[200William-EC SP67851] New view impact study letter
Matthew Perkins - Private
matt at perkins.id.au
Thu Oct 13 11:54:22 AEDT 2022
Im happy for you to continue with Craig. But I dont think he is here at
the moment. Im not sure what is access to voice is. Your welcome to
call me if you cant get him until Craig's return.
Matt
On 13/10/2022 10:46 am, Natalie @ NRP wrote:
>
> Hello, I have spoken with the officer. Who is the best point of
> contact for a quick phone call update on this item?
>
> Thanks, Natalie
>
> *From:*Matthew Perkins - Private <matt at perkins.id.au>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 12 October 2022 1:55 PM
> *To:* Natalie @ NRP <natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au>; 'Craig
> Laforest' <cscl at optusnet.com.au>; 'Matthew Guy' <matthew_guy at hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* ec at 200william.com
> *Subject:* Re: [200William-EC SP67851] New view impact study letter
>
> Hi Natalie,
>
> I have had the building manager do a letter drop that just indicates
> that Urbain have not been enguaged by the owners corporation and are
> not on official business from the building. The building manager is
> also of the oppinion that most people will not let them in as it's
> hard enough to get people to co-operate for official business.
>
> Matt
>
> On 12/10/2022 12:26 pm, Natalie @ NRP wrote:
>
> Thank you. I will do and will report back. Regards, Natalie
>
> *From:*Craig Laforest <cscl at optusnet.com.au>
> <mailto:cscl at optusnet.com.au>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 12 October 2022 1:05 PM
> *To:* Natalie @ NRP <natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au>
> <mailto:natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au>; Matthew Perkins -
> Private <matt at perkins.id.au> <mailto:matt at perkins.id.au>; Matthew
> Guy <matthew_guy at hotmail.com> <mailto:matthew_guy at hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* Craig Laforest <cscl at optusnet.com.au>
> <mailto:cscl at optusnet.com.au>; ec at 200william.com
> *Subject:* RE: [200William-EC SP67851] New view impact study letter
>
>
> Dear Natalie,
>
> Thank you very much once again for contacting us regarding this.
>
> I totally agree, as does the EC, that the approach you recommend
> is to be followed. Kindly contact the rep from the council and
> follow through with the other points you have mentioned.
>
> Thank you and best wishes,
>
> Craig
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:*
>
> "Natalie @ NRP" <natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au>
>
> *To:*
>
> "Matthew Perkins - Private" <matt at perkins.id.au>, "Matthew
> Guy" <matthew_guy at hotmail.com>
>
> *Cc:*
>
> "Craig Laforest" <cscl at optusnet.com.au>, <ec at 200william.com>
>
> *Sent:*
>
> Wed, 12 Oct 2022 11:00:58 +1100
>
> *Subject:*
>
> RE: [200William-EC SP67851] New view impact study letter
>
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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/20221013/2882d264/attachment-0001.html
More information about the EC
mailing list