DUPLICATE PM Submission Object - Peregian Beach Community Association - MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041

                     38
                               Open Space Recreational Zone and the Semi‐Attached Housing
                               Zone of 10 metres. Despite this, it is noted that the proposed
                               Multiple Housing and Visitor Accommodation units is highly urban in
                               nature and is reflective of development within the semi‐attached
                               housing zone or the attached housing zone rather than the Open
                               Space Recreational Zone, and the proposed setback is not out of
                               character for the proposed and existing land uses. (Highlighting added)

                     PBCAI objects to this 7 metre relaxation as it will result in a dwelling 6 meters
                     below and too close to the Peregian Beach Hotel, with little or no landscaping.

                     PBCAI notes and agrees with the developer’s Town Planning & Development
                     Consultancy, Adams + Sparkes admission that “Despite this, it is noted that
                     the proposed Multiple Housing and Visitor Accommodation units is (sic)
                     highly urban in nature and is reflective of development within the
                     semi‐attached housing zone or the attached housing zone rather than
                     the Open Space Recreational Zone”.

                     12.5 Solar Access and Ventilation
                     PBCAI considers that the amount of solar access and ventilation is limited and
                     inappropriate according to this analysis. The number of hours of solar access
                     that these windows and open spaces will receive is not clear. The apparent
                     inadequacy is caused by the developer’s attempt to maximize the density and
                     ground coverage of the site

                     12.6 Summary
                     PBCAI submits that the above issues are further proof of why this DA should
                     not be approved for a site in the Open Space Recreational Zone.

                     The proposed Multiple Housing and Visitor Accommodation units are
                     highly urban in nature and this development is reflective of one within
                     the semi‐attached housing zone or the attached housing zone rather
                     than the Open Space Recreational Zone and for that reason should be
                     rejected.


                     13. Land dedicated as a reserve

                     Adams + Sparkes page 41 para 143 states:

                               “The proposed development retains and protects an area of 5,276m2
                               for environment and conservation purposes. It is noted that this area
                               was required to be dedicated as a reserve associated with Court
                               Approval (Appeal 2587 of 2008). Despite this, the development has not
                               been enacted upon and this development would replace the current
                               Court Approval, should it be approved”

                     Adams + Sparkes fail to point out that this land is not suitable for building on
                     as it is wetland and on the other side of the creek which the developer has
                     ignored.




Document Set ID: 20308026
Version: 1, Version Date: 26/04/2017