08/0169 - Notice of Submission - Brent Ogilvie · 132008.169

Page 2

generally preclude its suitability for house site areas. The land may also feature significant
environmental values.”

Section 9.5.1.3 further states “There are two parcels of land included in the Rural
Conservation designation in the eastern beaches locality- The northern land has
significant engineering constraints and some environmental value.”

Clearly the proposed development does not provide a low impact solution respecting the
landform and landscape of the locality. Extensive cut and engineering solutions are not
considered low impact solutions. The Structural Design Concept Report prepared by Tod
Consulting details extensive and environmentally damaging engineering works in the Pre-
construction, Initial Site Access and Parking, Contiguous Piling, Excavation Works,
Foundation and Screw Piling, Pool/Terrace/ Bedroom 5 Building and Structural Works,
required to achieve structural integrity for the proposed dwelling.

We note that Plan 180_sk203A contains a series of notes that attempt to justify the
proposed development in comparison to existing developments in the area. On the right
hand side of the page, the second note down states “Proposed dwelling occupies
significantly less area of its site than any other dwelling of same zoning, therefore low
density, low scale and low impact”. This note is clearly not correct as one has to only look
at the plans and read the reports supplied as part of the Information Requests to realise
that at 2790 sq m of development, the proposed development is none of the above.
Irrespective of what is constructed around it, the proposed development does not achieve
the intent of the superseded Planning Scheme under which it has deliberately been
lodged.

The unsuitability of the site for the proposed development is further reinforced with its
designation as Non Urban under the Noosa Shire Planning Scheme. The Non Urban Zone
is described as “This zone includes land, which is generally in close proximity to urban
areas, where that land is considered to be unsuitable for urban development. Land
included within this zone will be adversely affected by excessive slope, inundation by flood
waters, poor subsoil conditions giving rise to foundation difficulties, etc, which have been
determined to be of such significance that urban uses should not be permitted. Land
included in the designated Sand Dune Problem Areas, Steeply Sloping Land and Areas
Subject to River Flooding upon the Scheme Maps and which feature high levels of
constraint, are included in this zone.”

Again, clearly the proposed development does not accord with the intent of the Non Urban
Zone. The proposed bulk, scale, material types and method of construction conflict with
the intent of the Non Urban Zone.

It is our contention that the proposed development has not demonstrated that the
constraints to the development of the site, clearly articulated in the Strategic Plan and in
the Noosa Shire Planning Scheme, are adequately addressed by the proposed
development.

Page 3

Construction Access:

As has been noted in the application, the site access is from the cul de sac head of
Seaview Terrace, and via a narrow driveway adjoining several properties. The method,
type and style of construction predicates there will be a continued and ongoing
requirement for earthwork machinery, construction machinery, and all associated
construction personnel to access the site regularly. Associated with the construction
personnel will be the requirement for parking.

Whilst we acknowledge that the Tod Report attached to the Information Request has
provided details to assist in the management of these matters, it will require constant
compliance by the SCRC to achieve what has been detailed. In practice, what will
eventuate will be a constant source of conflict between the construction personnel and the
existing occupants. We draw Council's attention to the last three paragraphs of our
previous letter of May 15 2009 which articulates the need and the terms necessary for a
strict and enforceable construction management plan to meet the unique circumstances of
this area and the need to protect neighbours, residents and users of Beach Access 20
during construction.

Conclusion:

As stated previously, it is recognised that some form of development should and will occur
on the subject site.

The proposed development is clearly at odds with the published aims, objectives and
intents of the Planning Scheme under which it has been asked to be assessed. The
proposed development represents an unacceptable conflict with the stated engineering
and environmental constraints listed, which are considered unacceptabie in its current
form.

Yours faithfully,

K/L

Brent A Ogilvie

Page 4

 

Noosa

15 May 2009

Chief Executive Officer

Sunshine Coast Regional Council
Po Box 14)

Tewanitin

Qid 4565

Attention Mr Glen Conforti

Dear Sir

Re: Submission 71 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach SCRC file reference
2008/169

As the owner of 68 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach | make the following
submissions in relation fo the proposed development listed above.

lam confused as fo current plans for the site as they seem to differ from those
originally submitted, and even the most recent plans will again be impacted
by the matters raised in the information request issued by the Sunshine Coast
Regional Council { email from Glen Conforti to Nadine Gorton dated April 30
2009 ).

The matters raised in the information request are very relevant to the
application and it is difficult to comment or object until we have some
information as to how the applicant responds to the matters raised.

As our property adjoins the access easement to the subject lot, it is imperative
that Council ensure that the “ Gallery “ has no commercial activity or
component whatsoever. This would be contrary to existing zoning regulations
and would detrimentally affect our properly in the event that some
commercial activity was attached to the gallery.

 

 

Page 5

Council may well take the view that the activity has to commence before it
will lake action, however, if a condition could be included in ihe
Development Approval it would put this issue beyond any doubt.

Access to the site

As the site access is from a cul de sac at the head of Seaview Terrace via the
narrow easement adjoining our properly and two others, the method, type
and style of construction means that there will be an enormous amount of
earth moving equipment, construction machinery and associated
construction personne! requiring access to and egress from the site via the
easement area. In addition, there will be the need for a jarge number of
trade vehicles to be parked somewhere. To preserve our amenity, and to
protect the established foliage on our property ( in particular the established
Pandanus trees } it is essenficl that Council impose a strict construction
management plan which takes these issues into account and more
particularly that requires all construction vehicles to be parked on the subject
site and not in the easement or in the limited parking space available in the
Upper section of Seaview Terrace which already has significant parking
problems as evidenced by previous correspondence to Council,

In addition, the construction management plan should include proposed
days and hours of operation and the methods associated with minimisation
and impacts of dust, dirt, noise and other pollutants. There should also be
procedures in place to ensure that the wash down and load protection
procedures are adapted so that the easement is not damaged or left dirty at
any time.

As stated, any other objections that we might have to the proposal, have in
fact been covered in the Council's correspondence of April 30 2009 from
Glen Conforti to Nadine Gorton. Should the applicant not respond
appropriately to the issues raised, we hereby reserve our rights to make further
objections in the event that Council's requests are not mel.

Yours Faithfully

PAAMQH

Brent A Ogilvie