[200William-EC SP67851] New view impact study letter
Matthew Perkins - Private
matt at perkins.id.au
Wed Oct 12 11:53:55 AEDT 2022
That's fine by me
Matt
On 12/10/2022 10:00 am, Natalie @ NRP wrote:
>
> Hello All.
>
> I have been thinking about this.
>
> I think I am best to actually speak to the Council Officer about the
> situation and say that we have a view study and that the letter does
> not include extensive details and seems to have only been sent to some
> people (I understand other stratas many not have received anything so
> it may be ‘selective’ ie not what was required by the Council letter).
>
> Also, that we would like to be seeing a version of revised plans
> before we let anyone infringe on privacy with drones or visits.
>
> It is worth seeing what the Officer says.
>
> Do you agree with this approach?
>
> I thought over night that it may be best not to approach the
> consultant directly as this request has come from Council.
>
> Thanks, Natalie
>
> *From:*Matthew Perkins - Private <matt at perkins.id.au>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 11 October 2022 8:27 PM
> *To:* Matthew Guy <matthew_guy at hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* Craig Laforest <cscl at optusnet.com.au>; ec at 200william.com;
> 'Natalie @ NRP' <natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au>
> *Subject:* Re: [200William-EC SP67851] New view impact study letter
>
> 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> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:matt at perkins.id.au>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 11 October 2022 9:00 AM
> *To:* Craig Laforest <cscl at optusnet.com.au>
> <mailto: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/20221012/f75d8f40/attachment-0001.html
More information about the EC
mailing list