132008.169.1 Notice of submission Victor Weinberg

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.