PM Submission Object - Joanne Case - MCU16/0153 & REC16/0041

   C) DENSITY
   Contrary to applicant's Code Assessment the proposal is NOT compatible with
   surrounding development and is of a much higher density then the previous
   proposal.
   ‐ Inconsistent with Open Space recreation zoning.
   ‐ Provision of community space lacking for proposal
   ‐ Inconsistent with Eastern Beaches Locality Code
   ‐ No argument for precedence in Peregian Beach

   D) HEIGHT ABOVE NATURAL GROUND
   Contrary to applicant's Code Assessment the proposal is NOT consistent with
   structures on adjoining or surrounding land. These are generally 1 or 2 storeys.
   Drawings of all proposed structures should indicate NATURAL ground line and
   height of building above that ground line, not height above ground floor level. An
   example of this is shown in SD13 c‐ height of building noted from ground floor to
   top of roof. Height should be shown from natural ground to top of roof.

   E) SETBACKS
   Non‐compliant.
   For example (not restricted to this example): Setback of 1m at some points to
   Rufous Lane appropriates public land (Pocket Park) and creates an aggressive edge
   to the development

   F) INCONSISTENT OUTCOMES REGARDING EASTERN BEACHES LOCALITY CODE
   Proposal does not reference or reflect the general character description and goals
   for Peregian Beach as set out in the Eastern Beaches Locality Guide or the
   assessment requirements for Open Space Recreation zoning

   G) RECONFIGURATION OF LOT AND STAGED DEVELOPMENT
   The proposed lot reconfiguration is directly contrary to the Open Space Recreation
   intention and will have a negative impact on the character of this community
   precinct. The high percentage proposed for permanent residents will have the
   opposite intended effect, providing high cost permanent residences, rather than low
   cost short term accommodation. I do not support the process of breaking up the
   one parcel of land into staged developments. This is one application and should
   be rejected or approved as one application.



2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
   ‐ SEE Addendum 3
   A) PROXIMITY TO LITTLE RUFOUS CREEK
   This watercourse is not acknowledged in the submission. A new, independent
   environmental impact assessment is required to address this serious omission.
   B) PROXIMITY TO NATURAL WETLAND AND NATIONAL PARK




                                                                                        2