►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
C
A
Well,
firstly,
is
there
any
conflict
of
interest
declarations
that
are
upcoming
for
today's
meeting
council
gates?
Did
you
want
to
raise.
D
D
A
You
so
I
think,
we'll
just
apply
a
star
to
item
one
being
the
confirmation
of
the
previous
minutes.
We've
then
got
a
number
of
start
items.
Did
anyone
want
to
unstar
items?
Councillor
barron,
lumson,
just
item
five.
E
A
A
A
A
A
G
Established
four
multiple
dwellings
at
26,
merlong
crescent
in
palm
beach.
The
subject
site
consists
of
a
single
allotment
and
it's
located
on
the
southern
side
of
merlon
crescent.
G
The
site
currently
contains
a
dwelling
house
and
the
surrounding
character
is
generally
a
residential
dwelling
houses,
multiple
dwellings,
the
site's
located
within
the
medium
density
residential
zone,
which
extends
along
merlon
crescent
and
also
to
the
south.
Immediately
on
the
on
the
northern
side
of
merlon
crescent
is
merlon
park
in
the
open
space
zone,
which
is
also
adjacent
to
telebudget
creek,
the
site's
identified
as
having
a
building
height
overlay
of
three
stories
and
15
meters.
G
The
development
was
originally
lodged
as
being
four
stories,
however,
just
after
lodgement,
the
city
increased
the
flood
heights,
which
resulted
in
the
ground
floor
of
the
development
being
raised
because
of
basement
to
meet
the
dfl,
the
amended
dfl,
and
this
resulted
in
a
small
portion
of
the
basement
being
above
one
meter
being
more
than
one
meter
above
the
natural
ground
level.
G
Therefore,
it's
being
defined
as
a
story,
the
extent
of
the
non-compliance
is
shown
in
this
figure
that
yellow
bit,
and
so
the
the
largest
part
of
the
non-compliance
is
30
centimeters,
so
it's
technically
defined
as
a
five-storey
building.
However,
it
does
generally
maintain
the
appearance
of
four
stories
and
being
within
a
three-story
area,
it's
impact
accessible.
G
G
The
development
provides
car
parking
within
a
semi-basement
level
and
provides
one
unit
per
floor
above
that
a
small
rooftop
area
has
been
provided
as
well,
which
serves
as
communal
open
space.
However,
no
rooftops
there's
no
roofs
on
there,
so
it's
therefore
not
defined
as
a
story.
G
G
In
this
regard,
officers
considered
that
there
were
other
relevant
matters
to
the
application,
as
the
increase
in
building
height
beyond
the
fifty
percent.
Provision
was
a
result
of
the
increased
flood
heights
and,
as
such
officers
have
recommended
that
the
application
be
approved
subject
to
conditions.
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
just
turning
to
that
picture
on
page
143,
which
I
think
is
probably
the
best
illustration
of
this
little
extent
of
non-compliance,
how
is
that
there
have
you
got
one
of
those
yeah,
so
the
top
the
top
one
of
those
two
shows
the
the
cross
section
of
the
property.
Is
that
correct.
G
D
Thanks
chairman,
just
through
you,
I
have
a
question
just
about
the
flood
heights.
I
understand
we've
adopted
them,
but
are
they
locked
in
and
and
are
they
deemed
to
be
correct
in
terms
of
our
flood
modelling?
At
this
point
in
time,.
G
Through
your
chair,
I
I
don't
know
about
the
actual
specific
modeling
of
it,
but
it
was
adopted
in
the
previous
versions
of
the
city
plan.
So
it
was
in
the
end
of
2018
that
the
amended
flood
heights
were
adopted.
H
D
So
there's
there's
no
likelihood
of
a
change
to
our
city
plan
as
a
result
of
additional
modelling
at
the
moment.
J
A
So
I
guess
the
the
situation
we're
faced
with
is
we
either
run
into
a
technical
non-compliance
because
of
the
height
incursion,
or
we
have
a
technical
non-compliance
with
the
flood
code
and
officers
have
supported
a
technical
non-compliance
with
the
height?
K
Through
you,
mr
chair,
it's
offers
a
strong
recommendation
to
the
committee
that
we
adopt
the
technical
non-compliance
with
the
height
the
technical
non-compliance
for
the
flood
code.
We
believe
you
can't
do
that.
It's
set
via
the
building
regulation.
It's
actually
a
mandatory
requirement
that
habitable
floor
areas
be
300
mils
above
the
defined
dfl.
L
Yes,
mr
chair,
on
page
60
of
the
officer.
M
L
Officer's
assessment
has
determined
that
this
character
is
envisaged
to
change
and
that
the
due
to
dwelling
density,
an
overall
building
height
of
15
meters.
Now
the
information
that
I
have
is
that
actually
building
height
in
this
area
is
going
to
be
reduced.
Can
you
just
have
the
officers?
Please
clarify
that.
L
Well,
mr
chair,
the
officers
more
or
less
have
said
that
the
anticipated
scale
and
intensity
for
this
are
contemplated
for
the
area
and
I
I
would
say
that's:
that's
not
the
case,
seeing
that
the
heights
are
actually
being
reduced
by
three
meters.
A
So,
council
macdonald,
I
think
the
office's
references
in
relation
to
the
current
scheme
as
as
it
applies
to
this
particular
application's
assessment.
But
someone
might
want
to
make
a
comment
about
our
point
in
time
where
we
start
to
cast
our
mind
forward
as
to
what
the
scheme
might
look
like
in
the
future.
Mick.
N
N
So
at
some
point
in
time,
more
than
likely
once
the
ministers
endorsed,
if
if
they
choose
to
endorse
the
amendments
and
we're
getting
closer
to
an
actual
date,
when
that
those
amendments
will
commence,
that
would
be
the
time
that
we
would
start
having
regard
to
those
those
new
amendments.
J
J
Obviously,
through
the
the
fourth
round
of
consultation,
we
got
a
high
volume
of
submissions
and
our
team
have
been
busily
working
through
doing
each
of
those
responses
to
each
of
the
submitters
and
in
some
case,
submitters
would
have
submitted
in
round
one
round
two
round
four
or
round
three.
So
there's
quite
a
bit
of
work
in
it.
J
H
Good
morning,
so,
theoretically,
the
development
could
achieve
a
height
of
22
meters,
given
the
50
percent
uplift
yeah.
That
applies
in
the
area.
Yeah.
H
G
G
H
G
A
F
F
So
they've
stated
that
the
15
meters
and
at
the
technical
non-compliances
with
with
that
with
that
small
basement
area
there,
and
I
think,
based
on
where
this
site
is
situated
across
the
road
from
tully
creek
and
that
is,
is
an
important
thing
to
actually
take
into
consideration,
which
is
also
what's
happened.
On
the
opposite
side
of
the
the
creek
on
a
wonga
crescent,
with
a
a
similar,
not
dissimilar
application
over
there.
That
was
approved
recently
and
it's.
F
The
amenity
of
of
this
area
lends
itself
to
having
been
and
walked
the
the
whole
loop
around
around
the
street
there
just
to
see
what's
actually
happening
in
the
area.
And
whilst
there
are
a
lot
of
single
dwellings
in
there,
there
are
also
buildings,
especially
on
the
western
end
of
the
street,
that
are
very
similar
to
what
we're
seeing
here.
So
I
think
we're
we're
looking
at
at
urban
in
improvements
going
through
the
area.
F
I
think
this
is
a
a
great
indication
of
what
potentially
can
occur
in
that
area,
and
it's
it's
it's
again
supporting
a
a
level
we
can
have
three
or
four
families
that
will
actually
get
to
enjoy
that
tele
budget
creek
area
there
as
well.
It's
close
to
public
transport,
it's
in
a
great
walking
precinct
and
I
yeah.
I
actually
think
it's
a
it's
a
good
proposition.
It's
a
good
application
for
the
area.
O
Thanks
chair,
I'm
very
interested
in
this
item
because
I'm
going
to
have
something
similar
at
the
next
round
and
and
and
have
to
consider
it
in
the
same
way.
I
just
noticed
on
page
62,
there's
a
technical
technically
a
five-storey
and
15-meter
building
at
30,
moulin
crescent
and-
and
I
think
that
that's
what
we
have
to
look
at
when
we're
talking
about
the
area
and
keeping
in
with
the
the
envisaged
character
of
the
area.
O
That's
already
there
so
and
I
and
I
don't
think
it's
too
much
of
a
stretch
to
be
speaking
forward,
because
I
don't
think
it's
too
much
of
a
stretch
to
approve
that.
I
think
it's
going
to
fit
in
quite
nicely
and
in
my
area
the
one
that
I'll
be
looking
at.
We've
got
even
higher
buildings
that
I
didn't
agree
wouldn't
agreed
with
long
ago
when
they
got
when
they
got
approved.
But
I
think
it's
it's
very
tasteful
and
yeah.
I'm
I'm
happy
to
support
it.
A
I
mean
in
order
ordinary
circumstances,
we
would
be
able
to
condition
a
reduction
to
achieve
a
compliance,
but
in
this
situation
we've
heard
from
the
officers
it's
absolutely
critically
important,
that
we
maintain
the
flood
clearance,
and
so,
in
those
circumstances
I
think
it's
the
the
right
thing
for
us
to
do.
You
know
I
just
want
to
speak
for
against
cancer
guides.
D
I
A
G
Through
the
chair,
that's
correct,
yeah.
We
could
condition
that
the
floor
to
ceiling
heights
are
reduced,
assuming
it
doesn't
result
in
non-compliance
with
the
relevant
building
codes,
but
the
the
nature
of
the
non-compliance
from
that
basement
level,
which
we
can't
reducing
it
would
result
in
non-compliance
with
the
flood
code.
A
Anyone
else
want
to
speak
for
against,
take
the
vote
all
in
favor
against
carried
item,
four
I'll
get
lara
to
come
up
so
counselors
just
before
we
get
too
far
into
this
one.
We've
had
a
notice
from
the
applicant
to
stop
the
clock,
which
means
that
effectively
we
can't
make
a
final
decision
now
or
potentially
cancel
if
the
stop
the
clock
notice
is
still
active
at
that
time.
So
did
anyone
have
any
questions
for
laura
in
relation
to
the
application
proper.
A
O
A
N
Mr
chair,
if
I
could
jump
in
so
councillors
last
or
yesterday
evening,
we
actually
received
a
a
notice
from
the
applicant
stating
they
wanted
to
stop
the
current
period
under
the
planning
act
which
they're
entitled
to
do,
and
I
guess
what
the
effect
of
that
is-
is
that
the
council
cannot
make
a
decision
while
the
clock
is
stopped,
so
to
speak.
N
So
today
we-
I
guess,
we've
got
a
few
options.
We
can
it
should
the
comm
it's
entirely
up
to
the
committee.
We
can
just
simply
defer
the
application
until
another
time
or
if
the
committee
was
of
a
mind
to,
I
guess,
express
an
opinion
on
it
and
state
whether
or
not
they
endorse
the
officer's
recommendation.
N
N
So
it's
a
little
little
unknown
at
the
moment
and
it's
a
lot.
I
guess
out
of
our
control
in
terms
of
time
frames.
But
my
recommendation
would
be
would
be
ideal
if
we
did
have,
I
guess
some
guidance
from
the
committee
and
that
the
committee
just
notes
that
it
can't
make
a
decision
but
leave
the
flexibility
there
for
for
that
application
to
be
resolved
depending
on
how
how
the
applicant
chooses
to
or
when
they
choose
to
start
the
clock
again
or
not.
A
C
So
through
the
chair,
the
clock
restarts
basically
when
the
notice
to
stop
the
current
period
ends
or
when
the
notice
is
withdrawn.
So
the
applicant
just
needs
to
you
know
present
correspondence
to
us
to
that
effect.
C
Through
the
chair,
so
the
notice
that
was
submitted
yesterday
evening
was
from
today
so
stopping
the
clock
from
today
the
15th
until
the
24th
of
august.
M
C
H
N
Through
you,
mr
chair,
I
think
there's
just
in
the
haste
to
sort
of
get
these
options
on
the
screen.
My
recommendation
would
be
option
one
and
two
as
two
separate
or
two
separate
parts
to
the
resolution,
so
that
I
guess
there's
an
opinion
expressed
by
the
committee
and
council,
but
doesn't
because
it
can't
make
a
decision-
that's
probably
as
far
as
we
can
go,
and
that
it
also
notes
that
the
application
could
be
decided
under
delegation.
If
need
be.
I
Mr
chair
was
only
to
move.
I
was
going
to
go
with
option
two,
but
if
that's
what
mix
recommendation
is
I'd
be
happy
to
move
that?
Okay,
as
is.
A
Let's
just
so
good
good
thinking,
I'll
just
get
through
some
more
questions
and
we'll
come
back
to
that,
perhaps
just
to
make
sure
we've
wrapped
it
all
up.
Council
gates.
C
D
A
Any
other
questions
counsellors
all
right.
So
if,
if
we
support
the
officer's
recommendation
to
refuse
it
and
that
we
support
that
occurring
at
a
time
that
can
be
achieved
once
the
notice
period
expires
or
is
withdrawn,
then
that's
wrapped
up
in
this.
So
we'll
have
that
moved
by
councillor
hamill
someone
like
to
second
that
canceled
peter
young
council
hamill.
Did
you
want
to
speak
to
that,
and
I
just
want
to
speak
for
against
we'll
take
the
vote
all
in
favor
against.
A
A
H
A
M
That
good
morning,
through
the
chair,
my
name
is
thomas
stubbs
planning
officer
within
the
north
team
I'll
be
presenting
item
five
on
today's
agenda
agenda
item
five
is
a
minor
change
and
extension
to
the
currency
period
for
a
development
permit
for
a
material
change
of
use
for
five
apartment
buildings
at
97
to
105,
musgrave
avenue
and
28
to
30
jimison
avenue
labrador.
M
In
addition,
the
development
approval
was
extended
to
the
18th
of
november
2020,
as
the
application
was
in
effect
during
the
extension
notice
issued
by
the
minister
pursuant
to
section
275
r
of
the
planning
act.
The
application
benefited
from
a
six-month
extension
to
the
currency
period,
extending
the
lap
state
to
the
18th
of
may
2021
through
the
current
extension
application.
A
request
to
further
extend
the
currency
period
for
additional
two
years
is
requested.
M
In
addition
to
the
extension
application,
the
applicant
proposes
a
minor
change
to
the
approved
plans
in
which
seeks
to
reduce
the
overall
building
height
of
all
apartment
buildings,
to
not
exceed
17
metres
in
height,
as
shown
above
to
facilitate
the
change.
The
removal
of
level
5
and
reconfiguration
of
level
6
for
buildings,
1
and
2
is
proposed,
along
with
the
removal
of
level
4
of
buildings,
3
4
and
5,
and
redesign
of
the
skillion
roof
components,
as
shown.
M
The
change
results
in
a
revised
residential
yield
of
171
units
and
342
bedrooms
at
a
residential
density
of
one
dwelling
per
76
square
meters
offices
are
supportive
of
the
proposed
extension,
as
the
provisions
of
the
original
assessment
benchmarks
are
considered
comparable
to
the
relevant
provisions
under
the
city
plan.
The
development
maintains
a
character
consistent
with
the
surrounding
sites,
including
spheres
southwood
sharks
pinnacle
at
the
park
and
the
commonwealth
games
village.
M
In
addition,
the
minor
change
request
is
also
supported,
as
it
will
result
in
alleviating
amenity
impacts,
decrease
the
expected
number
of
people
on
site
whilst
maintaining
original
on-site
parking
availability
and
make
use
of
a
valuable
in-field
development
opportunity
allotment
through
the
chair.
This
completes
my
short
presentation.
I
welcome
any
questions.
E
Lamson
just
curious
to
share
about
a
few
different
things,
so
the
for
the
extension
when
it
was
first
approved
in
2012.
What
were
the
benchmarks
that
it
met
at
that
point
because
it's
the
wording
was
detached
dwellings,
whereas
these
are
five
apartment
towers.
E
M
So
through
the
chair,
it
would
be
the
strategic
framework,
along
with
the
overall
outcomes
of
the
low
density,
residential,
oh
yeah,
but.
A
E
So
for
the
two
parts
there's
an
extension
and
a
minor
change
which
city
plan
are
they
being
assessed
against?
Is
it
what
they
were
approved
against
in
2012
or
the
current
city
plan
through
the
chair,
the
current
city
plan?
Okay,.
K
Yeah
through
the
through
the
chair,
this
is
an
assessment
against
the
provisions
of
the
planning
act.
This
isn't
a
material
change
of
use,
it's
it's
an
application
for
an
extension
and
and
a
minor
change,
so
we're
actually
not
assessing
the
benchmarks
per
se
that
this
application
is
a
reduction
in
height,
a
reduction
in
density.
K
It
went
through
the
planning
environment
court
to
and
that
was
successful
through
an
extension.
The
planning
and
environment
court
considered
there
was
enough
merit
or
for
actually
approving
the
extension.
This
is
like,
I
said
it's,
not
a
material
change
of
use,
so
thomas
hasn't
done
an
exhaustive
assessment
benchmark
assessment.
Okay,.
E
That
was
my
apologies,
I
didn't
mean
I
meant
minor
change,
not
material
change,
so
that
was
that
was
my
fault.
Okay,
so
I'm
just
having
difficulty.
Obviously
understanding
I
don't
know
all
the
different
benchmarks
at
different
levels
of
city
plan,
but
it
just
seems
odd
to
me
that
a
five-story
tower
would
fit
a
low
density
residential
zoning
under
our
city
plan.
A
K
K
E
K
K
Well
through
the
chair,
that's
an
interesting
question
when
you
make
an
application
application
for
extension,
it
sort
of
acts
as
like
a
stay
so
some
other
words
it
doesn't
actually
lapse
until
council
makes
a
decision
on
it.
In
theory,
council
could
take
a
year
to
make
a
decision
and
the
application
remains
top
live
for
that
period
of
time.
Okay,.
E
Another
question,
so
I
understand
people
would
want
to
see
development
of
that
site.
It's
a
very
large
site.
It's
not
been
used
for
what
it
was
initially
built
for
for
a
long
period
of
time,
but
if
this
current
approval
was
applied
for
today
or
the
minor
change
to
it,
if
that
was
applied
for
under
our
current
city
plan,
where
would
that
sit
in
that
assessment?
K
Through
the
chair,
it's
an
extra
interesting
question,
because
that's
really
not
the
exercise
that
we've
actually
done
as
part
of
the
assessment
block
like
I've
said
we've
lodged,
we've
assessed
it
as
a
minor
change
in
relation
to
posing
the
question.
Would
we
support
it
today?
My
response
is
well.
We
we
haven't
had
the
the
correct
application,
all
the
time
to
assess
what
you're
actually
talking
about.
E
In
effect,
okay,
but
there
would
have
still
been
that
12
months,
whatever
is
the
grace
period
from
a
new
city
plan
being
endorsed
superseded.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
O
E
So
chair
just
my
reason
for
the
just
line
of
questioning.
I
understand
the
officers
haven't
done
that
level
of
assessment,
because
it's
not
that
kind
of
application.
I
was
just
curious
because
our
my
understanding
of
our
current
city
plan
wouldn't
envision
this
type
of
building
in
that
location,
and
that's
why
I've
just
been
very
curious.
Do
we
have
legal
obligations
to
grant
extensions,
and
approvals
of
this
nature
is
if
it
was.
A
So
there's
two
things:
we've
received
the
application
to
extend
and
make
the
minor
change,
so
we
have
to
assess
it.
Yes,
so
yes,
we're
under
a
lawful
obligation
to
do
that.
I
meant
to
approve
it.
There's
no!
Well,
it's
open
to
us
to
make
whatever
decision
we
want
to
die,
but
so
that's
the
first
thing.
The
second
thing
is
is
that
the
assessment
of
the
minor
change
is
a
different
test
of
assessment
than
here
than
receiving
and
assessing
in
the
cup,
an
application
that
was
made
as
a
new
application.
E
So
I
guess
what
my
questions
essentially
boil
down
to.
I
understand
that
that
level
of
assessment
hasn't
been
made,
but
I
am
particularly
curious.
Does
our
current
city
plan,
if
this
was
an
application
made
today
envision
this
kind
of
building
in
that
location,
or
is
it
not
characteristic
of
what
our
city
plans
envisioning
for
that
site,
so
roger.
A
Probably
tried
to
avoid
answering
that
question
probably
fairly,
but
I'll
give
you
my
best
assessment,
and
that
is
that
we
don't
generally
view
that
five-story
medium-rise,
medium
density
towers
would
be
sitting
in
low
density,
residential
detached
dwelling
areas.
So
I
think
I
would
have
difficulty
supporting
it
under
city
plan
provisions,
but,
as
I
said,
this
assessment
was
originally
made
under
the
2003
scheme
and
under
the
operation
of
that
scheme
it
was
supported
and
lawful.
A
E
In
regards
to
page
331
again,
my
understanding
was
there
is
no
consideration
being
given
to
the
major
amendments.
Two
and
three
council
mcdonald
was
just
yeah,
that's
told.
Similarly,.
A
E
My
current
view
on
I
don't
I
don't
understand
or
appreciate
the
cost
for
the
the
applicant,
but
to
me
it
seemed
more
worthy
to
note
their
current
approval
and
if
they
wanted
to
load
a
similar
application.
If
major
amendments
2
and
3
are
adopted
and
endorsed,
as
you
said,
it
seems
to
be
more
fitting,
with
what's
currently
being
proposed
for
the
site
in
the
future,
as
opposed
to
the
current
city
plan.
E
B
It
lists
some
history
in
regards
to
the
public
notification
period
and
how
there'd
been
64
properly
made
objections
were
lodged
and
79
properly
made.
Submissions
were
received,
supporting
the
proposal
in
the
context
of
a
minor
change
who
are
actually
the
stakeholders.
Do
we
need
to
communicate
back
those
changes
to
those
people
that
may
have
actually
had
rights.
K
Through
you,
mr
chair,
no,
we
have
two
types
of
changed
applications,
one's
an
other
change
and
one's
a
minor
change.
If
an
application
fits
in
officer's
opinion,
the
criteria
for
what
a
minor
change
is.
There
is
no
statutory
obligation
to
notify
or
to
to
have
the
original
submitters
involved
if
it
was
an
other
change
application.
Yes,.
P
Thank
you
thank
you
and
through
the
chair,
and
I
think
it's
megan
my
understanding
of
what
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
here
and
my
understanding.
It's
the
same
applicant
that
round
216.
We
were
given
court
orders
to
extend
it
to
a
point.
Now
the
development
hasn't
gone
ahead.
So
I
suppose
my
question
is
as
the
applicant
did.
They
have
the
ability
just
to
ask
for
an
extension
or
is
that
why
they've
asked
for
a
minor
cha
change?
Is
it
a
process
for
the
triggering
and
extensions.
O
They
can
ask
for
an
extension
any
time
before
the
approval
lapses.
Unfortunately,
the
the
approval
lapsed.
That's
why
they
had
to
go
to
the
court
in
the
first
instance
in
terms
of
having
to
do
the
minor
change
they
elected,
two
larger
minor
change
after
they
lodged
the
extension
of
time
to
reduce
the
height.
That
was
their
understanding
to
appease
council
officers
in
terms
of
the
extension
of
time,
so
that
was
their
decision
to
lodge
the
minor
change
after
the
extension
of
time.
Application.
P
Okay,
so
we've
got
the
ability
and
taken
consideration.
Councillor
belden
lumsen's
concerns
of
moving
forward.
N
Through
you,
mr
chair,
and
just
in
addition
to
that,
absolutely
that's
that's
committees
and
councils
prerogative
if
they
choose
to
give
the
extension
or
not,
but
the
applicant
will
have
appeal
rights
under
the
act
and
they
will
have
the
opportunity
should
they
choose
to.
I
guess
appeal
that
decision
if
council
was
to
refuse
the
extension.
P
P
In
my
view,
they've
had
a
long
period
of
time,
they've
gone
to
the
courts
once
before.
I
know
we
didn't
win
at
that
time,
but
I
think
the
what
we're
looking
at
area
is
changing.
Look,
I'm
not
a
legal
side,
but
I'm
I'm
feeling
that
the
appliance
had
this
bit
of
the
land
for
a
long
period
of
time
has
gone
through
the
court
process
and
hasn't
done
anything
with
it,
which
is
a
challenge
for
the
city.
P
I
think
at
some
point
we
need
to
ensure
that
the
applicants
are
delivering
on
what
they
promise
and
by
constantly
giving
extension,
all
that's
doing
is
set
us
set
in
a
precision
to
say
that
we're
not
really
serious
in
relation
to
the
new
changes
moving
forward
so
yeah
just
more
of
a
clarification.
Thank
you.
Councilor.
O
Thank
you
through
chair
to
the
director.
I
am
I'm
curious
about
this
point
with
regard
to
the
appeal
rights
for
perhaps
more
generally
than
than
this
case
too,
regarding
extensions,
so
if
it
was
that
we
refused
an
extension,
I
know
you
can't
tell
me
what
a
court
would
say,
but
is
it.
O
How
do
they
look
at
that?
Like
is
it
I
I'm
curious
about
this,
and
I'm
also
curious
about
other
ones
that
come
up
in
the
cbd
in
terms
of
what
would
we
expect
to
be
receiving
back
from
courts
on
a
decision
on
on
something
like
this?
If
we,
if
we
just
look
at
it
and
go
right,
no,
we
don't
want
to
extend
because,
for
example,
we've
given
you
your
time,
that's
it
done.
How
would
a
court
perceive
that.
N
Through
you,
mr
chair
council
paterson,
it
would
probably
well
it
would
it'd
be
the
same
criteria
that
the
council
is
using
now.
Obviously,
the
court
would
once
you
go
through
a
an
appeal.
You'll
generally
have
experts
appointed
those
experts
have
got
a
duty
to
the
court,
so
it
would
it'd
be
a
different
process,
but
the
criteria
would
be
the
same,
and
I
probably
can't
answer
what
the
court
would
actually
say,
but
they're
playing
by
the
same
rules
so
to
speak.
I
Mr
chairman
question:
through
you
know,
it
may
be
more
of
a
question
to
mick,
possibly,
but
with
extensions
of
currency.
We're
able
to
attach
conditions
to
those
in
this
kind
of
circumstance.
Are
we
that
if
we
were
to
grant
another
extension,
the
currency,
you
can
have
a
condition
saying
if
you
don't
enact
the
development
before
the
lapse
of
this
next
extension,
you
will
have
to
go
back
and
relodge
again
due
to
the
time
frame
since
your
initial
application
that
changes
the
city
plan
since
is
that
correct.
K
Three,
mr
chair
officers,
think
no,
I
suppose
you
could
tailor
the
the
currency
decision
to
stipulate
a
time
frame.
We
have
toyed
with
the
idea
of
advice,
notes
to
advise
that
council
won't
do
any
further
extensions
in
the
future,
but
I
don't
believe
we
can
set
conditions.
I
Conditions
might
have
been
the
wrong
word,
but
we
do
have
an
ability
to
set
a
very
clear,
very
clear
expectation
to
them
in
saying
that,
because
of
changes
in
city
plan,
since
your
initial
application,
if
you
don't
get
on
with
it,
this
next
currency
extension
we're
not
going
to
support
another
one.
If
they
choose
to
appeals
there
right
but
set
them
the
warning
that
they
maybe
have
to
go
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
resubmit.
Under
the
current
planning
scheme,.
K
E
O
Situation
is
all
the
same,
so
the
build
form's
not
changing
it's
just.
Oh
sorry,
the
height
is
being
reduced,
but
the
actual
car
parking
numbers
and
configuration
is
staying.
The.
E
E
E
I
just
didn't
see
the
last
one,
because
I
was
always
curious
because
it's
only
got
the
one
vehicle
entrance
point
to
the
site
on
jimmerson,
which
I'm
just
mindful
it's
a
very
quiet
street
kambari
muskrat.
Obviously
far,
busier
just
seemed
like
it'd,
be
a
lot
of
vehicle
traffic
coming
out
of
what
is
currently
a
very
quiet
residential
street,
of
mostly
one
and
two
story:
dwellings,
not
mostly
entirely
one
and
two
story:
okay,
the
traffic
assessments
that
were
done
in
a
decade
ago
when
it
was
first
approved.
K
Through
you,
mr
check
are
correct.
They're
the
same
criteria
jimmyson
would
be
capable
of
750
vehicle
trips
a
day
at
the
amount
of
current
dwellings
on
jameson
they're.
Well,
well
below
that,
in
response
to
your
observation
about
to
access
off
jimmyson,
it's
it's
the
flip
side.
We
try
to
avoid
as
many
extra
entrances
on
on
busy
roads
to
ensure
that
we're
actually
getting
flow
of
traffic,
so
council
officers
actually
consider
jimison
as
actually
a
better
access
point
than
kombari
or.
D
M
Through
the
check
correct
on
the
last
one,
the
the
overall
height
changes.
M
D
D
A
A
Fact
this
is
quite
illustrative
again,
I'm
being
more
persuaded
15.7,
15.7,
15.9,
16,
16.,
sure.
D
J
The
report
on,
I
think
it's
page
320-
does
stipulate
that
there's
been
no
weight
given
to
the
amendments,
but
you'll
see
with
quite
a
lot
of
our
da
reports.
We
do
do
just
a
little.
This
is
what
is
coming
and
we've
done
that
since
the
advertising
rounds
of
major
two
and
three,
but
there's
been
no
way.
P
Thank
you
really
going
back
to
the
advisory
note
or
conditions,
and-
and
I
think
my
concern
is
also
these
developments
that
aren't
going
ahead
as
well
and
we're
and
constantly
triggering,
is
there
a
way
and
obviously
they
can
appeal
it
at
some
point.
Is
there
any
way
that
we
can
put
an
advisory
note
or
something
that
could
strengthen
our
condition
down
the
track
that
we're
saying
to
the
applicant?
P
There
is
changes
so
if
they
continuously,
because
I'm
presuming
in
two
years
time,
they
would
have
the
ability
to
do
a
minor
change
again
and
another
two
years
extension
and
and
I'm
just
and
obviously
that's
going
to
be
in
the
same
boat
as
now.
If
we
did
grant
approval
for
this,
we
don't
want
to
be
in
two
years
time.
Having
the
same
conversation
is
there
a
way
that
we
can
strengthen
our
position
to
mitigate
the
scenario?
K
Changes
through
you,
mr
chair,
it's
a
a
difficult
question
to
respond
to
councillor
taylor
because,
as
you've
quite
rightly
said,
it
is
an
applicant's
prerogative
if
it's
a
live
application
like
I
said,
we've
toyed
with
this
in
the
past,
and
I
think
the
best
that
we
can
offer
up
is
is
a
strong
advice.
Note
if
that's
what
the
committee
does
and
want
we're
happy
to
to
formulate
a
an
advice.
Note.
E
Council
bowl
numbs
thanks,
shannon
I'd,
really
appreciate
it.
It's
all
clarified
a
lot
of
things
for
me,
so
I
really
do
appreciate
that
for
the
extension
and
the
minor
change.
If
they're
granted
an
approval
for
an
extension
of
two
years
and
then
also
the
minor
change
is
approved,
do
they
have
the
ability
to
build
either
one
or
does
the
minor
change
void?
The
previous
approval.
O
Through
the
chair,
the
minor
change
amends
the
development
approval
and
then
that
is
the
the
that
is
the
the
approval
that's
enforced.
So
they
demands
the
original
approval
if
they
wanted
to
go
back
to
that,
they
would
have
to
lodge
a
change
application
to
revert
back
or
make
any
changes
to
to
the
approval.
Then.
E
Okay,
so
the
minor
change
is
approved,
they
will
only
be
able
to
build
the
monitor
okay,
because
the
mine
change
does
seem
like
a
substantially
better
outcome
than
the
previous
approval.
Okay.
In
regards
to
the
next,
the
major
amendments,
two
and
three
and
the
number
of
rounds
of
consultation,
I
actually
feel
like
that
made
it
less
clear
because
we've
gone
through
so
many
rounds.
Maybe
there
has
been
uncertainty
about
what
that
side
envisioned,
but
no,
I
appreciate
all
the
answers
today.
E
It's
clarified
a
lot
of
things
for
me,
I
think
the
minor
change
is
definitely
a
better
outcome
than
what's
previously
been
approved
for
the
site
and
understand
the
the
assessment
that's
had
to
go
into
the
background
of
it.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
we're
done
someone
like
to
move
the
officer's
recommendation,
moved
by
council
gate
second
by
council
pauline
young.
Did
you
want
to
speak
to
a
council
guards.
D
No,
I
don't
think
it's
necessary
chairman
other
than
to
say
that
I'd
like
to
congratulate
the
divisional
representative
for
being
so
thorough
in
making
sure
that
he
understood
this,
which
is
a
complicated
matter
when
you're
not
seeing
them
frequently
on
our
planning
agenda.
So
well
done.
Councillor
bald
and
lumsden.
A
A
A
A
Council
is
everyone
comfortable
to
push
through
for
a
bit
longer
all
right
should
we
have
a
short
presentation,
counselor,
yeah
and
jones
happy
with
that.
Thank
you.
A
But
good
morning
councillors.
C
This
morning,
we'd
like
to
discuss
it
can't
hear
you
no
jim.
There
you
go
this
morning
would
like
to
present
to
you
a
forward
program
for
the
city
plan
work
program.
What
you
will
note
in
the
report
is
that
we
are
starting
to
look
beyond
our
operational
budget
each
year,
so
starting
to
identify
projects
that
we
would
like
to
do
at
a
regional
level,
but
also
future
investigation
areas
or
neighborhood
framework
planning.
So
what
we're
seeking
today
is
your
support
for
the
program.
You'll
see
a
number
of
items
on
there.
C
We
are
proposing
to
bring
another
agenda
item
back
to
council
in
august,
which
will
detail.
The
breakdown
of
major
update,
five
and
four,
as
previously
resolved
by
council,
will
also
start
to
outline
what
we
think
makes
for
a
themed
based
program,
so
looking
at
employment,
residential
looking
at
design
and
how
we
can
look
at
those
items
and
start
to
group
our
program
and
our
future
projects
to
make
sure
that
we
continue
to
align
with
shaping
seq
and
provide
the
best
development
outcomes
for
the
city.
While
we
manage
growth,
that's
the
short
presentation.
B
Counselor
and
jones,
so
I'm
happy
to
move
it,
but
also
the
reason
why
I
unstarted
is
to
ask
I
suppose,
because
we've
been
through
so
many
rounds
of
consultation,
I'm
going
to
say
that
I
got
a
little
bit
lost
as
to
where
the
information
was
going
to
the
state.
So
I
had
assumed
I
think
incorrectly
in
this
report.
B
It's
the
most
crystal
clear
that
I've
seen
in
a
long
time
that
we'd
actually
parcel
it
up
to
the
state
are
waiting
for
the
minister
and
my
understanding
is
that
the
minister
hasn't
received
it
yet.
But
his
officers
have
received
a
draft
copy.
Is
that
incorrect
of
amendments
two
and.
A
J
I'm
happy
to
and
if
we
get
to
a
point
where
I
think
we
need
to
go
into
close,
we
will,
as
you
know,
we've
been
working
with
state
offices
for
a
long
time
through
this
process,
so
we've
certainly
and
catherine
and
her
team
have
a
fortnightly
meeting.
I
think
so.
They're,
certainly
across
the
details.
I
think
within
the
next
week
or
two
we're
ready
to
informally,
submit
the
whole
package
as
a
whole
and
what
that
will.
B
Okay-
and
am
I
correct,
I'm
saying
because
of
the
the
rounds
of
consultation
each
time
we
receive
a
piece
of
information
that
comes
out
of
that
consultation.
We
actually
need
to
do
the
right
thing
and
that's
actually
read
it,
which
is
a
good
start
and
also
see
whether
or
not
it
needs
to
change
what
we've
done
or
agreed
upon
previously.
So
part
of
the
delay
in
in
the
pushing
through
of
amendments.
J
Through
mr
chair
and
catherine
can
step
in
at
the
end
here
and
probably
go
into
more
detail
but
you're,
correct,
counseling
jones
and
in
the
past
I
guess
we
we've
probably
been
quite
light
on
the
responses
to
submitters,
particularly
from
a
city
plan.
In
terms
of
this,
this
is
your
response,
and
this
is
what
we're
doing.
J
Catherine
and
her
team
have
been
doing
a
brilliant
job
at
going
through
and,
like
I
said
earlier,
some
people
may
have
submitted
four
rounds
or
three
rounds
and
it's
a
lot
of
work
to
then
individually
respond
to
each
of
those
submission
points
and
on
catherine
can
probably
go
into
the
numbers
of
submission
points
that
we're
responding
to
at
the
moment,
but
you're
correct.
Essentially
that's
I
don't
know
if
you
wanted
to
say.
A
B
And
which
is
which
is
great,
but
but
I
suppose,
the
challenge
that
we
have
is
very
broadly
the
person
there
may
be
somebody
that
is
critical
of
the
council
not
pushing
through
and
adopting
amendments
two
and
three,
but
that
same
person
may
also
have
lodged
something.
That's
been
carefully
assessed
by
officers.
So
it's
kind
of
a
balancing
act
that
we
have,
and
unfortunately,
we've
got
a
series
of
of
rules
that
we
have
to
comply
with
in
regards
to
when
it
does
turn
up
at
the
state.
J
And
I
think,
mr
chair,
if
I
can,
that
the
program
that
our
team
have
done,
which
you
see
up
on
the
screen
now,
is
really
simplifying,
so
that
in
the
future
we
don't
have
a
huge
amendment
package,
a
very
complex
amendment
package
that
goes
through
such
a
high
number
of
consultation
periods
and
we're
doing
as
we're
seeing
at
the
moment,
early
engagement,
which
we've
you
know,
that's
a
new
process
for
us
and
that's
working
really
well
so
far,
and-
and
I
guess
breaking
that
down-
you
can
then
see
what
points
we're
proposing
to
come
back
to
council
when
it
will
go
to
the
ministers
when
it
will
go
to
the
state
and
the
state
of
being
very
good
at
working
with
us
to
ensure
our
processes
are
as
smooth
and
as
efficient
as
possible
as
well.
J
E
Thanks
actually
wanted
to
start
by
saying,
I
feel
like
city's
done
a
very
good
job
with
the
consultation,
each
round
of
consultation
seemed
to
get
better
and
better
as
well,
so
the
most
recent
round
was
excellent,
very
multimodal
covered
all
bases.
There
was
just
wondering
from
the
previous
round
of
consultation.
Counselors
were
supplied
with
a
bit
of
a
breakdown
of
the
general
gist
of
each
of
the
submissions
like
where
they
came
from.
Were
they
generally
in
support
of
against
those
kind
of
things?
Would
we
be
able
to
get
something
similar
for
this?
J
E
Okay,
because
yeah
the
breakdown
we
got
given
previously
was
very
straightforward.
I
think
for
us
to
understand
and
for
the
public
to
understand
and
it'd
be
good
to.
I
think
have
that
shown
that
we
have
considered
all
applications,
and
this
is
why
we've
made
whichever
decision
we
do
thanks.
Councillor,
goats,.
J
Through
you,
mr
chair
council
gates,
they
are,
but
I
think
our
state
government
officers
can
be
attendees
on
those
as
well,
depending
on
what's
on
what's
on
the
agenda,
but
at
a
point
I
guess
the
governance
around
how
we
do
city
plan
amendments
into
the
future
has
been
completely
overhauled
and
catherine
and
her
team
have
done
that
in
the
last
couple
of
months
and
making
sure
that
we've
got
the
right
collaboration
been
undertaken
between
other
directorates
in
council
as
well.
J
A
B
Just
wanted
to
start
by
thanking
catherine
and
richard
for
the
work
that
they're
doing
in
their
space,
and
I
think
that
you're
actually
providing
some
nice
clarity
to
a
very
complex
thing
that
has
lots
of
moving
parts
and
and
I'd
point
everybody
to
attachment
a
which
is
page
683
of
the
agenda.
Where
there's
a
there's,
a
gantt
chart
which
effectively
shows
all
of
the
steps
for
all
of
those
components.
And
I
think
that
that's
a
really
good
snapshot.
B
And
I
hope
that
that
turns
up
on
the
city's
website
at
some
stage
as
part
of
the
explanation
as
to
where,
where
we're
at
so
because
people
can
see,
I
think,
importantly,
where
things
are
proposed
to
come
towards
council
and
if
I
can
just
talk
directly
to
the
oxenfield
investigation
area,
where
I
think
that
we
did
some
really
good
preliminary
work
in
terms
of
communication
to
the
community.
As
to
what
that
might
look
like.
B
And
even
though
we've
done
an
enormous
amount
of
work
in
that
space.
I
still
have
some
community
members
who
believe
that
there's
a
predetermined
position
of
council
in
regards
to
that
investigation
area
and
and
just
that
one
line
just
shows
how
many
it's
effectively
going
to
come
to
council
at
least
four
times
and
including
a
couple
of
times
of
community
consultation
before
we
even
see
something
turning
up
and
when
it
does
turn
up.
It's
probably
2023,
which
is
about
12
months
after
what
we
originally
proposed.
B
H
Council
pedia
thanks
chairman.
There
are
two
investigation
areas
proposed
in
division:
five
and
there's
to
be
a
report
to
committee
in
september
about
them,
and
I
wonder
if
I
might
be
afforded
the
opportunity
to
meet
with
the
officers
before
that
report
is
prepared,
which
doesn't
give
us
a
lot
of
time.
A
A
Did
you
know
that
yesterday
I
was
p
e
directorate
appreciation
day
yeah,
but
anyway
we
can
probably
extend
it
until
10
15
today,
if
we'd
all
just
like
to
give
them.
You
know
our
peony
team,
a
round
of
applause.
Thank
all
you
we'll
take
the
vote.
All
in
favor
against
carrod.
A
R
So,
first
time,
good
morning
councillors
today
my
presentation
we're
going
through
the
the
new
flood
modeling
inputs
that
we're
using
for
the
city
and
the
transition
of
the
methods
that
we're
using
for
estimating
what
potential
flood
characteristics
we
get
on
the
gold
coast.
So
estimating
our
1
in
100
year
flood
level.
R
So
what
is
a
flood
model?
It's
basically
a
digital
representation
of
the
gold
coast
and
its
flood
plains.
It
has
three
main
components:
it's
basically
rainfall,
topographical
features
or
physical
features
of
the
flood
plain
and
the
outfall,
where
water
drains
to
embedded
within
this
is
land
use.
It's
representing
our
permeable
level
levels
as
well
as
where
water
drains
through
floodplain
roughnesses.
So
what
that
means
is
water
will
run
off
quicker
on
a
a
roof
than
it
will
do
through
soil.
R
R
The
simulation
approach
has
changed
from
the
australian
rainfall
and
runoff
in
1987
to
a
new
edition
in
2019,
we've
got
better
representation
of
our
physical
rep
characteristics
and
we've
also
changed
our
software
platform
and
technology,
so
that
basically
means
we're
using
better
computers,
more
memory
and
so
forth.
We've
also
improved
the
way
that
we
represent
our
oceans.
Previously
they
were
sort
of
static
and
now
we're
moving
into
time.
R
Varying
components
I'll
go
through
that
just
shortly
and
also
we've
expanded
our
models
to
cover
more
area,
because
we
have
more
ability
to
represent
them
in
our
computers.
We've
also
consolidated
our
models
from
nine
catchments
and
then
to
six
so
for
the
rainfall
update.
The
bureau
of
meteorology
produced
this
information
in
2019.
R
When
we
investigated
the
the
data
underlying
the
assessment,
we
found
that
they
only
incorporated
records
up
into
2012
and,
as
we
know,
we've
had
some
some
significant
flood
events
in
2017
and
therefore
we
also
analyzed
what
other
stations
did
they
miss
and
we
found
there
was
27
stations
missing
and
we
thought
that
they
weren't
representing
the
local
characteristics
on
the
gold
coast.
So
we
asked
them
to
to
redo
their
mapping
for
the
gold
coast
region.
R
Australian
rainfall
and
runoff
is
also
the
component
that
specifies
how
we
simulate
that
rainfall
is
distributed
over
our
catchments,
so
they're
they're,
a
national
guideline
document
and
they've
transferred
the
way
that
we
would,
I
guess,
sprinkle
water
over
our
catchments
from
one
component
and
into
ten
different
ways.
So
what
that
means
is
rainfall
doesn't
fall.
The
same
all
the
time
you
can
have
sort
of
a
front
end,
front-end
loaded
storm
or
a
back-end
and
loaded
storm.
R
So
the
new
methodology
is
specifying
that
we're
getting
that
more
variability
and
we're
representing
reality
on
the
review
of
the
rainfall.
We
found
that
there
were
some
increases
in
the
upper
estuaries
of
our
catchments,
and
we
could
probably
say
that
that
reasoning
for
this
is
that
we've
actually
captured
that
rainfall
rather
than
in
the
past.
We
didn't
capture
it
so
that
that's
just
the
gist
of
it.
R
In
some
areas
of
the
cities
it
went
down,
but
this
is
just
one
entity
of
our
rainfall
and
therefore
it's
just
indicative
of
you
know
where
rainfall
has
gone
up
from
time.
The
whole
process
has
been
peer,
reviewed
by
industry
experts.
We've
had
professor
rory
nathan
from
university
of
melbourne,
review
the
information
and
also
recommended
that,
despite
the
differences
between
the
two
choose,
the
maximum
between
2019
bureau
meteorology
and
our
internal
study.
R
R
Talk
with
that
couple
thanks,
so
what
that
means
is
that
we've
we've
now
got
a
better
representation
of
our
topography.
We've
now
included
lots
more
structures
in
the
models
that
we
we
have
in
2016,
so
a
lot
more
bridges
a
lot
more
culverts,
we've
also
improved
the
representation
in
the
growth
of
our
city,
so
we've
expanded
into
the
jacobs
wells
area
and
the
way
that
the
water
is
contributing
to
those
particular
catchments
has
changed,
and
therefore
we
want
to
represent
that
as
best
as
possible.
R
I've
touched
it
before,
but
we've
transferred
our
software
platform
from
mike,
which
is
a
danish
hydraulic
institute
software
platform
into
two
flow,
two
flows
in
australian-based
software,
and
it's
predominantly
used
by
our
industry
within
the
local
local
area,
and
we
find
that
we're
going
to
get
a
greater
synergy
between
the
development
industry
and
council
if
we
follow
suit
in
that
particular
platform,
as
well
as
a
transition
in
the
software,
we're
also
getting
advancements
in
the
the
underlying
hardware,
that's
used
by
the
software,
and
that
means
that
we've
been
able
to
expand
the
amount
of
representation
that
we
can
actually
have
within
these
models.
R
So
as
well
as
speed
advancements,
we
also
get
to
represent
a
lot
greater
finer
details.
So
our
previous
models
would
say
represent
the
topography
at
a
resolution
of
five
meters.
So
what
that
means
is
from
a
picture
perspective.
You
only
have
so
many
pixels
and
therefore,
if
you
increase
the
amount
of
pixels,
you
get
a
better
clarity
of
what's
going
on
on
the
picture
in
the
same
way
that
we
do
that
with
flood
models,
we
get
the
same
thing
with
a
dm
or
a
digital
elevation
model.
With
a
greater
representation.
R
The
only
thing
we
are
changing
with
the
boundary
conditions
is
that
in
the
past
we
represented
a
static
tail
water
condition
during
a
flood
event,
and
we
did
this
because
it
was
a
conservative
way
of
working
out
the
tidal
interactions
throughout
the
floodplains.
So
narang
is
a
large
estuary.
It
has
multiple
components
of
maduro
bar
and
warangari,
as
well
as
the
main
meringue
river
system.
R
Getting
the
timing
of
the
tide
to
peak
at
every
location
throughout
those
estuaries
was
very
complicated.
So
therefore,
we've
we
used
a
constant
tide
for
that
approach
in
2016
and
during
the
consultation
process
with
industry,
we
found
that
that
was
too
conservative
and
it
stymied
some
developments
in
some
locations.
So
therefore,
we've
changed
that
to
a
dynamic
tail
water
condition,
which
means
it
will
oscillate
up
and
down
as
it
does
in
reality.
So
we
get
a
realistic
representation
of
during
a
100
year.
R
Flood
event,
the
magnitude
of
what
we
anticipate
to
be
the
the
tide
in
the
year.
2100
is
going
to
remain
the
same.
We're
not
going
to
change
that
from
the
2013
study
that
we
did
with
the
ghd.
That's
because
climate
projections
haven't
altered
in
the
last
10
years
from
when
we
did
that
study,
so
there's
no
need
to
alter
anything
there.
R
R
Why
we've
consolidated
the
nine
models
that
we
have
for
the
city
from
2016
into
six
is
because
some
of
these
catchments
are
sister
catchments,
for
instance,
loaders
in
vigorous
creek.
When
you
get
a
large
flood,
they
will
start
to
interact
with
one
another
down
the
lower
end,
similarly
with
telebudger
and
caromba.
R
So,
to
summarise,
the
rainfall
has
been
improved.
We're
now
representing
the
records
up
until
2020..
R
Our
methodology
has
improved
and
is
in
line
with
arnhr
2019
typography
is
the
best
information
that
we
have
at
the
time
of
2018
and
we've
got
a
far
greater
resolution.
We've
also
got
better
representations
of
our
floodplain
characteristics
of
blood,
plain
roughness
and
the
infrastructure
that's
embedded
within
the
models.
R
R
Finally,
the
whole
process
has
gone
through
an
extensive
consultation
process.
We've
gone
through
each
component
in
accordance
with
guidance
from
industry
experts
for
both
the
hydrology
and
the
hydraulics,
as
well
as
getting
guidance
from
the
actual
creators
of
the
software
from
two
flow,
as
well
as
herbs,
which
is
the
hydrologic
software,
which
is
estimating
rainfall
and
an
entire
process.
We've
spoken
with
udia
pca,
pr
and
internal
stakeholders
within
council
as
well.
H
Thanks
chairman,
that's
great
news:
all
together
just
a
couple
of
questions.
The
rainfall
data
that's
been
modified
by
virtue
of
our
own
records.
Is
that
provided
to
bomb?
Do
they
accommodate
that
within
their
records
now
or.
R
They
they
won't
update
it
as
a
national
record.
They
will
just
advise
this
now
based
on
their
data
and
when
they
do
a
national
assessment.
Again
they'll
incorporate
all
the
data
at
that
particular
time,
so
they
won't
just
update
just
the
small
component
for
the
lga
of
the
gold
coast.
Otherwise
they'll
have
to
do
that
for
every
other
lga
that
starts
doing
it.
So
it's
more
of
a
national
rollout
process,
so
they've
advised
that,
yes,
we
should
use
that
data
thanks.
H
And
I'm
mindful
of
the
ever-changing
physical
environment
that
impacts
all
of
this,
and
I
just
thought
to
bring
to
your
attention
the
gold
coast.
Water
is
going
to
be
removing
a
weir
on
the
logan
river.
Is
it
council
that
me
albert
river,
that's
right,
which
would
have
quite
a
significant
impact?
I
would
imagine
on
the
hydraulics-
and
I
just
a
question-
is
about
the
time
difference
between
the
tide,
tidal
influence,
let's
say
at
the
coast
or
that's
at
the
seaway
compared
with
the
upper
reaches
of
the
narang
river.
R
Yeah,
it
does
vary
from
the
event
to
event,
but
during
the
process
we
take
into
consideration
those
focal
points,
so
we
will
choose
within
the
model
as
being.
Let's
look
at
mudra
bar,
let's
work
out
how
long
water
takes
to
route
down
to
the
the
bottom
of
say
the
firth
park,
and
then
we
will
route
the
tide,
so
it
does
peak
at
that
same
location,
so
we'll
get
an
envelope
for
those
particular
scenarios
as
well.
So
it's
it's
numerous
scenarios,
not
just
one
anymore.
It's
taking
into
consideration
all
those
approaches,
thanks
jim.
A
So
I
think
just
with
as
an
approximation,
what
would
be
the
delay
between
high
tide
and
the
seaway
versus
high
tide
at
the
norah
river
crossing
it
somewhere
up
in
narang,
for
example,
what's
the
approximate.
H
D
A
B
Jones,
thank
you.
I
was
just
wondering
if
we
could
include
the
presentation
as
part
of
the
minutes,
so
the
so
that
it's
on
the
record
and
then
in
regards
to
previous
discussions.
B
We've
had
we
had
resolved
to
invite
the
insurance
council
of
australia
into
that
flood
forum,
and
I
know
that
they
didn't
appear
to
have
participated,
and
I
was
just
wondering
if
you've
got
any
feedback
in
that
space.
N
Through
the
chair
yeah,
the
the
flood
insurance
council
of
australia,
sorry,
the
insurance
council
of
australia
have
been
part
of
the
flood
forum,
they've
they've
attended
virtually
for
the
three
meetings
and
unfortunately,
the
last
meeting
the
representative
has
moved
on
to
another
organization,
so
we're.
A
To
attend
the
forum
yeah,
I
don't
think
they
are
named
during
the
presentation,
but
they
have
been
in
okay,
so
so.
B
And
I
think
part
of,
even
though
this
is
a
planning
document
it.
One
of
the
challenges
that
we
have
is
that
in
the
past,
some
of
the
insurance
companies
have
used
our
planning
document
as
a
foil
for
a
dramatic
increase
in
their
in
insurance
premiums
and
as
a
property
owner
beside
a
creek.
I
can
tell
you
that
they
tripled
my
insurance
or
attempted
to
triple
my
insurance
bill
based
on
a
city
of
gold
coast
mapping,
and
then
they
walked
it
back
when
they
realized
that
nothing
had
changed.
B
D
R
D
Q
Sorry,
I'm
a
bit
confused
about
it.
There
are
two
questions
here
I
see.
One
of
them
is:
what's
the
difference
between
uncertainty
and
noise
yeah
and
the
other
one?
Are
we
going
to
increase
our
tolerance
from
two
millimeters
to
ten
millimeter
uncertainty
is,
is
a
difference
between
the
true
value
of
flood
level,
for
instance,
and
what
we
can
achieve
based
on
our
modeling,
based
on
the
best
information
available,
and
we
have
some.
There
is
some
level
of
confidence
associated
with
that
say.
Q
For
example,
if
I
say
flood
level
is
this
much
and
I
have
95
percent
confidence,
so
the
flood
level
might
be
a
bit
higher
or
lower,
but
the
most
likely
value
is
here,
and
we
consider
that
in
our
modeling.
But
noise
is
something
this
which
is
it's
just.
Noise
is
absolute
wrong.
It
has
to
be
removed,
so
any
calculations
any
device,
any
anything
could
have
some
noise
and
if
we
can
identify
how
much
is
that
quantify?
Q
Q
Some
engineers
in
industry
in
particular
believe
that
you
know
this
model
is
generating
some
noise,
some
say
two
millimeters,
some
say
five
millimeters
some
say
10
millimeter
and
some
people
say
no.
It
doesn't
so
that's
why
we
put
this
item
this
paragraph
in
the
reports
that,
from
the
feedback
that
we
are
getting
from
industry,
we
see
there
is
a
reason
that
we
need
to
review
this
matter.
In
particular,
when
we
see
other
local
authorities,
for
example,
allowing
for
a
level
of
noise
that
is
different
from
ours.
Q
I
Mr
chairman,
I'd
be
correct
that
the
reason
for
model
noise
and
occasions
because
of
the
input
data
in
the
first
place,
so
for
suggestion
over
a
big
basin
like
the
wenguba
flood
area,
if
that's
done
by
lidar,
which
already
has
a
tolerance
to
it
and
then
later
on,
it's
proven
by
static
survey
that
ground
levels
are
actually
different
to
what
lidar
picked
up.
That's
going
to
lead
noise
in
the
model.
I
Input
data
in
the
first
place
to
the
model
is
is
critical
to
how
accurate
it's
going
to
be
absolutely,
which
leads
to
my
question
is
that
so
the
mango
flood
mitigation
scheme
was
being
reviewed
by
tni
and
at
my
request,
after
attending
a
few
meetings,
I
wasn't
happy
with
lidar
being
used
for
their
new
sub
model,
which
I
appreciate.
It's
only
a
small
model
compared
to
what
you're
undertaking.
I
Q
Yeah
we
have
used
lidar
data,
but
for
canals
and
that
we
need
more
accurate
information.
We
have,
for
example,
more
detailed
information
that
we
have
used.
I
Like
survey
are
out
there
with
the
gps
poll,
picking
up
static
points.
Q
Yeah
please:
yes,.
R
We've
we've
received
that
information
from
tni
from
brian
peters
and
we're
incorporating
that
into
the
model
at
the
moment,
we're
just
talking
about
the
imports
and
we're
just
making
sure
that
we
get
the
the
go
ahead
to
go
with
a
drawer
and
a
line
in
the
sand
of
this
is
the
information
today,
and
this
is
the
best
that
we've
got
and
moving
forward
going
from
there.
So,
yes,
just
to
your
question.
I
I
appreciate
that
sharing
that
was
very
specific
to
my
area,
but
that
was
a
some
important
ground
data
that
is
going
to
be
more
accurate
than
lighter
was
it'll
help
with
that
particular
model.
In
regards
to
the
model
noise
model,
noise
can
be
up
and
down
carnot,
so
it's
not
necessarily
10
millimeters
positive.
It
could
be
10,
millimeters
negative
as
well
or
any
quantity.
Is
that
correct
it's?
It
should
really
really
be
a
plus
or
minus
thing
when
it
comes
to
noise.
Q
Yeah,
it
could
be
plus
10
minus
10
but,
as
I
said,
different
engineers
have
different
views
and
that's
why
we
are
all
investigating
at
this
point.
Yes,
no.
This
could
be
positive
and
negative.
I
Which
can
be
proven?
I'm
sorry,
mr
j,
through
I'm
guessing
that
on
a
myriad
by
merit
basis,
but
that
an
application
comes
in
and
proves
perhaps
that
our
initial
input
data
into
our
overall
model
wasn't
accurate
or
they
can
prove
a
different
flood
model
specific
to
their
site.
We
can
adjust
that
with
that
through
the
application
process.
We
we
accept
that.
Q
The
challenge
that
we
have-
I
I
think,
is
we.
We
can't
overload
a
development
assessment
officer
with
a
lot
of
assessment
and
they
have,
for
example,
10
days
to
access
a
development
application
and
if
we
give
them,
for
example,
we
give
them
a
discretion
and
tell
them
you
need
to
decide,
should
be
what
should
be
between
-10
or
10,
so
that
officer
needs
to
do.
Many.
Many
model
runs
to
convince
himself
that
it
is
nine
million.
It
is
not
nine
millimeter,
it
is
eight
millimeter.
There
is
always
a
balance.
Q
At
the
end
of
the
day,
the
cost
associated
with
the
assessment,
the
time
frame
that
we
have.
Sometimes
we
need
to
introduce
a
number
here,
just
a
two
millimeter
five
millimeter
ten
millimeter
yeah
that
might
result
in
somebody
might
benefit
one
millimeter
somewhat.
Somebody
might
be
worse
off
one
millimeter,
but
it's
important
to
note
this
one
or
two
millimeter
up
and
down,
are
within
the
uncertainty
of
all
this
calculations.
Q
Q
At
the
end
of
the
day,
either
we
have
to
spend
unlimited
amount
of
resources
and
time
to
get
to
the
pinpoint
some
results,
or
we
just
say:
okay,
plus
minus
5,
plus
minus
10,
is
within
the
uncertainty.
A
bit
of
up
and
down
is
acceptable,
but
the
benefits
of
an
officer
just
has
a
very
clear.
You
know
rule
that
he
doesn't
have
to
do
so.
Much
work
outweighs
that
accuracy
that
we
think
that
we
are
achieving.
But
it's
really
is
not
accuracy.
It's
just
a
precision.
Q
Number
would
like
to
emphasize
that
at
this
stage
we
are
not
recommending
anything.
We
haven't
completed
our
investigation,
yet
we
are
just
consulting
with
industry
with
our
partners
and
looking
into
this
matter,
and
we
bring
a
report
back.
I.
I
Final
question,
mr
chair,
and
it's
back
on
input
data
again,
so
I
appreciate
this
kind
of
size
model
when
we
do
it,
we
now
pick
up
lidar
data
across
the
entire
city
and
especially
on
hard
surfaces.
The
tolerance
in
lidar
is
very
accurate
and
getting
better
and
better
all
the
time
as
the
software
catches
up
with
it.
I
Do
we
take
on
say,
especially
on
bigger
sites
like
azcon
survey,
data
and
feed
that
into
the
input
as
well
or
do
we
just
rely
upon
brand
new,
fresh
lidar
across
a
broader
sector.
R
I
Pretty
so
m1
is
probably
an
extreme
example
of
it,
so
just
on
an
industrial
development
yatla
so
that
you
know
we've
they've
gone
and
introduced
retaining
walls
and
battle
walls,
that's
been
approved
in
ground
level
changes,
but
then
the
finalized
con
survey
of
that
would
that
have
been
fed
into
the
latest.
Q
Yeah,
there
are
two
dimensions
to
this
matter
in
general:
the
sensitivity
of
our
models
to
ground
level
information
is
different
at
different
locations,
for
example,
if
the
ground
level
information
on
a
major
flow
path
is
not
right,
the
model
would
provide
wrong
results
if
m1
is
not
represented,
which
is
a
line
from
north
to
south.
Is
this
level
is
not
represented
correctly
in
the
model,
it
would
have
significant
adverse
impact
on
the
results.
Q
Q
The
flood
depths
significantly
will
change,
but
models
are
not
very
sensitive
to
the
noise
in
lidar
data
or
ground
level
information,
but
they
are
very
sensitive
when,
for
example,
we
are
putting
m1
in
the
model
if
m1
is
10,
centimeter,
lower
or
higher,
because
it
acts
like
a
dam
flow
is
coming
from
east
west
to
east.
If
it
is
10,
centimeters,
upper
or
lower,
that
has
much
impact.
So
we
put
our
efforts
to
include
accurate
ground
level
information
where
it
matters
and
where
it
has
significant
impact
on
the
models.
A
F
And
I
just
want
to
ask
through
the
chat
your
rhino.
That's.
R
F
That
was
a
good
report.
I
I
sort
of
understood
it,
which
was
some
of
these
things
that
come
forward.
You
don't
necessarily
understand,
but
that
was
very
well
explained.
So
I
appreciate
that.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
so
counselor
and
john's
you
want
to
move
that
someone
like
a
second
second
by
cancer
on
yeah.
Oh
sorry,
I
should
say
before
we
move
on
to
accept
that
motion.
A
J
Through
mr
chair
now
we
didn't
distribute
it,
we
we,
I
think
we
only
sent
it
to
you
rich.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
speak
in
here,
but
basically
it's
just
removing
a
couple
of
words
out
of
number
three
which
we'll
just
make
sure
when
our
team
go
through
and
do
the
review
of
the
model
noise,
which
ahmed
and
ryan
have
explained
it's
a
bit
more
flexible
for
us
to
make
the
decisions
at
that
point.
Is
that
that's
basically.
S
Yeah,
that's
correct,
so
previously
it
said,
propose
new
flood
bottles.
However,
we've
got
an
existing
flood
model,
and
so
should
that
review
on
model
noise
and
any
other
implementation
matters
that
we're
looking
at
mean
that
we
can
do
it
sooner
and
do
it
on
the
current
flood
model.
Then
certainly
we
don't
want
to
say
just
the
new
flood
models.
We
want
to
be
able
to
look
at
the
current
ones
as
well.
O
O
A
B
By
agreeing
with
councillor
young
and
councillor
o'neal,
the
workshops
were
actually
really
beneficial
and
I
think
what
is
really
important
for
both
the
residents
and
the
industry
to
understand
is
that
the
level
of
accuracy
that
this
modeling
is
based
on
is
far
better
than
what
we've
had
previously
and
the
fundamental
reason
for
us
doing.
This
is
to
make
sure,
wherever
possible,
people's
residences
and
businesses
are
actually
protected
from
flood
water.
So
it's
not.
You
know
the
previous
modelling.
B
Changes
have
impacted
on
people's
development
rights
and
they've
felt
that
they've
been
unfairly
dealt
with,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
about
making
sure
that
we're
protecting
where
people
live
and
where
they
work
and
doing
it
as
accurately
as
possible.
So
I
think
it's
a
great
body
of
work
and
well
done
ryan
and
your
team.
A
A
B
F
It's
the
same
decoration
for
the
old
billy
theatre,
arcade
or
the
tlpi
over
that
should
be
up
there.
F
A
A
B
I
just
had
a
question
in
regards
to
my
understanding:
is
that
the
protection,
the
temporary
protection
will
be
in
place
for
two
year
period?
Is
that
correct,
and
so
we've
clearly
had
a
previous
approval
that
hasn't
been
enacted
yet,
but
I'm
assuming
that
when
work
starts
on
that
project
or
that
site,
the
future
need
of
the
protection
order,
may
then
not
be
required.
O
Through
the
chair,
so
the
previous
day
was
approved
based
on
the
current
tlpi
that
is
due
to
expire
at
the
end
of
this
month.
So
that's
still
going
to
be
the
tlpi
that
protects
it
it.
This
dlpi
just
protects
it
from
them,
putting
in
another
application,
yeah
or
doing
a
change,
because
if
the
there's
no
tailpi
in
place,
they
can
go
and
demolish
it
without
yeah.
A
So,
but
is
the
tlpi
not
necessary
in
the
event
that
the
development
is
realized?
So
is
it
the
case
that
you
will
just
simply
recommend
the
expiration
of
this
in
two
years
time?
Should
the
building
be
built,
or
would
you
be
expecting
that
we
would
incorporate
the
provisions
within
the
city
plan
at
some
point.
O
D
Thank
you.
I
was
just
going
to
ask
if
I
could
have
to
refresh
my
memory
a
list
of
the
sites,
please
that
that
includes.
A
A
Alright,
can
someone
ask
counselor
young
to.
A
A
Q
A
A
Council,
council
patterson
was
hoping
to
fight
with
committee
the
concept
of
doing
some
revision
of
the
southport
pdi.
So
you
had.
O
O
A
Well,
this
is
purely
from
council
patterson's
perspective
as
a
local
councillor.
I
think
it's
something
that
she
would
like
us
to
embark
on,
but
perhaps
director
can
you
just
refresh
our
memories
on
what
we
had
previously
resolved.
J
So
through
you,
mr
chair,
it
was
a
gb
back
in
october
2020,
which
related
to
reviewing
the
pda,
but
it
wasn't.
It
was
quite
broad,
obviously,
with
the
workload
that
we've
had
on
at
the
moment
that
work
hasn't
progressed
in
speaking
with
councillor
patterson.
J
J
Through
you,
mr
chair,
we
did
do
a
review.
I
don't
know
if
richard
or
catherine
can,
some
time
ago
it
was
a
few
a
few
years
back
we're
happy
to
have
a
look
at
it.
I
think,
with
this
the
entertainment
precinct
that's
gone
up
today.
We've
made
some
amendments
with
the
micro
breweries
and
uses
like
that
as
well.
It
certainly
doesn't
hurt.
I
just
wouldn't
say
it
would
be
high
on
our
priority
list
right
now,
while
we
finalize
these
big
packages
of
amendments
and
things,
was
it
2016,
rich
or
20?
S
Through
the
chair,
just
we,
we
did
an
internal
review
a
few
years
ago,
which
was
really
just
looking
at
the
precincts.
The
implementation
experience
from
city
development
as
well.
Just
in
terms
of
you
know,
you
usually
review
these
things,
probably
every
five
to
ten
years,
so
it
was
just
that
issue
about
well,
let's
have
a
look
at
it.
We
did
a
bit
of
work
back
then
on
it,
but
we
didn't
progress
it
anywhere.
So
there
is
some
work
that
was
done
quite
a
few
years
ago.
A
A
J
A
Take
out,
as
indicated
in
recommendation,
one
from
the
very
end.
D
And
chairman,
just
adding
to
that,
given
that
it's
it
comes
under
the
state's
economic
development
act,
what
what
would
be
their
position
on
a
review
and
what
would
be
their
involvement
in
the
review,
because
it's
not
just
ours
to
call
given
it's
the
state's
priority
development
area
under
the
economic
development
act.
It's
not
part
of
our
planning
scheme.
S
Yep
through
the
chair,
so
that's
correct,
so
we
would
speak
with
economic
development
queensland
effectively.
The
minister
declared
the
pda
and
signs
off
on
the
development
scheme,
so
certainly
we
would
go
back
to
edq
work
with
them.
Much
like
we
are
with
the
entertainment
precinct,
so
we've
been
working
with
the
state
on
that
as
well,
but
there
are.
There
are
some
outstanding
conditions
when
the
instrument
was
put
in
place
originally
relating
to
the
infrastructure
plan
for
that
area.
S
A
B
So
I'd
be
supportive
of
it,
but
I'd
be
interested
in
the
report
also
exploring
resources
and
and
funding
so
and
I'm
happy
to
add
those
words
so
because
I
think
that
it's
important
that
we
like
when
we
commit
staff
resources
to
do
a
particular
thing
it
it
it
either
has
to
be
outsourced
or
taken
away
from
other
things,
they're
already
in
progress.
B
And
then
this
is
just
in
regards
to
the
southport
pda.
If,
but
we've
got
two
pdas
in
in
effectively
southport,
because
we've
also
got
the
health
and
knowledge
pda.
Is
there
a
timeline
in
regards
to
that
pda.
S
Open-Ended,
I
can't
recall
no
there's
no
sort
of
sunset
clause
that
I'm
aware
of
on
either
of
those
pdas.
S
B
B
There
may
be
a
couple
of
options
that
come
out
of
that
one,
maybe
to
actually
review
the
whole
pda
and
look
to
tinker
elements
within
the
pda
or
a
bigger
issue
might
be
to
actually
say
it's
time
to
bring
the
pda
or
request
to
bring
the
pda
back
into
the
scheme
and-
and
that
to
me
is
just
like
a
scoping
type
of
report
that
we're
going
to
receive.
J
Through
you,
mr
chair,
council
and
jones,
I
think,
through
this
process
in
doing
this
report,
we'd
consult
with
edq
at
that
point
in
time
as
well.
So
we're
happy
to
have
the
conversation
with
them
about
the
health
and
knowledge
precinct
pda
and
whether
you
want
to
add
the
words
specifically
in
there.
It
might
just
maybe
some
implications
of
if
we
are
doing
the
southpaw
pda.
What
are
the
implications
of
that
on
on
the
health
and
knowledge
precinct.
O
Through
the
chair
my
take
on
it,
is
the
state
government
aren't
going
to
give
up
health
and
knowledge
precinct
they're
not
going
to
give
up
their
control
over
it,
whereas
we
do
have
far
more
control
and
over
the
southport
pda.
So
I
think
it
would
just
potentially
be
creating
and
creating
more
work
on
something
that
we're
really
not
going
to
have
any
say
over
health
and
knowledge.
B
S
A
Okay,
that's
good
happy
to
move
that
someone
counts
around
jones.
You
want
to
go
second
on
that.
A
L
It's
about
heights
and
related
to
stories,
and
I
noticed
that
in
item
number
six
for
the
southport
entertainment
precinct-
it's
got
in
here
about
up
to
32
metres
eight
stories,
but
what
we're
seeing
in
those
meterages
there's
more
than
the
stories
that
it's
related.
So
is
this
eight
stories
in
brackets?
Can
they
only
go
to
eight
stories
and
32
meters
in
height.
L
L
It's
just
that
you
know,
and
I
think
everybody
else
is
finding.
It
too,
is
that
we've
got.
S
S
Sorry
counselor,
I
think,
done
shortly,
sorry
through
the
chair,
okay,
so
the
context
there
is
for
a
setback.
So
when
you
look
at
it,
it's
saying
well,
the
four
meters
for
the
setback
will
apply
up
to.
L
L
L
So
you
know,
is
there
any
look
at
coming
back
and
revisiting
that
to
make
it
better
than
what
it
is
because
they
the
it
was
supposed
to
be?
I
think
the
conversion
was
3.5
meters
per
story,
but
you
know
we're
just
not
getting
that.
C
Yes,
through
the
share
that
is
correct
through
major
update
two
and
three,
we
are
removing
the
story's
designation
out
of
city
plan,
except
for
the
spit
master
plan,
which
is
actually
a
condition
of
the
minister's
approval,
but
being
that
the
development
scheme
operates
outside
city
plan,
that
would
be
it
is
as
it's
currently
detailed.
So
it
details
meters
and
stories.
A
But
council
macdonald
the
the
amount
of
in
the
2016
scheme
prior
to
those
amendments.
The
amount
of
references
to
stories
were
very
limited
anyway,
so
once.
A
L
It
was
to
relate
to
the
actual
story,
so
say,
for
instance,
in
palm
beach.
It
was
seven
stories
yeah,
but
now
and
it
was
converted
to
29
meters.
O
L
Now,
what
we're
seeing
it's
not
seven
stories
that
we're
getting
nine
stories
yeah
and
and
that
conversion
to
meters
from
stories
was
to
relate
to
the
number
of
stories
and
that's
not
happening.
A
I
think,
as
I
recall,
the
that
was
just
to
give
some-
you
know
pictorial,
indication
of
the
style
of
building
we
would
get,
and
I
I
don't
think
I
think,
as
long
as
we're
being
consistent
and
we've
adopted
29
meters.
So
everyone
knows
what
that
is
now.
You
know.
I
think
we
just
have
to
stick
to
that.
I
wouldn't
want
to
see
seven-story
buildings
with
a
reference
to
seven
stories
where
they
start
popping
up
to
35..
A
L
And
I'll
repeat
again,
when
these
conversions
were
made,
they
were
to
be
converted,
as
per
the
stories
were
at
that
time
and
and
seven
stories
wasn't
29
meters.
It
was
much
less,
I
think
at
3.5.
L
It
was
about
24.5
meters
as
related
to
a
seven-story
building
and
at
the
time,
as
you
recall,
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
actual
conversion
of
in
meterage
to
stories.
But
what
we're
seeing
now,
those
conversions
that
took
place
that
29
meters
was
supposed
to
relate
to
seven
stories,
but
what
I'm
saying
29
meters,
what
we're
seeing
now
is
nine
stories
and
you'll
see
all
these
conversions
that
they're
much
higher
than
what
they
were
supposed
to
be
converted
from
in
the
stories.
J
Just
on
that,
mr
chair
councilman,
I
think
when
that
is
happening,
though
we'll
see
instances
like
today
where
the
palm
beach
one
does
come,
and
in
that
case
it
was
a
basement
that
was
flipping
it
into
that
five
stories.
So
are
you
referring
to
the
the
fact
sheet
that
we
put
out
with
one
of
the
first
rounds
of
the
amendments
as
well?
Remember
there
was
that
fact
sheet
that
had
the
colors
with
the.
C
G
C
City
plan
also
doesn't
mandate
a
floor
to
ceiling
height,
that's
covered
under
the
building
code.
So,
while
citiplan
says
it's
29
meters,
it
still
has
to
meet
the
building
code
requirements
in
terms
of
ceiling
to
floor
height,
and
that
does
vary
depending
on
the
use.
So
if
you've
got
a
retail
or
commercial
use
at
the
bottom
and
then
you've
got
residential
above
that.
C
29
meters
actually
allows
that
bit
of
flexibility,
so
that
you
can
get
varying
floor
heights,
which
is
why
we're
also
not
allowed
to
put
a
ceiling
height
in
city
plan,
because
it's
covered
by
the
building
code.