[200William-EC SP67851] New view impact study letter
Matthew Perkins - Private
matt at perkins.id.au
Tue Oct 11 20:36:34 AEDT 2022
I will contact Darren tomorrow (and get an update on the windows )
Matt
On 11/10/2022 7:33 pm, Matthew Guy wrote:
> Good idea Matt.
>
>> On 11 Oct 2022, at 8:27 pm, Matthew Perkins - Private
>> <matt at perkins.id.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
--
Matt Perkins
0403571333
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20221011/61630556/attachment-0001.html
More information about the EC
mailing list