Council archive · source document
Development Application part 3 of 10 Planning Report - MCU13/0092
Very large file (41.5 MB): the whole original can take several minutes to open, especially on a phone. Text is quick to read.
.
~~
"’lift;J’l.):;a
NTEGIIfTV.EXCtlL(N((.SIJCCESS
retention of the existing generally
’open’ character along Rufous
street.
Site cover, gross floor area and plot No solution provided
ratio 06 Comments: It is considered that the
proposal complies with 06 a) to e)
Flooding and drainage 011 Comments: The site is above any
Flood Plain, and drainage has been
addressed by i3 Consulting -
refer to
Attachment D.
Roof Form 012 Comments: The proposal complies
with S 12.2 but is in conflict with S 12.1
and sub-clause (d) of Specific
Outcome 012
7.11 Environment, Conservation and No solution provided
Recreation Comments: Full compliance with 015
Environmental and cultural heritage a) to i) inclusive is proposed.
values 015
Open Space network 016 Comments: proposal will
the
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 similar
height no adverse
a
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 012 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
30 and 50 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
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalUsed in these records
Development Application part 3 of 10 Planning Report - MCU13/0092Related documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 41.5 MB (very large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.