►
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
A
Completely
to
Roman
Roman
time,
all
right,
councilors,
hello.
The
first
matter
is
that
we
have
a
almost
full
complement
of
member
counselors,
with
the
exception
of
councilor
Gates,
who
is
away
today.
If
someone
would
like
to
move
move
by
Council
Peter
Young
second
about
Council
Pauline
young,
all
in
favor
against
that
is
carried.
We
also
welcome
councilor
bailed
in
Lumsden.
A
And
we've
got
two
start
items,
which
is
the
confirmation
minutes.
We
might
just
do
with
that.
One.
First,
someone
like
to
move
the
confirmation
minutes
moved
by
cancer
on
Jones
seconded
by
councilor
volster,
take
the
vote
all
in
favor
against
carried.
We
have
one
other
start
item
which
is
item
6.1
and
councilor
Barton
Thompson
having
attended
today
would
like
to
move
a
declarable
conflict
of
interest
so
that
he
can
yes
participate
in
the.
D
Thank
you,
chair
yeah,
it's
one
that
came
through
got
the
delegated
authority
request.
I
live
in
close
proximity
to
the
application.
I
asked
the
city
solicit
the
time.
What
the
best
course
of
action
is
because
some
of
my
neighbors
had
raised
some
concerns
at
the
time.
The
recommendation
was
to
put
it
through
committee
because
I
didn't
entirely
know
what
to
put
in
there.
So
later
party
is
me:
nature
of
the
early
parties,
I'm
a
neighbor
essentially
to
the
D.A
yeah
cool.
E
So
can
we
be
clear,
yeah
you're
probably
actually
adjoins
this.
No,
it's.
A
E
D
D
You
want
to
just
bring
up
the
presentation
just
to
include
the
street
names
if
need,
but
there's
demand
whatever
news.
Pardon
me,
what
did
you
say
as
I
can
include
the
street
names?
We
want
demand,
Avenues
and
Industrial
streets
and
then
I
live
on
chifley
place,
which
is
separated
by
a
vegetation,
easement
buffer
So.
A
E
Motion
I'm,
confident
in
the
cut,
so
bailed
and
lumsden's
ability
to
retain
a
an
objective
position
about
this
and
I
believe
that
his
participation
will
be
in
the
in
the
public
interest.
Despite
the
conflict
that
exists
through
the
proximity
of
his
own
property
to
the
application.
B
A
You
someone
like
to
Second
the
procedural
motion.
Second
by
councilor,
Paul
Ingram
I'll,
take
the
vote
on
that
all
in
favor,
we'll
call
division,
Council,
Hamill
Council
on
Jones
Council,
Peter,
Young,
councilor,
Paul
and
Young
Council
on
Neil
councilor,
Caldwell
against
and
councilor
Bowden
London
did
not
vote
both
because
he's
not
a
member
of
the
committee
and
because
he
can't
on
a
conflict.
Okay,
so
we'll
deal
with
the
matter
properly,
now
Council
ball.
Momson
did
you
want
a
quick
presentation
or.
D
You
I
didn't
need
a
quick
presentation,
so
my
neighbor's
concerns
were
the
outdoor
area
times,
but
since
getting
the
advice
to
send
it
through
committee,
those
reflect
times
that
the
moment
neighbors
are
comfortable
with
so
I
didn't,
have
any
yeah
issues
or
concerns
with
it.
Cool.
A
A
A
Nevertheless,
we'll
move
on
councilors
I
think
you
will
have
had
the
development
activity
report
circulated
on
your
desks.
So
we'll
just
move
that
as
a
general
business
item
that
the
development
activity
report
for
the
September
2022
quarter
be
received.
A
A
Otherwise,
some
of
you
will
have
seen
an
email
circulated
about
the
amendment
two
and
three
package,
so
I
think
we
can
probably
do
it
in
general
business
Nick
if
you're.
Okay
with
that,
just
by
way
of
a
quick
update
to
the
committee,
some
of
you
will
have
already
read
the
advices
from
Richard.
Oh,
he
is
here
sorry
mate.
A
F
So
I
think
all
counselors
are
aware
that
we
receive
the
decision
notice
earlier
this
month
and
that
effectively
the
minister
endorsed
for
about
half
of
the
package
to
be
adopted
by
councilor
to
be
sent
forward
to
council
for
adoption.
F
And
so
what
Richard's
team
are
now
currently
working
on
is
looking
at
how
we
manage
that
half
of
the
package
versus
the
half
of
the
package
that
couldn't
be
moved
for
adoption
and
what
the
impact
of
that
is,
because
you
know
as
I
understand
it.
You
can't
just
directly
adopt
half
of
the
package,
because
it
has
implications
across
the
other
parts
of
the
package
that
that
can't
be
adopted.
And
then
the
other
piece
of
that
work
is
some
work.
A
G
At
the
moment,
the
big
challenge
is
uncoupling
the
parts
that
are
not
currently
approved
and
then
creating
a
version
of
City
plan
that
represents
the
approved
components.
There's
a
bit
of
work
to
do
by
the
team
to
create
that
new
version
of
the
city
plan,
so
that'll
that'll
take
them
through
I
think
we
were
looking
at
about
February
to
have
that
work
completed.
There's
a
bit
of
subject
to
a
council
decision
then
to
adopt.
G
Alongside
that,
we
will
be
continuing
to
engage
with
the
state,
so
it
was
the
the
day
of
the
decision.
Eventually,
we
were
up
with
the
state
government
the
next
day
talking
to
them
about
the
way
forward.
We're
actually,
at
the
moment,
preparing
over
the
next
couple
of
weeks,
some
material
to
essentially
workshop
with
the
state
and
what
we're
doing
with
that
work
is
actually
trying
to
address.
G
I
guess
concerns
that
we've
heard
from
the
state
about
housing,
Supply,
impacts
in
the
high
density
and
medium
density
Zone
from
the
changes,
so
we're
actually
going
to
go
and
do
a
bit
of
work
about
comparing
the
2003
scheme
to
the
2016
scheme
and
how
much
extra
capacity
has
been
facilitated
through
that
version
of
the
scheme
and
we're
also
benchmarking.
Our
proposed
Tower
setbacks
and
separations
against
a
whole
lot
of
neighborhood
plans
through
the
inner
city
of
Brisbane,
as
well
as
then,
the
sunny
Coast,
so
we're
actually
showing
that
our
proposed
setbacks.
G
Tower
separation
Arrangements.
Ideally
we're
still
doing
some
work
on
this,
but
we
think
we'll
be
able
to
demonstrate
that
they're
actually
quite
consistent
with
other
planning
instruments
that
are
currently
approved
and
used
around
Southeast
Queensland.
So
we're
just
building
the
narrative.
You
know
about
a
full
package
of
information
that
you
know
further
bolstes
our
position,
but
we
are
conscious
that,
certainly
with
the
impact
trigger
and
targeted
growth
area,
they
probably
don't
want
it
to
be
as
extensively
applied,
particularly
particularly
for
components
of
the
targeted
growth
that
are
the
sort
of
lower
order
development
scale.
G
But
you
know
we'll
still
work
with
them
on
that
and
I
suspect.
Look.
We
might
end
up
having
to
find
some
middle
ground
on
on
setbacks,
but
I
just
want
to
run
this
benchmarking
exercise
fresh
against
current
contemporary
instruments
in
Brisbane
as
well,
and
have
that
conversation
with
them
about
look?
G
You
know
what
we're
trying
to
avoid
here
is
going
out
through
another
amendment
in
another
round
of
console.
You
know
things
that,
if
they're
only
small
adjustments
that
we
actually
get
to
stay
over
the
line
that
they
can
just
sign
off
on
them
and
we
move
ahead.
So
that's
the
goal,
but
we've
got
a
bit
of
way
a
bit
of
work
to
do
with
the
state
on
those.
H
Mr
chair
through
you,
said
I'm
interested
in
the
assessment
consequences
that
some
of
these
sections
that
have
been
approved
that
you're
gonna
have
to
uncouple
and
then
incorporate
into
a
version
of
City
plan,
and
then
mixed
teams
got
to
try
and
start
assessing
against
that
when
there's
other
pieces
that
we'll
talk
to
in
the
future
of
is
there
any
concerns
around
the
ability
of
as
much
as
we've
had
Parts
approved
when
they
go
on
the
city
plan,
can
we
actually
assess
them
without
the
other
parts
approved
yet,
or
does
it
make
life
very
difficult
for
our
assessment
team,
with
some
of
the
things
that
have
been
approved
without
the
other
parts
to
talk
to
it?
H
I
Either
all
yeah
three
Mr
chair
it
when
a
when
an
amendment
is
made
to
the
city
plan
and
then
whatever
that
that
looks
like
I
guess
it
It
could
only
ever
be
made
if
if
there
is
sort
of
clear
consistent
rules-
and
it
might
not
be
all
the
rules
and
all
the
new
sort
of
regulations
that
were
originally
included
in
the
whole
package,
but
whatever
does
come
into
a
new
city
plan
that
I
think
could
be
clear
enough
for
our
assessment
officers.
It'll
just
be
that
there
might
be
pending
how
it
all
goes.
I
H
Mr
chair,
maybe
the
question
I
should
have
put
first
was:
are
we
actually
required
to
endorse
what
they've
come
back
with
in
a
certain
time
frame
like
is
that
legislated?
Is
there
anything
stopping
us
from
waiting
six
months
to
endorse
it,
in
the
hope
that
the
rest
of
the
package
that
you're
looking
to
workshop
and
get
sorted
might
get
through
so
that
it
could
be
all
done?
One
C
Plan
update.
G
G
I
think
the
issue
for
us
is
we
don't
know
you
know
how
long
we'll
be
continuing
to
work
on
these
other
components
and
just
to
be
clear,
the
other
components
you
remember
there
there's
about
10
items
that
are
basically
the
the
policy
intent
is
supported
by
the
state.
It's
just
that
they
were
interlinked
with
9,
11
and
15.,
and
so
really
where
the
focus
is
is
on
9,
11
and
15,
but
because
of
those
other
items
being
interlinked.
G
The
state
at
this
point
in
time
had
only
done
a
preliminary
assessment
and
said
that
you
know
at
this
point
not
approving
those
items
so
from
an
assessment
point
of
view,
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
the
review
has
been
done
to
make
sure
that
any
of
the
potential
interfaces
or
interlinks
that
would
complicate
things
are
not
included
in
this
current
approved
package,
so
the
components
that
are
approved
are
essentially
good
to
go
and,
as
you
depreciate
there's
a
lot
of
work,
that's
been
done
across
Many,
Many
Items.
G
So
the
ability
to
actually
get
those
other
items
in
place,
I
think,
is
important,
so
we
should
try
and
get
them
underway.
The
key
for
us,
I
guess
going
forward
is:
can
we,
with
the
other
components,
find
a
landing
in
the
shortest
amount
of
time
possible
to
also
get
the
targeted
growth
area
uplift
in
place,
all
the
other
good
things
that
are
in
that
package?
So
that's
what
we'll
be
putting
our
best
efforts
forward
on
with
the
State
final
question.
H
Mr,
chair
Sarah
you
to
Richard,
so
you
mentioned
about
hoping
to
avoid
the
need
to
go
back
into
consultation
again,
but
based
on
those
conversations
that
have
happened
so
far.
Do
you
see
any
of
the
the
sections
that
are
left
to
be
workshops
still,
where
you're
concerned
that
the
state
might
make
us
go
back
at
the
consultation
again
because
of
the
size
of
we
may
meet
in
the
middle,
with
that
middle
May
forces
back
out
to
consultation?
So
your
level
of
confidence
around
but.
G
Yeah
through
the
chair
I'd
at
this
point
until
earlier
so
yeah,
that's
the
challenge
is
just
we've
got
more
work
to
do
and
really
for
me,
it's
making
sure
that
we're
we're
demonstrating
from
a
housing
Supply
point
of
view
that
what
we've
put
forward
still
delivers.
G
You
know
significant
housing
Supply
along
the
coastal
Corridor.
Of
course,
you
know
we
have
had
some
modifications
to
building
Heights
at
Chevron
and
at
Main
Beach.
Also
some
changes
at
Palm
Beach
again,
you
will
have
seen
in
the
decision
notice
that
the
policy
intent
of
the
building
height
item
and
some
of
the
others
are
supported.
So
it's
just
you
know
so
to
me.
You
know
that
those
changes
do
make.
G
You
know
a
lot
of
work.
That's
happened
over
the
last
four
years,
both
with
the
community
and
Industry
and
there's
substantial
housing.
Supply
additional
housing
Supply
already
also
bought
in
the
market
with
the
targeted
growth
area.
So
we're
looking
at
the
the
whole
picture
here,
but
we're
conscious
that,
what's
what's
clearly
been
of
concern,
is
the
built
form
Provisions
for
particularly
in
the
high
density,
medium
density
zone.
G
G
That
would
then
determine
whether
or
not
it
forms
another
body
work
that
needs
to
be
advertised.
The
other
issue
for
us
is
if
we
are
going
forward
with
changes,
do
we
end
up
having
to
then
create
additional
amendments
and
then
do
they
form?
You
know
how
what's
the
amendment
structure
look
like,
so
what
we're
intending
to
do
is
come
back
in
the
new
year
with
the
way
forward.
In
terms
of
you
know,
we
need
a
bit
of
time
now
to
to
workshop
and
go
through
this
with
the
state,
but
we'll
be
looking.
G
Ideally,
then,
if
we're
looking
in
February
to
come
back
with
a
recommendation
to
adopt
version,
10
of
City
plan,
we'd
also
be
looking
to
come
forward
with
how
we
see
those
remaining
items
being
carried
forward.
So.
H
Apologies
Mr
chairman
I,
said
last
question,
but
Richard's
just
prompt
another
one,
so
there
could
be
a
conversation
in
the
New
Year
about
that.
What
we're
expected
to
be
dealt
with
in
in
packages
four
five
and
six.
H
G
Through
the
chair,
I
think,
there's
there's
two
things
to
consider
there
there's
the
balance
of
the
city
plan
program,
which
is
all
of
the
sequence
of
amendments
that
we've
got
lined
up
for
the
current
city
plan.
The
other
question
is,
then,
thinking
ahead
to
2026
and
a
conversation
about
a
new
city
plan.
What
work
do
we
need
to
do
leading
up
to
that?
G
So
certainly,
you
know
we're
starting
bodies
of
work
that
are
technical
studies,
but
it's
you
know
actually
I
guess
a
future
decision
for
Council
about
what
what
that
new
city
plan
process
looks
like,
but
we've
got
we're
a
few
years
away
from
you
know
we
like
we'll
have
to
start
thinking
about
it,
but
you
know
with
2022
that's
2026.
H
So
I
started
yesterday
my
first
planning
meeting
and
hearing
about
Amendment
package,
two
and
three
being
all
finished
with
soon
it's
three
years
later.
So
three
years
goes
very
quick
anyway,
we'll
wait
for
the
new
year
and
have
that
conversation
further.
A
I
think
there's
about
518
days
until
the
next
local
government
election,
so
that
that
period
of
time
is
going
to
evaporate
quickly
and
that's
March,
2024.
or
earlier
or.
H
Earlier
that
evaporates,
it
that'll
evaporate
very
quickly.
Chair
and
it'll
be
interesting.
It
can
wait
to
the
new
year
with
it,
but
a
lot
of
the
studies
we're
doing
a
lot
of
the
work
we're
going
to
possibly
do
towards
either
remember
package
2.5
3.5
to
deal
with
what's
left
than
456
and
all
the
consultation
and
statutory
requirements.
H
A
Yeah
well
I
mean
we're
certainly
entering
that
window.
That's.
A
It's
regrettable
because
you
know
we
could
have
knocked
this
over
quite
a
while
ago
and
there
would
have
been
a
more
meaningful
window
of
time
for
us
to
use
for
other
quick
fixes,
I
mean
when
we
were
elected
in
2012.
There
was
an
amendment
package
that
was
about
to
go
through.
We
decided
that
at
that
time
it
was
better
to
stop
that
and
do
a
new
scheme
effectively
the
decision
that
will
probably
be
made
at
the
pointy
end
of
or
the
end
of
this,
the
life
of
this
city
plan.
A
So
at
some
point,
there'll
be
an
amendment
package
that
we
have
to
contemplate
whether
it
happens
or
it
or
it
gets
wrapped
into
the
next
process.
So
Council,
Paul
and
Young
apologies
for
the
delay.
No.
J
That's
quite
all
right
and
you're
cheering
the
meetings.
J
My
question
is
probably
either
through
the
jail
to
either
one
of
you
are
we
going
to
have
some
sort
of
I
guess
Baseline
media-
that
we
can
do
on
this
because,
as
the
conversations
I've
had
with
you
recently
about,
we've
got
a
lot
of
community
groups
out
there
that
are
now
I.
Guess
throwing
around
that
idea
that
we're
trying
to
hide
things
from
that
we're
not
transparent
that
there's
a
lot
of
skullduggery
in
that
going
on
and
that
this
city
is
actually
withholding
it.
J
So
withholding
information
and
I
just
think
and
I,
yes,
yeah,
oh
very
much,
so
it
was
a
big
conversation
at
the
last
two
progress
meetings
that
I've
had
for
two
different
groups.
Well,.
A
I
would
I
would
say
that
I've
never
seen
a
more
transparent
and
visible
process
in
relation
to
City
plan
or
amendments
and
I
think
it's
been
noted
as
being
in
unusually
transparent
and
highly
interactive
process
compared
to
what
the
state
government
may
have
previously
seen,
and
we
made
a
deliberate
effort
effort
at
the
start
of
this
process
to
go
out
to
consultation
and
then
to
meaningfully
listen
to
that
feedback
and
make
change,
and
that's
exactly
what
we
did
I'd
be
very
interested
in
anyone
who
has
specific
questions.
J
D
A
J
Helpful
I
mean
and
and
look
I'd
greatly
appreciate
that
I
don't
know
about
my
other
colleagues,
but
I.
Just
don't
want
it
to
be,
like
we're
all
very
defensive
of
the
process,
and
we
know
how
much
work's
gone
into
it,
and
we
also
know
that
the
states
the
handbrake
at
the
moment,
but
it's
actually
being
able
to
be
consistent
with
our
messaging
going
out
so
that
our
community
is
actually
aware,
there's
nothing
more.
We
can
do
other
than
meet
what
they're
requiring
us
to
meet.
A
I
think
there's
no
doubt
that
the
the
community
disappointment
has
gained
some
traction
because
I
think
at
the
start
of
the
amendment
process.
There's
no
doubt
there
was
some
hesitation
and
reservation
about
what
we
were
doing
by
the
end
of
the
process.
The
community
was
saying
bring
this
on,
because
they
then
were
able
to
look
at
a
balanced
outcome
and
say
that
it
was.
It
had
a
whole
heap
of
good
things
that
were
that
we
were
delivering
that
were
directly
in
response
to
community
concern
that
had
been
raised
over
many
years.
A
So
the
questions
that
have
been
asked
of
me
is
well.
If
there's
too
much
change
from
the
state,
how
are
we
going
to
have
visibility
over
that?
And
and
what's
the
process
going
to
be
so
we're
not
going
to
know
that
until
we
know
the
magnitude
of
the
change,
because
it
will
there's
different
mechanisms,
I
mean
they
could
condition
a
couple
of
these
things
next
week
and
we'd
be
away
yep
if
they
say
no,
this
is
what
needs
to
happen
and
it's
a
major
change.
Then
we
have
to
alter.
C
These
is
is
that
things
have
changed
over
the
last
couple
of
years
in
the
housing,
the
housing
shortage
and
that
we
that
we
might
be
they're
fearful
that
we
might
be
holding
back
on
delivery,
what
we
need
to
deliver
on
the
coast
and
that's
come
out
in
the
media
and
I
think
that
that's
that's
been
really
good
for
us,
because
I
think
that
the
general
public
can
see
that
it's
the
state
is
saying
this
and
they
know
what
that
means.
That
means
that
they
don't
want.
They
want
us
to.
C
You
know:
Supply
more
density
height,
you
know,
and
and
all
that
so
I
think
that's
that's
been
in
our
favor,
but
it'd
be
good
to
have
as
councilor
young
said.
I
would
appreciate,
because
I've
got
a
few
groups
who
asked
a
lot
of
questions
as
well,
but
at
the
moment
they
seem
to
be.
Some
of
my
groups
are
doing
mean
on
the
state
rather
than
us,
which
is
good.