►
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).
A
So
no
leave
absence
number
of
start
items
which
no,
no,
if
you
look
up
I'll,
just
get
you
to
turn
your
attention
to
the
screen.
We
might
just
need
to
unstar
a
few
so
councilor
Gates.
Do
you.
A
7.1,
just
for
you
to
say
something:
that's
fine
6.2
for
Council
McDonald,
which
leaves
the
start
items
being
the
confirmation
of
minutes
the
helensvale.
Do
you
want
to
answer
that
101
star,
but
I'll
move
the
honor,
okay
and
the
6.9
designing
flood
we're
happy
with
moving
those
matters
moved
by
Council
Rowan
Jones
seconded
by
councilor
Peter
Young.
Take
the
vote
all
in
favor
against
carrot,
yeah.
C
B
B
B
Moving
on
to
6.4,
oh,
this
is
the
one
that
I
seek
to
remain
in
the
room,
for
this
relates
to
the
Robina
Central
planning
review
and
on
the
6th
of
the
9th
16
I
received
1250
from
rabina
projects,
which
is
a
company
I,
believe
that
is
related
to
Robin,
the
rabina
group,
so
I'm
making
that
declaration,
but
I
I
would
be
interested
in
staying
in
the
room
to
participate.
F
D
H
Peter
Young
thanks
chairman,
so
just
to
be
clear.
This
is
a
matter
that
involves
the
Robina
Central
planning
review
and
there's
a
number
of
entities
identified
in
the
document,
such
as
the
verbena
land,
Corporation,
Rubina
properties
and
we've
been
a
group.
E
Thanks
Mr,
Jim
I
think
it's
one
of
the
commercial
vehicles
of
Robina
group.
You
know
group
and
yeah,
so
we've
actually
considered
councilor
Gates's
declaration
once
before
concerning
this
review,
and
there
was
a
procedural
motion
that
I
can
recall
permitted
her
to
remain
in
the
room.
So
for
consistency's
sake,
if
we
could
draw
that
procedural
motion
out,
that
might
be
good,
otherwise
I'm
happy
to
move
that
councilor
Gates
yeah,
no
worries
I
mean
my.
E
B
E
A
A
A
B
B
in
2000
and
2016
I
received
two
thousand
five
hundred
dollars
from
Empire
industrial
and
on
I
don't
know
these
dates
are
right,
but
I'll
check
them
before
full
Council
and
five
thousand
dollars
from
the
Stevens
group,
who
are
also
involved
with
Empire
and
because
the
landowner
is
mentioned
within
the
report.
I'll
be
leaving
the
room
and
with
regard
to
that
same
item,
the
expansion
area
includes
a
parcel
of
land
on
the
east
side
owned
by
Mr
Kevin
Seymour,
who
donated
390
in
2015
and
in
2016
2
500.
A
K
Cool
so
share
mine
for
6.5
is
pretty
simple,
my
residential
property
now,
but
in
it's
not
inside
the
focus
area.
But
the
focus
area
ends
on
the
street
that
my
residential
property
is
on.
So
that
puts
me
out
of
the
room.
A
Okay,
so
cancel
guides
and
councilor
Hamill,
both
out
all
right,
councilor
goats,
back
to
you
for
6.7.
B
Six,
because
that
also
involves
the
yatler
Enterprise
areas-
industry
Amendment,
but
in
going
through
that
one
I
don't
see
that
I
have
any
conflicts
and
I
discussed
it
with
councilor
Hamill,
just
to
be
certain
that
I
hadn't
overlooked
something
so
nothing
there.
That
I
feel
is
a
problem.
B
6.7,
however,
relates
to
the
northern
marine
Precinct
and
I
will
be
leaving
the
room
because
I
received
donations
from
the
heck
Group,
which
are
mentioned
in
the
Arab
report,
as
Rocky
Point
Sugar
Mill
I
got
2
500
in
2014,
2
500
in
2015,
and
one
thousand
eight
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
in
2016,
but
the
Gold
Coast
Marine
aquaculture
group
is
also
mentioned,
and
that
presents
a
prescribed
interest
for
me,
because
I
received
two
thousand
five
hundred
dollars
from
them
in
1415
and
16,
so
I'll
be
leaving
the
room.
A
B
B
Oh
I
did
have
I
wanted
to
speak
to
that
because
in
the
attachment
Sanctuary
Cove
is
mentioned,
but
there's
no
change
so
I
just
wanted
to
put
it
to
my
colleagues
that
my
son
has
a
partnership
with
mulfur
who
owns
Sanctuary
Cove
but
who
I
believe
made
a
submission
which
was
on
page
eight
78
from
memory.
B
A
B
A
D
A
Probably
sorry,
we
might
just
take
a
minute's
break
because
I'll
have
to
look
up
my
details
as
well.
So
if
anyone
needs
to
use
the
bathroom
now's
a
good
time.
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
H
Chairman
I'll
be
happy
to
move
that
councilor
Gates
can
participate
in
the
vote
subject
to
the
condition
that
she
does
not
seek
to
alter
the
outcome
in
regard
to
Sanctuary
coves
submission.
F
E
My
view
on
the
algebra,
particularly
at
this
stage,
is
that
it
was
an
ordinary
business
matter
because
it's
effectively
to
do
with
the
making
of
a
new
planning
instrument,
because
it
sits
together
with
the
planning
scheme.
So
I'll,
like
my
view,
is
no
conflict
of
interest
should
attach
at
all
and
I
suppose.
A
Agreed
so
I
don't
disagree,
but
in
the
absence
of
some
sort
of
confirmation
of
that
I'd
be
I
personally
would
be
hesitant
to
rely
on
it.
Okay,
I,
don't
know
whether
Andrew
Young,
who
appears
to
be
in
the
back
of
the
room,
has
any
knowledge
on
this.
H
A
Andrea's,
like
I,
wish
I'd
stayed
in
Waterside
today.
We
just
have
one
question
which
you
may
or
may
not
have
a
view
on
or
be
able
to
confirm
as
to
whether
the
LG
item
that's
before
Council
before
the
committee
today
isn't
a
matter
of
ordinary
business
that
would
attach
an
exemption
under
the
Local
Government
Act.
F
Mr,
chair,
I'm
I'm,
not
sure,
but
it's
an
amendment
to
a
planning
scheme.
It's
no
different
to
any
other
planning
scheme.
Amendment.
E
A
Just
to
the
reason,
that's
probably
important
is
that
my
declaration
is
actually
for
four
thousand
dollars
and
I
would
probably
have
otherwise
left
the
room,
but
for
if
it's
an
ordinary
business
matter
which
would
change
my
Approach
I'm,
not
particularly
concerned
about
pushing
that
issue
today,
and
maybe
we
just
resolve
it
between
now
and
full
Council,
because
it's
it
would
be
concerning
if
we
were
not
able
to
participate
in
the
delivery
of
trunk
infrastructure
planning
in
our
respective
areas.
Totally.
L
So
I
got
the
Queensland
government
advice
here.
This
helps
you,
but
it
says
ordinary
business
includes
planning
scheme
or
amendments
for
the
whole
Council
area.
That's
the
Queensland
government
advice
so
also,
if
the
advice
is
that
it's
effectively
a
planning
scheme
Amendment
or
not
anything
different
from
a
plenty
skin
amendment
I
think
that
Queensland
government
advice
would
be.
H
A
Which
is
fine,
we
can
leave
it
as
it
is
yeah.
Someone
like
to
second.
H
That
but
it's
not
complete
the
condition
that
I
saw
to
apply.
It
was
that
councilor
Gates
does
not
seek
to
present
the
or
represent
the
interests
of
the
submitter
of
the
interests
of
the
donor,
who
was
also
noted
as
a
submitter.
A
Like
new
Pietro
councilor
young
talking
to
councilor
young,
about
Council
Young,
all
right,
so
we
might
say
it's
sort
of
lapsed
for
want
of
a
second
councilor
young.
Even
though
you're
Alter
Ego
was
supportive.
E
E
F
E
I'll
just
speak
briefly
when
you're
over
again
thanks
Mr
chairman
I,
just
want
to
put
on
the
record
that
I
am
confident
in
myself
that
we
are
dealing
with
a
ordinary
business
matter
and
I
think
it
would
be
troubling
for
the
council
to
effectively
set
a
precedent
whereby
any
of
us
are
constrained
when
dealing
with
trunk
infrastructure
projects
that
are
designed
to
support
growth
right
across
the
city
and
for
that
reason,
I
couldn't
find
my
way
to
supporting
councilor
Young's
proposal
that
councilor
gatesby
vetted
in
any
way.
E
During
the
course
of
debate,
I
will
take
the
added
step
of
seeking
some
advice
from
the
acting
general
counsel
between
now
and
full
Council.
To
ensure
that
my
lay
legal
opinion
is
the
correct
one
but
I'm
making
a
good
faith
determination
that
this
is
an
ordinary
business
matter
and
that
counts.
The
gates,
like
any
other
counselor,
should
participate
in
this
important
process,
which
is
merely
to
respond
to
community
feedback
on
a
plan
that
affects
every
corner
of
the
Gold
Coast
from
kumara
to
Palm
Beach,
no
from
Wonder
Woman
to
coolangatta.
H
Ra,
so
not
wishing
to
create
waves
about
this
I
won't
find
myself
supporting
it
because
the
reality
is
in
dealing
with
the
LGB.
H
The
likelihood
is
that
most
residents
have
not
made
a
submission
to
seek
to
get
a
different
outcome
than
what
was
presented
in
the
draft
for
public
exposure
and
a
company
that
gains
its
profit
and
sustainability
from
Real,
Estate,
development
and
so
forth
is
has
made
a
submission
and
I
don't
know
the
content
of
the
submission,
but
it's
obviously
particular
to
their
land
Holdings
and
their
interest,
and
that's
perfectly
legitimate
and
so
what's
presented
to
us
in
the
motion
is
not
really
reflecting
reality
in
my
opinion.
So
that's
why
I'm
not
going
to
support
it.
D
My
understanding
is
that
a
whole
variety
of
groups,
both
profit
and
non-profit,
have
made
declarations.
So
I
made
submissions
and
and
I
think
that
my
recollection
is
that
groups
like
Gecko
and
and
the
like
also
made
submissions
so
and
that's
all
going
into
the
mix
and
it's
what
the
offices
are
based.
Their
advice
on
so
I
think
it's
actually
I
think
it's
it's
appropriate.
The
council
gate
stays
in
the
room.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Councilors
will
take
the
vote
all
in
favor
councilor,
Hamill,
counciloran,
Jones,
councilor,
vorster,
counselor,
Paul
and
Young
councilor
O'neill
against.
A
A
Having
listened
to
the
debate
and
the
prospect
of
uncertainty
around
the
ordinary
business
nature
of
the
matter,
when
we
get
to
this
item,
I
will
voluntarily
leave
the
room.
A
H
I
mean
if
I
can,
given
that
the
organization
gecko
was
raised
in
discussion
just
now.
As
you
know,
I'm
an
honorary
member
of
gecko
I'm,
not
aware
of
their
submission
I
had
no
partaking
in
the
in
whatever
submission
they
may
have
made
to
lgp
and
so
I.
Don't
believe
that
I
formal
declaration
is
required,
but
I'm
just
putting
that
on
the
table
for
clarity.
What's.
A
D
A
D
A
B
B
B
E
I
again,
I
believe
that
this
is
an
ordinary
business
matter
and
I
think
we
would
benefit
from
the
advice
from
the
acting
General
Council
now
I've
got
some
concerns
with
the
old
chip
report.
Some
real
concerns,
but
I'm
even
more
concerned
about
the
prospect
of
having
a
discussion
in
the
app
in
the
absence
potentially
unnecessarily
of
our
chair
and
our
Deputy
chair
and
I.
E
Just
wonder
whether
there
would
be
an
appetite
to
defer
this
matter
to
full
Council
as
terrible
as
that
is
being
the
last
meeting
of
the
year,
so
that
we
can
deal
with
the
report
with
the
benefit
of
our
most
experienced
Council
planning,
veteran
or
whatever,
enviable
or
warm
counselors
I.
Don't
know
not,
like
legitimately
I,
think,
there's
a
public
interest
so.
A
A
B
Okay,
so
the
name
of
the
other
party
is
malpa.
B
B
Went
by
my
son
holds
the
other
50
percent
I.
You
know
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
say
that
my
son's
in
partnership
with
malpha
in
a
50
50
share
of
Ray
White
Sanctuary
Cove.
E
There's
three
to
council
Gates:
it
may
be
better
rather
than
tweaking
that
particular
row
to
make
reference
to
your
son
in
the
top
two
rows
of
this
declaration,
because
this
Pro
former
deals
with
an
interest.
Okay,.
B
That
arises,
this
is
you
know,
I
feel
this
is
a
prescribed
conflict
as
well,
not
declarable,
so
I
think
I
need
to
you're
right.
I
need
to
make
a
that
leave
the
original
one,
as
was,
and
then
make
a
prescribed
declaration
in
relation
to
the
partnership,
because
I
would
never
stay
in
the
room
for
anything
relative
to
Sanctuary
Cove
because
of
Matt's
shareholding
with
malpha
out
there.
B
B
A
We
just
let's
just
take
another
five
minute
break
and
we'll
tidy.
G
A
M
M
M
M
M
M
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
E
E
A
G
A
Right
talking
about
Council,
Peter
Young,
we'll
take
the
vote
all
in
favor
against
carried
all
right,
so
Council,
councilor,
Gates
and
I
don't
need
to
depart.
We
can
stay
for
other
items.
N
N
The
site
is
located
in
Burley
heads
just
north
of
talabadra
Creek,
with
a
residential
pocket
referred
to
as
koala
Park.
Koala
Park
is
zoned
low
and
medium
density,
residential
with
the
medium
density,
zoning
being
concentrated
closer
to
the
creek
and
Gold
Coast
Highway,
with
the
presence
of
the
central
block
opposite
the
site.
N
N
N
N
At
the
ground
floor,
the
proposed
setbacks
and
built-to-boundary
carports
are
consistent
with
other
dwelling
houses
in
this
area
and
are
able
to
achieve
an
appropriate
amenity
outcome.
Landscaping
embellishments
include
a
role
screening,
shrubs
in
front
of
the
fence,
as
well
as
two
garden
beds
to
accommodate
the
planting
of
canopy
trees.
N
The
existing
crossover
on
to
bilban
Street
to
the
north
will
be
utilized
for
residence
B,
and
an
additional
crossover
will
be
constructed
on
panu
Avenue
to
the
West
for
residence
a
similarly
at
the
first
floor.
Setbacks
are
consistent
with
the
existing
streetscape
and
are
able
to
comply
with
the
performance
outcome.
N
N
The
key
consideration
is
a
residential
density
of
one
dwelling
per
272
square
meters,
as
it
exceeds
a
prescribed
density
of
one
dwelling
per
400
square
meters,
as
identified
in
the
Suburban
neighborhood's
element
of
the
Strategic
framework.
Dual
occupancies
are
contemplated
to
provide
smaller
and
more
affordable
housing
options
where
they
are
located
on
Lots
with
dual
Frontage,
occur
in
low
concentrations
and
achieve
a
low
intensity,
low
rise
outcome.
N
The
Proposal
is
considered
to
meet
these
benchmarks,
but
low
intensity
outcome
is
achieved
as
a
development
has
a
maximum
height
of
two
stories.
The
built
form
presents
as
two
separate
dwellings
by
addressing
different
Frontiers
and
achieving
intensity,
which
is
cognizant
of
the
existing
Suburban
character.
N
N
The
resulting
built
form,
setbacks
and
site
cover
are
representative
of
what
a
single
dwelling
house
could
achieve
on
the
subject
site,
therefore,
achieving
the
desired
outcome
in
the
low
density
Zone,
because
during
public
notification
there
were
44
properly
made
submissions.
39
of
these
were
objections
and
five
are
in
support.
The
submissions
objecting
to
the
proposal
raise
planning
concerns
regarding
overdevelopment
parking
and
traffic
density
and
privacy.
N
N
H
Thanks
German,
thank
you
for
the
presentation
through
your
chair.
A
couple
of
questions
in
regards
to
the
images
shown
your
slide
9
and
again
slide
11..
So
obviously
this
is
a
render
provided
by
the
applicant.
Does
any
of
that
exist
like
to
the
building
to
the
right?
On
the
right
hand,
image
is
that
in
existence
like.
O
That
through
the
chair,
so
the
image
on
the
on
the
right
actually
includes
an
image
of
both
dwellings.
So
I
believe
that's
the
with
you.
Okay.
H
O
Through
the
chair,
there's
no
intention
to
yeah
underground
the
power
lines
as
part
of
this
proposal.
O
As
far
as
I
understand
the
the
cost
imposed
of
doing
that
is
rather
onerous
last
time,
I
was
involved
with
it.
We
can
inquire
into
that,
but
I
believe
it
would
be
unreasonably
onerous
on
the
development.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
I
just
had
a
question
regarding
the
the
reliance
of
how
City
officers
may
or
may
not
have
relied
on
the
landscape
plans
in
order
to
justify
support
for
the
approval.
How
Jermaine
was
it
to
city
offices,
con
consideration
of
character
amenity
and
what
have
you.
O
It
was
one
of
the
considerations,
sorry
through
the
chair,
when
we're
reviewing
a
density
such
as
this
in
the
low
density
area.
The
consideration
is
whether
or
not
it
achieves
a
low
intensity
outcome,
and
as
part
of
that,
it's
you
know
the
built
form,
as
well
as
the
openness
at
the
front
and
space
for
landscaping.
So
it
was
certainly
a
contributing
factor
to
the
turn.
E
E
It's
a
generous
Landscaping,
now
I've
had
a
few
of
these
type
of
developments
pop
up
in
my
own
division,
where
there's
been
a
landscape,
an
impression
of
landscaping
presented
in
renders,
but
when
I've
had
a
closer
look
at
the
conditions
of
approval,
there
are
little
protections
to
ensure
that
we
end
up
with
a
specific
or
landscape
outcome
that
matches
the
renders
sometimes,
we've
got
trees
with
minimum
bag
sizes
of
a
poultry,
100
liters,
and
also
we're
not
taking
steps
to
make
sure
that
those
future
trees
are
managed
in
a
way
that's
in
accordance
with
the
prevailing
other
cultural
standards.
E
E
What
conditions
have
we
placed
on
the
applicant
to
achieve
the
outcomes
in
the
render
and
to
maintain
them
in
accordance
with
the
standard?
In
that
render
page.
A
A
E
1
to
14.
so
Mr
chairman
like
to
take
seven,
for
example,
install
one
large
canopy
tree
at
a
minimum
400
liter
bag
size
within
the
frontage
setback
of
each
proposed
residence.
Each
train
must
be
installed
within
a
landscape
garden
bed
containing
a
minimum
width
of
1.5
meters
containing
a
minimum
surface
area
of
six
mine.
E
Sorry,
that's
what
it
should
be
that
no
no
well
that's
what
I
do
in
my
division.
I'll
make
sure
that
it's
400.
and
in
my
experience,
what
can
often
happen
is
that
a
tree
is
put
in
at
200.
People
don't
want
the
tree
to
grow
to
its
full
maturity,
so
they
take
out
this
selective
pruning
stuff
the
tree
up,
and
then
we
end
up
with
a
very
harsh
interface
between
the
street
and
the
home.
O
Through
the
chair,
I,
wouldn't
necessarily
say
it's
it's
unreasonable,
I'm,
I,
guess
it
wouldn't
what's
being
proposed
here,
is
sufficient
to
achieve
requirements
in
terms
of
landscaping
along
that
Frontage.
So,
in
addition
to
that,
the
the
conditions
as
part
of
condition
five
includes
requirements
in
terms
of
the
strawberry
at
the
front
and
I
had
some
a
14
requires
the
planting
of
Street
trees,
where
they
currently
are
none,
particularly
at
the
frontage
of
tavilvin.
As
far
as
we
determine
that
it
can
be
two
trees
that
can
be
two
Street
trees
included
there.
O
E
Right
and
looking
at
5B,
it
says
it
construct
and
maintain
the
private
Landscaping
identified
above
at
no
cost
to
council.
At
all
times,
do
you
think
it
would
be
unreasonable
to
require
that
maintenance
to
be
done
to
the
prevailing
other
cultural
standards
just
so
that
we
don't
have
people
butchering
a
tree
to
keep
it
to
a
particular
size?
E
M
I
P
Yeah
we
do,
we
do
no
I,
don't
see
it's
unreasonable
if
it's
200
or
400
they'll
still
meet
the
minimum
requirements
from
the
building
we
can
put
in
there
that
they
can
be
maintained.
They
normally
maintained
for
the
life
of
the
property
under
the
development
anyway,
but
I
see
that
if
we
just
put
on
there
that
they're
maintained
to
agricultural
conditions,
they
can't
do
unlawful
pruning
or
anything
like
that.
E
Yeah
so
Mr
chairman
I,
think
what
I
might
do
between
that.
Full
council
is
to
get
a
copy
of
the
conditions
that
we
applied
to
that
development.
Approval
at
the
corner
of
manly
drive
a
Newport
Drive.
If
City
officers
want
to
make
a
note
where
we
had
a
similar
situation
that
protected
the
much
larger
trees
that
we
conditioned
there
and
I'll
leave
it
at
that
today,
I
won't
be
supporting
them
and
so
I've
got
those
firm
words,
but
look
forward
to
supporting
it
at
full
Council.
If
we
can
protect
those
trees.
A
D
E
We've
got
like
four
or
four
lanes:
yeah.
I
P
Yeah
I
appreciate
that
through
residential
straights
it
is
conditioned
in
the
ldgs
for
75
to
100
liter
trees.
P
P
L
E
Yeah,
so
it
says
it
installed
one
large
canopy
tree,
so
this
is
five,
a
seven
yeah
where
it
says,
install
one
large
canopy
tree
right.
So
it's
a
canopy
that
we're
trying
to
create
here
to
soften
the
the
bulk
of
the
overall
development
from
the
street
that'd,
be
a
minimum
200
liter
bag
size,
so
I'm
saying
400
liters
within
the
within
the
frontage
setback
of
each
proposed
resident.
So
this
is
so.
These
are
locations.
E
A
A
Sort
of
Greening
again
one
thing
that
I've
seen
fail
recently
is
that
I've
had
a
property,
a
duplex
in
holywell,
where
there,
the
planting
was
done
in
accordance
with
the
plans
and
blah
blah,
and
the
new
owners
have
now
come
in
and
gone
well.
I,
don't
like
that,
and
just
demolish
the
whole
thing
revealing
colorbond
fence.
Now
one
doesn't
go
without
the
other,
so
I,
don't
know
how
we
actually
alert.
A
E
A
And
I
just
think,
particularly
where
it's
a
this
type
of
development
that
something's
likely
to
be
unsold.
The
new
buyers
might
not
be
aware
that
these
are
things
that
are
deliberately
done
in
order
to
facilitate
the
type
of
development
they
purchased
and
the
fencing
typology
behind.
Had
the
Landscaping
not
been
there,
we
would
have
required
it
to
have
had
a
level
of
transparency
and
that
sort
of
thing
so
I'm
just
flagging
it
as
an
area
where
we
somehow
need
to
get
some
better
comps.
Yes,
Cass.
Thank.
P
You
so
through
chair,
we
have
put
conditions
on
the
opws
now
to
notify
the
property
owners
that
the
conditions
of
approval
are
for
the
life
of
the
development.
So
if
the
property
owner
does
change,
they
are
to
remain
on
that
property
for
all
the
Landscaping,
so
it's
not
to
be
removed.
If
it
is,
it
can
become
a
compliance
issue.
So.
A
B
You
and
it's
not
in
regard
especially
to
this,
because
this
is
just
a
duplex
development,
but
I've
got
a
number
of
situations
where
the
former
representative,
as
approved
planting
outside,
like
I've,
got
streets
at
coomera
that
run
off.
For
example,
Foxwell
Road
and
the
house
fronts
the
street.
That's
an
offshoot
and
along
along.
B
B
Along
the
boundary,
there's
there's
planting
that
Council
won't
look
after
because
it's
actually
within
the
property,
boundary
and
and
I
really
think
we
have
to
stop
conditioning
the
planting
within
the
propert
property
boundary
where
there's
no
access,
one
of
the
back
fences
Go
the
whole
way
along
no
one's
going
to
walk.
B
A
B
Something
we
need
to
consider
moving
forward
with
our
conditions,
because
it's
impossible
and
and
then
we're
left
with
these
weedy
half
dead
horrible
garden
beds,
which
don't
achieve
what
the
original
aim
of
the
condition
was
and
that
it's
happening
in
many
instances.
So
maybe
one
day
we
can
discuss
that
in
general,
business.
L
L
Help
me
understand
how
we
came
to
the
conclusion
that
this
was
a
desirable
outcome.
I'm
reading
I
mean
I've,
read
the
the
pages
you
know
the
84
and
that
kind
of
area
I'm
just
wrestling
with
it.
Is
there
any
other
places
in
this
Precinct
that
have
less
than
400,
or
is
this
the
first
so
across
the
road?
So.
Q
A
The
locality,
so
you
can
see
that
directly
across
the
road
yeah
I
know
this,
but
the
the
typology
that's
in
the
area.
There's
a
mix
because
immediately
across
the
road
you've
got
what
appears
to
be
a
triplex
on
that
corner
right.
So
you
know.
So
that's
one
thing.
The
second
thing,
if
you
go
to
the
slide,
that
has
the
six
bullet
points
about
the
higher
order.
A
L
That
makes
sense
so
I
think.
My
question
is
help
me
understand:
I'll
go
back
to
the
lot
where
it
talked
about
the
broader
area.
If
you
wouldn't
mind
so
I
can
see
that
the
is
it
pink,
I'm
colorblind.
So
please
is
it
pink
that
it's
pink?
Is
it
pink
yeah,
so
there's
a
pink
area
there
that
has
higher
density
than
this
area
down,
but
but
everywhere,
south
of
table
band
Street
that
doesn't
appear
to
be
any
pink
Lots
at
all.
O
Through
the
chair,
the
the
minimum
lot
size
is
so
just
to
be
clear:
the
there's
a
couple
of
colors
on
the
screen,
so
the
area-
that's
sort
of
you-
know
fronting
telebudger
Creek
to
the
South
East.
If
you
like
and
then
sort
of
bleeding
up
to
the
north
west
koala
Park
is
quite
Yeah,
medium
density
wrapping
around
that
is
a
lighter
pink.
O
That's
the
low
density
Zone
so
where,
where
in
the
low
density
Zone
the
city
plan
foresies
into
certain
circumstances,
to
have
smaller,
more
affordable
housing
options,
sort
of
peppered
through
that
and
the
similar
locational
requirements
that
are
required
to
be
met
first
and
foremost.
Yes,
so
you
need
to
either
have
a
residential
density
designation
of
rd1
or
be
on
a
lot
with
the
Dual
Frontage
right,
a
corner
block
yeah.
So
you
know
as
this
one
does.
O
You
also
need
to
achieve
a
gentle
scattering
effect
of
these
smaller
Lots
in
the
low
density
Zone?
Being
that
this
one
is,
you
know
the
only
one
in
the
vicinity
and
it
certainly
achieves
that
low
concentration
and
it
has
to
achieve
a
low
intensity
and
a
low-rise
built
form
yeah,
so
low,
Rises,
two
stories
or
lower
and
then
low
intensity
is,
is
not
it's
not
defined
in
the
city
plan.
O
But
it's
made
up
by
I
think,
as
I
explained
earlier,
that
the
combination
of
the
built
form
outcome
in
terms
of
the
setbacks
and
the
site
cover
yeah
as
well.
As
you
know,
something
that
sort
of
commensurate
to
what
you
would
expect
in
terms
of
a
single
residential
dwelling
on
this
lot.
So
if
this
lot
would
be
to
remain
and
a
single
dwelling
were
to
be
built
on
this
in
compliance
with
the
city
plan,
you
get
a
similar
built
form
intensity
outcome
as
what
we're
proposing
here,
but.
O
Right,
correct
and
that's
part
of
the
reason
why
econom
platform
only
on
Dual
frontages,
so
you
have
the
the
garage
or
the
carport
on
the
alternative
Frontage
and
in
this
instance
you
know
because
it's
got
a
dual
Frontage,
even
though
there's
a
single
dwelling
on
that
and
currently
they
could
actually
apply
for
and
obtain
approval
for
a
secondary
vxo
from
Council.
Now
so.
O
L
L
L
O
The
through
the
chair
in
the
dark
areas
in
the
medium
density
area,
they
are
contemplated,
sort
of
as
commonplace
correct.
So
again,
they're
expected.
You
know
on
just
about
every
lot,
not
just
dual
occupancies,
but
multiple
dwellings
got
it.
You
know
sometimes
it
you
know,
I
think
the
the
height
limit
changes
as
well.
So
it's
more
far
more
intense,
but
the
low
density
area
also
contemplates
some
small
housing
options
where
you
meet
specific
criteria
right.
L
And
so
we
get
to
this
subjective
idea
about
what
is
small,
because
I've
had
this
similar
thing
come
up
in
gilston,
where
it's
talked
about
small.
What
is
small?
No
one
defines
what
small
is,
but
here
it
seems
like
there's
some
threshold
of
400
meters
per
square
meters
per
dwelling
and
we've
we've
done
that
on
on
the
subjective
grounds
of
a
template
and
saying
that's,
okay,
but
I
can't
see
any
other
place
where
it's
happened.
L
O
Through
the
chair,
the
the
you
know,
developments
may
come
forward
on
other
Corner
Lots
in
this
area
in
the
in
the
low
density
area,
and
you
know
they'll
be
assessed
on
their
merits.
Yes,
but
we're
only
assessing
this
one
and
one
of
the
the
Criterion.
The
criteria
that
we
assess
it
against
is
that
there
needs
to
be
a
gentle
scattering
effect
low
concentration
where
in
the
low
density
area,
and
given
that
this
one
is
the
first
one
in
the
low
density
area
in
this
in
in
koala
park.
It
meets
that
Criterion.
A
K
Something
quickly
said:
I'm
not
familiar
with
the
the
change
where,
through
opw,
we're
now
conditioning
the
trees,
and
that
then
allows
development
compliance
to
occur
if
it's
through
opw
approval.
That
also
means
that
maintenance,
bonds-
and
things
like
that
can
be
applied
like
that,
wouldn't
be
part
of
the
condition
here.
Is
it
that
there's
a
maintenance
Bond
on
the
single
tree
plants
in
each
of
these
houses.
R
P
P
P
G
A
L
O
Through
the
chair,
we
don't
have
a
definition
of
it,
but
it's
I
mean
I.
Guess
it's
not
for
consideration
here,
because
it
is
the
only
one
in
this
location
so
as
more
come
forward.
We
would
need
to
address
that
as
they
did
in
this
area.
O
E
Council
vorster,
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
I'd,
just
like
to
thank
councilor
Tozer
for
beginning
some
questions
along
my
lines
as
well.
So
when
we
talk
about
a
gentle
scattering,
that's
just
except
for
a
moment
that
there
is
a
definition
right.
Let's
just
assume,
that's
the
case.
E
What
catchment
do
we
look
at
when
testing
a
gentle
scattering
so,
for
example,
that
light
pink
area,
which
is
the
low
density
area,
is
quite
large.
It
extends
from
the
top
of
the
slide
all
the
way
down
to
the
bottom,
and
you
know
three
quarters
of
the
way
East.
E
O
O
E
E
So
would
you
let's
say
we've
got
another
application
in.
Would
you
say
that
those
Corner
Lots
all
things
well,
other
things
being
equal,
would
higher
intensity
development?
There
meet
the
test
of
a
gentle
scattering
or
by
approving
this
one.
Are
we
precluding
or
make
it
more
difficult
for
other
lot
owners
to
achieve
a
high
intensity
outcome.
O
A
I
mean
the
way
I
look
at
it
is
this
in
that
whole
catchment
I've
just
counted,
there's
only
four
other
Corner
blocks
with
dual
frontages
in
the
low
density
designing.
So
even
if,
numerically,
you
approved
four
out
of
a
catchment
of
what
50
100,
you
know
like
I
I
think
it
would
probably
be
a
pretty
low
percentage,
which
might
be
construed
to
be
a
gentle
scattering,
so
I
think
we're
we're
a
long
way
off
having
a
concern
right.
So
just.
E
Last
question:
what
is
the
mapped
height
of
this
low
density
residential
area
so.
O
The
through
the
chair
that
there's
no
particular
mapped
height-
it's
just
you
know,
taken
that
it
be
a
maximum
of
of
two
stories
and
nine
meters
with
potential,
for
you
know
a
partial
third,
as
long
as
it's
still
under
nine
meters.
Okay,.
O
Again
through
the
chair,
that's
not
what
was
not
what
was
proposed,
but
we
have
had
others
proposed
where
they
have
included
partial
thirds
and
there
would
need
to
be.
You
know
an
overall
built
form
outcome
and
openness
at
the
front
and
Landscaping
and
so
forth
that
we'd
be
deemed
to
achieve
low
intensity.
In
line
with
you
know,
the
intent
and
existing
character
of
the
Suburban,
neighborhood
right,
say.
E
O
A
Right,
thank
you
all
right.
Someone
like
counciloral
Jones,
so
I
would
like
to
move
it.
Yeah
move
seconded
by
councilor,
O'neill,
councilor,
Alan
Jones,
so.
D
D
So
so
it's
in
I'll
start
by
saying
it's
interesting.
I
actually
did
ask
for
a
very
similar
project
to
come
forward
and
it
did
come
forward
as
the
earlier
item
today
and
that
was
quite
deliberate
on
my
part,
and
it
was
starred
and
I
didn't
unstar
it.
D
But
what
it
has
created
is
a
pathway
for
people
in
the
area
that
I
represent
to
have
a
clear
idea
of
what
an
approval
looks
like
for
a
corner
lot
in
accordance
with
this
game
and
and
I
did
that
not
knowing
that
there
was
going
to
be
a
comparable
dual
occupancy
effectively,
also
at
the
same
time
and
and
a
slightly
different
density,
but
not
dissimilar,
because,
ultimately,
our
scheme
isn't
a
prescriptive
scheme
and
it
allows
it
actually
allows
and
expects
for
these
applications
to
be
made.
D
If
I
could
briefly
speak
in
regards
to
to
the
number
of
corner
Lots
in
helensvale,
there's
180
of
them,
and
that
was
that
has
created
some
concern
in
my
mind,
to
be
able
to
say
to
people.
This
is
actually
what
really
good
development
looks
like
and
I
and
I
accept.
D
The
fact
that
the
the
difference
in
density
is
is
is
is,
is
a
lot
more
gentler
in
the
one
that
we
looked
at
as
6.1
than
this,
but
I
think
that
the
conversation
that
we've
had
today
around
the
street
plan
or
the
tree
planting
and
and
that
and
dealing
with
the
interface
between
the
public
Realm
of
the
of
the
of
the
pathway
and
the
development
site
where
people
are
going
to
live,
is
important
because
I
think
that
we
are
a
city
that
does
have
aspirational
goals
to
have
green
and
healthy
outcomes.
D
I'd
like
to
think
that
most
people
that
are
going
to
buy
a
brand
a
new
product
that
these
two
houses
effectively
would
reflect
would
actually
be
pretty
proud
of
what
they're
buying
and
aren't
going
to
go
out
of
their
way
to
necessarily
prune
a
tree.
Canopy
and
I
accept
that
Council
of
Oster
has
talked
about
a
400
liter
tree
as
opposed
to
the
proposed.
You
know
minimum
size
of
240
200.
Sorry
240
is
the
size
of
a
wheelie
bin,
so
a
green
bin,
so
so
I
think
it
I.
D
D
The
the
gentle
sprinkling
of
this
type
of
product
through
established
Estates
is
actually
is
pretty
important
in
my
mind,
because
it
effectively
provides
accessible
access
to
to
a
different
type
of
accommodation
and
that's
important
for
our
city
moving
forward.
So
I
I
think
that
it's
I
think
that
it's
a
really
useful
exercise
that
we've
actually
had.
These
two
applications
come
to
committee
because
I
actually
think
it
fine.
D
Four
or
eight
Corners
also
showed
that
in
a
way
the
history
of
how
City
plans
change,
because
there
was
a
couple
of
streets
where
there's
clearly
significantly
smaller
than
this
side,
where
at
some
point
in
the
past,
people
have
approved
350
or
400
square
meter,
stand-alone,
Freehold
titles
and
the
2016
scheme,
with
its
amendments,
allows
for
that
to
now
happen
on
corners
and
I.
D
Think
that
it's
a
positive
thing
and
I
actually
think
the
fact
that
we've
got
two
examples
now
on
on
record
through
the
committee
and
the
council
process
that
show
what
some
architectural
Merit
looks
like
is
a
really
good
way
of
pointing
people
who
want
to
make
applications
in
the
future.
To
what
good
looks
like.
S
Thanks
Mr
chair,
thank
you
for
allowing
this
to
come
to
committee.
I
did
ask
that
it'd
be
and
and
thanks
for
the
discussion
today,
I
have
had
a
number
of
discussions
with
Council
officers
and,
as
you
can
see,
with
the
35
39
objections,
there's
a
lot
of
concern
within
the
koala
Park
neighborhood.
In
regards
to
this
particular
one
now
she's
set
its
first
cab
offer
of
the
rank.
S
There
are
actually
eight
properties
that
could
be
looked
at
at
the
same
criteria
around
that
that
particular
area,
because
the
the
blocks
are
so
small
you,
you
could
have
one
on
each
corner
with
you
know
if
you
have
a
look
at
that
plan,
that
comes
up
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
road
and
by
the
way,
this
is
on
the
road
that
we
discussed.
The
other
day
with
table
band
street
that
9
000
Vehicles
go
past
there
every
day.
So
it's
a
pretty
intense
area,
and
this
is
going
to
add
too.
S
It's
got
four
four
bedrooms:
eight
bedrooms
on
site
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
road,
it's
a
one,
dwelling
per
250
square
meters,
so
it's
pretty
intense
and
on
the
opposite
corner,
there's
just
been
one
property
completed
and
it's
very
intense
on
the
opposite
side
of
tablet
band
street,
so
Mr
chair,
you
know,
there's
been
a
number
of
issues
that
have
been
raised
by
the
community
about
the
destruction
of
the
character
of
the
area.
S
If
these
type
of
developments
are
starting
to
encroach
in
that
the
light,
pink
low
density,
residential
area
that
usually
400
square
meters,
so
I
had
to
take
Council
offices
advice,
even
though
I
felt
that
this
is
creating
a
terrible
precedent
for
the
koiler
Park
area
and
and
certainly
with
that
encroachment
on
the
low
density.
We're
going
to
see
all
those
applications
in
and
and
like
was
mentioned
before,
General
scattering
effect
and
I've
even
raised
that
with
the
council
offices.
S
What's
the
you
know,
determination
of
a
general
scattering
effect
and
I'm
pleased
that
it
was
raised
here
again
today.
Thank
you,
Council.
A
L
Did
you
want
some
speaking
before
I'll?
Probably
speak
against
I,
don't
mind,
you
know,
look
I,
gotta,
say
I
think
there's
actually
a
profound
difference
between
one
dwelling
per
396
square
meters,
which
is
about
one
percent
less
than
400,
and
one
dwelling
per
272
and
I
think
that
we've,
if
we've
signaled,
that
a
dual
Ox,
okay
on
a
corner
block
and
the
threshold
that
we've
kind
of
nominally
said,
is
that
400
square
meters?
L
Then
we
probably
shouldn't
stick
much
closer
to
that
yeah
I
I
appreciate
the
Dual
occupancy
is
an
important
part
for
us
to
get
affordable
product
on
the
market
and
that
we
should
think
carefully
about
how
the
low
density
Zone
treats
these
sorts
of
things.
But
I
just
I
can't
as
much
as
I
like
the
architectural,
Merit,
I.
L
Think
subjectively
any
person
could
look
at
that
and
say
they
look
quite
good
I
think
it
sets
I
think
if
it
ever
gets
tested
the
the
tests
aren't
ultimately
going
to
be
about
architectural
Merit
down
the
track,
they're
going
to
be
about
lot
sizes
and
how
many
square
meters
per
dwelling
and
I
think
this
sets
a
really.
You
know
a
difficult
precedent,
no
matter
how
architecturally
meritorious
the
the
product
is
I
think
it
creates
this
yeah
272
square
meters
on
a
corner
block
seems
like
people
with
550
square
meter.
L
If
we
want
to
entertain
270
square
meter
blocks
and
smaller
lot
sizes
and
more
dwellings
and
greater
density,
then
we
should
just
go
through
the
proper
process
to
change
the
planning
scheme
to
make
this
a
medium
density
area
as
opposed
to
a
low
density
area.
That's
what
we
should
do.
We
should
signal
to
the
public
that
this
is
what
we're
going
to
do
in
a
particular
area.
We
shouldn't
let
it
happen
by
creep
or
by
subjective
measures.
It
should
be
by
quite
clear.
L
This
is
how
many
square
meters
you
need
to
put
a
dwelling
for
a
family
of
five
people
to
to
to
dwell
in
a
place.
I
just
I,
can't
that
support
and
I
I
won't
be
voting
today
because
I'm
not
on
the
committee
but
I,
see
Council,
McDonald's,
Points
and
I
think
we
need
to.
We
need
to
respect
the
measures
that
we've
set
in
each
Zone
when
it
comes
to
these.
These
square
meter
metrics
as
opposed
to
architectural,
architectural
Merit,
metrics.
K
Keep
a
brief,
Mr
chair,
so
I'm
just
going
to
pick
up
on
a
councilor
toes
this
point
straight
away,
but
I
didn't
really
read
much
in
this
report
that
spoke
to
architectural
Merit.
As
being
the
reasons
why
we're
approving
this
might
have
been
one
of
the
considerations,
but
it's
got
a
lot
more
to
the
site
cover
and
the
other
conditions
to
meet
what's
needed
there
around
Landscaping
intent.
K
I
also
know
too
from
the
times
these
have
come
to
committee
before
that,
before
it
even
gets
to
that
next
test
of
minimum
lot
sizes
and
whatnot
that
actual
Street
Frontage
width,
that's
available
in
position
of
vxos
tends
to
be
what
knocks
most
of
these
on
the
head
pretty
early.
So
while
there
may
be
eight
Corners
in
this
Precinct
having
a
quick
measure
on
a
few
of
them
purely
based
on
the
minimum,
Street
fundage
requirement
for
a
dual
lock
they'd
be
knocked
out
straight
away.
K
I'm.
Having
a
look
on
the
Aerials
available
in
the
report
to
Mr
chair
that
the
site
cover
of
these
two
buildings
on
a
500
square
meter
block
is
less
than
the
majority
of
the
single
dwellings
in
the
area.
Like
It,
Is,
Well
informed
well
in
keeping
with
from
what
I
can
see
the
rest
of
the
area
in
terms
of
site
cover
which
includes
that,
in
the
medium
residential
on
the
other
side
of
the
road
where
there
could
be
dual
lock
and
Triplex
and
everything
else
there's
also
single
dwellings
in
amongst
it.
K
Chair
I'm,
just
a
bit
confused
in
this
that
this
isn't
the
time
we
bring
up
the
planning
scheme
stuff
like
I'm.
If
you
want
to
take,
make
a
Amendment
to
the
planning
scheme
in
the
next
round
to
remove
these
then
go
for
it
I'm
fairly,
confident
that
I
haven't
seen
that
proposed
any
time
in
this
area
to
remove
your
locks
of
corner
blocks.
If
you
want
to
go
down
that
path
and
you're
in
the
future,
but
for
now
this
is
absolutely
contemplated
in
City
plan.
I.
K
T
Thank
you,
chair
and
and
I'll,
be
very
brief.
Our
city
plan
looks
to
have
a
variety
of
housing
choices,
smaller
and
more
affordable
scattered
throughout
the
city,
so
I'm
very
happy
to
support
this
one
today
we're
looking
at
some
urban
renewal
in
this
area.
It's
a
very
old
area
and
we've
got
a
lot
of
new
people
coming
into
the
city
and
they're
looking
to
to
purchase
and
to
to
build
long
term.
So
this
is
providing
a
a
variety
of
housing
in
this
area
and
we
don't
have
a
prescriptive
planning
scheme.
T
U
Oh
I,
do
know
the
area
I'm
one
of
the
problems,
that's
correct,
but
what
I
see
in
the
medium
density?
What's
popped
up
in
the
median
density
area
just
across
the
road
is
far
less
desirable
than
we've
got.
What
we've
got
here
before
us
today,
I
can
assure
you
and
I
think
and
I
looked
at
this
closely
because
it
of
the
density
but
I
think
that
with
the
architectural
Merit
I
think
it's
really
a
great
outcome
for
that
area
and,
unfortunately,
our
pity
it
wasn't
across
the
road
as
well.
D
Yeah,
so
so
counselor
councilors
we've
heard
a
fair
bit
today,
and
most
of
it
has
talked
about
a
wish
that
we
had
a
prescriptive
scheme
and
we
don't
we've
got
to
performance-based
scheme,
so
councilor
Tozer
when
you
talk
about
being
giving
Surety
in
regards
to
density
and
400,
like
that,
the
challenge
we
have
is
that,
because
of
the
way
our
scheme
has
to
be
structured
by
state
legislation,
you
can
have
code
accessible
or
impact
accessible.
The
400
is
what
is
the
trigger
for
it
for
becoming
impact.
D
Accessible
I
spoke
earlier
today
about
what's
happening
in
helensvale
and
the
corner
blocks,
but
I've
also
got
300
blocks
in
helensvale,
which
are
greater
than
800
square
meters,
where
it's
basically
code
accessible
to
allow
for
the
creation
of
two
titles
and
that's
what
the
scheme
allows
for.
If
we
don't
want
that,
we
actually
need
to
try
to
argue
to
something
different,
but
we
it's
clearly
not
going
to
happen
either
because
schemes
it's
really
hard
to
go
backwards.
So
I
think
that
we
can't
wish
for
something
that
isn't
in
the
scheme.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Debate's
closed.
Take
the
vote.
All
in
favor
against
carried
yeah
and
Council
of
warstrom
just
had
a
look
at
the
image
you
sent
through
over
400
liter
bag
size
odd
enough
we're
going
to
fit
that
between
the
property
boundary
and
the
fence
so
I'm.
Just
we
just
need
to
make
sure
that
that
is
a
sensible
fit
for
purpose
outcome.
A
Okay
carried,
thank
you,
it's
12,
54
and
lunch
has
just
arrived,
so
we
might
take
this
opportunity
to
take
a
break,
probably
for
20
minutes
or
so.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
A
A
A
A
A
E
J
Tower
the
development
has
previous
approvals
over
the
site,
there's
a
previous
material
change
of
use
for
multiple
dwellings,
short-term
accommodation,
shop
and
food
and
drink
Outlet.
This
development
comprised
of
386
dwellings
in
Four
Towers
over
two
stages.
This
application
was
approved
on
the
6th
of
December
2019.
You
can
see
the
two
of
the
towers
are
currently
nearing
completion
on
site
at
the
moment.
J
J
J
J
A
J
J
Through
the
chair,
the
small
portion
that
juts
out
to
the
side
is
the
waste
management
area.
Go
back
to
basement
two.
You
can
see
that
small
portion
in
the
corner
of
the
plant
fronting
onto
Main
Street,
where
the
volumetric
lot
goes
all
the
way
along
the
frontage
of
Main
Street.
That
includes
that
Waste
Management
Area,
then,
as
you
go
up
to
level
one,
that's
pulled
back
and
only
covers
stage
one
up
to
the
entrance
into
the
development
and.
A
A
How
do
we,
it
seems
to
me
at
ground
level.
The
road
is
actually
going
to
be
in
multiple
ownerships.
Is
that
what
we're
expecting.
J
A
J
J
Jodie's
constructed
on
site
the
entry
okay,
there
are
some
more
photos
at
the
end
which
may
show
that
entry-
perhaps
perhaps
that's
a
portion
of
the
entry
there,
but
probably
not
in
the
correct
location.
That's
probably
a
bit
further
out
oops
yeah.
It
doesn't
really
show
up.
Probably
sorry.
E
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr
chairman
I
know:
we've
had
a
long
session,
but
I've
got
very
real
concerns
about
what
at
first
glance
appears
a
very
simple
code,
accessible
application,
I'm,
not
satisfied
that
we're
dealing
with
this
matter
appropriately
and
I
think
we
need
to
get
to
the
bottom
of
how
we
arrived
here
today
and
I
wish.
That
was
not
the
case
and
I've
I've
sought
for
months
legal
advice
to
inform
my
deliberations
on
this
matter.
E
I
haven't
been
furnished
with
that
legal
advice,
despite
asking
for
it
for
months
and
I
just
want
to
take
the
opportunity
to
ask
some
questions
today
to
try
and
satisfy
myself
that
this
is
an
appropriate
decision
for
Council
to
be
making
or
not,
and
if
we
arrive
in
a
position
where
the
committee
supports
the
officer
recommendation
I
just
want
to
flag
that
we
need
to
get
to
the
bottom
of
what
happened
here
and
it
may
require
General
business
item
to
be
considered.
E
But
can
you
confirm
that
we
have
multiple
concurrent
approvals
over
the
site
to
Capital
Court
Robina?
Oh
sorry,
bus
City,
Lakes.
J
Through
the
chair,
there
are
multiple.
Yes,
as
I
mentioned,
there
was
the
original
material
change
of
use
for
the
multiple
dwelling,
short-term
accommodation
and
so
on.
That
was
the
one
approved
back
in
December
19,
and
then
there
was
minor
change
to
that
approval,
and
then
there
was
a
material
change
of
use
for
additions,
which
involved
the
increase
in
density
and
height
of
building
four,
and
that
was
the
one
that
was
approved
at
council
meeting
on
the
24th
of
November.
E
2020.
so
so
you
talked
about
three
approvals,
you
had
the
initial
one,
get
the
change,
and
then
you
had
the
additions.
Now
the
change
right
did.
The
change
affect
the
conditions
of
approval
that
had
been
that
apply
to
the
first
approval,
in
other
words,
the
first
approval
had
conditions.
Did
the
change
affect
some
of
those
conditions.
J
E
J
So
through
the
chair,
the
car
parking
on
the
whole
of
the
site
in
the
original
approval
required
500
or
was
approved
for
506
car
parking
spaces.
The
AO,
the
transport
code,
a01
required
430
car
parking.
E
Services,
so
that's
so
I
I
really
don't
want
to
confuse
my
colleagues
in
the
same
way
that
I
was
confused.
So
if
we
could,
just
with
all
due
respect,
if
you
could
attempt
to
to
narrow
your
answer
to
my
question,
which
is
for
the
after
the
second
approval,
which
was
the
change
to
the
first,
how
many
car
Parks
were
a
condition
of
approval.
E
All
right
so
for
the
first
stage,
not
the
second
stage,
how
many
car
parks
were
required
after
the
second
approval,
which
modified
the
conditions
of
the
first
and
I,
threw
you
Mr
chairman.
Perhaps
I
can
get
an
answer
from
Roger,
because
I've
been
furnished
with
a
figure
which
is
different
to
the
500
and
something.
E
There
are
two
concurrent
approvals
at
the
site:
there's
the
first
approval,
which
was
modified
in
some
minor
way,
which
governs
I,
think
the
first
10
stories
of
the
development
there's
one
approval.
There
is
a
second
approval,
which
is
this
weird
volumetric
approval,
which
sits
on
top
of
the
first
10
stories.
E
They
are
separate
entirely
separate
approvals,
I'm,
not
asking
about
the
second
approval,
the
extra
seven
stories
or
whatever
it
is
I'm
not
asking
about
that
I'm
I'm
dealing
with
the
the
successive
approvals
that
gave
us
the
first
10
stories
off
the
first
stage,
how
many
car
bucks
were
required
as
a
condition
of
approval.
Three.
V
E
V
Mr
chair
my
take
on
it
is
that
a
subsequent
MCU
was
lodged.
It
was
an
impact
assessment
for
the
additional
six
stories
that
was
a
fresh
assessment
by
officers
in
relation
to
car
parking.
The
applicant
provided
a
traffic
engineer's
assessment
to
say
that
no
additional
car
parking
was
required.
Our
Traffic
Engineers
made
a
fresh
assessment,
largely
based
on
the
a01
of
the
transport
code
and
considered
that
no
extra
car
parking
was
required
was
required,
based
on
compliance
with
the
aom,
just
out
of
interest
in
relation
to
po3
of
the
transport
code.
V
It's
in
relation
to
extensions
to
development.
They
are
to
provide
additional
car
parking
spaces
to
meet
the
increased
parking
demand.
That's
the
PO,
but
the
note
says
additional
car
parking
spaces
are
not
required
where
it
can
be
demonstrated
that
the
existing
parking
on
site
was
in
excess
of
the
city
plan
requirements
at
the
time
of
approval.
So
Council
officers
had
regard
to
the
city
plan
and
considered
that,
notwithstanding
what
the
condition
was
on
the
original
one
that
based
on
compliance
with
the
Ao,
no
additional
car
parking
was
required
for
the
subsequent
MCU.
V
This
was
a
recommendation
under
the
the
the
subsequent
MCU
and
was
was
brought
to
this
committee
as
a
recommendation
based
on
that.
So
finding.
E
So
Mr
chairman
I've,
allowed
Roger
to
say
his
peace
out
of
my
deep
respect
for
him,
but
yet
again,
I
find
that
my
questions
concerning
the
first
stage
in
the
initial
development
have
been
conflated
by
a
second
separate
development.
Application
and
I
would
appreciate
if
my
questions
can
be
answered
directly,
so
that
we
can
have
absolute
Clarity
around
what
has
occurred
because
conflating
the
two
has
caused
a
lot
of
confusion
in
the
community,
a
lot
of
confusion
in
this
chamber
and
has
given
rise
to
some
serious
questions
on
my
behalf.
E
So
with
all
due
respect,
if
we
could
narrow
it
down
to
the
first
stage,
I'd
appreciate
it
so
just
to
reset
would
it
be
fair
to
say
that
there
is
a
development
approval
which
exists
today,
which
is
publicly
available
through
PD
online?
That
says
that
the
first
10
stories
of
stage,
one
of
this
development
is
to
provide
258
car
parks
for
those
residents
and
36
car
parks
for
their
related
visitors.
V
Through
you,
Mr
chair,
I
I
think
we're
just
going
to
have
to
see
things
differently.
It
doesn't
say
for
those
residents
there's
a
requirement
to
supply
car
parking
spaces
for
residents
and
visitors.
I
I
acknowledge
that,
but
there
is
no
allocation
within
the
the
condition
we
do
not.
Our
jurisdiction
doesn't
lie
with
the
allocation
of
car
parking
spaces.
V
E
Mr
chairman,
so
through
you
to
Roger
the
plans
that
were
approved.
E
For
the
10
stories,
which
showed
a
basement
with
500
plus
car
Parks,
but
258
car
parks
for
the
residents
and
36
for
the
visitors,
for
that
stage,
do
you
think
it
is?
Do
you
think
the
community
or
the
decision
makers
who
voted,
including
myself,
to
approve
that
development
did
so
on
the
basis
that
that
would
be
the
Quantum
of
car
Parks
provided
for
the
res
for
the
units
that
were
outlined
in
those
plans.
V
Through
you,
Mr,
chair,
I,
think
so
at
the
time,
but
it's
an
applicant's
prerogative
to
Lodge
subsequent
MCU
applications
and
those
MCU
applications
where
we're
entitled
to
make
a
fresh
assessment
on
the
car
parking
and
I'd
just
like
to
bring
to
the
committee's
attention.
We've
done
that
at
the
Rock
pools
development.
E
Mr
chairman
this
I
just
want
to
make
this
point
absolutely
clear
that
you
cannot
compare
what
happened
at
rockpools,
right
or
Rock
pool.
What
is
it
Rock
pool
with
what's
happened
here,
because
the
applicant
did
not
seek
to
change
an
existing
approval
to
add
units.
They
lodged
a
fresh
application
for
an
entirely
new
development
that
happened
to
sit
above
their
existing
development
right.
E
So
I
fully
accept
that
that's
what
happened
at
rockpool
and
if
I
voted
to
support
it,
you
know
so
be
it
I
think
that's
a
reasonable
outcome,
if
they're
complying
with
the
AO
and,
if
they're
complying
with
the
conditions
of
approval
as
amended.
But
my
point
is:
if
I
go
to
PD
online
I
can
download
a
copy
of
an
approval
for
a
10-story
building
that
says
for
the
10-story
building.
There
is
to
be
258
car
parks
for
the
residents
and
36
car
parks
for
the
visitors.
E
Now,
notwithstanding
that,
there
is
a
second
or
third
MCU
that
third
MCU
does
not
modify
the
conditions
of
approval
that
this
Council
saw
fit
to
structure.
When
it
made
its
vote,
it
may
comply
with
an
overall
officer
assessment
on
the
acceptable
outcomes,
but
no
one
has
been
able
to
tell
me
that
a
separate
MCU
for
additions
negates.
V
Three
Mr
chair
I
believe
the
condition
12
of
the
subsequent
MCU
does
supersede
the
original
condition
12
and
my
rationale
for
that
is
that
it
actually
reaffirms
the
original
MCU
approval.
So
that
shows
that
there
was
a
a
predetermined
position
by
officers
to
consider
the
original
MCU
and
in
line
with
po3,
and
that
note
that
I
added
and
in
line
with
compliance
with
the
transport
code
a01.
So
yes,
in
my
opinion,
that
that
condition,
12
of
the
subsequent
MCU
does
supersede
the
requirements
of
the
original
MCU.
E
In
today's
response,
Mr
chairman
theater
Roger,
you
talk
about
your
opinion,
which
you
know
I
love
relying
on
because
you're
a
great
City
officer
with
lots
of
experience,
and
you
know
we
need
to
show
deference
to
that.
But
what
I'm
not
hearing
is
that
there
is
a
a
legal
case
that
an
MCU
for
additions
overrides
a
council
endorsed
set
of
conditions
of
approval,
and
my
concern
is
that
we
have.
E
We
will
have
on
our
hands
two
concurrent
approvals,
where
the
conditions
on
the
provision
of
car
parking
for
the
first
cannot
be
satisfied
because
there
will
be
vehicles
from
a
second
separate
development
eating
into
its
Supply,
not
its
Supply.
Under
an
overall
IO
assessment,
that's
not
been
made
through
Council,
but
merely
in
offices
Minds,
but
eating
into
a
supply
that
Council
has
determined
as
appropriate
by
a
formal
vote.
V
E
A
Well,
the
good
news
is
Andrew's
here
and
I'm
sure
he
can
help
us
so
probably
for
the
sake
of
dealing
with
that
legal
advice
from
money
to
move
to
closed.
But
if
someone's
prepared
to
do
that,
then
we
can
have
a
chat
about
it
by
counciloran
Jones
second,
by
Council,
Pauline
young,
all
in
favor
against
Carrick.
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
E
E
That's
been
affected
by
a
severe
parking
shortage,
and
that
was
recognized
by
Council
just
last
round
where
we
voted
to
progress
amendments
to
the
city
plan
to
remove
the
relaxation
on
the
amount
of
car
parking
provided
in
Center
zones,
The
Zone,
in
which
this
development
resides
now
as
I
counselor
I,
took
a
open
and
persuadable
mind
to
the
initial
development
application
and
even
though
the
public
conversation
conversation
against
the
development
was
very
loud
and
very
clear.
E
Mr
chairman.
What
then
unfolded
was
an
application
by
the
applicant
for
an
additional
I
think,
seven
stories
to
sit
above
the
initially
approved
10.
and
Mr
chairman.
What
was
intriguing
about
that
approach
was
that
the
applicant
didn't
seek
to
change
their
approval,
which
is
the
approach
that
would
unfold
anywhere
else
on
the
Gold
Coast.
E
In
my
view,
they
sought
an
entirely
fresh
development
approval,
a
development
approval
for
a
seven-story
development
that
just
so
happened
to
sit
above
a
10-story
development
and
one
of
the
reasons
why
City
officers
recommended
the
second
approval
for
this
separate
seven-story
development
is
that
it
was
largely
consistent
with
other
developments
in
the
area
and
at
the
time
I
asked
City
officers.
Well,
name
me
some
of
those
other
developments
that
are
so
consistent
with
this
one
and
the
response
to
me
at
committee
was
well
the
one
below
it.
E
E
My
personal
View,
not
as
a
town
planner
but
as
a
community
representative
and
a
resident
of
the
Gold
Coast,
is
that,
quite
frankly,
is
a
nonsense
and
it's
a
nonsense,
because
today
I
can
visit
PD
online
and
download
a
development
approval
at
two
Capital
Court,
which
says
that
for
the
first
10
stories
of
that
development,
I
should
expect
to
see
258
car
parks
for
those
residents
and
36
car
parks
for
those
visitors.
I
can
do
that
today.
E
E
Well,
that
may
be
the
case,
but
we
still
don't
have
a
development
approval
that
says
that
17
stories
of
development
will
share
in
258
car
parks
for
the
residents
and
36
for
the
visitors,
I'm,
not
bloody
minded.
These
buildings
are
constructed,
even
though
I
didn't
vote
for
the
ultimate
development
application.
E
What
I
wanted
to
do
was
to
offer
city
offices
away,
and
this
committee
and
the
council
away
to
try
and
reconcile
as
far
as
possible,
to
concurrent
and,
in
my
view,
conflicting
development
approvals
and
the
most
appropriate
way
of
doing
that
would
have
been
a
condition
of
approval
that
did
not
allocate
car
parking
to
any
unit
within
this
development
and
guaranteed
the
residents
in
the
first
10
stories.
Unfettered
access
to
the
car
parking
that
they
deserve
and
expect
because
of
the
approval
that
Council
granted.
E
It's
just
that
the
residents
in
the
first
10
stories
shouldn't
have
been
restricted
in
enjoying
the
car
parking
that
was
provided
explicitly
by
Council
vote
for
their
use
and
enjoyment,
and
we
haven't
arrived
at
that
position
today.
Mr
chairman.
What
we
have
is
two
imperfect
concurrent,
conflicting
development
approvals.
E
This
methodology
must
not
be
accepted
by
this
Council
again.
It
creates
too
much
uncertainty
for
the
community
too
much
uncertainty
and
what
it
says
is
that
any
development
application
where
a
developer
proposes
to
provide
a
single
car
park
above
the
AO
is
simply
unreliable,
and
if
it's
unreliable,
the
community
cannot
have
faith
in
it.
It
opens
the
door
to
gaming
of
the
system.
It's
a
perversion
of
good
development
application
decisions.
E
I'll
leave
it
to
the
wisdom
of
the
committee
and
the
council
whether
or
not
to
approve
this
or
not
but
I
hope
in
general
business.
We've
got
an
opportunity
to
understand.
What's
happened
to
bring
us
to
this
point
and
ensure
that
there
is
better
guidance
to
applicants
and
city
offices
to
ensure
that
we
have
good
decisions
being
made
transparent
decisions
being
made
and
those
decisions
require
a
holistic
assessment
of
a
development,
not
chopping
a
high-rise
into
multiple
segments
to
orchestrate
an
outcome.
Thank
you.
H
Thanks
chairman,
just
briefly
closing
I
appreciate
Council
of
horses
concerns
and
sentiments,
although
I
don't
want
to
comment
on
the
Prospect
of
council
being
gamed
by
the
applicant
in
this
regard,
but
I'll
just
make
clear
for
the
Public's
benefit
the
original
approval
code,
a
requirement
for
506
car
spaces
and
that
with
the
additional
flaws
now
in
the
second
part
of
the
approval,
shall
we
say
that
meets
the
acceptable
outcome
in
the
scheme
for
perfectly
providing
adequate
car
parking
for
all
of
the
dwellings
that
are
to
be
built.
A
A
W
So
in
April
this
year,
City
Planning
commenced
the
Adler
Stapleton
industrial
era.
Expansion
investigation,
the
Adela
Enterprise
area
is
an
economic
Powerhouse
for
the
city
and
is
our
largest
industrial
Zone
area.
It's
proximity
to
other
major
industrial
precincts
and
Regional
population,
including
the
Western
growth
Corridor,
the
M1
Motorway
future
kumara
connector
extensions,
Port
of
Brisbane
and
the
Brisbane
International
Airport
make
it
the
ideal
location
for
investment.
W
Previous
resolutions
that
have
led
to
this
project
include
that
in
September,
2020
Council
resolved
to
undertake
investigations
surrounding
the
Adler
Stapleton
Enterprise
area
to
identify
50
years
of
industrial
land
Supply
as
a
Target.
The
current
effective
supply
of
540
hectares
should
be
doubled
if
possible,
and
future
land
supplies
should
maintain
an
overall
balance
of
Industry
zones
in
the
study
area,
including
25,
low
impact
industry,
50
medium
impact
industry
and
25
high
impact
industry
zones
in
November
2021.
A
mayoral
minute
was
presented
to
council
at
that
meeting.
W
Council
resolved
that
officers
undertake
investigations
into
expanding
the
adult
Enterprise
area
to
the
east
of
the
M1
Motorway,
with
a
report
to
be
presented
to
the
planning
and
environment
committee
detailing
the
scope,
timing
and
budget
requirements
in
the
first
quarter
of
2022..
Also
that
Council
note.
The
findings
from
these
investigations
will
be
used
to
inform
a
city
plan
Amendment
package
to
the
state
government,
ideally
before
2022.
W
and
finally,
in
April
this
year,
Council
noted
the
commencement
of
the
yatala
Stapleton
Industrial
Area
expansion,
investigation
area.
W
City
officers
are
working
collaboratively
collaboratively
with
our
state
government
counterparts,
given
the
projects
into
relationships
with
key
State
interests,
such
as
the
detailed
planning
of
the
kumara
connector,
and
an
upcoming
review
of
the
southeast
Queensland
Regional
plan.
W
City
officers
have
also
taken
into
consideration
the
potential
loss
of
employment
lands
as
a
result
of
some
state
government
infrastructure
projects.
This
includes
the
omo
investigation
area,
as
required
for
the
Department
of
Transport
and
main
roads.
Category
C
future
Railway
land
acquisition
identified
as
the
preferred
location
for
its
rail
stapling
facility.
We've
also
included
employment
lands
potentially
lost
to
the
kumara
connector
stage,
two,
both
in
yaddler
and
also
in
kumara.
W
The
project
is
proposed
to
be
undertaken
in
four
stages
to
consider
the
opportunities
and
constraints
and
identify
both
future
land
use,
strategy
and
infrastructure
requirements
to
support
future
policy
and
investment
decisions.
The
four
stages
include
the
planning
context,
technical
investigations,
strategic
planning
and
the
statutory
phase.
The
stage
one
investigation
nominated
areas
for
further
focus
in
subsequent
stages
of
the
project
and
recommended
further
technical
investigations
be
undertaken
in
stage
two.
A
stakeholder
engagement
plan
was
proposed
for
consideration,
but
the
investigation
in
Communications
with
state
government
have
deemed
too
premature
stage.
W
W
W
This
slide
illustrates
the
urban
footprint
and
existing
Gala
Stapleton
Industrial
Area.
A
key
consideration
for
future
stages
of
the
project
will
be
the
that
the
expansion
of
the
yadler
Stapleton
industrial
era
will
be
subject
to
land
currently
outside
the
urban
footprint.
W
Through
the
chair,
no,
the
purple
outline
is
the
boundaries
of
the
yatala
Enterprise
area.
The
area
shaded
in
red
is
the
existing
Urban
footprint
right.
D
D
Thank
you
could
could
I
just
ask
a
quick
question
in
regards
to
that
Urban
footprint
and
page
313,
where
the
camera
connector
kind
of
goes
up
between
the
existing
yachtless
Stapleton
industrial
area
in
the
focus
area,
and
then
that
leaves
a
patch
to
the
left
hand.
Side
which
isn't
in
the
Urban
footprint.
Would
they
would
the
state
look
at
including
that
does
that
make
sense.
D
So,
on
page
313
of
the
report
to
the
west
of
the
camera
connector
immediately
above
the
existing
yatler
stable
and
industrial
era,
I'm,
assuming
that
we've
kept
it
out
because
it'll
be
subject
to
inundation,
but
would
they
include
that
into
the
footprint.
W
Through
the
chair
at
this
stage
we're
just
working
closely
with
the
state
government,
we,
we
I
think
it's
too
early
to
actually
have
any
position
on
that.
At
the
moment,
foreign.
W
The
majority
of
the
land
east
of
the
Adler
Stapleton
industrial
area
is
located
within
the
wollongonga
flood
mitigation
catchment
area.
The
purpose
of
the
overlay
is
to
ensure
that
the
drainage
capacity
of
the
Wong
Gilbert
flood
mitigation
scheme
area
for
rainfall
events
up
to
one
in
ten
year,
events
drains
within
three
days
and
that
this
capacity
is
not
eroded
due
to
cumulative
cumulative
impact
of
development.
W
On
to
the
next
slide,
this
highlights
the
coastal,
wetlands
and
Islands
core
habitat
area
system.
City
plan
also
identifies
locally
significant
wetlands
and
nominates,
a
100
meter
buffer
to
Wetlands
as
an
acceptable
outcome.
Development
Provisions
require
Wetlands
waterways
and
their
Associated
buffers
to
be
protected
and
enhanced.
The
Adler
Stapleton
industrial
area
is
bordered
by
Major
waterways,
including
the
Albert
and
Logan
rivers
to
the
north,
the
Gold
Coast
Broadwater
main
Channel
to
the
East
and
the
pimpama
river
to
the
South
bencreep
Creek.
A
major
Waterway
also
runs
between
the
wongoba
and
Norwell
suburb
boundaries.
W
Foreign
key
resource
areas
are
Illustrated
in
the
hatched
areas
protect
resources
from
being
rendered
inaccessible
by
Urban
expansion.
This
protection
includes
consideration
of
what
development
is
permitted
on
land
designated
for
these
kras
and
against
encroachment
by
sensitive
land
users
due
to
the
state's
preference
to
protect
resources,
Within
These
kras
from
Urban
expansion.
They
have
influenced
the
areas
suitable
for
further
investigation
for
industrial
expansion.
W
There
are
two
KRA
designations
that
covered
Land,
north
and
east
of
the
Adler
Stapleton
Industrial
Area.
These
are
identified
as
KRA
69
and
KRA
65.
KRA
69
is
the
Quarry
Rock
and
remaining
overall
resources
is
estimated
to
be
sufficient
for
15
to
20
years
and
KRA
65.
On
the
right
hand,
side
of
this
illustration
is
comprised
of
five
separate
key
areas
extended
from
will
gulba
down
to
pimpama.
The
resource
is
sand,
which
represents
the
Brisbane
to
Gold
Coast
markets,
major
onshore
source
of
fine
sand
for
concrete
and
asphalt.
W
By
ruling
out
heavily
constrained
areas,
a
focus
area
has
been
identified.
This
area
will
require
further
technical
studies
to
resolve
constraints
prior
to
progressing
to
the
land
use
strategy
phase
of
the
project
based
on
the
preliminary
planning
investigation.
The
focus
area
identified
for
further
review
has
the
potential
to
unlock
the
amount
of
land
sought
by
Council
to
accommodate
long-term
industrial
land
Supply.
W
As
seen
in
the
table,
it
is
almost
double
the
amount
of
industrial
land,
Supply
sort.
Some
parts
of
the
focus
area
may
be
able
to
be
unlocked
faster
than
others.
W
Part
of
the
focus
area
is
located
within
the
wound.
Goober
floodplain,
a
number
of
technical
investigations,
are
recommended
to
inform
future
land
use
planning
in
this
area,
including
the
potential
impacts
that
industrial
expansion
may
have
on
the
floodplain,
both
from
a
hydraulic
perspective
as
well
as
considering
other
existing
uses
within
the
floodplain.
W
There
is
some
Landslide
Hazard,
as
well
as
environmental
values,
which
may
reduce
the
area
available
for
Industrial
Development.
The
focus
area
is
located
outside
the
urban
footprint,
but
would
also
but
would
form
an
extension
to
the
existing
industrial
settlement
pattern
extending
along
key
transport
routes,
councilor.
D
W
Through
the
chair,
the
areas
with
waterways
and
wetlands
were
emitted
from
the
focus
area,
inclusive
of
the
buffers
that
were
nominated
before
60
30
and
60
meters
for
minor
waterways
and
100
meters,
from
the
larger
waterways
to
the
north,
the
Logan
and
pimpama.
Oh
sorry,
the
Logan,
River
and
also.
Q
D
The
word
Alberton
is
yeah
is
in
the
focus
area
and
it's
clearly
it's
being
described
as
a
buffer
area.
W
Okay
through
the
chair
yeah,
the
areas
for
these
buffer
areas
they'll
definitely
be
looked
into
in
further
detail
with
those
further
technical
investigations.
So
apologies
if.
Q
Yeah,
it's
a
gross
area,
and
so
this
further
work,
that's
why
we
have
double
the
area
to
look
at
because,
naturally,
as
we
do
more
study,
we'll
have
to
refine
what
the
actual
available
land
is
to
Industry
development.
Q
W
The
focus
area
is
located
outside
the
open
footprint,
but
would
form
an
extension
to
the
existing
industrial
settlement
pattern
extending
along
key
transport
routes.
It
is
located
in
the
least
flood
affected
parts
of
the
study
area
with
the
opportunity
area
limited
to
land
model,
to
be
less
than
1.2
meters.
Deep,
based
on
the
current
city
plan
version,
8
defined
flood
level,
compensatory
Earthworks
of
larger
Lots
could
allow
for
flood
storage
balancing.
However,
it
is
recommended
that
a
broader
hydraulic
assessment
be
undertaken
of
the
flood
plain.
W
W
It
is
worth
noting
that
in
2020
Council
resolved
to
develop
a
10-year
Freight
investment
schedule
to
enhance
accessibility
for
high
productivity
vehicles
or
hpvs
between
the
Pacific
Motorway
and
the
city's
industrial
areas,
a
majority
of
which
will
be
connecting
to
and
around
the
yatala
Enterprise
area,
and
this
Focus
area.
D
Q
Yeah
I'll
just
add
to
that
that
the
the
governance
Arrangement
that
we've
put
in
place
provides
the
opportunity
for
the
state
to
be
at
the
very
earliest
letting
us
know
if
there's
any
particular
issues
that
are
fundamental
roadblocks,
if
you
like.
The
other
thing
we
want
to
work
through
with
them
is
just
to
understand
things
like
their
state
planning
policy
interests
around
agriculture.
Q
To
also
understand
are
there
particular
studies
here
that
they
want
to
fund
or
direct
themselves,
so
they
have
brought
funding
to
the
table
of
fifty
thousand
dollars
and
so
we're
just
looking
at
how
best
that
money
be
spent
with
them.
So
that
might
also
help,
for
instance,
with
a
traffic
impact.
Assessment
of
main
roads
wants
to
be
the
one
leading
that
they
can
fund
that
work
as
well,
because
I.
D
Miss
so
I'm,
assuming
the
top
Northwestern
section
of
the
proposed
camera
connector,
is
where
it
heads
off
into
Wetland
areas
and
I
would
have
thought
it
would
make
sense
if
TMR
in
the
state
LED
that
section
off
the
constraint
mapping,
because
whatever
they
propose
to
happen
in
that
area,
is
clearly
going
to
influence
everything
to
the
east.
W
Okay
through
the
chair
was
that
a
question
or
can
I
move
on.
W
We
are
working
collaboratively
with
the
state
government.
They
agree.
This
project
presents
an
opportunity
to
align
with
the
upcoming
shaping
scq
review.
This
project
will
be
led
by
the
city
in
collaboration
with
the
Department
of
State
development
infrastructure,
local
government
and
planning,
who
will
represent
the
Queensland
state
government.
W
H
Council
Young,
thanks
chair
through
you,
I,
think
we're
all
familiar
with
the
alignment
of
the
Kuma,
connector
and
obviously
there's
impacts,
but
I
wasn't
aware
of
63
hectares
of
land
expected
to
be
lost
to
Future
Railway
land.
Can
you
show
where
that
is?
Please.
W
Through
the
chair,
that's
actually
not
on
this.
It's
not
depicted
or
shaded
on
this
map.
However,
it
is
just
south
to
the
existing
yatala
Stapleton
Industrial
Area
adjoining
the
rail
Corridor,
which
is
where
ormo
is
depicted
in
text
just
to
the
right
of
that
area.
There's
a
railway
line
going
through
there,
it's
formally
known
it.
It
is
known
as
the
omo
investigation
area
and
that
has
been
subject
to
a
compulsory
land
acquisition
by
the
department
of
main
roads
and
transport.
P
Right
through
the
chair,
just
to
clarify
a
font,
is
actually
a
much
larger
site,
but
what
the
state
has
taken
through
that
compulsory
access,
this
acquisition
is
63
hectares
of
developable
land.
So
that's
what
we've
added
to
this
total
to
actually
just
represent
like
for,
like,
rather
than
including
the
whole
site,
which
also
includes
similar
constraints
like
flooding,.
A
Q
The
chair
yeah,
the
50,
the
53,
represents
there's
the
light
blue
existing
estate
and
then
the
hatching
over
the
top,
which
is
the
camera
connector
that
sits
over
that
existing
Zone
land
is
the
53,
and
so,
if
you
took
that
and
then
took
it
down
to
the
investigation
area,
you'll
see
how
that's
you
know
reasonably
well
aligned
in
the
actual
area
and
like
Catherine,
highlighted
the
actual
property.
That
is,
the
alma
investigation
area
is
probably
almost
200
hectares.
G
A
W
A
W
Through
the
chair
from
a
desktop
analysis,
there
is
some
of
the
area
within
the
focus
area
used
for
cane
production
cane
harvesting.
There
is
also
a
lot
of
other
land
uses,
such
as
residential
rural
residential
as
well.
Okay,.
A
So
the
second
thing
I
was
just
going
to
raise
is
what
what
do
we
think
the
community
appetite
is
in
this
area
to
see
this
change
to
Industrial?
Is
there
any
early
indication
what
that
might
be
like
because,
for
example,
one
of
the
Amendments
that
we're
putting
through
I
think
is
changing
transport
Depot
as
being
self-assessable
in
rural
residential
lots,
because,
particularly
up
in
that
Alberton
area,
we've
seen
that
occurring
and
it's
not
been
a
welcome
use
in
the
neighborhood?
W
This
through
the
chair
at
this
stage,
we
explored
preparing
up
a
stakeholder
engagement
plan,
however,
thought
that
was
too
premature,
given
the
level
of
State
interests
that
are
in
this
area,
particularly
from
the
kuma
connector,
and
also
the
upcoming
shaping
seq
review.
So
we
prepared,
we
have
a
high
level
much
higher
level
stakeholder
engagement
approach
prepared.
However,
that
seeks
to
identify
relevant
stakeholders,
but
does
not
yet
have
any
indication
of
appetite.
It's
something
that
we
would
need
to
continue
to
investigate.
A
And
so
we're
on
that
timeline.
Do
we
start
talking
to
the
community
about
what
this
might
look
like
on?
That.
W
Through
the
chair,
thank
you
so
on
page
336
in
the
Strategic
plan,
which
is
the
third
or
stage
four
consultation
phase,
that
is
to
be
36
months
after
the
stage
that
we
are
currently
in.
G
A
Years
and
then
so,
just
sorry,
one
more
if
we
can,
how
do
you
think
this
sits
perhaps
Richard
in
terms
of
the
broader
seq,
the
urban
footprint
and
the
review
of
that?
A
Do
you
think
this
would
form
the
extent
of
the
urban
footprint
that
would
be
interested
in
expanding,
or
would
we
be
looking
the
area
between
where
the
urban
footprint
is
and
the
river,
for
example
like?
Do
we
start
to
cast
our
mind
a
little
bit
more
broadly,
so
this
doesn't
necessarily
represent
the
a
change
to
the
urban
footprint.
This
is
just
for
this.
Q
Correct
this
is
an
early
phase
study
and
as
Adrian
highlighted
earlier,
this
is
our
estimate
of
50
years
of
land
Supply.
So,
even
if
we
were
to
be
in
a
position
to
make
a
recommendation
to
the
state
about,
perhaps
even
what
a
first
stage
expansion
might
look
like
it
wouldn't
represent
that
whole
Focus
area.
Remember,
that's
double
even
the
50-year
supply,
so
there'd
be
more
work
to
do,
and
this
is
what
these
technical
studies
are
about-
is
really
to
look
at
The
Logical
next
steps.
So
we
can
review
that
whole
Focus
area
work
out.
Q
Okay,
how
much
of
that
area
is
really
potentially
going
to
be
able
to
be
made
available
to
Industry
and
then
what's
the
sequencing
within
that?
Because
again
it
might
be
just
you
know.
If
we
can
get
to
the
position
with
the
state
that
they
would
be
willing
to
expand
the
estate,
it
might
be
just
what
the
next
10
years
or
next
15
years
looks
like
not
the
whole
50
years,
but
we're
just
not.
We
haven't
got
that
position
calculated
yet
all
right,
councilor
on
Jones.
D
So
my
question
is
in
regards
to
the
divisional
counselor,
who
can't
be
in
the
room
at
the
moment
and
the
need
for
the
divisional
Council
to
be
able
to
communicate
to
their
Community,
particularly
we're
talking
about
not
only
the
footprint
of
the
industrial,
but
also
any
potential
impact
they
might
have
on
the
urban
footprint.
D
A
Well,
I
think
we're
probably
going
to
need
to
take
some
advice
on
this,
but
I
mean
at
some
point.
It
becomes
a
planning
scheme,
Amendment
matter
which
becomes
an
exemption
now.
Are
we
there?
Yet?
Maybe
not
I,
don't
know,
but
we
need
some
advice
on
that,
because
it's
not
dissimilar
to
the
older
thing
earlier,
where
I
think
you
know
and
now
for
the
public
consumption.
A
D
A
Yeah
I
mean
I,
don't
think
we
can
do
anything
in
our
resolution.
Yeah
I
think
it's
an
administrative
matter
that
that
the
team
can
probably
help
him
with
in
the
same
way
that
we've
got
an
LGB
issue
from
earlier
yeah.
There
could
be
some
advice
provided
as
to
when
the
appropriate
time
is
or
how
he
could
navigate
it,
and
he
might
want
to
take
his
own
advice
on
that.
Thank
you
all
right.
Any
other
questions,
councilor
on
Jones
I'm,
happy
to
move
it
councilor
p
young.
A
A
P
A
R
I
hope
I
won't.
Give
you
too
much
longer
get
through
this
quickly
to
report
back
on
council's
introductory
paper
resolution
from
April
this
year,
and
that
is
to
outline
stage
one
preliminary
findings,
including
scope
of
technical
investigations,
to
be
undertaken
to
support
the
preparation
of
preliminary
master
plan
options.
A
finalized,
Master
planning
approach,
including
project
governance
considerations
and
a
stakeholder
engagement
overview
for
consideration.
R
It's
just
a
reminder
of
where
the
project
area
is
located
at
stiglitz
in
the
north
city
and
just
on
the
right.
The
project
area
itself
outlined
in
yellow
and
the
existing
Waterfront
and
Marine
industry
and
Rural
zoning
Within
and
its
relationship
to
the
local
context,
including
the
waterways
surrounding
Southern,
modern
Bay
islands
and
modern
Bay
marine
park
to
the
east,
Capital
Street,
Point,
residential
Village
to
the
north,
rural
K
lands
surrounding
to
the
west
and
key
the
interface
with
key
resource
areas.
Future
extractive
purposes.
R
R
While
the
findings
of
the
preliminary
investigation
are
important
for
the
next
stages
of
the
project,
there
are
also
potential
broader
benefits
to
consider
beyond
the
identified
opportunities
for
the
area
and
its
community.
Examples
to
be
considered
throughout.
The
technical
investigations
include
potential
supply
chain
benefits
for
the
other
Enterprise
area.
R
Recreational
boat,
ramp
access
beyond
the
existing
capacity
at
cabbage
tree
point
and
Jacob
as
well;
dredge
soil
management
from
navigable
Channel
campaigns
and
to
support
existing
dredging
operations
in
nearby
areas.
Environmental
improvements
to
overall
hydraulic
performance
and
storm
water
management
to
Bringing,
forward
of
infrastructure
provision
for
existing
stickless
community
and
as
well
as
future
proofing,
potential
longer
term
expansions.
R
This
slide
provides
an
overview
of
the
finalized
planning
approach
moving
forward
and
it's
in
on
page
850
of
your
agenda
reports,
including
where
the
two-part
approach
sits
within
stage
two
and
the
stage
3
Master
Plan
preparation
before
the
statutory
process.
Stage
of
note
is
the
engagement
touch
points
from
the
stakeholder
engagement
overview
in
touchment
2
with
the
agenda.
R
R
R
Key
stakeholder
groups
were
identified
through
an
initial
scoping
exercise,
as
shown
on
screen
initial
project
communication,
as
previously
highlighted,
will
be
prepared
in
consultation
with
a
local
area
councilor
and
internal
stakeholders.
Examples
include
Property
Owners
within
the
study
area,
setting
them
a
direct
letter
and
potential
opportunities
for
contact
with
the
city.
Representatives,
a
tailored
email
to
Industry,
Peak,
Representatives
or
informal
phone
calls
to
contacts
with
an
adjoining
local
councils.
R
Key
messages
have
been
prepared
to
support
the
initial
project
communication
across
the
following
themes
shown
on
the
left.
We
are
also
currently
working
on
frequently
asked
questions
that
talk
to
these
key
messages
to
us
to
assist
with
keys,
take
holder,
understanding
of
the
project
and
plan
ahead
of
common
questions
likely
to
be
asked.
R
Involvement
with
the
state
government
as
part
of
the
project
governance
will
be
important,
given
the
potential
interests
across
the
themes
presented
on
screen
within
various
departments
and
agencies.
Early
engagement
with
the
state
government
will
be
ongoing
with
initial
contact
made
with
the
state
Development
Group
Planning
Group
and
Gold
Coast
Waterway
authorities.
R
R
A
K
You
want
to
speak
to
it
say
quickly,
Mr
chair,
just
to
make
sure
in
the,
and
we
would
have
picked
this
up
in
the
stakeholders
groups
up
at
some
stage,
but
to
make
sure
the
cane
Growers
organizations
at
the
industry
body
just
be
nice
if
they
were
listed
there
early
on.
So
they
have
visibility
of
that
through
the
chair.
They
are
10-5.
Keystone,
cool
and
Mr
chair
happy
happy
to
move
it.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
Council
Richard,
just
one
sorry,
Council
Padia
question.
H
Given
the
focus
on
this,
we
is
this
proper
pronunciation
styglitz.
That's
that's.
K
D
D
H
And
given
the
progress
in
this
I'm
just
wondering
a
general
question
to
Mr
Clark
Richard,
how
are
the
other
investigation
area
studies
progressing?
Please?
Are
they
on
schedule.
Q
Through
the
chair,
I
actually
in
terms
of
I,
think
we've
got
four
other
investigation
areas
underway
so
with
Highland,
Park
and
Gavin
North.
Those
ones
were
at
the
environmental
analysis
phase,
so
there's
work
underway
with
Consultants
on
that
at
the
moment
on
the
ground,
yep
yeah,
so
they're
progressing,
we've
also
been
analyzing.
The
oxenford
work
as
well
and
then
the
other
one
that
was
underway
is
Parkwood.
That's
right,
so
we're
just
finalizing
that
work
at
Parkwood
as
well.
So.
Q
H
D
A
A
Q
Please
so
we're
still
waiting
on
formal
advice
on
that,
but
it's
certainly
looking
like
all
of
next
year
that
review
at
this
point
just
based
I
think
the
minister
made
an
announcement
at
the
housing
Summit
that
that
would
be
commencing
shortly.
So
a
lot
of
this
sort
of
work,
particularly
even
our
early
discussions
with
state
agencies
around
yatler,
will
be
helpful
for
that
review.
Sure.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
A
All
right
any
other
questions,
otherwise,
we'll
we've
got
a
motion
we'll
take
the
vote
all
in
favor.
Thank
you
against
Karen.
Thank
you.
Council
on
Jones.
You
want
to
pop
out
and
get
councilor
guides.
A
Sick
6.4
robana.
P
G
E
E
I
know
we
can't
keep
track
anymore.
We
need
a
presentation
all
right.
A
E
Thank
you
very
much
Mr
chairman,
and
although
there
is
no
presentation
today,
I
I
just
want
to
take
this
opportunity
to
extend
my
sincere
thanks
to
the
team
working
on
this
project.
I've
been
lobbying
for
years
to
get
this
body
of
work
done
and
I've
been
absolutely
astounded
at
how
quickly
the
project
is
progressing
and
what
high
quality
information.
The
team
has
been
able
to
gather
to
put
us
in
a
strong
position
to
contemplate
what
a
future
planning
regime
might
look
like
for
Robina.
E
One
of
the
things
that
really
interested
me
in
what
the
city
office
has
uncovered
is
that
robina's
doing
a
really
good
job
at
supplying
housing,
but
it's
probably
not
doing
the
heavy
lifting
that
it
needs
to
be
doing
to
sustain
employment
and
as
a
key
economic
Center
on
the
Gold
Coast.
It
needs
to
be
sustaining
employment.
Otherwise
we
will
have
self-funded
retirees
calling
Robina
home,
but
a
lot
of
idle
working
age.
E
People
scratching
around
wondering
what
they're
doing
living
in
this
part
of
the
Gold
Coast
the
promise
of
Robina
is
that
you
can
have
everything
on
your
doorstep,
so
not
just
living
spaces,
not
just
recreational
spaces
but
spaces
to
sustain
employment,
and
it's
something
that
we
need
to
be
extremely
mindful
of,
as
we
consider
new
fdas,
which
are
the
Robina
way
of
describing
development
applications
and
we
need
to
protect
corridors
as
well.
To
deliver
the
mass
transit.
We
will
need
to
get
employees
in
and
out
and
Gold
Coasters
to
and
from
work.
E
So
I
just
want
to
thank
City
officers
for
doing
that.
The
other
thing
I
want
to
reflect
on
is
that
the
the
consultation
delivered
a
list
of
opportunities
and
challenges
right
that
were
vetted
by
Community
input
and
one
of
the
opportunities
in
Robina
for
Robina,
but
also
for
the
Gold
Coast
is
the
delivery
of
gilgai
connection
Road,
which
is
shown
on
one
of
the
maps.
In
this
very
report.
E
E
We
have
now
got
data
about
what
has
been
delivered
in
this
part
of
the
Gold
Coast
and
that's
going
to
allow
us
to
properly
performance,
manage
developers
who
might
come
here
to
benefit
from
infrastructure
where
they've
made
no
moral
contribution
for
or
towards
that's
really
important.
In
this
moment,
even
though
delivery
of
a
new
planning
instrument
will
be
many
years
from
now.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman.
B
D
X
X
Total
Jetta
Enterprise
area
industry
Amendment
phase
one,
so
this
essentially
comprises
two
components.
The
first
component
is
in
relation
to
previous
endorse
body
of
work
in
relation
to
high
impact
industry
amendments
and
the
second
relates
to
396
stanmore
Road
yapla
we're
facilitating
a
screen
industry
Precinct.
X
So
just
the
background
to
that.
As
you
would
recall,
in
2017
and
2018,
there
was
a
resolution
to
investigate
the
rezoning
of
high
impact
Industries
own
land
on
the
western
side
of
the
M1
at
yatala
to
medium
impact
in
the
street
and
to
also
expand
high
impact
industry's
own
land
on
the
Eastern
side
of
the
M1.
X
B
X
There
was
a
recent
discussion
with
councilors
regarding
the
kelden
United
Brewery
site,
so
we've
addressed
those
comments
raised
there,
so
that
is
retained
as
high
impact
industry
Zone,
the
other
other
parts
are
we're
amending
levels
of
assessment
to
I,
guess
protect
the
high
impact
industry
zone.
X
So
that's
looking
at
disincentivizing
low
impact
industry
occurring
in
that
high
industry
Zone
a
manual
strategic
framework
that
really
notes
that
high
impact
industry
uses
are
to
be
focused
towards
the
Eastern
side
of
the
M1
and
applying
a
minimum
lot
size
to
allow
for
reduced
lot
sizes
once
blocks
are
connected
to
infrastructure.
X
As
for
the
396
stanmore
Road
work,
that's
part
of
this
amendment
we
have
proposed
to
on
the
site.
It
is
currently
low
impact
Industry
future
Precinct
we've
proposed
rezoning.
It
to
Innovation
Zone,
with
the
new
precinct
for
the
Gold
Coast
Title
Gold
Coast
screen
industry
that
primarily
consists
of
the
full
developable
area
of
the
site.
The
remaining
area
of
the
site
is
proposed
to
be
zoned
open
space,
so
the
developable
area
of
that
site,
which
is
in
the
Innovation
zone,
is
approximately
53.4,
which
comprise
about
63
percent
of
the
site.
X
X
X
Through
the
chairs
apologies,
if
we
had
a
a
a
a
briefing,
a
mayoral
briefing
and
at
the
time
there
was
a
request
to
consider
short-term
accommodation.
All.
E
X
Q
Okay,
yeah
through
the
through
the
chair,
I,
think
the
briefing
there
are
many
councils
at
it,
but
the
the
discussion
was
really
about
what
are
the
necessary
ancillary
uses
that
support
screen
industry
because
we
were
working
through
all
the
uses
that
we
were
recommending
would
be
included,
and
it
was
recognized
that
short-term
accommodation
where
it
wasn't
within
proximity
to
Industrial
uses
could
be
considered
where
it
supports
the
screen
industry.
So.
E
E
So
I
suppose
my
question
is
I'm,
although
I
wasn't
convinced
initially
I'm?
Okay,
with
the
fact
that
we're
looking
at
supporting
the
screen
industry
here.
But
how
are
we
establishing
the
Nexus
between
the
short-term
accommodation
that
could
be
provided
in
that
zone
and
its
support
explicitly
for
the
screen
industry
and
not
just
short-term
accommodation
in
the
north
of
the
city
used
by
anyone.
U
D
Chair,
if
it's
okay,
two
I'll,
take
responsibility
for
this,
so
I
had
asked
to
make
sure.
So
if
you
go
to
the
backlog
at
oxenford,
there's
a
whole
host
of
things
happening
there
and
like
there's,
quite
literally
thousands
of
people
working
on
side
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
if
we
were
setting
the
parameters
for
this
to
be
a
screen
industry
area
in
the
north
of
the
Gold
Coast
that
we
didn't
eliminate
or
make
it
difficult
for
particular
Productions
to
bring
Crews
and
things
onto
the
site.
D
So
it
wasn't
to
allow
for
Aged
care
or
any
anything
weird.
It
was
just
to
make
sure
that
we'd
have
at
least
given
consideration
if
caretakers
or
production
crew,
or
any
of
those
type
of
things
could
be
on
site
and
the
answers
the
offices
have
provided
today.
Is
that,
though,
they're
going
to
consider
it
as
as
potentially
an
acceptable
use.
E
That
okay,
cool
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
we
didn't
end
up
with
some
development
outcomes
that
didn't
reflect
the
leap
of
faith.
We
took
to
support
the
industry
at
the
expense
of
green
and
open
space,
and
it
sounds
as
though
that's
been
addressed.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you.
X
Through
the
chair,
just
just
in
addition,
I'd
note
that
we
have
put
Provisions
in
here
which
restrict
sensitive
uses
so
keeping
in
mind
that
this
is
nearby
to
industry,
about,
in
that
we
don't
want
to
restrict
industrial
operations
being
able
to
occur
so
that
they
are
in
there
too.
X
The
Innovation
zoning
also
allows
an
opportunity
for
Park
sports
and
recreation
and
Community
uses
as
well.
Should
there
be
a
desire
from
Council
to
do
that?
A
couple
other
points:
we've
noted
that
Building
height
is
limited
to
15
meters,
which
is
the
current
Building
height
on
the
site,
but
it
has
allowance
for
sound
stages
up
to
26
meters,
which
is
actually
sort
of
the
maximum
height
that
we
would
expect
a
Sound
Stage
to
be.
X
X
That
we
submit
the
amendment
package
for
State
interest.
We
would
also
request
that
the
amendment
proceeds
a
consultation
if
there
are
no
significant
changes
required
by
the
minister.
X
We
anticipate
that,
pending
the
basis
of
when
the
state
interest
comes
back,
that
consultation
could
occur
second
quarter
of
next
year.
X
X
Yeah,
we
have
done
some
initial
infrastructure
analysis.
However,
you
know
there's
further
detailed,
Network
modeling
and
we
would
expect
that
would
occur
after
the
tendering
process
comes
through.
So
once
the
detailed
tendering
has
come
back
on
stanmore
road,
sorry
for
stanmore
Road,
specifically
once
there's
an
understanding
of
what
their
envisions
are
for
the
site
that
will
help
water
and
waste
be
able
to
do
their
Network
modeling.
So
that's
that's
one
of
the
other
points
there
just
out.
X
Finally,
on
the
resolutions
there's
a
attachment
to
which
was
the
September
2020
Agenda
Report
request
that
that
be
made
non-confidential,
because
it
was
quite
reactive
at
the
time,
thanks
councils,
that's
it
really.
K
Quickly,
Mr
chair
should
acknowledge,
first
of
all
that
it
was
the
former
counselor
that
kicked
this
particular
piece
of
work
off
back
in.
Was
it
2007?
How
far
back
was
it
put
the
Dark
Ages
so
that
work
with
four
hands?
27
2007.
K
All
right
in
all
seriousness,
but
so
this
is
again
it
was
noted.
It's
another
yatler
item.
So
there's
been
a
lot
in
the
agenda
today
in
the
very
North
End
of
the
Gold
Coast,
and
this
is
a
another
significant
piece
of
work
that
is
commencing
that
we'll
see
what
comes
of
it.
This
land
was
originally
purchased
three
years
ago
with
a
vision
that
it
might
be
to
service
Sports
fields
and
open
Green
Space
requirements.
K
Since
then,
we've
purchased
the
Stewart's
property
which,
in
the
view
of
offices,
is
a
better
site
to
look
at
as
the
first
sports
field
option,
owning
the
lands
and
being
responsible
for
making
sure
that
public
owned
land
is
put
to
the
best
use.
This
idea
of
supporting
our
screen
industry,
which
is
again
a
very
important
industry
to
the
Gold
Coast,
and
one
that
we've
seen
tremendous
growth
in
over
the
last
few
years
and
we've
provided
with
information
of
what
kind
of
opportunities
are
there
for
the
next
couple
decades
in
that
industry.
K
So
this
is
a
good
piece
of
work
to
look
at
supporting
an
industry
that
could
be
very
successful
in
growing
in
the
coast
and
growing
in
our
region.
As
the
representative
for
the
area
and
I'm
sure
the
one
that's
going
to
have
a
lot
of
questions
from
residential
owners
close
to
this,
but
also
in
the
area.
Now
is
the
time
for
your
say
into
this.
K
This
is
going
to
go
up
to
the
minister
of
review
and
then
the
public
consultation
part
starts
between
talking
to
Residents
that
live
in
yatler
or
residents
in
the
greater
division.
One
aerial,
North,
Gold,
Coast
Area,
the
time
for
your
say,
is
very
close
and
to
encourage
them
to
make
sure
they
have
that
say
so.
They're
input
into
what
happens
on
this
site
in
the
future
occurs
follow
Mr
chair
again
to
those
residents.
K
It's
not
a
done
deal
that
they'll
even
be
sorry.
It's
not
a
done
deal
that
a
film
studio
will
actually
end
up
here.
This
is
the
next
step
on
a
process
in
allowing
that
opportunity
to
be
explored
further.
K
There
is
a
chance
that
we
might
go
to
the
next
step,
which
is
the
expression
of
Interest
campaign,
and
we
don't
actually
get
one
that
likes
the
site
or
this
site
particularly
works
for
that
it
comes
to
a
fruition
in
the
end,
and
then
we
resort
back
to
what
the
current
plan
was,
which
restore
Sports
Fields,
so
just
to
put
that
bit
of
feedback
I've
had
from
residents
the
rest
that
this
is
a
done
deal
and
a
film
studio
is
going
to
start
next
year.
It's
not.
K
A
A
Okay,
I,
just
we
probably
just
need
to
be
a
bit
clearer
on
the
messaging,
because
that's
the
way
it's
been
explained
is
that
it's
Surplus,
it's
not
in
the
right
location.
It's
a
good
buy,
but
we've
sudden
we've
recently
superseded
it
so
I
think
the
community
expectations
around
it
being
Sports
Fields
have
like
quite
clearly
now
changed,
and
we
need
to
probably
like
proactively
manage
that.
K
I
think
not
so
I,
don't
remember,
saying
green
Mr
chair
because,
like
we've
identified
two
zones
for
all,
we
know
through
the
expression
of
Interest
campaign,
we
may
hear
from
industry
that
they're
only
interested
in
one
of
the
zones
and
not
both
and
that
it
may
be
that
you
could
end
up
with
a
film
industry
on
the
smaller
Pad,
but
the
rear
pad
does
become
sport
Fields.
This
is
very
much
on
purpose
and
by
Design
hasn't
completely
ruled
out
the
sports
fields
or
future
options.
K
It
just
allow
us
for
this
other
part
that
we
looked
at
and
why
we
have
secured
a
superior
site
for
now.
It
does
acknowledge
that
we'd
have
to
purchase
other
lands.
If
the
film
industry
was
to
take
up
both
blue
pads,
possibly,
then
we
would
have
to
identify
other
land
to
purchase
on
top
of
what
we've
already
secured.
A
K
Interesting
Mr
church
so
I
have
so.
There
was
a
bit
of
media
around
this
one
and
I
did
hear
from
residents
pretty
quickly
and
especially
ones
that
live
on
incoming
road,
which
is
directly
adjacent
to
this,
a
very
mixed
bag
of
feedback,
some
that
were
absolutely
against
anything
happening
on
the
site
ever,
don't
touch
it
at
all,
which
I
think
is
unrealistic,
because
even
with
sports
Fields,
it
would
have
required
the
same
blue
pads
to
be
cleared
and
bulk
Earthworks
to
happen.
K
Others
that
thought
the
film
industry
was
a
great
option
that
their
only
concern
was
I
didn't
want
to
see
Heavy
impact
industry
here,
but
a
light
touch
purpose
like
this
would
be
a
great
outcome.
I
think
what
will
be
great
for
those
residents
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
being
able
to
show
them
is
this
map
that
shows,
even
at
the
earlier
stage,
100
to
200
meter
buffer
to
the
Residential
Properties
and
the
protection
of
the
flood
areas
and
conservation
areas
which
that's
just
on
the
first
glance
who's
to
say.
K
B
Thank
you
chairman
before
you
raised
the
problem
that
you've
just
spoken
to
I
was
going
to
say
also
that
the
initial
purchase
really
related
to
tal
opposition
in
the
community
about
industry
uses
jumping
stanmore,
Road
and
impacting
further
on
that
residential
community.
So
it
was
industry
uses
that
they
were
concerned
about
for
mine.
This
is
an
improvement
to
the
current
zoning,
which
still
sits
over
that
land
being
future
industry.
B
So
this
provides
a
level
of
protection
really
in
changing
it
to
Innovation
and
I
hope
that
the
community
is
well
informed
about
what
they
would
be
submitting
on,
because
if
they
fail
to
submit
on
in
the
right
way
on
this,
then
they
may
end
up
with
a
future
industry
zoning
remaining
over
that
land.
So
it's.
U
B
Messaging
is
correct
and
that
they
do
understand
that
this
will
be
a
lower
impact
use
than
currently
exists,
despite
the
fact
that
the
initial
purpose
of
the
land
and
the
purchase
was
for
recreational
use.
Having
said
that,
when
this
matter
first
came
before,
Council
I
tried
very
hard
to
get
a
combination
of
recreational
use
built
into
the
recommendation,
but
I
didn't
get
support
for
that
at
the
time.
B
But
when
you
see
the
overlays
and
as
councilor
Hamill
has
just
said,
with
the
the
setback
areas
and
the
green
space
between
the
two
potential
sites,
there
are
still
opportunities
and
there
will
be
further
opportunities,
should
only
one
parcel
of
the
land
be
of
interest
to
any
anyone.
So
I,
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
speak
to
the
community
being
totally
and
properly
informed
about
what
this
aims
to
do
and
that
this
site
has
the
potential
to
become
the
Hollywood
of
the
South,
Pacific
and
I.
B
Don't
think
people
should
be
frightened
of
that
I
think
they.
They
perhaps
should
be
excited
about
that
opportunity
in
terms
of
what
that
would
create
for
Northern
Gold
Coast
in
terms
of
jobs
and
visibility
and
what
a
wonderful
site
it
could
turn
out
to
be
with
the
Albert
river
running
through
and
all
of
the
beautiful
Green
Space
around
it
I.
Don't
think,
there's
anything
to
fear.
So.
I
hope
that
anyone
who
wants
to
submit
gives
thorough
thought
into
what
they're
actually
submitting
against
it
or
for.
A
A
A
B
Initial
item
but
I
was
I,
was
about
the
gray
pages
and
I
hadn't
thoroughly
explored
them,
but
I
have
had
a
chance
to
do
so,
and
the
acquisition
list
does
not
mention
the
names
of
any
of
the
land
owners
and
I'm
unaware
of
my
having
any
potential
conflicts
with
any
of
the
landowners
on
the
parcels
of
land
that
I
mentioned
here.
So
I
I
have
no
declaration
to
make
because
I
don't
know
who
owns
those
Parcels
of
land
but
I'm,
pretty
sure
I'm,
okay,.
E
E
C
Through
you,
Mr
chair,
there's
very
specific
legal
advice.
The
money
raised
can
only
be
used
for
land
acquisition
and
enhancement,
so
that's
buying
or
restoring
koala
habitat.
A
Well,
when
cancer
vorster
was
finished,
so
I
was
gonna
address
it.
Thank.
B
A
The
closed
session
report
is
headed
confidential
update
on
securing
the
kumara
pimpama
koala
population.
I
have
previously
consistently
made
a
declaration
in
relation
to
a
donation
that
was
received
by
Ellie
as
a
cornhuser
who
was
the
owner
of
a
site
in
East
coomero,
actually
pimpama
known
as
Greenridge.
A
That
site
has
now
changed
ownership
and
is
in
the
ownership
of
the
state
government,
as
I
understand
it
from
Council
officers
and
accordingly,
given
that
that
donor
has
no
further
interest
in
the
land
or
these
matters,
I
won't
be
making
that
declaration
any
further
and
intend
to
try
and
add
what
I
can
to
the
opportunities
to
save
quality,
enhance.
H
A
A
That'll
be
a
long
time
all
right,
any
other.
Everyone
happy
with
that
by
the
way
and
any
other
issues
in
relation
to
this
otherwise
I'm
happy
to
move
it,
because
we
all
love
koalas,
all
right,
yeah
we're
actually
going
really
really
well
so
I
look
forward
to
there
being
an
opportunity
to
discuss
non-confidential
wins
as
we
continue
to
have
them
for
a
roller
coasters,
correct,
councilor,.
H
C
Throw
you
Mr
chair,
there
was
a
grass
fire
which
was
occurred
on
the
Greenridge
property.
It
did
not
enter
the
pimpama
river
Conservation
Area,
so
there
was
no
damage
to
our
koala
habitat
or
our
offsets
planning,
thankfully,
but
it
highlighted
for
us
that
fire
and
bushfires
remain
at
ongoing
risks.
Hence
why
this
plan
provides
connectivity
and
resilience.
H
A
All
right
we'll
take
the
vote
all
in
favor
against
carried,
and
we
welcome
councilor
Owen
Jones
to
the
South
foreign.
All
right
cancels.
We've
got
one
item
of
General
business.
A
We
might
just
move
to
closed
so
we
can
speak
freely.
It
relates
to
a
planning
appeal
matter
so
I'm
having
to
move
this
to
close
someone's
second,
that
councilor
Paul
and
Young
all
in
favor
against
carried
streaming
off.
Please.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
It's
the
right
thing
yeah.
If
we
didn't,
then
we
would
have
a
quarry
in
Greedy,
Creek
and
I
think
we
would
have
had
elderly
residents
in
Peril,
unlike
all
the
show,
so
there
is
some
Merit
in
the
process
happy
to
move
it.
Anyone
else
want
to
speak
for
or
against,
take
the
vote
all
in
favor
against
carried
all
right
counselors.
Is
there
any
other
items
of
General
business?
No.