That the proposed height, scale, massing and lack of setbacks will dominate the surrounds and not respond positively to the surrounding context.
That the proposed height, scale, massing, number of dwellings and extent of setbacks does not respond to the requirements of the General Residential Zone (R1Z) and will create unacceptable visual bulk and overshadowing impacts.
The proposed use represents an over intensification of the site.
That the proposed works may lead to a reduction in the abilities to provide parking upon the site for occupants and visitors and subsequently create an unacceptable amenity impact upon surrounding area occupants and visitors regularly using public places within.
That the proposed work does not meet the requirements of the R1Z, noting the lot size, orientation of existing structures, street walls and extent of proposed works scale, massing and setbacks contemplated.
The proposed work does not properly respond to the requirements of the Special Planning Overlay noting herein a summary of it:
To identify land in urban areas liable to inundation by overland flows from the urban drainage system as determined by, or in consultation with, the floodplain management authority. To ensure that development maintains the free passage and temporary storage of floodwaters, minimises flood damage, is compatible with the flood hazard and local drainage conditions and will not cause any significant rise in flood level or flow velocity. To protect water quality and waterways as natural resources by managing urban stormwater, protecting water supply catchment areas, and managing saline discharges to minimise the risks to the environmental quality of water and groundwater.
That the proposed work does not respond to the cultural heritage values of the neighbourhood.
That the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site.
The proposal does not contemplate meaningful landscaping of the site, especially that there is no contemplation of providing and maintaining any canopy trees of the indigenous ecological vegetation class, especially a canopy tree whose height would exceed 6.0 metres upon maturity.
The proposal involves the unacceptable removal of significant vegetation.
This submitter is of the firm considered view that the only appropriate outcome for this proposal is that the Responsible Authority make a determination of Refusal.
