNACCEPTABLE and OUT OF CONTEXT given the size of the subject land.
It is worth noting that the minimum setback requirement under the NOOSA PLAN for this site to the
same boundary is six (6) meters.

The setback to the NORTH (The National Park) is insufficient considering the size of the subject land.
The same can be said of the setback to the SOUTH. And I am led to believe, because the applicant
questions the natural line of the frontal dune as determined by LAU surveyors, there is also a problem
with the setback to the EAST regarding the 125m setback line from the toe of the frontal dune.

The proposed construction is too big. It pushes the limits of the boundaries to the NORTH, SOUTH,
EAST and WEST, and goes against the intent for development on this sensitive site.

REGARDING SLOPE STABILITY

The subject land is located within a LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA. Current Best Practice slope stability
construction would call for limiting large areas of cut and fill. The proposed development flies in the
face of the Best Practice methods and council's intent for the sensitive development on sites of this
nature.

I refer to the locality plan. On the same hill with essentially the same slope, only a few meters from
my land, almost directly above and approximately fifty (50) meters from the subject land, there is a
circle of about thirty (30) meters in diameter MISSING from the picture. It would have been in the
picture except that it disintegrated into a sink hole big enough to swallow my house. It was the CUL
DE SAC at the end of McAnally Drive, no longer there, which became nationally known as the biggest
pot hole in Australia.

Page 3

How bad was it? Fire and Waste Management Vehicles could not turn around and the National Park
took back its land and threatened to close the National Park entrance. There was a huge expense to
fix it. It was a big problem. I would call it HIGH IMPACT. Things can and do go wrong.

Regarding the subject application, it's not a question of can it be done or how. The "PODS", the thirty
(30) meter in diameter constructs featured in the application are contra-indicated considering the
slope and the history of what has already happened on the hill.

REGARDING DENSITY, SCALE AND IMPACT


The locality plan - DENSITY states:


        "proposed dwelling occupies significantly less area of its site than any other dwelling of same
        zoning. Therefore low density & low scale & low impact".

The suggestion that because a project is low density therefore it is also low scale, and because it is low
scale therefore it is also low impact is so shallow, so self-serving, so logically defective it gets my
attention.

Are we to conclude a smali macadamia farm doing low scale insecticide spraying could not result in
two-headed fish in the Noosa River? Or are we to conclude, if it did happen, two-headed fish in the
Noosa River is not much to complain about? The implied logic is ridiculous.

Density is Density. It is handled by no subdivision. It is not an issue. The ratio of building size to total
land size is not relevant. What is relevant is the sensitivity and characteristics of the site that it is on
and the impact on the neighbouring community.

There is no direct relationship between Density, Scale and Impact. They are three (3) distinct words
expressing three (3) different concepts. I see no evidence this project is low scale or low imip
                                                                                              impact.

LANDSCAPE SENSITIVITY


The northern-most "POD", the thirty (30) meter in diameter construct, directly in front of my property
in conjunction with a large, somewhat undefined area of Rehabilitated Landscape below (to the east)
is an excuse to cut down practically every big tree, for a length of perhaps fifty (50) to sixty (60) meters
and a width of perhaps thirty (30) meters.

It is the root system of these large deep rooted trees which help to keep this sand dune from sliding.

Maybe I've got this wrong, I don't have all the documentation or it could be that REHABILITATED is just
a very long word and the applicant used the wrong type face. I don't think so.

What is all this Landscape Rehabilitation about? You start with a beautiful green hill, you strip it down
and bring in new stuff. Landscape Rehabilitation sounds like a step backward from the natural beauty
that is already there.

CONCLUSION

In Conclusion, practically speaking, the applicant intends to build the longest road he can possibly
build to access the largest building, sixty nine (69) meters long (30+9+30), thirty (30) meters deep in
two places on a fragile hill, as offensively close to his western neighbours as it could possibly be.

Page 4

I find the application:

               •   without respect for his neighbours
               •   without respect for the fragility of the hill
               •   without respect for the natural vegetation
               •   without respect for the contours of the hill
               •   without respect for the history of the place or the community
               •   without respect for the Guidelines set out by the Council

I believe the proposal is:

               •   an overdevelopment
               •   an insensitive development
               •   not "LOW SCALE"
               •   not "LOW IMPACT"
               •   not "adding to thc' casual beachside identity"




Respectfully




Victor Weinberg