[200William-EC SP67851] New view impact study letter
Matthew Perkins - Private
matt at perkins.id.au
Tue Oct 11 20:26:56 AEDT 2022
Hi Natalie,
We are happy for you to call the people on the attached notification.
Matt Perhaps I should get Darren to post a notice through each door
tomorrow that the note is not from the building and is not official
communications.
Matt
On 11/10/2022 8:55 am, Matthew Guy wrote:
> I am more than happy for Natalie to contact them and suss them out.
>
> Matt
>
>> On 11 Oct 2022, at 9:35 am, Matthew Perkins - Private
>> <matt at perkins.id.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
--
Matt Perkins
0403571333
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20221011/93868a80/attachment-0001.html
More information about the EC
mailing list