[200William-EC SP67851] New view impact study letter
Matthew Perkins - Private
matt at perkins.id.au
Tue Oct 11 09:35:18 AEDT 2022
What's your opinion Matt & Craig. I dont have any objection in Natalie
contacting this view consultant. We might have an issue stopping them
using a drone as they will just do it on the street and not over private
property and likely when we are not expecting it and are in a position
to prevent them.
Matt.
On 11/10/2022 8:27 am, Natalie @ NRP wrote:
>
> Thank you all for letting me know about this.
>
> The letter does seem a bit strange, not being on a letterhead, not
> referencing the DA etc.
>
> I have seen Urbaine’s work in the past. It would be handy to be able
> to look up a web address for you all. Interesting that they have
> changed view assessment consultants..
>
> We did the view impact assessment yes. What they will be wanting to do
> now is to model a revised design and provide the montages to show what
> is proposed. Using the CAD drawings from the architect to overlay into
> the photo frames – which we were not able to do without further
> expense. A modelling expert would need to apply all the RLS and
> heights and setbacks of the buildings into our photo study.
>
> At this stage, I would be like to see the/a revised building design.
>
> I would not be permitting them to use a drone. We would not have any
> ability to determine where the photos are taken from or what height
> etc. They are invasive as well.
>
> The following is a paste from what the Land and Environment Court
> considers when they look at a rigorous view impact assessment.
>
> One idea is that I could call this person on your behalf and suss them
> out and ask at what stage they are at as to the revision?
>
> If they are simply trying to peddle the current design (which I don’t
> think they can) then we wouldn’t be needing them to come to homes.
>
> It can be a catch 22. If it is a revised design, we /_do_/ want a
> montage and proper architectural analysis done (as they have been
> asked to do) to show the form of the building within the view frames
> and ensure the best view protection and to see what the impact is.
>
> We could also seek the advice of a planning lawyer on this. This may
> be prudent.
>
> I can also speak to Reinah, the Council officer. Some Councils do
> their own assessments once a proposal comes in.
>
> Again, it comes back to that if they propose an amended design, we
> would want the view modelled (with an architectural block overlay in
> front of the views) to know what the impact is.
>
> The benefit of what we did, is to use the camera at the specified
> height and marked the locations and so they could theoretically use
> ours. Of course, it would be up to that company though - as it would
> be their authored work and they would need to be comfortable.
>
> Please let me know what you think and if you wish to discuss.
>
> Regards, Natalie
>
> /Use of photomontages /
>
> /The following requirements for photomontages proposed to be relied on
> as or as part of expert evidence in Class 1 appeals will apply for
> proceedings commenced on or after 1 October 2013. The following
> directions will apply to photomontages from that date: Requirements
> for photomontages 1. Any photomontage proposed to be relied on in an
> expert report or as demonstrating an expert opinion as an accurate
> depiction of some intended future change to the present physical
> position concerning an identified location is to be accompanied by:
> Existing Photograph. a) A photograph showing the current, unchanged
> view of the location depicted in the photomontage from the same
> viewing point as that of the photomontage (the existing photograph);
> b) A copy of the existing photograph with the wire frame lines
> depicted so as to demonstrate the data from which the photomontage has
> been constructed. The wire frame overlay represents the existing
> surveyed elements which correspond with the same elements in the
> existing photograph; and c) A 2D plan showing the location of the
> camera and target point that corresponds to the same location the
> existing photograph was taken. Survey data. d) Confirmation that
> accurate 2D/3D survey data has been used to prepare the Photomontages.
> This is to include confirmation that survey data was used: i. for
> depiction of existing buildings or existing elements as shown in the
> wire frame; and ii. to establish an accurate camera location and RL of
> the camera. 2. Any expert statement or other document demonstrating an
> expert opinion that proposes to rely on a photomontage is to include
> details of: a) The name and qualifications of the surveyor who
> prepared the survey information from which the underlying data for the
> wire frame from which the photomontage was derived was obtained; and
> b) The camera type and field of view of the lens used for the purpose
> of the photograph in (1)(a) from which the photomontage has been derived./
>
> //
>
> Natalie Richter Planning
>
> PO Box 59 Mt Colah NSW 2079
>
> m. 0438 828 972
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. The contents and attachments are not to be altered or
> reproduced without our consent or used for any other purpose. If you
> have received this email in error then please delete the email and
> inform us of the error by return email. We are not liable for any
> loss arising from the receipt or use of this email or attachments. It
> is the responsibility of the receiver to be satisfied that this email
> and attachments contain no computer viruses.
>
> //
>
> *From:*Matthew Perkins - Private <matt at perkins.id.au>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 11 October 2022 9:00 AM
> *To:* Craig Laforest <cscl at optusnet.com.au>; ec at 200william.com
> *Cc:* info at natalierichterplanning.com.au
> *Subject:* Re: [200William-EC SP67851] New view impact study letter
>
> Hi Craig given that It does sound like the developer.
>
> Matt.
>
> On 11/10/2022 5:49 am, Craig Laforest wrote:
>
>
> Hello EC,
>
> I didn't contact Daniel Knight and I don't believe we should
> contact him or any company engaged to take pictures from inside
> our properties or agree to a drone taking a video.
>
> We had a complete view impact study done as part of the complaint
> we lodged through Natalie Richter and included pictures from many
> of our apartments. I have included Natalie in this email as it
> doesn't appear she was included in Matthew Guy's email.
>
> Regards,
>
> Craig
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:***
>
> "Matthew Perkins - Private" <matt at perkins.id.au>
> <mailto:matt at perkins.id.au>
>
> *To:*
>
> <ec at 200william.com> <mailto:ec at 200william.com>
>
> *Cc:*
>
> *Sent:*
>
> Mon, 10 Oct 2022 19:42:00 +1000
>
> *Subject:*
>
> Re: [200William-EC SP67851] New view impact study letter
>
> I assume this is from the developer. I dont think it's from
> us. (unless it's something Craig has done) Given that are you
> better off refusing. They have no right to access your
> premises. They will be using this to try and prove you are
> not loosing a view so any photos they take will be
> edited/sorted in the favor of the developer. I dont know if
> it's in our interest to cooperate. The Council asked them to
> do a view impact study as part of the DA.
>
> In the end i would say we would need to do our own study that
> will try and discredit theirs.
>
> Matt.
>
> On 10/10/2022 7:33 pm, Matthew Guy wrote:
>
> Hi EC and Natalie,
>
> I have received a letter from Daniel Knight at Urbaine
> requesting access to conduct a view impact study for the
> new development, see below.
>
> The letter was not addressed and not in an envelope. I am
> afraid it’s possible many people would have missed it or
> thought it was junk.
>
> We definitely need to engage. Is this something we should
> do as a building or individually?
>
> Regards,
>
> Matthew Guy
>
> 405
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC mailing list
> EC at 200william.com
> http://200william.com/mailman/listinfo/ec
>
> --
> Matt Perkins
> 0403571333
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Email sent using Optus Webmail
>
> --
> Matt Perkins
> 0403571333
--
Matt Perkins
0403571333
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20221011/ed635707/attachment-0001.html
More information about the EC
mailing list