Planning Report - Revisions incoporating Attachment H - Economic Report · MCU13/0092

                                      retention of the existing generally
                                      ‘open’ character along Rufous
                                      Street.
Site cover, gross floor area and plot No solution provided
ratio O6                              Comments: It is considered that the
                                      proposal complies with O6 a) to e)
Flooding and drainage O11             Comments: The site is above any
                                      Flood Plain, and drainage has been
                                      addressed by i³ Consulting – refer to
                                      Attachment D.
Roof Form O12                         Comments: The proposal complies
                                      with S12.2 but is in conflict with S12.1
                                      and sub-clause (d) of Specific
                                      Outcome O12
7.11 Environment, Conservation and No solution provided
Recreation                            Comments: Full compliance with O15
Environmental and cultural heritage a) to i) inclusive is proposed.
values O 15
Open Space network O16                Comments:          the   proposal    will
                                      enhance the public access through
                                      the site compared with the previous
                                      abandoned use as a Bowls Club.
Pedestrian and bicycle pathways       Pedestrian access will be potentially
                                      available from the David Low Way &
                                      Rufous Street and Bicycle parking
                                      facilities will be provided on-site.
Aircraft Safety                       As with neighbouring development
                                      of a similar height no adverse
                                      impacts on the operation of aircraft
                                      will arise.

In summary it is considered that the proposal generally satisfies all relevant
Specific Outcomes of the eastern Beaches Locality Code, with very few
exceptions and any non compliance is deemed low level or minor.

In relation to the conflict with O12 the following comments are offered,
namely:
    1. The design is not dissimilar to the skyline outcome of the adjoining
       “Marquesas” which appears to have a similar roof pitch to that
       proposed by the proposal, whilst the Marquesas building is some
       200mm higher;
    2. It is difficult to image that any member of the general public either
       driving or walking past the site would know what the roof pitch was
       and certainly would not be able to discern the difference between a
       3° and 5º Roof pitch. A comparison with the streetscape of the
       Peregian Beach Tavern building rooflines would seem to further

May 2013                   IA MCU IGA Complex at Peregian               Page 39