That the height, scale, lack of articulation and massing of the proposal will dominate the surroundings and not respond positively to the context.
That the front boundary setback area is insufficient for a positive response to context and amenity and that theo facade height and design will dominate the surroundings in a context where development is to be subservient to the streetscape.
That the proposal provides for insufficient site permeability.
That the tree removal is not an appropriate response to the context, the need to protect environmental values and biodiversity. If the proposal is approved, the removal of native trees should be refused consent, even if this would reduce the site's yield for the Applicant and that the Applicant would need to obtain approval for amended plans.
Only non native trees are appropriate for removal.
That the proposal contains insufficient deep soil zones and suitable landscaping.
That the proposal does not specify only native planting and fails to include an acceptable number of advanced native canopy tree plantings that are of minimum height 1.2 metres an potted size of minimum 300mm.
That the proposal creates excessive visual bulk and unacceptable overshadowing impacts at the spring equinox.
That the proposal fails to include best practices In water sensitive urban design.
That air conditioning to be installed within or near to the boundary setback areas will have unacceptable acoustic impacts on neighbouring sites within the proposal and beyond the boundaries, due to not being of a very high efficiency inverter type. The applicant has not demonstrated by an acoustic report that based on anticipated need for use, frequency and hours of use including at night, that air conditioning units and installation location selected will not have unacceptable acoustic impact on occupants within and surrounding each dwelling.
The applicant had not demonstrated satisfactorily by a suitable consultant's report that external lighting within the proposal will not unacceptably impact the amenity of neighbouring (within) and surrounding residents.
There is insufficient geotechnical information and investigation regarding the site, existing structures, soils, materials deposited upon the site in the past, and and any hazardous materials within.
That the proposals colours, materials and finishes will dominate the surroundings and respond negatively to the surrounding context.
That insufficient parking has been provided for occupants and visitors according to the B99 vehicle standard, so as to reduce amenity impacts upon the surrounding sites.
That garage and parking spaces within the proposal cannot suitably accommodate B99 motor vehicles and therefore this increased the risk of surrounding amenity being negatively impacted if residents and visitors regularly have to park on the street when spaces within barely meet the B85 standard.
That parking and traffic modelling submitted is unrealistic as it does not use the B99 vehicle standard.
That safe vehicle circulation within as well as every to and exit from the site, has not been satisfactorily demonstrated by a traffic engineer and using the B99 vehicle standard.
The proposal fails to demonstrate a quality integration with the road reservation according to contemporary best practices and the Austroads standard due to lacking a replacement footpath width of 1200mm and with crossfall of those paved areas specified to be below 2.5%. Such works if the proposal is approved should be arranged at the Applicant's expense and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
The proposal fails to address the appropriate dealing with overland water flows by not unreasonably impacting surrounding sites as they will be obstructed, diverted and have their direction, volume and velocity altered.
Stormwater plan does not prevent the driveway rainfall water entering the crossover due to lack of a spoon drain at property boundary that is connected to a suitable onsite Stormwater detention system.
The stormwater plan does not acceptably respond to the site and surrounding topography so that sites within and surrounding the proposal are not inundated during a sustained heavy rainfall event.
Noting overall annual precipitation history and the size and use of each dwelling proposed, rainwater tank sizing is insufficient and needs to be a minimum of 3000 litres per lot with alternative water supply to all WC, laundry and yard taps.
That the proposal does not include either strata by laws that ban car washing within or, a designated car washing area architecturally designed so that no water or spill from vehicle washing may enter the stormwater network.
The proposal fails to contemplate best practices in energy efficiency and sustainability via building design, appliance selection, materials, colours, and orientation.
That the window designs of the dwellings provide poor internal amenity, fail to meet the need for excellent ventilation and passive cooling, they provide insufficient natural light, and fail to address the needs to reduce overlooking as well as maintain appropriate passive surveillance.
Window coverings selected fail to provide appropriate access to natural light while maintaining privacy of occupants and the ability to control climate due to not being of the semi transparent and blockout double roller blind type.
On balance the proposal represents an inappropriate planning outcome and the responsible authority is urged to refuse it unless it is substantially amended to address the various concerns listed.