►
Description
00:00 Meeting Commences, Attendance/Apologies, Leave of Absence, Confirmation of Minutes, Conflict of Interest Declarations, Committee Forward Planning Schedule, Reports and Presentations 6.1, 6.2, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8
07:00 Report 6.3
16:00 Report 6.4, General Business
A
Might
just
move
an
apology
so
moved
by
Council,
Peter
Young
seconded
by
councilor
Owen
Jones,
all
in
favor
against
that
is
carried
I,
think
we
otherwise
have
a
full
complement
of
member
councilors.
We
welcome
councilor
Taylor,
whose
text
message
I
read
is
I'm
combing,
my
hair,
but
it
was
actually
I'm
coming
to
the
meeting
so
welcome
Council
Bowden
lumsen
as
well.
A
A
B
A
B
A
Right
someone
like
to
second
that
taken
by
cancer
on
Jones,
anyone
need
to
speak
to
it,
don't
vote
all
in
favor,
councilor,
Hamel,
counselor,
Paul
and
Young
Council
on
Jones
councilor,
Neil,
councilor
Caldwell
against
did
not
vote
councilor
Gates
and
counselor
Peter
Young
counselor
Peter
Young.
Do
you
want
to
move
your
or
raise
your
conflict
in
relation
to
that.
D
Matter,
thanks
chairman,
the
reason
I
didn't
participate
in
that
vote
is,
as
you
know,
I
have
a
conflict
of
mine.
This
application
is
a
long
history,
but
in
2021
the
Naran
Community
Association
made
a
submission
about
the
current
application
that
we're
considering
and
I
just
realized
this
last
night.
So
we've
hardly
put
this
together.
Now
the
NCAA.
D
There
are
three
members
of
the
executive
who
are
personal
friends
of
mine.
I've
not
discussed
the
matter
with
them
and
I
didn't
contribute
or
participate
in
the
preparation
of
the
NCAA
submission
to
council
seeking
to
be
involved
in
the
decision
making,
because
there's
no
interest
to
the
NCA
as
a
submitter
in
the
outcome
and
I'm
here
to
represent
the
broader
interests
of
the
community.
D
E
E
A
Diminishing
the
public
interest
being
served
or
something
but
I
think
that'll
do
yeah
all
right
so
moved
by
councilor,
Hamill
second
by
Council,
Paul
and
Young.
And
I
want
to
speak
to
that
as
we'll
take
the
vote.
All
in
favor
Council,
Hamill,
counselor
Pauline
young
Council
on
Jones
Council
on
Neil
Council
Caldwell
against
did
not
vote
Council
Gates
counselor,
Peter
Young.
A
F
A
A
G
The
subject
site
is
located
within
the
rural
residential
Zone
and
is
28
330
square
meters
in
an
area
the
site
provides
sloping
topography
that
generally
Falls
away
from
the
site,
Street
Frontier
crane
Crescent
towards
the
rear.
Current
improvements
to
the
site
consist
of
a
dwelling
house,
Associated
shed
structures
and
Tennis
Court.
Existing
access.
Arrangements
consist
of
two
vehicular
crossings
from
crane.
Crescent
that
are
connected
internally
by
a
driveway.
G
The
surrounding
area
is
predominantly
characterized
as
a
rural
residential
area
providing
lot
sizes
that
generally
range
between
four
thousand
to
greater
than
12
000
square
meters.
As
a
result
of
the
historical
and
emerging
pattern
of
solution,
the
area
also
provides
a
number
of
examples
of
subdivision
utilizing,
greerlock
configurations.
G
The
approved
subdivision
provides
a
minimum
lot
size
of
4276
square
meters
and
an
average
lot
size
of
9443
square
meters
and
was
code
accessible.
The
approved
subdivision
creates
two
lots
towards
the
western
boundary
and
Associated
building
envelopes.
These
Lots
also
share
access
from
the
existing
vehicle
acrossing
a
crane
Crescent
to
the
West.
The
subdivision
retains
the
existing
dwelling
within
a
large
1.8
hectare,
a
lot
with
which
utilizes
the
existing
vehicle
are
crossing
from
crane
present
to
the
to
the
east
for
access.
G
G
The
New
Lots
are
accessed
via
the
existing
vehicle
acrossing
to
the
west
and
access
easements
with
a
new
vehicle
Crossing
provided
for
access
to
those
lot
3..
The
changes
maintain
a
minimum
lot
size
of
4
000
square
meters.
However,
the
proposed
average
lot
size
of
5650
square
meters
is
less
than
the
required
average
lot
size
of
8
000
square
meters
and
therefore
it
triggers
impact
assessment
and
public
notification.
G
The
key
considerations-
the
proposals
rates,
are
lot
size
and
character,
and
matters
of
environmental
significance.
Offices,
assessment
of
the
surrounding
area
identifies
the
emerging
character
of
very
low
intensity
lights,
ranging
between
four
to
six
thousand
square
meters,
with
larger
historical
lots
of
greater
than
12
000
square
meters.
The
proposed
new
lots
are
consistent
with
the
surrounding
character
and
are
provided
with
building
envelopes
to
restrict
future
development
and
affluent
disposal
areas
to
existing
clear
areas
of
their
respective
Lots.
G
The
subdivision
will
also
protect
and
enhance
existing
vegetation
through
environmental
covenants
over
9757
square
meters
or
33
of
the
site.
These
Covenant
areas
will
be
delineated
by
bollards
to
promote
foreign
movements
and
ultimately
provide
a
net
increase
in
koala
habitat
for
the
site.
Accordingly,
officers
have
recommended
approval
for
the
proposed
changes.
B
I
do
thanks
chairman
through
you
to
the
officers
on
page
152
in
the
second
dot
point
it
says
the
original
application
was
not
required
to
undertake
public
notification
and
therefore
no
properly
made
submissions
were
made
that
need
to
be
considered
in
assessing
and
deciding
this
change
application,
but
because
it
went
below
the
8
000
average.
Did
you
not
say
it
was
triggered
to
impact
assessment?
The.
A
Just
had
a
question
in
relation
to
the
the
lot
size
of
lot
three,
so
in
the
original
subdivision,
Lot
2
has
the
road
access
handle
excluded
from
lot
two
yep
and
achieves
a
lot
size
of
four
two,
seven
six,
which
is
essentially
a
net
number
in
the
reconfiguration.
It's
now
4095,
but
appears
to
me
to
include
the
the.
G
D
D
D
F
D
A
D
Do
you
mind
going
to
slide
three,
please
Silence.
Of
course,
this
area
crane
Crescent,
has
been
subject
to
lots
of
development
applications,
the
last
four
or
five
years,
and
lots
of
non-compliance
matters
in
particular
on
crane,
not
necessarily
related
to
development
and
or
applications.
These
are
mostly
unlawful
developments,
operation
of
truck
and
Earth
moving,
Depots
lots
of
work
with
Earthworks
and
boulders,
and
things
like
that.
So
there's
a
lot
of
attention
or
focus
on
this
particular
area.
D
From
the
point
of
view
of
the
local
community,
there
were
a
few
issues
that
I
raised
with
officers
through
the
application.
One
of
them
was
the
location
of
the
Ingress.
Your
slide
six
shows
it
better
Simon.
If
you
don't
mind,
so
that's
been
located
to
be
away
from
the
curve,
because
it's
at
the
top
of
a
Crest
and
so
that
there
are
better
sight
lines
where
they
propose.
Ingress
is
and
there's
been
good
protection
of
vegetation.
D
D
I
want
to
take
this
moment
to
thank
Brandon
Holt
for
stepping
in
we've
lost
Steve
Mitchell
recently
and
I
had
a
lot
of
dealings
with
Steve
on
this
and
many
other
applications
and
other
counselors
in
affected
by
his
departure.
We'll
know
what
a
good
and
reliable
Officer
Steve
was
and
Brandon's
stepped
in
very
admirable
admirably
and
provide
good
information
to
me
and
I'm.
Grateful
for
that
I'll
be
supporting
the
recommendation.
A
H
Couldn't
find
the
clicker
found
it
all
right
far
away,
could
you
go
through
you?
Mr
chair.
The
application
I
am
presenting
today
is
an
impact
accessible
MCU
seeking
to
establish
28,
multiple
dwellings
at
66,
Pacific
parade
and
2A
Archer
Street
in
balinga
the
city
plan
categorizes
the
proposal
for
multiple
drillings
as
code
accessible,
however,
because
of
the
increased
height
up
to
34.2
meters,
the
application
is
elevated
to
impact
assessment.
H
H
The
site,
as
you
can
see,
is
bounded
by
Pacific
parade
to
the
north
east
and
Archer
Street
separating
the
site
from
the
Esplanade.
As
you
can
see,
there's
pedestrian
Crossing
there
that
provides
access
to
the
the
open
space
area
and
the
footpath
to
the
east
is
a
two-story
dwelling
house
towards
the
Pacific
parade
Frontage
on
what
is
a
pretty
normal
lot
within
this
area
long
and
thin,
with
a
large
backyard
to
the
South,
you
can
see
a
modern
five-story,
multiple
dwelling
on
the
other
side
of
Archer
Street.
H
This
slide
here
is
included
to
provide
an
example
of
the
development
in
its
context
and,
as
you
can
see,
there,
there's
a
lot
of
larger,
more
modern
developments
to
the
rear,
demonstrating
that
this
area
is
in
a
in
a
bit
of
a
transition
and
change.
A
lot
of
those
new
developments
are
occurring
along
golden
four
drive
that
present
a
lot
more
building,
bulk
and
and
density,
and,
as
you
can
see,
you've
got
the
balinga
Esplanade
with
the
landscaped
Greenery
and
high
amenity
value
in
the
foreground.
H
Continuing
on
from
the
other
slide,
this
one
is
is
designed
to
demonstrate
that
there
are
a
number
of
existing
approvals
in
place
through
this
area
of
Palm
Bay
of
sorry
balinga.
You
can
also
see
this
slide
on
page
288
of
your
agenda.
If
you
want
to
look
in
a
bit
more
detail,
it
demonstrates
those
that
have
been
approved
by
Council
those
that
are
currently
constructed
or
those
that
are
being
constructed,
as
I
mentioned
before
the
majority
of
those
are
on
Golden
4
Drive.
H
H
H
H
Provisions
and
I'll
just
read
through
some
of
those
now
some
additional
recesses
to
both
the
the
long
frontages
so
that
you
can
see
there
from
Archer
Street
and
the
other
side
Landscaping
incorporated
into
that
larger
of
the
recess
through
the
middle
of
the
building.
A
very
recessed
upper
level,
with
substantial
landscaping
around
the
entire
Edge,
which
really
makes
the
building
height
appear
less
prominent
and
probably
a
more
recessive
element
at
the
top
of
the
building.
H
H
As
part
of
the
submission
public
notification
process.
The
adjoining
owner
to
the
South
requested
some
additional
screening
on
the
lower
two
levels
which
the
applicant
has
undertaken
so
further,
ensuring
that
privacy
and
amenities
maintained
it
does
provide
a
an
interesting,
Skyline
and
built
form
and
through
the
changes,
as
we've
sort
of
discussed
today
does
result
in
an
excellent
standard
of
appearance.
H
So
while
they
are
valid
submissions
and
concerns,
I
think
the
applicant's
gone
a
fair
way
to
addressing
a
lot
of
those
matters
post.
A
notification
process
which
officers
were
very
happy
with
in
terms
of
their
location
of
those
submitters,
as
you
can
see,
we've
got
the
blue
ones
are
for
the
yellow
ones,
are
for
against
a
wide
range
of
submissions
for
and
as
some
of
the
people
that
objected
rightly
pointed
out.
They
all
came
from
the
Lacy
Group,
which
I
believe
is
a
developer
doing
this
proposal,
but
nonetheless,
properly
made
submissions
for
the
development.
H
When
you
get
to
a
local
local
context,
a
little
bit
harder
to
see,
but
you
can
see
the
yellow
ones,
there
are.
The
submissions
against
the
proposal,
like
I
mentioned
earlier,
I.
Think
a
lot
of
the
issues
that
the
submitters
raised
have
been
addressed:
post
a
notification,
so,
in
summary,
Council
offices
are
happy
to
support
this
proposal
with
a
recommendation
for
approval
with
conditions.
H
We
do
believe
that
the
proposal
meets
The
Uplift
test
Provisions
through
the
changes
that
have
occurred
to
the
building
as
a
result
of
the
assessment,
The
Proposal
does
meet
an
excellent
standard
of
appearance.
It
presents
a
height
that
is
supported
by
the
envisaged
character
of
the
area
and
is
consistent
with
a
lot
of
recent
approvals
that
Council
has
issued
in
the
area.
H
It
will
not
adversely
impact
the
adjoining
properties
and
integrates
with
the
streetscape
character
through
a
very
dense
ground
level,
Landscaping
appropriate
building,
articulation
in
privacy
screens,
the
upper
levels
are
recessed
and
that
is
providing
an
outcome.
That's
consistent
with
a
lot
of
other
approvals
that
we've
issued
within
the
balinga
tugun
area
recently,
and
the
proposal
does
not
exceed
the
50
uplift
height
provision
on
that
basis.
Officers
are
recommending
approval
with
conditions.
Have
you
got
any
questions.
E
I
was
I,
guess,
I
was
looking
for
a
bit
more
detail,
because
the
point
was
made
a
few
times
that
you
felt
like
a
lot
of
the
submitter
concerns
were
addressed
between
version
one
and
version
two
of
the
building
and
I
can
understand.
So
you
spoke
a
fair
bit
to
the
excellent
standard
appearance
in
terms
of
the
additional
trim
back
up
the
top
and
the
the
shape
being
moved
and
the
Privacy
side
of
things
was
addressed,
but
I
mean
reading
through
the
rest
of
the
submissions
against
I.
E
Like
could
you
talk
a
bit
more
like
a
building?
Hype
was
raised
that
didn't
change
conflicts
with
local
character,
I'm
not
going
to
take
as
I
want
to
be
concerned
about,
but
I
was
interested
in
the
Landscaping
side
of
things
that
so
your
belief
is
that
the
additional
Landscaping
on
the
top
level
has
met
objectives
concerns
when,
when
I
read
the
objections,
it
was
mainly
about
Landscaping
on
street
level,.
H
This
is
a
proposal
that
doesn't
have
any
Podium
at
all,
so
it's
got
a
good
opportunity
to
have
a
landscaping
all
around
the
street,
as
you
can
see
there,
looking
at
Archer,
Street
and
Pacific
parade
and
even
along
all
boundaries,
you've
got
you've
got
Landscaping,
we're
completely
comfortable
with
that
landscape
outcome.
The
additional
Landscaping
that
was
proposed
through
one
of
those
recesses
councilor
Hamilton
through
the
top
level
of
the
building,
as
you
mentioned,
go
over
and
above
the
additional,
the
Landscaping
previously
proposed
and
I
think
that's,
hopefully
addressing
some
of
those.
Those
submitted
concerns.
E
And
you
know
I'm
happy
with
that
response.
I
think
it's
just
that
little
bit
more
detail
that
I
didn't
understand
the
Nexus
between
version
one
and
version
two
of
exactly
what
had
changed
and
to
what
extent
could
you
just
confirm
me?
There
was
no
changes.
It
appears
all
the
changes
between
version.
One
version
two
were
aesthetic
like
there's:
no
density
change,
there's
no
floor
plate
changes
between
version,
one
and
version
two
was
that.
H
So
through
you,
Mr
chair,
your
correct
councilor
Hamel,
the
the
community
open
space
for
post
is
141
square
meters
all
on
the
ground
level,
as
you
can
see
on
on
the
slide.
We're
looking
at
the
AO
is
always
a
hard
number
to
achieve
on
on
most
EAS
pretty
much
so
we
go
via
a
methodology
that
a
lot
of
other
that
we
use
consistently.
H
H
So
you
add
those
together
to
me.
That's
probably
meaning
they're
going
to
be
a
little
bit
less
reliant
on
the
on
the
communal,
open
space
areas
down
at
the
ground
level.
So
to
me
that
justifies
to
8.8
square
meters
per
person
as
being
an
appropriate
level
of
communal
open
space
to
satisfy
the
needs
of
the
residents
of
the
building.
B
H
Yes,
through
the
chair,
they
constitute
two
car
parking
spaces.
I
think
we've
got
Chris
in
there
if
we
need
to,
but
as
far
as
I'm
aware
they
are
two
car
parking
spaces
for
a
tandem,
but
we
will
always
ensure
that
they
are
assigned
to
the
same
unit
owner
so
that
you'll
have
to
be.
You
know
it's
an
internal
swapping
arrangement
with
someone
else
that
you
live
with
for
those
tandems,
but
they
are
dedicated
to
each.
But.
I
Thanks
chair
I
did
ask
for
this
application
to
come
to
to
committee,
not
that
I'm
unhappy
with
the
the
final
result,
but
we
did
go
through
a
lot
of
assessment
because
I
think
in
Pacific
parade.
This
is
the.
This
will
be
the
first
building
built
to
this
to
11
stories.
Since
probably
the
early
80s
I
know
that
it's
happened
in
Golden
four
drive
and
it
may
happen
still
further
in
in
Pacific
parade.
But
this
will
be
the
first
one.
That'll
go
through
approval
and
be
built.
I
So
I
was
really
conscious
of
the
fact
of
the
96
objections
that
came
through,
and
a
lot
of
that
was
about
the
built
form
and
how
bulky
and
Adam
was
right,
how
bulky
it
did
appear
on
the
Archer
Street
side
and
the
applicant
at
one
stage,
even
stopped
the
clock,
so
they
could
actually
address
all
the
concerns
that
we
were
bringing
up
and
I.
Think
it's
it's
a
benchmark
that
we
that
we
not
approve
anything
with
the
uplift,
especially
up
to
the
50
uplift.
I
Unless
we
have
a
great
outcome
and
I
think
this
is
a
really
good
outcome,
especially
for
Pacific
parade
ballinga,
because
if
anyone
knows
balinga
residents,
they
will
hold
us
to
account
and-
and
they
should
it's
a
lovely
Street
and
the
very,
very
proud
residents
in
that
street.
So
as
I
said,
I
will
go
back
to
a
couple
of
the
residences
because
they
may
not
be
following
PD
online
and
they
may
not
know
about
the
changes,
but
I'll
certainly
make
that
known
to
them,
but
I'm
very
happy
to
support
this
today.
Thank
you.
Thanks.