►
Description
00:00 Meeting Commences, Attendance/Apologies, Leave of Absence, Committee Forward Planning Schedule 5.1, Reports 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 6.13
02:00 Conflict of Interest Declarations
15:00 Report 6.1
35:00 Report 6.2
2:50:00 Report 6.3
3:04:00 Report 6.4
3:33:00 Report 6.5
4:00:00 Meeting Adjourned (Part 2 to follow)
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
F
I'll
be
leaving
the
room
for
this
one
I'll
just
bring
it
up.
I
received
a
donation
to
my
2016
election
campaign
from
people
associated
with
the
Kira
Beach
Hotel
Gander
Preparatory
limited.
It
was
a
ten
thousand
dollar
election
donation
in
December,
2015
and
I'm
volunteering
deciding
not
to
stay
in
the
room.
Thank
you.
A
Thanks
councilor
O'neil
I
have
a
similar
Declaration
on
that
same
item,
which
is
6.2
so
I
received
an
election
donation
of
ten
thousand
dollars
on
the
19th
of
February
2016
from
Gunner
propriet
limited.
As
trustee
who
is
a
party
associated
with
the
Kira
Beach
Hotel
Redevelopment
and
accordingly,
I
will
be
voluntarily,
leaving
the
room
and
not
participating
in
the
matter
all
right.
Let's
cancel
the
goats
you're
on
6.2
as
well.
C
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
much
why
councilor
Hamill
second
by
councilor,
Peter
Young,
will
take
the
vote
and
Council
Gates
counselor
young
and
I
won't
be
participating
in
this
vote.
So
all
in
favor,
councilor,
Hamill,
counselor,
Owen,
Jones,
Council,
Peter,
Young,
councilor,
Paul
and
Young
against
and,
as
I
said,
councilor
guides,
counselor
O'neil
and
myself
did
not
vote
or
any
other
declarations
on
6.2,
otherwise,
I
think
6.7
is
the
next
one.
Council
guards.
C
Yes,
chairman
in
6.7,
it
refers
to
a
review
of
the
Robina
Central
planning
took
the
ACT,
yeah
and
and
I'm
making
a
declaration
in
2016
I
received
twelve
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
from
Robina
projects.
Proprietary
limited
so
I'm,
making
the
Declaration
because
of
their
relationship
with
Robina
land
Corporation,
who
are
mentioned
within
the
report
and
I,
seek
to
remain
in
the
room
because
of
the
Strategic
nature
of
the
report
before
us
and
I've
had
no
contact
with
any
party
in
relation
to
the
report.
I
D
C
D
D
B
J
C
B
B
G
C
I
A
All
right
happy
with
that
counselor
I
am
Jeff.
Someone
like
to
second
that,
yes,
please
Council
on
Jones
foreign,
all
in
favor,
councilor,
Hamill
Council
on
Jones
Council,
Peter,
Young,
Council,
Paul
and
Young
Council
vorster,
councilor,
O'neil,
councilor
Caldwell
against
cancer.
Gates
did
not
vote
all
right,
any
other
declarations
that
we
know
of
at
the
moment.
B
L
L
The
subject
side
is
located
on
the
Gold
Coast
Highway
amongst
existing
medium
and
high-rise
buildings
inside
is
located
south
of
the
boardwalk
development
west
of
Burley
Beach,
east
of
the
Burleigh
head
state,
school
and
north
of
James
Street
in
central
Burley.
The
site
has
an
area
of
2024
square
meters.
L
Proposed
development
is
25
stories
and
79.35
meters
in
height
and
includes
174
units
and
362
bedrooms,
resulting
in
a
density
of
one
bedroom
per
5.6
square
meters.
This
perspective
shows
perspective.
View
shows
how
the
lower
portion
of
the
development
will
appear
from
the
Gold
Coast
Highway
proposal
comprises
four
basement
levels:
accommodating
a
total
of
241
car
parking
spaces
for
residents
and
visitors,
vehicle
access
and
servicing
is
via
the
Gold
Coast
Highway
and
waste
servicing
is
proposed
to
be
conducted
on
site.
L
During
public
notification,
63
properly
made
submissions
were
received
objecting
to
the
development.
Seven
not
properly
made.
Objections
were
also
received.
This
map
demonstrates
the
location
in
within
the
immediate
context,
including
most
locations
within
Burley
heads.
Some
of
these
locations
provided
multiple
submissions,
including
a
total
of
33
submissions
from
the
boardwalk
development
directly
adjoining
to
the
north.
15
submitters
were
located
within
within
other
Gold
Coast
suburbs,
including
Palm
Beach
mermaid,
Beach,
Ashmore
and
mud
Rivera
11
submissions
were
received
from
locations.
L
Outside
The
City
of
Gold
Coast
concerns
raised,
include
Building
height,
residential
density
traffic,
privacy,
setbacks
and
site
cover,
Shadow
and
car
parking.
The
submissions
have
been
reviewed
and
city
offices
are
satisfied.
That
items
raised
have
been
addressed
within
the
assessment
contained
within
the
report.
L
The
key
consideration
for
the
proposed
development
relates
to
building
heart.
As
the
subject
site
is
located
within
an
urban
neighborhood.
The
applicant
is
elected
to
utilize.
The
50
uplift
provisions
of
the
Strategic
framework
proposed
Building
height
of
25
stories
and
79.35
meters
represents
an
increase
of
50
percent
above
the
prescribed
code,
accessible
height.
L
The
proposal
has
been
assessed
against
the
requirements
of
specific
outcome,
nine
of
the
urban
neighborhoods
element
and
is
considered
to
to
comply.
The
development
project
provides
an
excellent
standard
of
appearance
through
a
high
quality
architectural
outcome.
The
development
achieves
well-managed
interfaces
through
landscape
treatments
and
appropriate
setbacks
and
site
cover.
L
M
M
I
must
say
that
the
officers
have
worked
very
hard
with
the
applicant
with
the
original
application
that
came
in.
It
was
very
bulky
and
no
certain
they
were
able
to
address
that.
The
other
issue
is
with
the
car
parking,
so
I
suppose
you
know
people
buy
into
these
some
units.
They
realize
that
not
everyone
will
have
two
car
Parks
per
unit,
also
the
density
of
it's
under
code,
it's
33
and
they're,
giving
5.6.
M
So
with
this
I
know
that
the
officers
have
worked
very,
very
hard
to
get
about
much
better
outcome
and
and
I
feel
that
I
did
ask
this
to
come
to
committee,
because
I
feel,
with
the
number
of
objections
that
were
submitted.
The
community
have
the
opportunity
now
to
see
how
how
hard
the
officers
have
worked
on
this
application.
So
thanks
very
much
for
that.
J
Thanks
Mr
chairman
just
a
couple
of
questions
or
very
short
questions,
was
density,
a
trigger
that
took
us
to
impact.
In
this
instance.
It
was
not,
it
was,
was
it
merely
height
through
the
chair
merely
height?
Yes,
okay,
the
car
parking
I
just
want
to
get
some
clarity
on
this
I'm
fairly,
certain
they're
the
same,
but
as
the
car
parking
requirements
for
short
term
the
same
as
the
car
parking
requirements
for
long
term.
Yes,
through.
L
J
Lower
yeah
right
so
is
it
the
case
that
each
of
these
dwellings
will
be
approved
for
both
short
term
and
long-term
use
through
the
chair?
That's
correct,
so
they're
interchangeable
right
so
having
having
that
dual
use
for
every
lot.
We've
effectively
conditioned
the
maximum
reasonable
amount
of
car
parking
on
the
site
through
the.
L
J
J
L
Through
the
chair,
I'm,
not
sure
it's
it's
an
obligation
or
or
possibly
necessary,
I
mean
it's
the
coastal
strip.
You
know
typically
between
the
Gold
Coast
Highway
and
the
beach
is,
you
know,
part
of
the
the
Gold
Coast
economic
strategy
is
to
promote
tourism
and
so
there's
a
requirement
to
provide
a
certain
level
of
short-term
accommodation.
Now
it's
not
anticipated
that
even
if
we
approve
this
development,
for
you
know,
potentially
100
long
term
or
100
short
term,
that
it
would
at
some
point
be
entirely
short-term
accommodation.
J
Yeah
so
look
Mr
chairman.
The
only
comment
I
want
to
reflect
on
is
I
think
this
is
a
beautiful
part
of
the
world.
Lots
of
people
would
love
to
live
there,
but
my
sense
of
it
is
that
many
of
these
larger
Community
title
schemes
are
wrestling
with
owners
who
have
monetized
their
units
into
Airbnb
Style
operations
and
and
put
them
on
a
short
term
Market
earning
a
revenue
in
excess
that
they
could
by
making
that
home
available
to
a
to
a
local.
J
Oh
I
mean
absolutely
absolutely
but
I've
seen
a
lot
of
buildings
being
hollowed
out
on
account
of
the
short-term
accommodation
and
I'm
not
proposing
that
we
prohibit
the
use,
but
I
just
wondered
whether,
through
the
assessment
process,
it
would
be
a
reasonable
thing
for
city
offices
and
for
the
council
to
reflect
on
the
housing
pressures.
We
have
to
accommodate
locals
to
work
with
applicants
to
try
and
strike
a
ratio.
That's
better
than
a
hundred
percent
I
mean.
J
L
Through
the
chair,
I
think
that
you
know
take,
for
instance,
in
this
circumstance,
if
it
was
proposing
short-term
accommodation,
100
and
no
multiple
dwellings.
If
it
was
a
hotel,
then
you
know
under
the
provisions
and
the
intent
of
the
Strategic
framework,
we
would
be
obliged
to
support
that
in
in
that
instance,
so
I
think
it
would
be
up
to
councilors
to
make
a
determination.
If
there
is,
you
know
insufficient
long-term
residential
product
supplied
to
the
city.
That
would
be
a
decision
outside
of
what
the
city
plan
intends.
Okay,.
J
So
I
suppose
I,
look
at
this
Mr
chairman
and
I
see
that
what's
at
the
Mondrian
right
next
door,
it's
an
adjacent
site.
Isn't
it
right?
So
so
for
me,
the
council
collectively,
but
not
unanimously,
supported
that
outcome
to
deliver
a
tourism
product
with
some
units
that
people
can
build
up.
You
know
use
for
the
long
term,
but
there's
a
hotel
there.
N
N
We're
looking
to
have
varieties
of
accommodation,
not
just
in
in
this
area,
but
in
the
whole
of
the
city.
We've
got
an
accommodation
and
crisis,
and
these
even
though
it
is
in
Burley-
and
we
know
that
burley's
moving
up
there
in
its
real
estate
prices,
these
ones
facing
the
highway,
are
going
to
give
people
the
ability
to
be
permanent
residents
within
Burley
without
having
to
pay
the
prices
of
the
Esplanade.
So
they
will
still
be
in
the
same
walking
distance.
N
They
will
still
be
able
to
purchase
properties
that
are
suitable
to
their
knees,
because
they'll
be
in
the
walking
distance
to
to
the
light
rail
Corridor
to
a
a
busy
Center,
and
it's
it's
far
more
difficult
now
to
amalgamate
these
sites.
We
talk
about
our
setbacks
all
the
time.
This
site
has
really
really
good
setbacks.
N
They've
Amalgamated
a
site
they've
got
over
2
000
square
meters
there,
so
they're
going
to
have
a
lot
of
greenery
a
lot
of
areas
to
move
around,
and
it's
going
to
be,
as
we
can
see
by
the
screen
there
very,
very
appealing
from
the
highway
side
of
things
so
I
think
this,
and
without
the
Morris
group.
As
such,
we
hear
councilor
Taylor
talk
over
and
over
again
about
their
number
of
sites
that
are
within
surface
Paradise,
getting
approval
and
nothing
ever
happens
on
them
with
the
Morris
group
traditionally,
with
their
track
record.
N
What
we
approve
in
this
room
generally
gets
delivered
and
provides
that
variety
of
accommodation
that
we
need,
and
also
we're
at
the
accommodation
demand
within
the
city,
is
so
high
at
the
moment
that
this
will
provide
174
units
and
whether
people
choose
to
buy
it
for
their
own
purposes
or
or
for
short-term
accommodation.
I
think
it's
sexually,
giving
the
level
of
variety
within
this
particular
area
to
support
not
just
high-end
purchases
in
Burley,
but
also
those
that
want
to
have
a
for
more
affordable
accommodation.
M
So
comment
in
regards
to
the
applications
that
we're
getting
in
for
short-term
long-term
accommodation
mixture,
Once
Upon,
a
Time
in
the
town
plan,
applications
that
came
in
had
to
designate
what
units
were
going
to
be
short
term.
This
was
some
years
ago
what
I'm
finding
now
with
these
mixtures,
people
are
buying
in
long
term,
then
they
find
out.
They
have
party
central
next
door
to
them.
A
B
Will
briefly,
just
in
just
in
regards
to
the
initial
design
that
was
lodged?
If
you
look
on
page
81
I
think
you
can
see
the
benefit
that
has
been
achieved
by
the
officers
working
with
the
applicant
to
get
a
better
result
and
I
have
a
view
that
it's
a
waltz,
black
glaze
building,
isn't
necessarily
for
me.
B
So
we
have
a
problem
where
people
haven't
gone
through
that
process
to
start
with,
and
then
they
seek
to
put
those
short-term
accommodation
product
onto
onto
websites
and
we
actually
pursue
them
for
breaching
the
city
plan.
So
I
think
in
this
regards
having
the
parameters
set
at
the
start
is
definitely
the
the
way
forward
and
if
there
was
ever
going
to
be
a
a
good
place
to
have
short-term
accommodation,
it
would
be
beside
the
couple
of
billion
dollars
worth
of
Light.
A
H
The
chair
item
6.2,
is
regarding
a
development
application
for
another
change
to
a
material
change,
abuse
approval
for
a
mixed-use
development
comprising
a
range
of
residential
tourists
and
Commercial
uses
at
the
former
kiribatch
Hotel
Site
within
the
Kira
locality.
The
application
is
subject
to
impact
assessment,
foreign.
H
Opening
councilors,
it's
important
to
note
the
legislative
contacts
for
the
assessment
of
this
application.
Firstly,
it's
a
proposal
for
another
change,
which
means
the
assessment
has
regard
to
the
changes
sort
in
the
context
of
the
development
already
approved.
Secondly,
it's
the
proposal
is
impact
accessible,
so
the
planning
act
requires
City
officers
to
carry
out
an
assessment.
Having
regard
of
assessing
the
proposed
changes
against
City
plan,
as
well
as
having
regard
to
any
other
relevant
matter.
H
H
So
this
slide
presents
the
characteristics
of
the
immediate
area
north
of
the
site.
Is
the
kiribich
surf
Pub
there's
wave
break
Apartments
located
on
the
corner
of
marine
pride
and
Rutledge
Street
East
of
the
site
is
Kerry
Gardens
and
the
grand
Corniche
buildings,
which
present
a
seven
or
nine
stories
to
the
South,
is
Kira
Palms
holiday
Apartments
to
the
West
is
the
Delray
and
Emerson
developments
which
were
recently
approved
at
14
and
13
stories.
H
Slide
gives
an
indication
of
map
building
Heights
within
the
locality
so
as
seen
on
the
screen,
building
Hots
to
the
Western,
the
order
of
29
meters
to
the
South
and
in
proximity
to
the
Kira
Hill
building
Heights
map
does
three
stores
and
15
meters
and
to
the
east
in
the
location
of
the
center
zone.
Maps
range
from
24
to
84
meters.
H
So
the
subject
site
Kansas
has
undergone
a
number
of
development
approvals.
In
the
past,
which
are
relevant
to
the
assessment
of
this
application-
and
they
provide
context
to
the
recommended
recommendation
we're
presenting
here
today
so
in
2003,
we
Council
approved
a
mixed-use
develop
mixed-use
development,
which
included
a
seven-story
multiple
dwelling
building.
This
application
was
assessed
under
the
Gold
Coast
planning
team
1994.
H
H
in
2019
Council
approved
another
change
to
the
2014
approval.
This
application
was
lodged
and
assessed
under
CD
plan
version
6,
and
this
approved
building
hearts
in
the
order
of
16
stories
for
building
one
10
stories
for
building
two
four
stories
for
building
three
and
three
stories
for
building
four.
So
this
is
the
subject
approval
which
is
proposed
to
be
changed
as
part
of
this
application.
B
H
No
building
four
was
in
the
Center
or
it's
in
the
south
Easton's
part
of
the
site
at
the
highest
part
of
the
block
building,
one
which
you
can
see
on
the
right
hand.
Side
is
the
part
the
highest
building
on
the
side.
That's
16
stories
has
currently
approved
yeah
the
the
2019
approval,
the
applicant
acquired
an
additional
allotment
along
the
Marine
parade
Frontage,
which
was
introduced
to
the
approach
The
Proposal.
H
Okay,
thank
you.
So
this
slide
counselors
gives
an
initial
comparison
of
the
2019
approval,
and
the
proposal
being
considered
today
on
the
left
is
an
isometric
representation
of
the
approved
development
layout,
while
on
the
right
is
the
proposed
development.
So
it
should
be
noted
that
these
isometric
drawings
are
orientated
on
different
axises.
H
H
So
the
key
proposed
changes
include
the
removal
of
building
4,
which
was
in
the
southwest
Eastern
portion
of
the
site.
This
building
is
replaced
by
an
elongated
Podium
base
for
building
two.
The
development
is
sought
to
be
Consolidated
into
two
stages.
Previously
there
were
four.
It's
also
noted
that
stage
one
is
currently
under
construction.
H
The
Proposal
introduces
Indoor,
Sport
and
recreation
use
on
the
first
level
beneath
building
two,
and
there
are
also
changes
to
the
architectural
design.
So
one
of
the
key
considerations
for
this
application
cancels
is
the
proposed
increase
to
higher
building
two,
which
is
a
residential
building,
was
previously
approved
at
10
stores.
It's
now
proposed
for
13
stories,
which
is
an
additional
11.2
meters.
Building
three,
which
is
a
resort
hotel,
was
previously
approved
at
four
Stories.
B
H
H
So
this
is
a
perspective,
as
I
said
in
relation
to
the
approvement
proposed
development
schemes,
building
one
there
is
in
the
foreground,
which
is
again
it's
not
supposed
to
be
changed,
and
this
this
perspective
is
from
Marine
Pride,
Facing
East.
This
is
a
perspective
again
of
the
approved
and
proposed
with
the
view
of
building
three.
H
So
the
this
application
was
subject
to
a
period
of
public
notification.
39
properly
made
submissions
were
were
saved
in
that
time,
38
in
objection,
one
in
support.
We
also
received
eight
not
properly
made
submissions
all
an
objection,
so
the
key
matters
raised
by
submitters
were
in
relation
to
building
heart
the
character
of
the
area
and
visual
impacts,
as
well
as
noise
and
vehicle
congestion.
H
As
mentioned
previously,
building
heart
is
a
key
consideration
for
this
proposal,
so
we've
acknowledged
that
the
subject
site
has
a
building
height
limit
of
three
stores
and
15
meters.
However,
it's
also
relevant
to
note
the
local
context
of
the
area
so
to
the
east.
City
plan
supports
Building
height,
ranging
from
25
to
84
meters
within
the
coolangatta
major
Center
to
the
West
along
the
coastal
strip.
Building
heart
map
supports
29
meters.
The
sites
along
the
Ridgeline
have
a
building
height
of
3
stars
and
15
meters.
H
H
So
this
perspective
shows
analysis
of
the
heights
along
the
coastal
strip.
Officers
considered
that
this
proposed
development
appropriately
blends
with
the
existing
development
pattern.
The
west
of
the
site
is
characterized
by
buildings
in
the
order
of
15
meters
and
we're
also
satisfied
that
the
proposal
tape
is
down
in
height
toward
the
Headland
to
respect
its
visual
landscape.
H
So
the
development
scheme
has
been
reducing
overall
intensity
in
scale
to
what
was
originally
submitted.
This
this
drawing
demonstrates
that
that
reduction,
so
building
two
in
particular,
has
been
reduced
in
length
and
scale.
We
consider
this
reduced
bulk
and
scale
promotes
a
more
slender
Tower
form,
and
the
revised
outcome
is
in
keeping
with
the
surrounding
character
and
the
development
also
respects
the
natural
features
of
the
headland.
H
H
H
H
This
perspective
provides
a
vision,
a
view
of
the
overall
bulk
and
scale
of
the
development.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
site
is
within
the
neighborhood
center
Zone,
where
more
intense
built
form
outcomes
are
contemplated.
This
is
provided
there's
an
appropriate
transition
to
residential
neighbors
and
Building
height
complements
the
surrounding
area.
Officers
satisfy
that
the
proposal
achieves
these
intended
outcomes,
so
there
are
significant
building
separation
to
surrounding
residents
and
the
building
height
provides
similar,
Building
height
requires
provides
similar
Heights
to
other
developments
along
the
coastal
strip.
H
As
discussed
in
the
planning
report
to
council
officers
acknowledge
that
the
proposal
represents
a
further
departure
from
the
city
planned
building
hot
Provisions,
namely
the
50
office.
Provision
notwithstanding
officers
satisfy
their
sound
planning
reasons
to
support
the
proposal.
So
in
the
first
instance,
it
must
be
noted
that
this
is
an
other
change
application,
meaning
the
proposal
must
be
considered.
H
Having
regard
to
the
building
Heights
approved
for
the
subject
site
at
16,
10
and
4
stories,
these
hearts
are
protected,
so
Additionally
the
application
is
impact
accessible,
which
means
the
assessment
regime,
for
the
proposal
requires
a
broader
scope,
not
just
the
consideration
of
City
plan,
so
we're
non-compliance
with
this
game
exists.
Officers
must
consider
whether
there
are
any
other
relevant
matters
which
support
the
proposal.
H
It
is
the
opinion
of
offices
that
relevant
matters
summarized
on
screen
warrant
a
recommendation
in
support.
These
are
previous
planning.
Decisions
for
the
site
have
approved
Hearts
well
in
excess
of
the
building
overlay
map.
This
sets
a
reasonable
expectations
for
taller
buildings.
On
the
subject
side,
The
Proposal
represents
substantive
compliance
with
the
balance
of
City
plan
assessment
benchmarks,
indicating
appropriate
outcomes
for
matters
such
as
amenity
character,
traffic
impacts,
infrastructure,
servicing
and
capacity.
H
The
Proposal
presents
an
appropriate
character
outcome
which
blends
with
the
established
character
to
the
west
and
does
not
offend
the
natural
landscape
character
of
cure.
Hill
The
Proposal
presents
a
high
quality
architectural
outcome.
We
also
note
there
are
negligible
hard
impacts
in
terms
of
visual
impacts
and
many
of
the
impacts
and
shadowing.
H
There
are
economic
benefits
associated
with
the
amended
proposal.
The
development
provides
for
increased
tourism
and
entertainment
activities
within
the
coastal
tourism
strip
and
in
proximity
to
the
Gold
Coast
Airport
The
Proposal
is
a
significant
scale
development
which
will
be
a
key
destination
within
the
southern
Gold
Coast
locality,
promoting
tourism
and
the
Gold
Coast
image.
So
these
matters
when
considered
collectively,
considered
to
support
a
favorable
decision
decision
for
the
application.
C
No
just
a
moment:
if,
if
you
don't
mind,
have
you
finished,
you
have
finished
Liam.
Thank
you
for
for
the
report.
I
just
wanted
to
remind
councilors
that
I
had
a
specific
request
from
a
number
of
residents
to
meet
with
them
on
this
project,
because
councilor,
O'neill
and
councilor
Caldwell
had
decided
not
to
participate
in
this
one.
Due
to
the
receipt
of
donations
and
I
indicated
specific
concern
about
the
three-story
limit
for
this
area.
C
C
No
next
one
that
one
that
one
can
the
officers
just
before
I
start
taking
questions
give
me
some
sort
of
indication
because
cancer
O'neill's
not
here
why
that
particular
area
remained
at
a
three-story
limit.
If
that
was
the
limit,
also
in
the
2003
scheme
when
quite
clearly
to
the
north
and
to
the
South
we
have
height,
was
there
a
specific
reason
why
the
limitation
was
considered
worth
holding
in
that
particular
location.
O
C
So
it
was,
it
was
three
stories
and
15
meters
in
the
2003
scheme
and
the
same
in
the
2016
scheme,
and
the
difficulty
I
had
in
understanding
was
why
such
an
extreme
change
has
been
supported,
and
the
officers
have
made
it
clear
to
me
over
and
over
again
that
it
is
a
requirement
of
the
act
that
they
make
their
recommendation
in
the
context
of
the
existing
development
approval,
which
I
find
really
odd.
But
it's
part
of
the
the
local
government
at
that.
That's
the.
J
Thank
you
very
much
Madam
chair
and
just
for
the
benefit
of
everyone
in
the
room.
I
just
want
to
thank
that
I
have
taken
the
time
to
meet
with
residents
in
the
area
to
understand
I,
suppose
their
concerns
and
perspectives
and
I'm
I'm,
using
this
opportunity
to
to
ask
some
questions
to
ventilate
those
concerns
and
perhaps
to
solicit
a
response
from
City
officers
that
can
defend
the
recommendation
or
or
prompt
some
thinking.
J
We
can
so
I
want
to
take
you
back
to
Varsity
Lakes,
where
we
had
a
situation
where
council
grappled
with
something
kind
of
similar
where
we
had
to
have
regard
to
what
was
previously
approved
on
the
site
when
deciding
whether
or
not
was
appropriate
to
top
up
the
development,
and
although
that
was
a
separate
development
application-
and
this
is
an
A
Change,
other
application,
I
get
the
sense
that
the
thinking
has
to
be
the
same,
and
my
question
is
madam
chair
through
you
to
offices.
Is
that
about
right?
J
O
Through
the
chair,
they
are
slightly
different.
The
reasoning
that
Liam
is
mentioned
today
is
is
straight
out
of
the
planning
act,
so
the
yacht
actually
dictates
the
the
process
that
a
local
government
has
to
go
through
or
assess
an
application
from
memory.
The
Varsity
Lakes
example
you
just
mentioned
was
slightly
different
because
I
just
said
they
were
separate
applications,
but
when
you
have
an
impact
application,
you
have
to
have
regard
to
relevant
matters
and
a
relevant
matter
would
be
an
existing
approval
right.
J
So
Madam
chair,
thank
you,
I
needed
to
clarify
that
mind.
Thinking
so
I
can
have
a
make
a
fully
informed
decision
today,
I
suppose
my
concern
and
what's
being
presented
today
is
we've
had
a
successive
number
of
approvals
over
the
site
under
different
planning
acts
under
different
planning
schemes
and
today,
under
a
different
mechanism
under
the
planning
Act
and
if
we
have
to
have
regard
to
earlier
approvals
over
the
site
was
being
suggested
today.
J
How
likely
are
we
to
approve
that
and
if
they
come
back
again
and
want
to
add
an
additional
story,
we've
got
have
to
have
regard
to
what
was
approved
plus
the
one,
and
they
keep
doing
this.
Where
is
the
threshold
where
we
actually
go
back
to
First
principles
and
the
planning
scheme
to
say
right
now,
we've
actually
reached
an
inappropriate
height.
O
So
three
Madam
chair,
the
I,
don't
have
a
I
guess
a
definitive
threshold,
but
the
answer
would
be
that
if
they
wanted
to
Lodge
another
chat
and
another
other
change
again,
we
would
have
to
go
through
this
same
process
and
I
I.
Would
you
know,
hypothetically
speaking
at
some
point,
we
would
probably
get
to
a
position
where
we
could
no
longer
support
changes,
but
I,
don't
know
what
that
is.
We've
only
got
what
we've
got
in
front
of
us
today,
right.
J
So
Madam
chair,
I,
suppose
that
that,
for
me,
is
the
Crux
of
the
matter,
because
I
see
this
is
kind
of
playing
a
game
of
Jenga
right.
You
start
off
with
all
of
your
your
three
blocks:
they're
all
contiguous,
and
then
you
start
taking
out
a
piece.
You
start
stacking
it
on
top
and
eventually
you
end
up
with
this
tall
structure
that
becomes
fairly
unstable
and
I
can't
help
but
feel
the
the
development
application
that's
been
presented
is
starting
to
feel
a
little
bit
unstable
when
we
have
regard
to
the
planning
scheme.
J
So
could
I
get
a
bit
of
insight
from
city
offices?
To
what
extent
did
we
igh
up
the
planning
scheme,
as
it
appears
in
black
and
white
and
is
available
for
the
community
to
download
compared
to
what
was
approved
on
the
site
previously?
What
carried
the
most
weight
when,
in
a
general
sense,
when
coming
to
a
position
to
recommend
the
approval?
Could
this
application
if
it
was
made
afresh?
Maybe
let's
start
with
this?
O
I
guess
we
don't
have
that
application
and
I
don't
want
to
try
and
hypothesize
what
we
would
do
with
it
look.
It
is
likely
it's
not
likely.
It
would
be
a
different
assessment
approach,
because
this
is
another
change
under
the
ACT,
where
the
ACT
specifies
what
you,
what
you
must
have
regard
to.
So
it's
a
difficult
answer,
question
to
answer.
I'm.
Sorry,
thanks
for
that.
J
J
J
So
there's
been
a
lot
of
talk
in
the
justification
for
approval
around
this,
cementing
the
areas
and
international
tourism
destination
and
driving
the
economy
this
that
and
the
other,
but
it
falls
within
the
neighborhood
center
and
not
within
coolangatta
could
I
just
get
a
sense
from
city
offices.
Did
we
have
regard
to
how
this
development,
May
impact,
coolangatta
and
and
white
was
appropriate
to
see
what
I
would
describe
as
cool
and
gutter
scale
development
out
of
the
coolangatta
center
into
a
neighborhood
center.
H
Chair,
that's
a
it's
a
good
question
and
the
answer
to
that
is:
yes,
we
did
consider
it
through
our
assessment,
so
the
proposal
does
increase
the
the
floor
space
from
what's
already
been
approved,
so
we've
previously
approved
as
it
currently
stands
as
2947
square
meters
of
commercial
and
Retail
GFA,
and
this
proposal
seeks
to
increase
that
by
1413
square
meters.
So.
H
Well,
neighborhood
centers
are
contemplated
to
cater
for
and
deliver
commercial
and
Retail
outcomes.
That's
in
likelihood
that's
the
primary
purpose
of
the
Zone
okay.
So
this
Zone-
and
this
is
only
one
part
of
the
neighborhood
center
as
it
currently
stands.
There's
the
the
actual
Neighborhood
Center
itself
extends
further
west
as
well
to
other
commercial
sites.
J
A
bit
of
chair
we've
had
a
few
I
guess,
perspectives
and
projections
of
the
development
that
one
screen
some
were
very
helpful.
I
think
there
are
some
past
the
questions
slide.
That
may
be
very
helpful
again,
some
not
so
much
because
doing
the
mental
gymnastics
to
try
and
make
comparisons
when
you've
got
different
orientations
of
pretty
hard,
but
I'm
really
interested
in
that
I
think
it's
the
Musgrave
Ave
projection,
I'm,
not
sure
if
Madam
chair,
you're
happy
for
us
to
go
back
to
that
slide.
J
P
J
E
Foreign
through
the
chair
officers
worked
with
the
applicant
over
a
number
of
workshops
and
meetings
to
improve
the
development,
including
the
podium
and
Tower
form
to
building
two.
So
whilst
the
the
podium
is
long,
it
does
diminish
from
six
stories
to
three
stories
because
of
the
sloping
nature
of
Musgrave
street.
So
therefore
it
does
reduce
in
scale
it
is
also
setback.
E
We
also
look
to
provide
lots
of
deep
recesses
to
that
Podium
form,
which
you
can
see
in
the
in
the
image
here,
also
that
Podium
form
is
highly
articulated
with
a
button
screening
which
obviously
is
a
domesticated
language,
and
that
screening
has
a
number
of
finishes.
So
there
are
some
images
in
the
documents,
those
six
page,
six
32
and
633,
which
might
show
some
of
the
detail
around
that
screening.
J
All
right,
yeah,
so
Madam
chair
just
two
very
short
other
questions,
the
south
of
our
city,
quite
known
for
our
Norfolk
pines
right,
so
whether
it's
the
Burly
Esplanade
or
you
move
South.
You
see
these
Pines
anyway.
In
fact,
I've
got
some
in
Robina
the
other
day
next
to
a
gyg.
This
is
in
the
South
just
on
the
issue
that
Coastal
character
and
and
the
plantings
that
you
were
talking
about
can
I
get
a
sense
from
a
city
officer
View.
J
H
It's
a
again
through
the
chair.
It's
a
it's
another
good
question.
I
think
we've
got
Dave
Price
from
landscape
assessment,
coming
up
to
talk
to
some
of
the
landscape
characteristics
of
the
site,
but
it
to
premise
or
preface
that
conversation.
Yes,
it's
important
to
remember
that
this
site
is
within
the
neighborhood
center
Zone
and
the
site
cover
anticipated
by
a
city
plan
and
the
setbacks
anticipated
by
city
planner
reduced
towards
road
frontages
to
provide
for
activated
straight
edges.
J
Sure
Liam
and
look
with
all
jurors,
totally
and
I
concede
your
point.
I
absolutely
concede
your
point,
not
even
arguing
against
it,
but
I
suppose.
If
I'm
being
asked
to
dispense
with
the
high
risk
the
height
limit
of
three
stories,
it
shows
that
there
is
some
flexibility
in
the
way
that
the
city
plan
seems
to
be
applied
at
the
site,
which
is
why
I'm
asking
for
a
sense
of
how
flexibly
we've
looked
at
a
landscaping
plan
that
reflects
the
character
of
the
area
right.
H
Look
and
to
to
go
further
from
that,
if
we
were
to
support
Norfolk
ponds
or
something
like
a
tree
of
that
nature
on
the
site,
they
require
significant
building
separations
from
the
actual
trade
shark.
I
think
it's
in
the
order
of
six
meters
that
way
they
need
to
be
separated
from
building,
whereas
the
setbacks
to
the
road
frontages
for
the
zone
of
zero
meters.
So
it
would
be
hard
thing
to
achieve
yeah.
J
P
Absolutely
through
you,
madam
chair
Liam,
has
described
the
situation
quite
well.
It's
driven
purely
by
the
building
setbacks
in
this
Zone
and
I
had
a
pinch.
You
could
expect
a
five
meter
separation
between
a
Norfolk
pine
and
a
building
to
give
it
a
long-term
chance
but
yeah,
given
the
setbacks
set
out
in
the
acceptable
outcomes
of
the
code
that
those
setbacks
are
very
unlikely
to
be
able
to
be
achieved.
P
J
H
H
No
so
there's
another
Pool
within
the
rooftop
area
of
the
resort
hotel.
Yes-
and
this
is
that-
and
this
is
the
bar-
that
you
were
alluding
to
earlier-
councilor
Gates.
So
this
is
a
rooftop
bar
again
associated
with
the
resort
hotel
officers
have
with
and
through
submissions
there
was
concerns
raised
with
these
components
of
the
development.
H
So
our
response
to
that
is
that
you
know
these
rooftop
pools
and
Recreation
areas
are
an
anticipated
outcome
within
the
city.
We've
con
we've
supported
multiple
of
them
in
the
past.
So
what's
important
is
how
we
manage
the
impacts
of
them.
So
in
terms
of
this
Rooftop,
Bar
and
pool
area
for
the
hotel,
we've
actually
conditioned
that
that
it
can
only
be
accessed
by
guests
of
the
hotel
and
that
the
the
hours
of
operation
from
memory
are
between
7
and
10
pm.
So.
J
J
It's
a
difficult
question.
Well,
I
think
it's
the
Crux
of
the
matter,
because,
if
I'm
operating,
if
I've
got
approval
to
operate
a
resort,
I'm
going
to
argue
that
a
visitor
to
the
resort
is
a
guest
of
the
resort
and
I'm
going
to
look
at
the
approval
and
say
guest
off
the
street
head
up
to
the
Rooftop
Bar
and
knock
back
whatever
it
is.
J
Q
Q
J
So
tradition,
seven
access
to
the
rooftop
communal,
open
space
for
the
resort
is
to
be
for
hotel
guests.
Only
okay
but
and
I
don't
mean
to
be
pedantic.
I
just
think
this
needs
to
be
locked
down
right.
There
are
different
definitions
of
hotel
right.
This
used
to
be
the
Kira
hotel,
where
the
hotel
was
a
function
Center.
So
when
we
say
hotel
here
are
we
talking
about
land
use
definition
of
what
a
hotel
is
through.
J
J
So
I
appreciate
it's
going
to
provide
great
amenity
to
guests
and
it'll
support
the
development,
but
I,
don't
think
I
want
to
leave
the
door
open
to
another
Kali
Beach,
Southern,
Edition
and
while
City
officers
have
plainly
responded
to
applicants
concerns
by
putting
in
this
definition,
I
think
we
owe
it
to
Residents
who
don't
expect
that
experience
in
their
neighborhood
to
have
a
a
condition
that
is
as
Ironclad
as
possible.
So
if
I
could
get
some
assistance
between
now
and
full
Council
yeah.
C
C
H
B
So
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
question
about
in
line
with
counselor
Boston's
query
regarding
the
rooftop
pool
and
the
idea
of
maybe
at
tied,
tighter
words
in
in
any
type
of
condition,
I'd
be
interested
in
how
it
may
also
compare
with
other
examples
that
the
city
may
have
recently
approved
for
a
pool
use
in
a
hotel
environment.
So
and
in
my
mind,
The
Langham.
B
You
know
the
jewel
has
on
grade
pool
area
which
is
open
but
enclosed
by
the
buildings
but
I'd
be
in,
but
clearly
it's
you
can't
walk
off
the
the
beach
and
into
the
pool
area,
because
it's
controlled
by
way
of
guests
to
the
hotel.
So
if
that's
the
outcome,
that
Council
of
Oster
is
seeking
that
gets
staying,
accommodation
guests
to
the
hotel
are
the
ones
that
have
access
to
the
Rooftop
Bar
I'd
be
interested
in
seeing
you
know.
I
B
J
J
However,
I
look
at
the
investment
that's
proposed
in
this
plan
on
the
screen
and
to
me
that
does
not
look
like
a
pool
for
a
hotel
to
service
the
guests
that
might
be
staying
there.
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
carrying
capacity
is
in
terms
of
number
of
guests
when
you
get
your
trundle
beds
and
what
have
you
but
I
certainly
worry
that
you
know
the
number
of
guests
doesn't
demand
that
you
install
a
kitchen
and
have
all
sorts
of
other
things
there.
J
So
to
me
this
looks
more
like
it
could:
service
external
visitors
to
the
site
and
perhaps
down
the
track,
be
open
to
the
public
for
a
a
late
evening,
entertainment
experience
and
for
me
that
is
a
big
problem.
Unlike
The
Langham,
where
people
staying
there
enclosed
the
spillover,
amenity
benefits
the
surrounding
buildings
and
given
the
topography
and
the
way
that
noise
travels
and
the
wind
and
you
know
carrying
sound
waves
and
what
have
you,
the
amenity
issues
to
Public
Access?
B
So
I
have
a
final
question
just
in
regards
to
the
roof
top
area
in
the
pool
broadly
I'm,
making
an
assumption
that
it
will
be
there'll,
be
a
licensed
bar
of
some
description
there
correct
and
we,
through
this
approval,
seeking
to
provide
hours
of
operation
of
up
to
10
o'clock,
but
the
subsequent
liquor
license
will
control
noise
coming
from
a
licensed
venue.
Would
that
be
the
case.
B
H
Through
the
chair,
there
is
an
acoustic
report
that
has
been
submitted
in
support
of
this
application.
That
acoustic
report
includes,
you
know,
recommended
Maxes
for
noise
output
from
the
proposed
with
rooftop
pool
area
and
indeed
recommends
limitations
on
how
the
area
is
used,
but
ultimately,
that
pool
of
the
rooftop
bar
area
will
be
regulated
through
and.
B
That
may
help
determine
where
the
noises
actually
come
from,
so
that,
if
somebody's
making
a
complaint
because
noise
is
carried
because
of
the
topography
or
because
of
the
wind
or
or
whatever
it'll
all
be
a
technical
calculation
as
to
whether
or
not
that
a
noise
has
come
from
this
rooftop
area
or
from
siblings
down
in
the
carer
Pavilion
or
from
the
supporters
Club
across
the
right.
So
are
we
able
to
condition
and
noise
monitoring.
C
And
just
before
you
answer,
can
you
also
include
in
the
response
whether
we
have
the
ability
for
a
condition
which
requires
someone
be
available
to
receive
noise
complaints?
At
the
time
the
complaint
is
lodged
and
I
when
I
talk
about
that
I
reflect
upon
when
we've
done
approvals
for
a
variation
of,
perhaps
Quarry
operating
hours
and
they've
been
required
to
have
a
dedicated
complaint
line
as
a
condition
of
approval,
so
that
residents
surrounding
have
somewhere
to
call
rather
than
the
police,
when
there
is
a
a
noise
issue.
H
It's
not
something
that
we
would
ordinarily
recommend
and
would
likely
have
to
take
it
on
notice
to
consider
whether
or
not
that
would
be
appropriate
and
within
council's
jurisdiction
to
do
so.
I
do
believe.
Noise
monitoring
isn't
again
another
thing
that's
carried
out
through
the
olgr
but
cancel
we
we
might.
We
would
be
able
to
consider
whether
or
not
that
is
appropriate
and
whether
or
not
that
is
reasonable
for
us
to
do
through
a
compliance
perspective.
H
C
O
Yep
Madam
chair,
we
could
put
on
a
condition
to
do
exactly
that,
but,
as
Liam
said,
we
might
just
need
a
little
bit
of
time
to
work
out
the
if
we're
going
to
start
setting
some
decibel
limits
and
what
implications
that
might
have.
But
definitely
a
compliance
management
condition
is
absolutely
possible.
Go.
B
Ahead,
sorry
so
I
appreciate
that
there's
this
overlap
between
State
responsibility
regarding
a
licensed
venue
and
a
planning
approval
that
we
may
give
I
think
that
modern
technology
has
allowed
the
capture
of
noise
to
be
made
a
lot
easier
than
what
it
might
have
been
done.
Five
or
ten
years
ago,
my
lived
experience
of
having
had
a
temporary
approval
for
the
night
quarter
to
operate
in
helensvale.
B
Is
that
live
acoustic
music,
for
example,
could
travel
several
kilometers
and
we
manage
that
through
the
office
of
liquor
and
gaming,
which
was
problematic,
whereas,
if
we'd
have
in
hindsight,
hadn't
had
a
condition
where
we'd
at
least
had
access
to
decibels.
It
could
then
have
been
modeled
in
addition
to
whatever
the
office
silicon
gaming
were
doing
so,
I,
don't
think
it's
it's
a
necessarily
an
onerous
condition
in
regards
to
an
approval,
but
I
think
it
provides
the
city
with
the
with
a
whole
lot
of
information
that
actually
gets
better
outcomes
for
adjacent
residents.
B
H
C
G
Through
the
offices,
I
just
want
to
confirm,
I
have
my
numbers
right,
but
in
Reading
the
comparisons
between
the
approval
and
the
proposal
on
page
315-351.,
with
the
changes
that
have
occurred
in
terms
of
addition
and
removal
of
units
and
additional
removal
of
bedrooms.
It's
64
additional
bedrooms
in
the
overall
development
is
the
increase.
G
So
I'm
reading
so
I'm
taking
page
349
350
351
349,
is
in
information,
that's
not
relevant
to
the
amount
of
bedroom.
So
that's
all
on
350
and
351
which
you've
got
building
one
which
hasn't
changed
at
all.
So
it's
still
116
and
249
bedrooms
in
each
each
column.
Building
two
there's
been
an
increase
in
units
and
increase
in
bedrooms
because
of
the
height
and
increase
in
stories
and
the
resort
complex
they've
changed
their
configuration
around
and
added
additional
storage.
G
So
now
they've
got
92
beds
proposed,
but
and
then
you
remove
building
four,
which
was
nine
bedrooms,
so
my
maths
had
that
on
the
overall
site,
the
overall
development,
all
the
changes,
it's
an
additional
64
bedrooms
come
into
the
mix
yeah
by
one
of
the
checks,
so
you've
got
the
car
parking
ratios
underneath
and
you've
just
got
that
they've
met
the
acceptable
outcome.
Could
I
get
an
idea
of
with
the
retailer
commercial
increase?
G
H
H
G
G
H
G
G
Thank
you,
Madam
I
just
wanted
to
give
the
officer
the
chance,
I
think
to
clarify
a
point
here
for
me
that
I
think
is
important.
Based
on
the
questions
raised,
but
Madam
chair
through
you
to
the
officer
in
your
professional
opinion,
the
outcome
that
is
proposed
on
the
right
being
the
updated
proposal
is
a
superior
outcome
to
what's
on
the
left.
G
And
is
that
reference
to
reinforcing
local
identity?
Is
that
part
of
this
as
well
through
the
chair?
That's
part
of
the
assessment,
yes,
which
was
the
more
the
possible
focused
Venture
without
digressing
in
my
personal
opinion,
I
much
prefer
what's
on
the
right
in
terms
of
reinforcing
what
I
feel
is
local
identity
in
that
area?
G
That,
while
I
appreciate
appreciate
the
architectural
Merit
of
what's
on
the
left,
I,
don't
think
it
fits
the
area
whereas,
what's
on
the
right
does
fit
the
area
better,
and
since
it
was
one
of
the
considerations
raised
by
submitters
I
thought
that
was
important
for
their
professional
pay
to
provide
her
advice
and
architecture
to
make
that
point.
Clearly,
thanks.
D
Yeah
struggling
with
this
one
I
fully
understand
the
necessity
to
re
reflect
on
the
previous
decision,
but
I'll
go
back
to
the
earlier
question
made
to
Mick
and
the
answer
that
was
given,
which
was
about
you
know.
Where
do
we
get
to
that
point
where
we
decide
that
it's
enough,
because
your
answer
Mick
was
hypothetically,
would
reach
a
point
where
we
might
consider
to
be
too
much
and
just
as
a
comment,
I
think
we've
reached
that
point
already
so
I
wonder
if
you
can
articulate
any
further.
D
O
Yeah
through
the
chair
looking
applicant
could
very
well
come
in
and
Lodge
another
and
other
change
application.
I,
don't
know
the
time
frames
with
this.
One
I
think
it
took
12
months,
pretty
close
to
12
months
of
negotiating
this
outcome,
so
I
guess
in
the
Practical
reality
of
developers
at
the
end
of
the
day,
trying
to
you
know,
get
their
product
to
Market
I'm,
not
sure
that
they'd
be
interested
in
another
12
months
of
perhaps
getting
another
story
or
two.
O
That's
kind
of
you
know
not
not
really
in
response
to
your
question,
but
I,
don't
I
can't
give
you
an
answer
on
what
that
might
be,
but
in
this
12-month
process
we
went
through
quite
a
lot
of
backwards
and
forwards.
With
the
developer.
We've
got
quite
a
lot
of
photo
montages.
We
engage
the
help
of
a
one
of
the
Court
experts
who
does
a
lot
of
work
in
visual
amenity
who
acts
both
for
Council
and
against
Council.
O
So
I
think
it
was
quite
an
independent
review
that
we
received
and
with
what
was
landed
on,
we
think
obviously
we're
recommending
it
today
was
was
an
appropriate
outcome.
But
you
know
if
they
wanted
to
add
more
to
it.
Then
I
don't
know
at
this
stage
what
what
the
answer
would
be
but
where
we've
landed
today
is
kind
of
they've
tried
for
more
we've
negotiated
back
to
this,
so
I'm
not
sure
what
further
approvals
might
be
given
beyond
what
we've
got
to
know.
D
D
C
Well,
Council,
Young's
figuring
out
his
next
question.
Can
someone
work
for
me
I'm
confused
about
the
actual
Heights
because,
for
example,
on
page
355,
the
mixture
of
stories
and
meters
I
I
actually
want
to
know
in
meters
so
that
we're
all
clear
about
what's
being
proposed
today,
the
height
of
each
Building
in
meters?
Do
we
have
that
is.
D
D
D
P
Q
D
Thanks
so
go
back
to
your
presentation,
Liam
you
mentioned
that
there
were
really
sound
planning
grounds
for
supporting
a
position
of
recommendation
for
approval,
but
what
I
heard
a
lot
of
was
what
I'd
consider
to
be
opinion?
So
do
you
want
to
give
some
sound
planning
grounds
please,
apart
from
the
reference
to
the
planning
act
and
that
kind
of
thing.
H
D
H
It's
reasonable
to
consider
what
the
impacts
of
the
additional
Heights
are
in
this
circumstance.
Our
assessment
is
that
the
additional
Heights
proposed
do
not
have
any
undue
character
or
amenity
impacts
on
the
surrounds
of
the
site
and
the
visual
experience
of
the
site,
yeah
and
then
in
terms
of
the
benefits
of
The
Proposal,
will
we're
getting
increase
in
residential
yield.
We're
getting
increases
in
tourist
accommodation,
which
will
service
the
broader
area
and.
D
D
So
that's
the
nebulous
economic
benefit.
Then
there
was
other
things
you
just
mentioned
touched
upon
now,
like
impact
on
amenity
or
sight
lines
or
views
or
whatever,
and
you
dismissed
a
lot
of
that
as
negligible
in
your
presentation.
So
I'm
wondering
if
this
planning
grounds
that
say
that
loss
of
view
is
a
valid
planning
outcome,
even
though
it's
departure
from
the
city
plan
that
further
loss
of
view
supported
through
this
proposal,
is
so
manager.
H
O
Three
Madam
chair,
I,
guess
I,
can
probably
sort
of
mention,
there's
been
in
the
last
sort
of
two
or
so
years,
maybe
longer
quite
a
number
of
court
cases
where
impacts
are
kind
of
a
determinative
factor
in
whether
or
not
a
the
court
is
allowing
developments
or
not
so
or
probably
more
specifically,
you
know
lack
of
impact
or
lack
of
reasonable
impact,
so
that
is
a
that
is
a
I
guess,
a
planning
consideration
or
a
playing
Ground.
That
has
become
more
and
more
prevalent
in
court
cases.
O
So
it's
part
of
this
exercise.
That's
why
we
did
engage
the
visual
amenity
expert
to
give
us
an
independent
opinion
on
that.
So
in
answer
to
a
question,
I,
don't
think
we
could
sort
of
frame
it
as
being
that
additional
height
is
necessarily
better
in
terms
of
loss
of
impact.
But
the
question
probably
should
be
at
least
in
the
in
the
context
of
this.
If
this
were
to
go
to
court,
is
that
the
lack
of
impact
or
is
it
a
reasonable
impact?
And-
and
we
say
that
it
is.
O
D
Excuse
me
I'm
not
trying
to
harass
you
or
you
lean
I
just
would
like
to
expose
these
things,
because
I
think
these
will
be
in
the
minds
of
the
submitters
and
they
may
be
observing
this
or
at
some
point,
May
observe
this
and
it's
important
for
them
to
understand.
So,
if
we're
to
go
to
I
mean
well,
that's
a
perspective
and
we
saw
another
one
earlier,
I
think
with
with
the
the
Kira
Pavilion
in
the
foreground
and
the
mass
of
the
building
behind.
Do
you
mind
going
to
that
slide?
D
Yes,
so
to
me,
subjectively
The
Proposal
on
the
right
is
a
much
bulkier
outcome
that
doesn't
stroke
a
good
chord
with
me
and
it's
it's
a
much
more
prominent
building
and
that
doesn't
necessarily
Accord
with
what
I
think
the
city
plan
sought
for
the
area.
So
it's
that
impact
is
being
classified
in
a
subjective
way
is
acceptable
and
the
submitters
are
saying
it's
not
acceptable,
so
it
really
comes
down
to
how
strongly
that
could
be
argued,
either
way.
So
for
any
submitters
that
may
be
contemplating
legal
action.
M
M
H
So
Drew
you,
madam
chair,
the
expert
provided
his
opinion
to
City
officers
and
then
as
necessary
through
the
assessment
of
the
application
we
relied
and
had
discussions
with
the
applicants
about
the
concerns
raised.
So,
as
we
mentioned
through
the
presentation,
The
Proposal
when
it
was
originally
submitted,
was
of
a
much
greater
scale
and
bow,
and
that
was
reviewed
by
our
visual
expert
and
he
agreed
with
officers
opinion
that
that
at
that
point
the
development
was
of
too
great
at
bulk
and
scale
to
be
supported.
H
M
N
N
Thank
you
so,
and
this
rooftop
pool
plan
area
there
wasn't
on
the
original
application.
So
this
is
and
and
I
think,
as
pointed
out
by
councilor
vorstra,
it's
surprising
that
you
know
in
a
resort
style
area
that
you
didn't
have
a
pool
there.
So
my
question
to
you
is
because
and
and
I
understand,
because
I
can't
quite
see
it
is
there
a
indication
of
a
kitchen
or
some
sort
of
prep
area
there
bottom
right
hand
corner
so
in
that
bottom
right
hand
corner.
N
So
on
that
side
of
things,
I
I
have
been
fortunate
enough
to
travel
quite
a
bit
and
I
do
know
that
if
I'm
laying
around
the
pool
on
a
rooftop
area,
that
I
would
expect
to
be
able
to
have
food
delivered
to
me
at
the
pool,
which
is
generally
when
we
go
to
National
and
international,
both
in
Brisbane
Sydney,
Melbourne
and
other
places
around
the
world.
That
is
anticipated
to
be
in
this
type
of
development.
N
But
two
say
with
a
swipe
or
something
like
that
so
because
I
know
with
a
lot
of
national
and
international
hotels
of
this
sort
where
people
are
seeking
to
lay
in
the
Sun
and
look
at
a
magnificent
View
and
enjoy
a
drink
or
something
beside
a
pool
that
they
know
that
there
won't
be
general
public
coming
into
that
area,
that
we
can
have
a
swipe
system
or
a
some
other
sort
of
management
within
that
area.
So
I
can
recondition
that
through.
N
N
You
know
there's
a
lot
of
locals
on
the
Gold
Coast
that
actually
choose
to
go
down
the
state
coolangatta
for
two
or
three
days
or
to
stay
at
cure
for
two
or
three
days
and
enjoy
what
they
have
to
offer
down
there.
So
yeah.
Thank
you.
So
as
long
as
it
can
be
conditioned
and
it's
and
it's
going
to
protect
that
amenity,
thank
you.
N
J
J
O
J
J
Right,
okay,
so
so
the
2003
scheme
wasn't
as
tight
and
was
the
2003
scheme
that
opened
up
the
door,
that's
and
then
in
the
20.
Then,
under
the
city
plan
we
had
to
have
regard
to
the
earlier
approval
because
of
the
planning
Act
right,
notwithstanding
the
fact
that
our
new
planning
scheme
has
a
stronger,
tighter
provisions
and
had
this
been
a
effectively
a
Greenfield
development,
we
would
have
had
a
different,
possibly
a
different
outcome.
Hypothetically
we'd.
J
Yeah
right,
okay,
so
so
it's
much
better
today
than
it
once
was,
but
this
developer,
having
secured
an
approval
under
the
old
scheme,
is
able
to
and
I
don't
mean
this
in
a
pejorative
way,
but
effectively
exploit
a
path
to
approval
that
has
gone
through
multiple
planning
schemes
and
multiple
planning
acts
to
arrive.
Okay,
that
clarifies
things
for
me
a
bit.
J
To
what
extent
can
adjoining
sites
look
to
this
approval
in
order
to
argue
for
uplift
and
again
I
hate
banging
on
about
this,
but
in
but
in
the
context
of
that
Varsity
thing,
I
think
they
were
arguing
for
an
approval
based
on
what
had
been
proved
underneath
that
building.
This
is
different.
I
want
to
know
whether
other
sites
within
that
green
zone
can
look
at
this
approval
in
order
to
argue
for
uplift
beyond
the
15
meters.
O
Through
each
through
the
chair,
they
they
could
put
an
argument
forward
whether
the
council
agrees
with
it
or
not,
is
a
separate
matter,
but
that
that
would
be
a
relevant
matter
as
a
under
under
the
act.
So
it
would
be
something
to
consider
whether
it's
enough
to
get
it
over
the
line
is,
is
something
completely
different.
J
H
F
B
B
C
B
I
B
All
of
the
existing
approvals
is
what
we
need
to
look
at,
and,
ultimately,
the
decisions
that
we
need
to
make
today
have
to
be
sound
and
defensible,
because
if
we
we
have
an
option
of
either
approving
it
or
refusing
it
or
making
alterations,
then
the
alterations
that
we
would
need
to
make
would
need
to
be
relevant
and
reasonable
in
the
context
of
the
existing
approval
that
sits
there.
So
so
so
I
I.
B
What
what
I
like
about
the
the
application
is
actually
the
new
hotel
product
and
I
think
that
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
City
of
Gold
Coast
is
the
city.
That's
been
built
on
tourism
and
and
I
actually
find
it
quite
exciting
that
somebody
is
prepared
to
commit
a
capital
and
and
a
lot
of
effort
into
creating
a
92
Key
hotel.
B
I
I
appreciate
that
the
challenge
of
the
The
View
corridors
and,
in
particular
my
project,
The
Architects
advice
regarding
Musgrave
and
the
the
12
months
or
so
of
negotiation
Workshop
between
officers
and
the
applicant
is,
is
actually,
in
the
view
of
the
architect,
achieved
a
better
visual,
a
building
than
what
currently
is
approved
and
and
I.
Think
that
the
the
big
challenge
that
I
have
is
I
I,
I
I,
definitely
see
the
the
pushback.
B
That's
happened
through
the
information
request
in
regards
to
the
bulk
of
the
building,
but
but
that
what
do
we
actually
achieve?
If
we,
if
we
try
to
also
reduce
height
and
I,
think
that
the
fact
that
building
one
under
the
existing
approvals
is
already
under
construction
and
is
being
capped
off,
that
height
is
effectively
creates
a
shield
in
part
for
what
happens
adjacent
to
it
to
the
South.
And
then
the
existing
approved
height
also
creates
a
shield
to
what
happens
to
the
hotel
building
in
the
front.
B
J
What's
the
name
of
the
street
not
Musgrave
the
other
one
Marine
yeah,
the
buildings,
fronting
Marine
parade
were
purposefully
lower
in
order
to
provide
a
transition
down
to
The,
Pavilion
and
ultimately
the
coast.
So
they
argued
in
2019
that
we
should
approve
their
development
on
the
basis
that
the
height
was
lower
at
Marine
parade,
and
it
should
the
development
should
be
approved
on
the
basis
that
that
transition
was
provided.
J
The
decision
today,
it's
on
height
I,
have
got
very
real
concerns
on
our
Reliance
on
the
earlier
approvals,
I've
got
very
real
concerns,
but
I'm
also
very
concerned
about
the
way
in
which
this
beautifully
designed
building.
Actually,
in
my
view,
in
my
subjective
view,
is
in
conflict
with
the
Coastal
Village,
aesthetic
and
lifestyle
that
we
hope
to
achieve
here
on
the
Gold
Coast
and
I,
fully
accept
that
our
planning
scheme,
without
with
the
absence
of
local
area
plans,
can
sometimes
spit
out
these
homogeneous
design
outcomes,
but
but
Kira
karumben
and
other
Southern
communities.
J
J
My
sense
is
that
officers
would
like
to
support
a
stunning
looking
building
but
I'm
not
really
satisfied
that
it's
sympathetic
to
the
area
and
will
integrate
into
the
local
character
of
Kira.
And
what
concerns
me
I
think
most
are
two
things
number
one
is
that
75
meter
long
Podium,
which
is
in
some
places
six
stories
high?
It's
a
contiguous
slab
of
building
three-quarters,
the
length
of
a
football
field
and
I
can't
reconcile
officer
support
for
that
design
outcome.
J
When,
on
the
other
hand,
we
look
at
the
Skyline
View,
which
you
can
only
appreciate
from
the
water
really
on
that
little
line
diagram
that
we
saw
on
the
slide,
you
can
only
see
it
from
your
boat
I,
don't
have
a
boat,
maybe
a
boat
I,
don't
know,
but
you
can
only
see
it
from
the
water
and
we
say
well.
This
is
a
good
design
outcome
because
we're
preserving
view
corridors
and
there's
some
variation.
J
Yet
where
people
actually
live
on
the
ground
and
experience
the
Coastal
Village
they'll
be
confronted
by
a
75
meter,
long
slab
of
building,
and
you
can
put
as
many
Timber
batters
as
you
want
on
that
and
put
as
many
planter
boxes
as
you
want.
But
for
me
at
ground
level,
that
is
just
an
oppressive
built
form
and
not
consistent
with
Kira,
not
consistent
with
the
southern
end
of
the
Gold
Coast.
J
My
final
point:
this
really
does
concern
me
because
you
know
I
love,
trees,
I
get
the
sense
that
City
officers
wanted
to
see
more
trees
or
different
trees,
better
landscaping
around
the
building,
so
much
so
that
they
requested
the
applicant
alter
their
setbacks.
To
accommodate
more
planting,
but
that
went
nowhere.
J
It
appears
as
though
the
applicant
wasn't
prepared
to
to
take
that
leap
and
because
the
applicant
wanted
to
maximize
the
developable
potential
of
that
building,
envelope,
we're
missing
out
on
the
ability
to
actually
curate
a
cohesive
interface
between
the
broader
environment
and
the
building
at
street
level
and
for
everybody.
Looking
at
this
building
from
other
developments
in
the
street
to
have
this
building
sit
cohesively
in
the
precinct,
I,
don't
believe
the
Landscaping
is
complementary
to
the
aesthetic
of
the
Southern
Gold
Coast
and.
J
Next
time
we
have
another
development
application.
I
worry
that
they'll
build
on
the
design
standards
set
by
this
building,
which
are
great
but
not
endemic
to
Kira
and
eventually
we'll
see
an
erosion
of
what
it
means
to
enjoy
the
southern
end
of
the
Gold
Coast
enclosing
Madam
chair,
not
closing
debate,
but
just
in
closing
my
remarks,
we've
spent
a
small
fortune
on
the
Kira
Pavilion,
like
more
than
we
should
ever
have
spent.
J
We
have
spent
At
Kira
Pavilion,
which
is
a
Heritage
listed
building,
and
we
did
that
because
that
Pavilion
is
a
signal
of
our
heritage.
It's
an
icon,
it's
a
beacon.
It
basically
says
at
this
spot
of
the
Gold
Coast
there
is
Heritage
worth
protecting
worth.
Holding
on
to
worth.
Investing
in
and
I
I
cannot
look
from
Keira
Pavilion
across
Marine
parade
back
at
what
is
proposed
and
say
that
that
is
a
better,
more
sympathetic
outcome
than
the
more
permeable
built
form
that
the
current
approval
provides
for
I've
spoken
to
the
residents
Madam
chair.
J
They
are
not
opposed
to
development.
In
fact,
they
are
supportive
of
the
earlier
approval,
which
is
a
significant
over
development
of
what
our
city
plan
provides
for
they're,
not
opposing
what
is
currently
approved,
which
is
just
out
of
bounds
in
terms
of
the
city
plan,
they're,
not
arguing
against
development,
they're,
arguing
against
a
bridge
too
far
that
risks
undermining
the
character
of
this
Heritage
part
of
our
Gold
Coast
and
I
stand
with
them.
Thank
you.
Thank.
G
So
in
the
end,
I
can
only
make
my
personal
decision,
based
on
the
officer
report,
a
strong
consideration
of
the
community
submissions
and
the
questions
and
the
answers
at
this
committee
today,
which
has
been
a
really
worthwhile
again
process
and
reinforces
why
this
part
of
the
process
is
so
important
to
our
city
planning
to
explain
how
I've
come
to
my
conclusion
today
to
support
building
one
has
no
changes.
So
for
me,
that's
a
relevant
incent
to
the
side.
It's
it
is
approved
and
has
no
changes
coming
to
it.
G
Building
three,
the
resort
on
Marine
parade
I,
don't
believe
that
a
reasonable
person
is
going
to
be
able
to
tell
the
difference
between
19
meters
and
24
meters
in
built
form,
but
what
they
will
be
able
to
strongly
see
is
the
architectural
outcome
and
the
streetscape
outcome
and,
in
my
opinion,
with
building
three,
it's
a
far
superior
outcome.
That's
been
achieved
in
the
proposed
building
three
today,
building
two
I
can
understand
why
a
reasonable
person
could
tell
the
difference
with
an
11
meters
additional
that's
proposed.
You
could
be
able
to
definitely
tell
that
difference.
D
Yes,
I've
also
got
some
value
from
the
discussion
today
and
I
appreciate
your
sharing
and
enabling
that
I
I
want
to
reflect
on
the
officer's
efforts
here
and
recognize
that
the
work
that
they
put
into
this
in
a
genuine
way
to
try
to
achieve
a
better
outcome
for
the
for
the
city
and
for
the
community.
I.
Do
think
that
the
original
approval
in
2013,
which
I
wasn't
part
of
it,
was
fundamentally
flawed
and
really
wrecks
of
the
need
for
review.
But
we're
not
in
a
position
to
do
that.
D
What
I
see
in
front
of
us
now
is
what
I
considered
almost
to
be
an
abusive
process
whereby,
as
Council
of
Austin
explained,
the
original
arguments
to
support
the
outcome
that
was
supported
at
that
time
have
been
compromised
significantly
by
the
outcomes
that
absort.
Now
the
I'm
not
excited
about
the
fact
that
there's
an
International
Hotel
here,
I
welcome
that
kind
of
product
in
the
city.
But
this
site
was
obviously
never
contemplated
for
an
International
Resort
hotel,
where
it
has
a
height
limit
of
three
stories
in
the
city
plan.
D
The
application
as
it
stands
before
us
is
not
compliant
with
the
city
plan
on
so
many
measures,
whether
they
be
height,
particularly
density,
the
footprint
of
the
buildings,
the
separation
between
the
buildings,
the
community,
open
space,
that's
provided
and
the
impacts
on
the
local
community
in
terms
of
noise
traffic
and
the
visual
Interruption,
shall
we
say,
and
on
the
basis
of
all
that,
I
just
can't
support
it.
Thanks.
C
C
And
yet
here
we
are
in
this
predicament
today,
purely
because
of
the
words
in
the
act
that
says
this
decision
must
be
made
in
the
context
of
the
earlier
one
and
I.
Don't
know
why
that
decision
can't
be
in
the
context
that
it's
already
a
massive
departure.
So
why
would
we
go
further
so
for
that
reason,
I'm
going
to
be
voting
against
it
and
I'll
go
to
you,
councilor
Owen
Jones,
to
close.
B
So
so
I,
don't
necessarily
disagree
with
the
with
the
with
councilor
young,
who
talked
about
an
abusive
process
because
of
the
way
that
it's
been
an
incremental
increase,
but
I
think
that
we
have
to
operate
within
the
act
that
we
have
to
administer
in
terms
of
the
comments
around
lifestyle
and
aesthetic
I
actually
I.
My
personal
view
is
I.
Think
the
aesthetic
is
is
better
with
this
application
that
we
have
before
us
today
than
the
existing
approval
that
exists.
B
So
I
think
that
there's
actually
a
better
outcome
and
that's
not
without
acknowledging
the
fact
that
the
city
invested
several
millions
of
dollars
in
improving
the
Heritage
building
that
is
across
the
road.
But
I
think
that
earlier
this
morning
about
300
Pages
ago,
we
looked
at
a
black
class
building
in
in
Burley,
and
my
view
is
that's
an
aesthetic
that
is
not
necessarily
aligned
with
the
southern
Gold
Coast.
But
we
don't
necessarily
have
the
choice
to
refuse
Things
based
exclusively
on
what
we
perceive
to
be
aesthetic.
B
B
Think
the
reality
for
that
Musgrave
street
is
that
we
we
can't
lose
sight
of
the
fact
that
it
lives
in
it
lives
not
in
a
two-day
2D
plane,
but
in
a
3D
plane
and
it
does
go
up
a
hill
and
there
there's
been
clearly
a
lot
of
work.
That's
gone
into
making
that
Podium
actually
look
better
with
this
application,
in
my
view
than
the
existing
approval,
so
I
think
it
it's.
B
J
B
C
Now
comes
the
the
time
when
I
have
to
use
my
casting
vote
to
decide
what
we
do
from
here
and
I
I'm.
Totally
aware
that
that,
as
the
debate
went
on,
that,
that
was
where
I
was
going
to
land
today
and
as
has
been
the
precedent
when
we
are
tired
at
three
all,
it's
been
usual
for
the
chair
to
go
with
the
officer's
recommendation,
and
so
I
will
do
that
today.
C
Despite
my
personal
opinion,
knowing
that
we
have
new
conditions
to
come
back
before
full
Council
and
that
at
full
Council
there'll
be
an
entirely
new
debate
about
how
we
proceed
with
this
development
application.
But
I
hope
that
the
people
in
attendance
understand
that
that
is
the
normal
process
for
a
chair
to
proceed
with
the
officer's
recommendation.
In
these
circumstances,
so
we'll
all
get
to
cast
our
vote
at
full.
Council.
Thank
you.
So
that
is
carried.
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
R
R
The
proposed
development
seeks
to
repurpose
the
existing
single-story
dwelling
house
within
the
subject
site
for
the
place
of
worship.
Use
extensions
to
the
existing
built
form
will
be
carried
out
as
identified
in
pink
on
the
site
plan
on
the
screen,
and
the
proposed
extensions
will
maintain
the
existing
character
of
the
dwelling.
R
R
The
applicant
submitted
an
operational
management
plan
which
detailed
specific
operational
parameters
for
the
place
of
worship,
use,
worship
activities
Sunday
to
Friday
are
proposed
for
a
one-hour
period
in
the
evening
and
will
operate
as
a
drop-in
prayer
session
where
worshipers
are
proposed
to
be
on
site
for
approximately
10
minutes,
a
maximum
of
15
persons
is
permitted
to
attend
the
site
per
day.
For
these
drop-in
prayer
sessions,
organized
worship
assembly
is
proposed
for
two
one-hour
sessions
from
four
pm
to
6
30
p.m.
R
On
Saturdays-
and
this
includes
a
30-minute
separation
between
worship
sessions,
a
maximum
of
40
persons
are
permitted
to
attend
the
site
for
organized
worship.
Assemblies
on
Saturdays
activities
associated
with
Diwali,
which
are
two
days
of
the
Indian
Hindu
calendar,
are
also
proposed.
All
worship
activities
must
be
carried
out
in
the
prayer
room.
R
The
subject
site
is
adjacent
to
heslot
road
to
the
east.
However,
there
are
existing
sensitive
receivers
to
the
North
and
the
West.
Therefore,
officers
have
ensured
the
development
provides
appropriate
amenity
protection
measures
in
terms
of
built
form.
The
development
provides
sufficient
setbacks
to
the
northern
and
western
boundaries.
Additional
Landscaping
is
proposed
along
these
side.
Boundaries
from
Entrance
Road,
the
built
form,
is
not
visible
due
to
an
existing
landscape
buffer
along
the
frontage
of
the
site.
Infill
planting
within
this
buffer
is
also
proposed
in
terms
of
noise.
R
R
The
recommended
conditions
relating
to
operations
address
concerns
raised
by
submitters
officers
have
considered
the
additional
traffic
demand
generated
by
the
proposed
development.
It
is
noted
that
Entrance
Road
is
a
feeder
road
to
heslot,
Road
being
a
service
road
to
the
Pacific
Highway
and
therefore
experiences
consistent
traffic
movement.
Throughout
the
day,
traffic
movements
associated
with
the
use
are
not
considered
to
impact
on
the
function
of
Entrance
Road.
R
The
proposed
on-site
car
park
can
accommodate
25
car
parking
spaces
which
complies
with
acceptable
outcome.
Ao1
of
the
transport
code,
based
on
the
maximum
number
of
worshipers
proposed,
the
applicant
is
required
to
complete
upgrade
Works
to
the
existing
Center
median
to
ensure
attendees
to
the
site
accessor
site
in
accordance
with
the
road
Network
design.
The
applicant
is
also
required
to
regrade
the
existing
driveway
and
Carry
Out
Works
to
the
vehicular
Crossing
to
ensure
safe
vehicle
movements.
R
The
required
upgrades
address
concerns
raised
by
submitters,
a
total
of
68
submissions
were
received,
including
28
submissions
in
objection
and
40
in
support
of
the
application.
The
concerns
raised,
an
objection,
included,
amenity
character,
operational
characteristics,
parking
infrastructure,
conflict
with
the
investigation
area,
intent
and
property
values
in
support
of
the
proposed
development.
Submitters
identified,
key
themes
relating
to
community
benefit,
visual
amenity
parking
built
form
and
environmental.
R
The
matters
raised
by
con
submitters
have
been
considered
throughout
the
assessment
of
the
application.
Overall
offices
have
completed
a
detailed
assessment
against
the
city
plan
as
a
whole
to
determine
that
through
recommended
conditions.
The
proposed
development
is
appropriate
for
the
subject
site
and
is
recommended
for
approval.
Are
there
any
questions.
R
J
Right
so
I
like
I'm.
No,
you
know
I'm
no
expert
on
this
particular
faith.
In
fact,
I've
just
only
taken
a
few
moments
to
better
understand
the
way
their
temples
are
adorned
would
the
adherence
to
the
faith,
the
owners,
the
the
developers,
the
proponents
in
this
instance?
Would
they
be
free
to
embellish
the
exterior
of
this
building
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
their
faith
down
the
track
without
seeking
Council
approval,
or
do
they
have
to
deliver
something
in
keeping
with
this
diagram.
R
R
Three
Mr
chair,
we
work
very
closely
with
the
applicant
in
regards
to
hours
of
operation,
give
given
that
it's
a
residential
Zone.
We
definitely
needed
to
consider
the
amenity
characteristics,
so
the
applicant
proposed
to
you
know
just
do
two
one-hour
sessions
on
a
Saturday
rather
than
a
Sunday,
and
then
during
the
week,
just
one
hour
periods
and
we
very
much
limited
the
number
of
attendees
to
the
site
during
this
in
respect
to
residential
amenity,
okay,.
M
Thanks
Mr
chair,
you
mentioned
about
socializing
in
the
car
Park
area.
I
can
recall
other,
and
this
is
some
time
ago,
where
we've
had
these
types
of
applications
come
in
where,
after
the
service
is
finished,
people
then
go
out
to
the
car
Park
area.
They
might
stand
around
chat
for
you
know
one
or
two
hours
and
turn
their
cars
on
there's
music
in
their
cars
and
then
there's
all
the
door
slamming.
How
is
this
going
to
be
controlled
when
you
say
that
there's
no
socializing
in
the
car
Park
area,
three.
R
Mr
chair
there's
two
conditions
relating
to
this
one
being
the
operational
management
plan,
there's
a
requirement
in
there
which
does
not
allow
for
socializing
outside
the
prayer
room,
so
the
whole
intent
of
that
is
once
you
finish,
the
prayer
you
are
to
get
in
your
car
and
leave
the
site.
There's
also
a
specific
condition
for
that
and
the
applicant
has
proposed
a
sign
within
the
place
of
worship,
to
remind
attendees
of
the
site
of
this
expectation.
F
You
know
numbers
here,
you
know,
especially
through
the
diwala
and
then
ordinary
hours,
and
then
the
weekends
and
then
the
15
hours
permitted
to
attend
15
persons
permitted
to
attend
in
the
one-hour
period.
Is
that
somehow
monitored
by
someone?
Because
that
it
sort
of
seems
a
very
strange
way
of
doing
things
is
some
of
the
accounting
someone
per
hour.
I
mean
it's
yeah,
it
just
I,
don't
know
how
it's
going
to
be
monitored,
someone
a
caretaker
or
or
someone
within
the
religion
there
all
day
at
the
premises.
F
A
D
Grateful
for
the
questions
that
have
been
raised
in
the
interests
of
the
councilors
I
did
ask
for
this
matter
to
come
to
committee,
because
there
were
a
number
of
submitters.
This
has
been
identified.
The
bulk
of
the
submissions
in
support
of
the
application
came
from
perhaps
parishioners,
who
live
a
long
way
from
the
site
or
quite
a
long
way,
whereas
most
of
the
submissions
against
the
proposal
were
from
the
local
community
and
I
put
a
lot
of
emphasis
on
their
concerns.
D
The
Proposal
that
we're
dealing
with
now
is
different
from
the
one
that
was
publicly
advertised,
and
so
that's
an
important
thing
to
note.
It's
been
reduced
in
its
intensity
and
extent
of
use
from
what
was
advertised,
and
so
some
of
the
concerns
that
were
raised
by
the
local
committee
have
probably
been
addressed
through
the
new
proposal.
D
D
D
I
know
you're
a
senior
planner,
but
I
hadn't
I,
don't
recall
you
making
presentations
so
excuse
me,
so
I
met
on
site
with
Emily
and
Roger
on
Monday
I
think
it
was
the
young
fellow
over
there,
and
the
site
is
very
much
impacted
by
noise
from
the
motorway.
You've
got
to
feel
sorry
for
the
people
that
would
have
owned
this.
In
the
past
it
was
their
residential
dwelling.
It's
a
little
like
a
little
Log
Cabin
and
then
the
motorway
is
built
in
an
enormous.
D
D
I
did
have
some
concerns
with
the
with
the
with
the
report.
For
example,
it
mentions
the
proximity
of
other
places
of
worship
and
the
reality
is
those
places
of
worship
are
several
kilometers
away,
although
within
that
Gavin
semi-urban
area
or
Park
residential
area
and
and
a
concern
that
this
use
is
really
very
much
inserted
into
the
area.
D
D
The
there's
provision
for
landscaping
around
the
site,
which
will
ensure
that
the
the
building
which
is
well
off
the
road
is
hardly
visible
from
the
road
that
it
will
remain
out
of
sight.
There's
Provisions
about
landscape
barriers
or
Landscaping
being
done
to
protect
the
visual
amenity
for
the
adjacent
to
properties.
Residential
Properties
with
and
the
houses
are
quite
a
way
off,
there's
retention
of
trees
and,
importantly,
the
building
itself.
Although
it's
going
to
be
extended,
it'll
be
the
very
exactly
the
same
products
used
in
the
construction
of
it
of
that
extension.
D
So
it's
really
not
going
to
look
any
different.
It's
not
going
to
feel
any
different
from
what
it
is
now.
Worship
is
very
limited
in
its
duration
and
the
doors
and
windows
have
to
be
closed
during
during
any
worship.
The
number
of
people
allowed
on
the
site
is
limited
and
I've
met
with
the
proponents
and
I'm
pretty
confident
that
they're
going
to
conduct
this
land
use
in
accordance
with
the
operational
management
plan.
That's
been
defined.
D
It's
important
to
note
that
this
is
within
the
gave,
an
investigation
area
that
look
gave
a
North
investigation
area
that
we're
progressing
slowly
and
it
won't.
There
won't
be
any
outcomes
from
that
until
probably
2016.
So
what
are
we
now?
2023
2026
I
mean
so
the
let
the
nature
of
this
area
is
likely
to
change
considerably
into
the
future.
But
that's
not
been
a
consideration
here.
We're
just
dealing
with
the
here
and
now.
I
A
A
B
I
just
had
a
question
in
the
in
the
amount
of
available
Active
Space,
so
so,
given
the
fact
that
it's
a
effectively
would
bear
minus
endings
we're
bearing
the
city
plan,
and
this
will
then
be
the
code
that
they'll
follow
forevermore
in
in
the
delivery
and
I
suppose.
Just
visually
I
was
just
wondering
about
how
much
Active
Space
they
had
on
on
both
of
the
two
sides
to
allow
for
the
population.
I
S
Yes,
through
the
chap
I
can
say
that
within
Precinct
one,
which
is
the
southern
lot,
there
is
a
5000
722
square
meter
publicly
accessible
park,
that's
shown
as
one
over
there.
In
addition
to
that,
the
Harbor
Shores
development
code
does
include
Provisions
that
there
will
be
private
open
space
that
for
any
future
accessible
development.
B
S
Through
the
chair,
the
pedestrian
bridge
will
be
assassin
decided
at
a
later
date,
but
it's
intended
to
be
only
for
residents
and
if
you
live
in
the
Northern
Precinct,
yes,
you
can
walk
down
to
the
southern
Precinct,
but
the
any
any
member
of
the
public
won't
be
able
to
walk
across
the
bridge
from
the
south
to
the
north.
So
if
you're
resident
yes
but
General,
members
of
the
public
know
and.
B
S
So
I
guess
the
key
difference
with
the
southern
Precinct
is.
There
is
areas
that
are
available
to
the
public,
which
is
you
know,
some
some
limited
non-residential
food
and
drink
Outlets.
There's
a
public
park
there
there's
a
public
car
park
as
well,
whereas
on
the
Northern
Precinct,
it's
purely
just
residential
and
just
for
the
residents.
That
is
why
we
didn't
sort
of
pursue
any
publicly
accessible
boardwalk
in
that
instance,
and.
B
S
Through
the
chair,
no,
they
will
be
privately
owned
by
whom,
by
the
body,
corporate
of
when
it's
established
of
the
development
in
regards
to
the
southern
one
that
will
be
publicly
accessible
it'll,
be
we
have
condition
that
it's
written
into
their
into
their
body
corporate
structure
and
their
BMS
or
CMS
that
it's
open
to
the
public,
but
it
will
won't
be
publicly
owned.
Okay,.
A
A
Yes,
thank
you
and
just
it's
the
land,
that's
immediately
opposite
Harbor
Town
for
anyone
who's
not
familiar,
so
it's
well
serviced
by
an
existing
bus
interchange,
as
well
as
all
the
amenity
and
services
that
are
within
Harbor
Town.
So
it's
a
pretty
well
located
development,
all
in
all,
dude
Council.
B
B
So,
and
and
I
don't
know
where
whether
or
not
any
work
has
ever
been
done
in
regards
to
future
light
rail
extensions.
But
where
do
you
have
any
thoughts
on
where
a
future
light
rail
extension
might
land
in
regards
to
connecting
North
to
Harbor
Town?
Like
I,
mean
it's
been
discussed
in
the
past,
but.
A
A
G
S
The
chair,
those
are
private
areas,
I,
guess
there
is
a
legend
that
goes
along
with
this,
but
obviously
I
cropped
it
out
for
the
purposes
of
committee.
The
two
in
the
top
right
hand
top
left
hand
corner
that
it's
likely
to
be
publicly
accessible
too,
because
there
is
some
non-residential
development
nearby
there.
In
regards
to
the
two
that
has
the
pool
and
the
tennis
court.
That
was
a
part
of
a
private
Recreation
club
that
will
be
just
for
the.
S
G
Yeah,
what's
up,
there's
several
too
I
just
saw
that
two
in
there
and
with
that
scale
of
knowing
what
what
it
actually
was.
So
it
wasn't
sure
if
it
was
a
small
soccer
field
or
if
it
was
a
tennis
court
or
what
it
actually
no
proposed
to
be
in
there
yeah
and
number
one
being
a
public
accessible
park.
That
is
not
just
for
the
4
700
bedrooms
anticipated
on
this
site,
but
open
to
public
beyond
that.
So
would
this
be
considered
a
district
level
Park.
A
Connecting
to
the
boardwalk
come
along,
there's
sort
of
a
an
intention
to
have
a
beach
kind
of
a
style
opening
just
to
the
top
of
screen
from
the
number
one.
So
I
don't
know
if
we've
got
any
renders
of
that
part
of
the
probably
not
no,
no,
and
but
it's
actually
going
to
be
quite
a
an
area
of
quite
High
amenity
and
needs.
G
N
Thank
you
and
through
the
chair,
I
just
want
to
ask
about
the
pedestrian
bridge
so
as
in
is
that
condition
to
be
delivered
at
a
particular
stage,
or
is
there
a
trigger
once
we
get
to
a
certain
density?
That's
going
to
be
delivered
to
connect
the
two
sites,
because
I
had
a
lot
of
difficulty
with
the
Sunland
site,
they're
on
hookah
Boulevard
on
the
corner
there,
and
we
still
don't
have
that
pedestrian
bridge.
N
That's
going
to
connect
through
to
the
queue
Center
and
and
officers
I,
think
Lara
and
prior
to
that,
Emily
have
done
a
lot
of
work
on
that
to
get
it
conditioned.
But
what's
happened
is
that
they've
changed
the
the
square
meterage
rate
for
how
much
commercial
had
to
be
on
the
site,
and
that
was
the
trigger.
So
the
trigger
was
15
000
square
meters,
so
they
took
it
up
to
19
and
then
they
realized
that
they'd
have
to
deliver
it.
So
then
it
got
brought
back
down
to
12..
N
So
I
just
want
to
know
that
at
some
stage
we're
not
going
to
be
pushing
all
the
pedestrians
from
the
northern
out
onto
the
side
of
the
road
to
get
to
the
Southern
Park
area
there.
So
delivery
wise
I
just
would
like
to
think
that
we've
got
something
a
little
bit
tighter
there
that
conditions,
the
delivery
of
the
pedestrian
bridge
to
keep
them
off
that
very
busy
road.
S
Through
the
chair
with
this
one,
we
haven't
actually
provided
a
condition
that
they
have
to
deliver
it
at
a
certain
stage.
There
will
be
a
two
meter
wide
footpath,
that's
conditioned
along
the
entire
Frontage
and
we'll
include
that
that
bridge
on
Oxley
drive,
but
at
the
moment
it's
just
simply
subject
to
a
future
application.
N
N
N
So
if
they
come
back
sorry
and
through
the
chair,
if
they
came
back
through
and
said
well
stage,
14
we're
actually
gonna
extend
stage
13
and
not
have
a
stage
14
and
blah
blah
blah
and
it
gets
lost
in
the
wash.
It's
I
just
think.
It's
really
important
because
I
know
the
issues
that
have
been
raised
with
with
the
Sunland
site.
And,
yes,
it's
been
conditioned
now,
but
it
still
isn't
actually
delivered
and
there's
a
lot
of
oldies
that
are
going
to
be
living
on
that
site
and
those
young
people
too.
N
But
there's
a
lot
of
oldies
that
are
going
to
access
the
Q
Center
over
there
and
they're
having
to
come
out
and
go
around
because
that
hasn't
been
delivered.
So
I
just
think.
If
you
end
up
with
a
quite
a
hefty
older
community,
there
you're
going
to
be
pushing
them
out
on
that
very
busy
road
to
be
able
to
access
the
park
with
their
grandkids
and
that
so
just
a
thought.
A
A
Those
people
would
probably
naturally
use
the
signalized
intersection
to
cross
over
to
the
other
side
of
the
road
at
that
point.
But
as
this
development
starts
to
occur
down
this
end,
there
won't
be
an
option
to
really
put
the
pedestrian
traffic
out
that
way,
and
so
that's
why
the
state
of
conditions
footpath
would
be
my
guess.
Thank.
N
S
J
So
I
just
want
to
get
some
clarity
on
the
public
car
park
and
what
we're
doing
to
secure
unfettered
access
to
that
public
car
park
and
the
ability
to
work
with
that
future
body
corporate
to
regulate
that
car
park
in
a
way
that
actually
encourages
public
use.
So,
for
example,
if
they
provide
unregulated
parking
I
could
imagine
that
there
may
be
residents
who
fill
up
that
car
park
and
limit
the
ability
for
visitors
to
the
precinct
to
park
in
that
space
in
order
to
enjoy
the
publicly
accessible
Parkland.
S
J
Mr
chairman
yeah
I
know
it
sounds
like
a
really
minor
thing,
but
I
think
we
need
to
have
some
thought
on
how
we
condition
that
publicly
accessible
car
park
to
encourage
turnover
that
makes
it
genuinely
a
public
car
park
that
might
provide
benefits
to
those
from
outside
of
the
site
and
potentially
leading
up
to
body
corporate
might
Emperor
ability
to
do
that.
It's
such
a
minor
thing,
but
so.
A
C
S
So
through
the
chair,
the
southern
Precinct
has
areas
that
are
open
to
the
public
that
have
got
food
and
drink.
Outlets
they've
got
shops
that
are
going
in
there.
They've
got
a
public
car
park
so
an
instance
that
instance,
it
was
considered
appropriate
to
have
it
open
to
the
public,
whereas
the
northern
Precinct
does
not
intend
to
provide
any
publicly
accessible
areas.
It's
purely
just
for
the
residents
that
live
in
that
Precinct,
and
because
of
that,
we
didn't
pursue.
C
C
Sorry
I
had
it
the
wrong
way
around
that's
fun
and
do
we
have
conditions
about
the
boardwalks
being
only
for
pedestrian
use
and
I'm
thinking
of
scooters
and
motorized,
you
know
and
people
getting
knocked
over
everywhere.
I
just
wonder:
is
there
something
we
can
do
to
make
sure
it's
a
pedestrian
Boardwalk
only
with
the
exception,
perhaps
of
mobility,
scooters.
S
C
But
in
our
experience
it's
not
possible
to
for
the
body
corporate
to
manage
Scooters
or
speeding
vehicles
on
boardwalks
I
I,
it's
up
to
you,
councilor
called
well,
it's
your
division,
but
if
it
were
mine,
I'd
be
wanting
a
condition
that
limits
it
so
that
up
the
track.
You
don't
have
the
problem
where
there's
that
conflict,
but.
A
G
But
this
is
a
variation
to
get
additional
height
on
buildings.
So,
if
there's
more
height,
how
is
it
not
a
lot
more
beds?
I
know,
there's
a
little
bit
more,
but
surely,
for
the
amount
of
buildings
are
getting
a
height
increase.
It's
going
to
have
a
higher
overall
dwelling
count
than
this
in
the
end.
So
through.
S
The
chair
they're
delivering
a
range
of
building
typologies
throughout
the
site.
Importantly
along
the
Waterfront.
They
have
a
lot
of
townhouse
development,
so
that's
quite
a
low
intensity
in
terms
of
density.
They
are
essentially
keeping
the
the
city
plant
density.
While
they
are
varying
it,
it
will
still
be
a
density,
that's
slightly
under
what
can
be
achieved
so.
G
A
Yes,
and
can
I
tell
you
that
the
only
reason
it's
here
is
because
it
was
received
as
a
major
project.
Otherwise
the
applicants
went
through
a
public
consultation
process
completely
independent
of
council
they've,
listened
to
local
feedback
and
concerns
about
the
the
east
facing
there,
where
you
see
the
number
seven
all
of
that
is
townhouse
product
which
fronts
onto
a
canal
where
there's
detached
housing
on
the
other
side,
so
their
their
mix
of.
A
So
you
can
see
that
all
the
way
between
those
previously
approved
raptis
development
down
this
down
that
southern
end.
Yes,
right
up
until
you
get
to
essentially
that
little
intersection
of
the
canal
are
all
a
very
low
rise
and
low
intensity
form
of
development.
So
again,
they've
then
smoothed
that
out
by
putting
more
height
out
towards.
G
B
S
B
So
there's
going
to
be
an
interaction,
there's
going
to
be
a
difference
between
the
northern
site
being
easier
to
accommodate
that
than
the
southern
side,
because
on
the
southern
side,
we're
going
to
have
effectively
the
boardwalk
being
either
or
public.
So
so
I
think
you
just
might
want
to
be
mindful
of
that.
Yeah
well
or
just
High
pollen,
just
like
I
mean
just
so
clearly.
I
S
Through
the
chair,
this
is
only
a
variation
approval.
It's
not
actually
approving
any
sort
of
built
form.
They
still
need
to
come
in
following
this
for
their
MCU
approvals
for
the
the
towers
themselves.
At
that
time
we
would
request
acoustic
reports
and
the
acoustic
attenuation
could
be
I,
guess
ironed
out
at
that
that
specific
time,
but
overall
for
the
preliminary
approval,
we're
just
sort
of
leaving
it
to
the
development.
B
Permits,
but
don't
you
think,
it's
important
in
regards
to
so
even
if
you
look
at
page
800,
where
there's
where
it's
got
all
of
the
lovely
trees
and
whatnot
shows
how
how
it
might
be
a
green
Edge
effectively,
but
if
there
has
to
be
a
future
condition
in
regards
to
a
sound
attenuation
fence,
that's
gonna,
potentially
look
pretty
ordinary.
You
know
so
yeah,
so
you've
got
an
option
of
a
berm
or
an
option
of
the
sound
attenuation
fence
or
an
option
of
managing
the
noise
at
the
building.
Okay,
as
well.
S
Through
the
chair,
so
the
Harbor
Shores
development
code
specifically
mentions
that
that
Frontage
to
Oxley
drive
there
is
to
be
a
landscape
buffer
and
there's
also
some
sort
of
stormwater
infrastructure
in
the
companion
stormwater
from
the
road
to
the
canals.
So
if
there
was
any
storm
water,
sorry,
if
there
was
any
future
development
application
that
proposed
acoustic
attenuation,
it
would
be
behind
that
buffer,
yeah.
A
B
Make
a
lot
of
things
the
the
visuals
for
the
people
also
driving
past
it.
So
so
at
the
moment-
and
you
might
appreciate
this
on
Broadwater
Avenue
I've
got
some
residents
very
vexed
at
the
sound
attenuation
on
Broadwater
Avenue
that
has
no
softening
or
Landscaping
adjacent
to
it.
Right.
Yeah,
stay
controlled,
Road
satisfies
the
state
in
regards
to
noise,
but
visually
it's
pretty
ordinary.
You
know
so
and
that's
that
was
the
heart
of
the
question.
I
S
C
Given
our
previous
experiences,
because
if
an
elderly
person
Buys
in
this
location
because
of
its
proximity
to
Harbor
Town
and
they
step
I'm,
not
sure,
what's
proposed
with
the
townhouses,
but
if
they
have
direct
access
to
the
boardwalk
from
their
home
and
on
that
publicly
accessible
bit,
regardless
of
what
we
condition
or
what
signage
we
put
up,
people
will
use
motorized
scooters
along
there
and
they
will
be
at
risk
of
being
hit
as
they
step
out
of
their
property
and
I
have
examples
of
it
at
the
moment.
So
I
just
think.
C
We
need
to
be
really
mindful
at
this
early
stage
about
the
potential
for
Jetties,
where
people
have
public
accessibility
and
they
decide
they'll
fish
there
when
it's,
the
jetty
will
belong
to
one
of
the
property
owners
and
also
the
access
to
the
boardwalk.
If
there
is
proposed
to
be
direct
access
from
the
rear
of
the
townhouses
onto
the
boardwalk,
so
just
something
that
we
can
have
some
clarity
around
before
Council
I'd,
be
appreciative.
J
Thanks
Mr
chairman
I
have
somewhat
of
a
reservation
around
the
intersection
depicted
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen,
so
if
I'm
at
Harbor
Town
so
I've
done
my
day,
shopping
and
I'm
hop
on
my
electric
seated
scooter,
because
some
Aging
in
place
and
yep
some
some
Crossing
I'm
I'm
crossing
a
signalized
pedestrian
Crossing
right
I,
get
to
that
little
island.
That
little
waiting
area
do
I,
have
another
signalized
Crossing
on
that
slip
lane
to
take
me
to
safety,
or
is
that
merely
an
unsignalized
pedestrian
like
zebra
Crossing.
J
J
J
H
J
J
I
A
K
K
T
T
T
T
Notwithstanding
that
it's
in
the
lower
density
residential
area,
the
proposed
development
itself
is
has
been
well
designed
and
through
a
series
of
negotiations
between
officers
and
the
developer.
We've
increased
separation
between
the
two
buildings
on
the
middle
and
top
floor,
so
there
is
a
separation
and
officers.
Consider
that
actually
is
a
an
improvement,
as
it
reduces
their
perceived
bulk
and
mass
of
the
development
and
allows
space
between
the
two
buildings.
T
The
even
though
it's
impact
assessment,
the
majority
of
of
development
parameters
are
actually
it
meets
the
code
accessible
parameters,
in
other
words,
it's
under
nine
meters,
partial
third
story,
site
cover
and
setbacks
all
meeting
the
code
accessible
parameters.
So
it's
only
the
impact
for
the
density
and
that's
an
important
consideration
is
a
site
plan.
I
know
it's
hard
to
read
that
that
perspective
ground
floor
plans,
probably
slightly
easier
to
read
in
the
context
of
development.
T
T
T
Just
on
just
touching
on
a
few
of
those
matters,
I
actually
think
it's
important
to
talk
about
precedent
and
and
I'll
I'll
go
back
to
the
aerial
photograph
or
the
zoning
Maps.
This
particular
outcome
can
only
be
replicated
on
Dual
Frontage
sites
can't
be
done
on
an
on
a
non-dual,
frontage
site
and
I.
Think
that's
really
important
to
raise
so
the
amount
of
opportunities
to
replicate
this
particular
design
or
proposal
is
actually
very,
very
limited.
It
is
just
basically
limited
to
the
Dual,
Frontage
or
Corner
Lots,
within
that
that
particular
Enclave.
T
K
T
So
to
the
left
is
the
lodgement
plans
and
the
right
hand
side
one
shows
the
The
increased
separation
between
the
first
app
floor
and
the
partial
third
story.
So
we
we
believe
that-
and
this
was
as
a
result
of
the
concerns
of
the
submitters,
that
the
applicant
made
these
changes
and
we
believe,
that's
significantly
reduced
the
messing
and
and
the
bulk
of
the
development,
so
I,
I,
suppose,
privacy
and
Shadow,
as
I've
said
before,
it's
a
very
minimalistic
development
up
the
top
on
that
partial
third
story.
T
The,
it's
been
designed
appropriately
to
ensure
that
there's
no
windows
that
Overlook
adjoining
developments
and
because
of
the
significant
setback,
particularly
to
the
southern
boundary.
We
don't
believe
that
shadow
is
actually
of
concern
to
our
neighbors.
Overall,
we've
spent
a
lot
of
time
assessing
this
development.
We
believe
it
complies
with
the
city
plan
and
we're
recommending
it
be
approved
today.
T
D
So
in
every
respect,
this
development
seems
to
comply
with
the
existing
Zoning
for
the
for
the
area,
except
these
not
understood
or
hidden
thing
being
the
corner
allotment,
which
has
excited
or
allowed
this
application
to
come
forward
and
excited
the
the
interest
of
the
local
community.
So
so
that
corner
lot
thing
is,
is
relevant
for
all
of
the
pink
Lots
we
can
see
in
that
image,
or
is
it
just
that
little
locality.
T
D
I've
had
a
number
of
those
in
Pacific
Pines
and
it
it
excites
that
concern.
So
the
fact
that
you
can
have
this
outcome
on
a
corner
lot
isn't
reflected
in
the
plans
that
people
can
see
it's
an
underlying
and
unseen
provision
that
relates
to
the
city.
As
you
say,
and
without
with
that
exception,
every
other
aspect
complies
with
the
expected
and
and
very
visible
elements
of
the
city
plan
that
people
might
interrogate
up
through.
T
You
Mr
chair,
correct
I'd,
just
like
to
add
that
it's
not
just
simply
that
you're
on
a
corner
site,
so
we'll
give
you
a
tick
tick
of
approval
that
there's
a
certain
design
standard
and
we
do
like
this
particular
design
pattern
where
you're
getting
you
know
your
access
off,
both
both
streets.
So
the
idea
is
that
you're
getting
separate
developments
and
from
one
one
perspective
of
the
street,
it
actually
appears
as
one
dwelling
and
from
the
other
one.
The
dwelling,
that's
basically
the
intention
of
why
we
have
the
Dual
Frontage
Provisions.
Thank.
G
G
I've
got
a
partial
third
story
at
this
stage,
so
it
would
be
the
first
of
those
so
I'm
just
interested
in
the
officer's
assessment
that
obviously,
by
putting
two
dwellings
onto
this
one
property,
the
amount
of
open
space
for
them
to
use
is
not
huge
in
terms
of
a
backyard,
and
that's
part
of
the
reason
why
the
partial
third
story
is
envisaged
as
an
acceptable
outcome
is
to
provide
that
communal
space
for
the
owners
to
use.
So
without
the
partial
third
Story,
how
much
actual
open
space
they
have
on
their
property.
T
K
G
A
Okay,
cancel
timer,
we're
blessed
in
kumabar,
with
some
beautiful
nature-based
areas
as
well.
So
just
at
the
end
of
this
straight
there's
a
reserve
called
Daisy,
almost
Park,
which
is
easily
accessible
from
the
cul-de-sac,
so
there'll
be
a
I'm
sure
there'll
be
an
active.
You
can
see
that
green
space
there,
just
at
the
End
of
the
Street,
which
connects
through
to
oxidrive,
so
they'll
they'll
be
able
to
enjoy
a
beautiful
morning
walks
and
the
like.
C
You
chairman
to
the
officers
I'm
just
interested
in
when
this
action
was
lodged
and
if
the
officers
gave
consideration
to
6.8
that
we're
considering
today
in
a
later
item
where
the
government
has
changed
the
rules
relating
to
partial
third
stories
and
have
made
them
not
accessible
in
terms
of
becoming
impact
and
I.
Get
that
this
is.
This
is
under
nine
meters,
which
is
the
prescribed
limit
in
City
plan
anyway.
But
but
was
that
part
of
the
considerations
in
recommending
the
partial
third
story
through.
T
You
Mr
chair,
that's
a
great
question:
councilor
Gates,
this
application
was
lodged
under
version
eight
and
has
been
assessed
under
version
eight
and
the
the
partial
third
story
was
code
assessment.
If
we
get
time
later
on,
we
would
like
to
talk
about
the
change
to
the
planning
regulations
and
what
that
means
to
assessing
partial
third
story
applications
now,
but
in
relation
to
this
particular
application,
it's
code
accessible,
but.
B
T
B
So
as
a
response
effectively
to
both
the
information
requests
and
the
submissions
that
are
received,
correct
right,
yeah
can
I
just
make
a
comment.
So
I
think
this
isn't
dissimilar
to
the.
In
my
mind
the
advantage
of
bringing
some
of
these
forward
to
planning
committees
that
it
actually
provides
a
good
body
of
evidence
to
Residents
in
regards
to
what
corner
dual
occupancy
might
look
like
throughout
the
city.
So
I
know
that
I
had
wanted
helensvale,
which
I
brought
through
because
of
the
volume
of
blocks
in
helensvale
that
might
be
subject
to
Corner
development.
B
I
know
that
we've
dealt
with
one
at
Burleigh
heads
or
koala
Park
recently
with
Council
of
McDonald
and
and
so
I
think
that
there's
probably
now
three
or
four
really
good
examples
of
actually
good
architectural
outcomes.
I
know
that
I've
seen
at
least
one
in
helensvale,
which
was
the
proposal
to
split
an
existing
1980s
house
in
half
to
try
to
create
a
dual
occupancy.
B
So
I,
don't
think
it's
necessarily
hidden
it's
just.
It
hasn't
come
to
the
fore
yet
and
and
the
real
challenge
we
will
have
well
there's
two
challenges.
One
in
this
regards
it's
the
first.
That's
happened
in
a
particular
residential
pocket,
so
it's
changing
People.
Clearly,
don't
like
it.
But
second
is
what
happens
when
when
there's
10
and
there's
only
two
more
blocks
left
that
potentially
could
do,
and
is
that
then,
a
bridge
too
far
in
regards
to
the
impact
that
it's
had
on
that
area.
B
A
J
Right
at
the
bottom,
there
condition
12.
retained
the
existing
Melaleuca
in
a
public
road
Reserve
north
of
the
subject.
Site
I've
had
a
bit
of
experience
with
melaleucas
during
varsity
and
being
a
water-seeking
plant.
There
is
no
I
suppose,
there's
there's
no
Greenery
that
does
a
better
job
of
finding
its
way
into
stormwater
foundations,
swimming
pools
and
under
driveways
and
I
I
just
wanted
to
get
a
sense
of
what
would
happen
down
the
track.
If
this
Melaleuca
began
interfering
with
the
foundations
of
a
offense
the
home
and
what
have
you?
J
T
Mr
chair,
the
the
most
onerous
option
available
would
be
to
have
a
minor
change,
applica
application
to
remove
that
condition.
To
be
honest,
if
it
was
emergency
works,
we
could
remove
that
the
tree
through
through
some
common
sense
approach,
but
worst
case
scenario,
a
minor
change,
Troy
the
city
canceled
for
our
Reserve.
J
Properties,
the
council,
absolutely
we
would
remove
it,
it's
our
job
to
remove
it,
but
I
just
wondered,
then
what
what
would
happen
with
the
fact
that
we've
removed
it?
Yet
we
are
approving
something
that
calls
for
the
tree
to
be
retained,
I
suppose
what
I'm
getting
at
is
I'm
happy
for
the
tree
to
remain
there.
The
melaleucas
are
Exquisite,
absolutely,
let's
keep
it
there
for
as
long
as
practical,
but
could
there
be
other
language
around
retaining
the
tree?
A
I
just
take
it
from
another
perspective,
the
tree
is
in
the
report,
relied
on
as
being
a
methodology
of
maintaining
privacy
for
adjoining
properties
when
I
was
out
on
site
last
Friday.
The
tree
looks
to
me
to
be
in
very
poor
health,
which
is
not
depicted
in
this
photo,
but
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
it's
it.
It
doesn't
look
well
part
of
when
I
ultimately
move.
A
I
think
there's
a
few
things
that
feature
in
this
particular
application
that
are
of
concern
to
the
community.
They
have
a
broad
concern
that
this
is
a
rezoning
of
the
area
and
that
there'll
be
a
proliferation
of
these
types
of
development
outcomes,
which
we
know
is
not
the
case.
I
know
that
they
are
concerned
about
vehicle
parking.
As
you
can
see
from
the
image,
though,
there
is
already
two
vxos
that
are
accessible
from
each
of
the
two
streets
and,
in
fact,
with
the
setback
garages,
there's
going
to
be
a
pretty
good
parking
outcome.
A
A
O
Oh
yeah,
three
Mr,
chair,
I,
guess
the
process
from
here
is:
if,
if
the
council
did
decide
to
decide
the
application
with
this
amendment,
the
applicant
would
have
to
prepare
some
new
plans
yeah
looking
at
it,
I
guess.
One
thing
they
might
do
is
remove
the
lift
because
they
wouldn't
have
the
need
to
go
up
to
the
third
story.
So
there
might
be
some
minor
generally
in
accordance
with
modifications
made,
but
I'm
comfortable,
that
the
the
words
on
this
condition
would
result
then,
in
effectively
a
two-story
development,
fine.
A
To
the
extent
that
I
thought
they
should
cast
their
mind
towards
it
being
removed
and
I
think
it's
been
a
particular
point
of
pain
for
the
nearby
community.
When
you
see
that
aerial
and
you
see
where
pools
are
located
and
all
that
sort
of
thing,
I
think
the
the
concept
of
that
third
floor
was
probably
the
Tipping
Point
in
the
community's
concern.
A
I
raised
it
with
the
applicant
in
the
context
that
I
felt
that
at
some
point
in
order
to
meet
with
the
satisfaction
of
the
nearby
submitters,
the
third
story
was
probably
the
price
that
they
would
ultimately
have
to
pay
and
so
I
guess
having
flagged
a
bit.
Surprise
I,
don't
think
it'll
be
a
surprise.
But
I
have
thought
long
and
hard
about
how
to
deal
with
this
there's
been
I'm
I'm,
going
to
say
a
little
bit
of
niggle
in
the
neighborhood,
which
has
been
disappointing.
This
is
a
local
family.
A
Who've,
moved
in
they've
got
a
young
child
and
I
think
they're,
really
just
trying
to
create
a
better
home
for
themselves
and
they've
been
painted
as
some
sort
of
vicious
developers,
which
I
am
quite
satisfied.
That
they're
not
so
I
hope
that
at
the
end
of
this
there'll
be
some
healing
can
happen
in
this
little
neighborhood
and
everyone
can
start
to
get
along
again.
So.
C
Okay
and
my
final
question
to
the
officers
given
that
we
do
support
this
outcome
in
the
low
density
residential
area
and
given
that
further
applications
will
clearly
be
submitted,
will
this
form
any
sort
of
precedent
at
all
or
because
even
the
partial
third
is
under
the
nine
meters?
Is
it
irrelevant
to
Future
applications.
O
K
A
We've
got
to
accept
that,
which
is
why
ultimately
I'm
happy
to
to
recommend
approval,
because
we
contemplate
sure
the
Dual
occupancy
component.
The
reason
it's
impact
accessible
is
because
it's
on
a
smaller
site
and
therefore
we
have
to
assess
the
impacts.
That's
part
of
the
process
so
and
and
as
I
said,
it
wouldn't
necessarily
be
something
that
we
want
to
do
everywhere,
but
in
this
location
and
I
can
tell
you,
the
whole
street
is
full
of
low
set
houses.
There's
a
couple
of
two
stories
on
the
waterfront
across
the
road.
N
Through
the
chair
is
this
an
area
that
we're
going
to
envisage
some
sort
of
urban
renewal
like?
Is
it
an
older
style
area,
these
houses,
all
these
Lucid
houses?
Are
they
older
style
houses
that
we
envisage
people
will
purchase
those
Corner
lots
to
deliver
what
the
plan
actually
says.
They
can
deliver.
A
A
North
can
have
this
because
of
the
configuration
of
lots,
there's
probably
a
handful
of
opportunities
between
Daisy
arms,
Park
and
Tradewinds,
where
it
could
happen,
but
you
know
it's
got
to
be
financially
viable
and
all
those
sorts
of
things
and
what's
been
happening
predominantly,
is
that
people
have
just
done
a
bit
of
light
renovation
to
their
properties
more
than
contemplating
knockdown
rebuilds.
At
this
point
in
the
cycle,
so.
I
N
You
know
like
I,
look
at
koala
Park,
where
we've
had
this
sort
of
thing
before
and
and
even
though
it's
not
my
area.
Now
it's
what
we
enter
this
the
the
plan
anticipate
sites
and
we've
got
some
older
style
and
then
we've
got
some
bigger.
So
to
me,
it's
it's
even
zoning-wise
and
that's
not
really
any
different.
N
It's
just
that
we're
talking
about
there
in
the
Gold,
Coast
and
I'm
sure
koala
Parks,
out
of
there
and
I'm
sure
Burley
started
there
and
I'm
sure
Miami
started
there
and
I
think
we're
anticipating
on
these
Corner
sites
and
that
to
actually
see
this
type
of
to
give
us
that
buried,
sort
of
accommodation,
offering
and
and
I
think
it's
the
way
that
the
offices
and
obviously
with
with
you
and
the
applicant,
have
conditioned
it
so
that
it
actually
has
that
appearance
of
two
individual
properties.
I.
N
A
As
I
said,
I'm,
not
particularly
offended
by
the
concept
of
the
third
story,
apart
from
in
this
particular
location,
if
it
was
in
another
part
of
Paradise
Point,
it
would
probably
be
quite
unnoticed,
but
here
it's
it's
not
blending
in
with
the
local
character
and
amenity
yeah.
That's
what
the
page
102
one
all
right.
Anyone
else
want
to
have
any
questions,
or
so.
A
A
I,
don't
think
I
need
to
speak
any
further.
So
we'll
take
the
vote
in
relation
to
my
motion
and
seconded
by
councilor
vorster,
all
in
favor
Council
vorster
councilor
Caldwell
against
councilor
Hamel
counselor
on
Jones
councilor,
Gates,
councilor,
Point,
young
councilor,
O'neill
motions
lost
the
foreshadowed
motion.
Is
the
motion
moved
by
counciloran
Jones,
someone
like
to
second
that,
second,
by
counselor
Peter
Young,
you
want
to
speak
to
a
counselor
Owen
Jones.
B
Just
briefly
to
say
that
I
think,
like
all
councilors
we've
received
numerous
emails
from
the
residents
that
have
made
submissions
and
I
think
and
I
fully
appreciate
the
the
change
of
not
only
a
dual
occupancy.
Turning
up
in
an
area
where
there
are
none
that
exists,
but
that
challenge
of
height
as
well,
but
I
think
that
the
scheme
allows
for
nine
meters
and
I
and
I
appreciate
your
argument
in
regards
to
the
health
of
the
tree
and
and
and
some
of
the
Privacy
that
that
may
currently
provide.
But
I
think.
B
Unfortunately,
the
scheme
allows
for
it
and
we're
going
to
see
it
increasingly
happen,
as
people
realize
that
there
is
the
potential
to
create
some
value
out
of
these
sites
and
allow
for
the
Dual
access
from
the
two
streets
and
and
and
probably
the
thing
that
drove
me
to
supporting
the
officer's
recommendation
was
actually
the
visual.
The
the
visual
of
the
cars
parked,
the
two
existing
Crossovers
and
the
and
the
space
that
is
actually
available
on
the
in
the
existing
Road
Reserve.
B
J
J
J
J
C
I
just
wanted
to
speak
to
this
to
explain
my
position
because
I
really
did
want
to
support
you
as
the
divisional
counselor
today,
but
I
I
guess.
What
kicked
me
over
was
the
fact
the
question
about
redesign
that
might
be
necessary
and
your
commentary
around
the
fact
that
this
is
a
young
family
just
trying
to
provide
perhaps
a
better
outcome
for
their
family
accommodation
with
an
investment
in
the
area
as
well
and
I.
C
I
just
have
a
concern
that,
because
it's
under
the
nine
meters
and
because
it
complies
on
everything
except
it's,
a
a
smaller
block
of
land
than
the
code
accepts
I,
just
sort
of
feel
concerned
that
they
would
be
it's
an
impost
to
impose
upon
them
for
the
costs
of
redesign.
When
this
is
exactly
the
type
of
outcome
that
we
would
expect
from
the
current
city
plan,
so
I'm
I'm,
sorry,
I
I
can't
support
that.
For
those
reasons
and
I'll
support
the
yeah
yeah.
A
And
I
understand
that
I
guess
I
have
had
it
clearly
telegraphed
to
me
from
the
submitters
that
they'll
be
pursuing
it
through
the
courts
and
ultimately
I
think
that's
probably
going
to
be
more
of
an
imposition
on
Council
and
the
applicants
and
the
submitters
and
so
I
was
hoping.
We
might
be
able
to
avoid
that
by
reaching
and
negotiated,
not
a
negotiator,
but
a
sensible
Middle
Ground
today
that
might
have
avoided
the
expense
and
inconvenience
of
litigation
to
everyone.
A
And
look
I've
circulated
the
a
copy
of
the
report
to
the
submitters
everyone
who's
had
an
email
has
has
received
it,
so
they
will
have
had
the
opportunity
to
see
the
same
information
that
we
have.
There's
no
doubt
in
my
mind
that
the
the
use
of
a
dual
occupancy
on
a
corner
lot
is
contemplated
as
I
said,
whether
or
not
we're
meeting
the
purpose
and
the
overall
outcomes
in
the
zone
code
is
probably
what
I'm
more
concerned
about
and
that's
a
bit
more
subjective
than
the
Dual
occupancy
nature.
Sure.