►
Description
00:00 Meeting Commences, Attendance/Apologies, Leave of Absence, Confirmation of Minutes
01:00 Conflict of Interest Declarations 4.1, 4.2, 4.3
06:00 Committee Forward Planning Schedule, Reports and Presentations 6.6, 6.7
07:33 Report 6.1
30:10 Report 6.4
31:00 Report 6.2
1:19:00 Report 6.3
2:06:00 Meeting Adjourned
2:17:30 Meeting Recommenced, Report 6.5
2:28:00 Report 6.8
A
What's
up
well
a
big
shout
out
to
our
friend
Hoagie
who's
here
in
the
gallery,
one
of
our
former
staff
members
good
to
see
you
back
mate,
all
right,
everyone!
It's
9am,
we'll
open
the
meeting.
We've
got
a
full
complement
of
member
counselors
and
we
also
welcome
councilor,
Taylor
Council,
Bowden,
Lumsden
and
councilor
Patterson
this
morning.
A
Can
we
just
move
the
similar
to
move
the
confirmation
of
minutes
from
the
last
meeting
moved
by
councilor
Gates
seconded
by
councilor
on
John's
Olin
fiva
against
carried
now,
we've
got
a
number
of
conflict
of
interest
matters.
That'll
arise
during
the
meeting
so
we'll
deal
with
those
now
starting
with
item.
B
C
Is
Chairman
and
I've
made
this
declaration
I
think
on
three
prior
occasions,
but
I
make
it
again
today
that
UPS,
who
was
a
donor
to
my
election
campaign
in
2014
and
15.?
They
made
a
donation
in
16,
but
it
was
refunded
in
full
because
both
the
chair
and
the
divisional
counselor
will
have
declarable
conflicts
of
interest
in
this
matter
and
have
decided
not
to
participate.
I'm
seeking
the
permission
of
council
to
remain
in
the
room
and
participate
in
the
decision.
A
E
A
Seconded
by
councilor
Peter
Young
I'm,
going
to
speak
to
that
councilman
Jones
happy
with
that.
So
councilors
will
take
a
vote
on
that
and
we'll
call
a
division.
Councilor
Gates
cancer,
O'neill
and
Council
and
myself
will
not
be
participating
in
this
vote.
All
in
favor
Council,
Hamill,
Council,
Peter,
Young,
councilor,
vorster,
councilor,
Pauline,
young
counciloran,
Jones
against
and
did
not
vow
to
council
Gates
councilor,
O'neill,
Council
Caldwell.
A
A
A
A
Yep
so,
as
has
always
been
my
position,
I
will
be
voluntarily
leaving
the
room
so
10
000
donation
on
the
19th
of
February
2016..
All
right,
that's
all
of
the
conflict
of
interests.
So
we've
got
a
number
of
starred
items,
so
councilor
Patterson.
You
wanted
to
speak
to
not
that
we're
going
to
deal
with
it
now,
but
on
6.1
we're
going
to
deal
with
6.2,
we
need
to
unstar
for
the
various
movements
6.3
unstar
for
councilor
Taylor
6.4
councilor
vorster
unstar
6.5
remains
unstart
councilor,
Peter
Young.
A
A
G
G
G
G
G
G
It
also
involved
the
removal
of
the
service
station,
which
was
on
the
site
and
I've
got
a
slide
that
I
can
show
shortly.
That
demonstrates
the
location
of
these
of
this,
so
the
loading
dock
was
moved,
15
meters,
West
and
the
court.
An
acoustic
report
was
submitted
as
part
of
the
approval
process.
This
report
found
that
the
site
is
appropriately
separated
from
adjacent
sensitive
locations,
offices,
requested
further
information,
specifically
relating
to
the
loading
dock.
G
G
Actually,
I
don't
have
a
pointer.
No,
no!
That's!
Okay,
all
right!
So
if
you
look
at
the
screen,
the
oh
okay
yep,
of
course
it
is
so
where
the
red
arrow
is
pointing,
obviously,
is
where
the
new
loading
dock
is
Yeah.
Well,
yeah,
the
big
red
arrow,
if
you
like
just
below
the
red
arrow,
is
a
rectangular
in
the
darker
gray.
That
was
where
the
original
loading
dock
was.
G
So
it's
probably
important
for
me
to
point
that
out,
so
you
can
see
that
the
loading
dock
moved
approximately
15
meters
West
and
the
the
darker
roof
at
the
Western
end
of
the
shopping
center.
There
are
the
additions
that
occurred
as
a
result
of
this.
This
approval
so
important
to
note,
too,
that
there
was
a
service
station
just
to
the
West
of
the
shopping
center
in
between
the
park
and
the
shopping
center,
which
was
removed.
G
G
Officers
have
been
using
the
provisions
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Act
to
investigate
noise
compliance
and
actively
working
with
affected
residents
to
gather
information,
including
noise
monitoring,
to
determine
if
the
noise
complaints
constitute
a
breach
of
the
provisions
of
the
EP
Act.
So
relevantly
under
the
EP
Act
is.
It
is
an
offense
for
a
person
to
cause
environmental
nuisance,
such
as
unreasonable
interference
caused
by
noise.
However,
the
EP
act
does
not
specifically
regulate
hours
of
operation
or
noise
level
limits
for
the
operation
of
a
loading
dock.
H
First
of
all,
through
you
out
of
respect
to
these
petitioners,
could
you
please
explain
why
a
petition
that
was
submitted
to
council
and
accepted
in
2016
was
not
addressed
was
not
acknowledged
that
further
applications
and
changes
were
made
on
there
without
any
consideration
for
that
and
was
only
readdressed
after
I
had
to
go
through
some
pretty
substantial
Hoops
to
ask
for
it
to
be
request.
Six,
seven
years
later,.
G
Through
the
chair,
counselor
I
understand
that
your
concerns
in
that
regard,
I,
can't
explain
why
it's
taken
so
long.
We
can
see
if
we
go
back
through
records,
we
can
see
where
the
petition
comes
in,
but
we
can't
track
what
happens
with
it
from
there.
So
I
I
really
don't
want
to
speculate
on
how
that's
happened.
Obviously,
it's
not
ideal
but
I
yeah
and
with
regard
to
full
transparency.
I
can't
comment
on
that,
because
I'm
not
sure
why
or
how
that
happened.
Okay,.
H
H
H
D
H
H
Could
you
also
regarding
the
acoustic
report
that
was
presented
in
April,
2017
and
I
and
I
do
appreciate?
The
draft
document
that
you
had
prepared
for
Council
has
significantly
changed
in
the
last
couple
of
weeks,
but
in
in
what
you
had
originally
prepared.
You
noted
that
in
that
Acoustics
report
it
indicated
that
there
was
a
curfew
from
10
to
7
A.M
and
the
operation
of
the
loading
dock
during
the
curfew.
Curfew
was
not
addressed
in
the
report
they,
but
for
the
officers
who
were-
and
this
was
done
by
delegated
authority
authority.
H
So
for
those
who
considered
that
report,
they
were
considering
that
there
was
a
curfew
on
the
loading
report
it
was
presented
by
the
applicant
the
applicant.
The
acoustic
report
was
reviewed
and
approved
by
City
officers
at
the
time
and
it
included
a
statement
incorrectly
that
the
loading
dock
had
a
curfew
from
10
pm
to
7.
A.M
I
see
that
you
have
admitted
that
from
the
planning
committee
members
to
consider
now.
G
E
Through
you,
Mr
chair,
councilor
Patterson,
the
the
circumstances
around
this
development
application
for
the
extension
it's
an
extension
to
a
lawfully
established
shopping
center
development.
So,
while
the
assessment
was
predominantly
around
the
built
form
and
the
relocation
of
the
loading
dock,
the
existing
use
rights
are
Ensure
and
under
that
previous
development
approval
that
Jason
mentioned
earlier,
which
didn't
prescribe
any
restrictions.
Now
we
did
note
that
the
applicant
had
identified
that
there
was
a
curfew.
However,
we
were
able
to
find
no
evidence
of
that.
E
So
it's
more
of
a
self-imposed
curfew
that
was
identified
as
part
of
the
common
material.
Notwithstanding
the
the
submitted
acoustic
report
and
the
addendum
acoustic
reports,
specifically
in
relation
to
the
Loading
identified
that
there
was
no
need
for
acoustic
attenuation
for
this
physical
relocation
of
the
loading
dock
area,.
H
So
it
in
the
document
that
I
have
and
I
appreciate
that
the
the
report
that
I
have
is
different
to
the
other,
the
committee
members,
because
it's
changed
quite
a
bit,
but
it
does
say
that
this
did
not
relate.
It
did
not
relate
to
the
operation
lighting
dock
that
that
the
report
did
incorrectly
State
the
loading
dock
had
the
curfew
was
when
was
it
identified
that
the
report
incorrectly
stated
that.
E
H
Thank
you
so
when
we
get
on
to
first
of
all
the
throw
you
chair,
if
I
could
just
go
back
and
ask
Jason
a
question
when
you
say
that
the
concerns
are
being
addressed
now,
I
have
to
say:
that's
not
the
experience
of
the
residents.
That
call
me
daily.
That
text
me
at
three
four
and
five
a.m
in
the
morning.
H
A
Perhaps
it
would
be
more
helpful
if
we
can
just
talk
a
little
bit
about
given
the
fact
that
there's
a
lack
of
condition
being
imposed.
What's
the
approach
by
Council
in
trying
to
measure
and
enforce
yeah
just
noise
issues
yeah,
because
I
think
that's,
we
just
need
to
bring
this
back.
We
can't
re-argue.
A
A
Won't
make
any
difference
for
the
for
the
purposes
of
what
needs
to
be
helpful
to
the
residents
at
the
moment.
Okay,
we've
got
a
certain
set
of
circumstances
which
have
been
outlined,
and
that
is
that
the
decision
was
made
in
2016
and
the
officers
are
currently
trying
their
best
to
okay,
enforce
the
reasonable
enjoyment
of
the
nearby
residential
areas.
So,
let's
just
get
on
the
record
how
they're
going
about
doing
that?
Okay,.
H
G
A
Council
Patterson:
we
just
need
to
remember
that
there
are
circumstances
where
activities
are
not
necessarily
conditioned
to
prevent
noise,
but
that
doesn't
make
the
noise
okay
and
the
officers
then
use
other
avenues
of
enforcement,
and
that's
what
we
need
to
focus
on
here
is
recognizing
that
it
is
still
an
issue
yep.
Given
what
we've
got
in
front
of
us,
how
do
we
actually
manage
that
yeah?
The
best
you
know
for
the
best
interest
of
the
nearby
residents.
H
So
on
that,
I
would
like
to
and
I've
presented
to
councilor
young
that
the
original
recommendation
that
you
presented
to
me
three
weeks
ago
that
the
committee
can
consider
that
now,
because
that
would
do
more
to
potentially
consider
the
petitioner's
concerns
going
forward.
So
you
did
confirm
at
that.
It
was
recommended
that
any
further
changes
that
be
made
to
any
relevant
development
approvals
consideration
be
given
to
the
requirement
for
an
updated
acoustic
report
and
I
see
that
that's
now
been
withdrawn.
A
I
I
can
clarify
some
of
that,
so
there
was
a
draft
recommendation.
I
actually
asked
the
guys
to
remove
that
part
of
the
recommendation,
because,
similar
to
what
councilor
corball
said,
if
any
future
application
comes
in,
that's
not
relevant
to
the
loading
dock
area,
you
couldn't
reasonably
impose
a
condition
that
try
to
put
some
further
restrictions
on
this.
This
part
of
the
development.
A
I
think
the
good
thing
is
that
this
is
now.
This
particular
item
has
been
created
by
the
planning
department.
It
will
sit
on
the
file
against
that
property
and
if
there
is
future
assessments
to
be
undertaken,
this
has
now
been
flagged
as
something
of
concern,
so
I
think
that
would
be
would
be
reasonable
to
assume
that
the
officers
would
have
a
level
of
alertness
to
the
the
issue.
You
know
I.
H
H
A
A
A
If
that's,
when
they
you
choose
to
engage
with
them,
that's
good,
but
you
know
I
think.
The
important
thing
is
that,
within
the
bounds
of
what
we've
got
today,
the
outcome
that's
on
the
screen
is
actually
the
best
solution
the
council
can
offer,
and
so
we
need
to
be
explaining
that
process
to
them
that
it
doesn't
matter
that
there
is
a
curfew
or
there's
not
a
curfew,
that
if
someone
is
creating
noise
at
3am
in
the
morning
and
it's
against
Epi
Provisions,
that
we
as
a
council
will
continue
to
take
steps
to
act.
K
I
I,
just
wonder
if
there
is
an
appetite
to
carry
this
recommendation
today
and
I'm
Keen
to
support
it,
whether
we
should
actually
take
the
step
of
counsel
other
ice,
our
CEO
or
the
mayor
writing
to
Woolworths,
actually
putting
them
on
notice
around
the
issues
that
are
important
to
this
community
and
and
how
their
behavior
might
be
letting
down
the
neighborhood
I.
Just
think
that
might
actually
get
us
to
where
we
need
to
be
by
giving
them
something
to
respond
to
in
the
public
domain.
Council.
A
L
D
A
D
A
Yeah
all
right
take
the
vote.
All
in
favor
against
carried
now
Council
vorster
you,
we
you're
wanting
to
move
the
Robina
Mata
just
so
you
just
wanted
to
vote
against
it.
I
thought
we
might
be
able
to
deal
with
that
quickly
and
then
just
to
be
noted,
because
that
way
we
can
release
those
offices,
so
6.4
I'm
happy
to
move
it
move.
It
move
my
counselor
Roman
Jones,
Thank,
You,
Council,
Patterson
and
I.
K
A
A
N
N
The
committee
supported
the
office's
approval
recommendation
on
the
21st
of
April
2023,
the
applicant
stopped
current
period
for
the
application.
This
meant
that
Council
was
unable
to
decide
the
application
at
the
27th
of
April
council
meeting
at
the
council
meeting
Council
resolved
to
defer
the
decision
until
a
later
date
on
the
15th
of
May
2023,
the
applicant
elected,
to
provide
supplementary
information
regarding
how
the
application
addresses
noise
impacts.
N
N
In
response
to
the
committee
concerns
officers
have
amended
the
conditions
package
as
follows.
So
amandaed
condition
seven
as
you
can
see
on
the
screen
in
relation
to
operational
restrictions
for
the
resort,
hotel,
rooftop
communal,
open
space
area.
So
this
access
is
for
hotel
guests.
Only
access
to
the
general
public
is
not
permitted.
Swipe
access
will
be
required
for
hotel
guests
to
access
the
roof
and
no
live
music
is
permitted.
N
We've
included
a
new
condition
number
13.
in
relation
to
a
dedicated
complaint
line
and
register,
so
noise
complaint
registers
to
be
kept
on
site
to
record
and
respond
to
all
noise-related
complaints.
The
register
is
to
be
managed
by
the
hotel,
Duty
manager
or
competent
staff.
Member
and
the
noise
complaints
register
is
to
be
available
to
council.
Upon
request
for
inspection,
we've
also
included
a
new
condition
number
14
in
relation
to
in-house
Amplified,
music
and
noise
systems.
N
N
N
Regarding
the
request
for
a
noise
monitoring
condition.
Council's
environmental
health
sections
have
advised
against
imposing
such
a
condition
noise
criteria.
Enforcement
is
undertaken
by
olgr
under
liquor.
Licensing
requirements
in
this
regard.
City
officers
do
not
recommend
imposing
such
a
condition
as
it
will
be
more
effective
for
olgr
to
undertake
noise
monitoring,
which
is
standard
practice.
N
N
The
correspondence
confirms
the
rooftop
areas
for
the
exclusive
use
of
Resort
guests,
who
are
assigned
a
room
to
the
hotel
and
highlights
there
are
a
solid,
enclosed
elements
along
the
eastern
and
southern
side
of
the
building,
3
Rooftop,
Bar
and
pool
area
assisting
with
acoustic
attenuation.
This
can
be
seen
in
the
green
section.
There
highlighted.
N
N
This
additional
perspective
illustrates
the
appearance
of
the
building.
2
Podium
from
the
Northern
end
of
Musgrave,
Street
div
illustrates
the
bulk
and
height
of
the
podium
is
offset
by
the
Topography
of
the
Headland
and
the
vegetation
that
will
remain
in
the
road
Reserve
officer's
recommendation
and
conditions
of
approval,
with
the
exception
of
conditions,
7,
13
and
14
remain
unchanged.
N
K
K
My
questions
just
take
us
back
a
little
bit
earlier
in
the
process
and
in
fact,
concentrate
on
process,
so
Madam
chair,
if
I,
could
just
turn
our
attention
to
page
66
I
need
some
assistance
from
City
officers
to
walk
me
through
the
way
in
which
this
application
was
assessed,
and
particularly
to
respond
to
some
suggestions.
Residents
have
put
to
me
that
there
might
be
errors
in
process
and
I'd
like
clarification,
I
need
it
in
order
to
arrive
at
a
fully
informed
decision
halfway
through
the
second
paragraph
on
page
66..
K
It
says
here,
section
82
of
the
planning
act
sets
out
the
decision-making
rules
for
assessing
and
deciding
other
change
applications.
So
this
is
an
other
change
application
and
the
planning
act.
State
legislation
says
we
need
to
have
a
look
at
section
82.
now
later
on.
In
the
fourth
paragraph,
it
says,
in
addition
to
the
above,
the
subject:
application
is
impact
accessible
pursuant
to
section
82
4D
of
the
planning.
Act
officers
must
assess
the
development
having
regard
to
any
matters
prescribed
by
section,
45,
5A,
2
or
B.
K
Okay,
so
I'm
happy
to
take
that
on
face
value.
But
the
next
sentence
says
this
permits
discretion
in
decision
making
by
having
regard
not
only
to
the
assessment
benchmarks
which
apply,
but
also
any
other
relevant
matter
which
may
determine
a
be
determinant
of
in
deciding
the
application.
So
could
I
get
a
sense
when
section
82
and
45
and
those
Clauses
are
taken
together.
What
are
the
things
that
we
must
take
into
consideration
and
what
are
the
things
that
we
may
take
into
consideration
when
assessing
this
development
application.
N
So
through
the
chair,
Council
of
Austin,
are
you
correct?
It's
an
other
change
application,
so
it's
assessed
in
the
context
of
the
original
approval.
So
we
have
to
keep
in
mind
that
on
this
site,
there's
an
existing
approval
for
a
16-story
building
and
a
10-story
building
that
obviously
the
highest
ones
on
the
site.
So
in
terms
of
this
other
change
application,
obviously
there
is
some
additional
height
and
some
additional
changes
to
the
built
form
so
they're
assessed.
Basically
in
the
context
of
that
original
approval.
That's
on
the
site.
K
My
understanding
is
that
when
we
receive
an
other
change
application
and
where
that
other,
to
the
extent
that
that
other
change
application
may
be
in
conflict
with
an
existing
approval,
we
must
have
regard
to
any
prevailing
regulation
and
we
may
have
regard
to
other
factors,
and
in
this
case
the
prevailing
regulation
is
version.
8
of
the
city
plan
is
that
fair.
K
I
To
the
best
of
my
recollection
of
the
ACT,
there's,
there's
not
one
thing
that
takes
precedent,
but
the
gives
the
rules
for
an
impact
da
and
then
it
provides
additional
rules
for
other
change
applications.
So
it's
a
balancing
act
you
have
to.
We
must
have
regard
to
that
original
approval
of
the
original
development
approval
when
considering
the
assessment
benchmarks
in
this
game.
So
it's
it's
I,
don't
think.
I
K
Sure
and
and
I'm
so
my
questions
I'm
attempting
to
be
as
absolutely
respectful
as
possible.
I'm
asking
them
for
my
benefit
right,
so
I'm,
not
not
suggesting
that
there's
necessarily
an
error
here,
but
I
just
need
to
get
this
straight
in
my
head,
so
section
82
part
4
says
it
is
declared
that
the
following
matters
apply
only
to
the
extent
that
matters
are
relevant
to
assessing
and
deciding
the
change
application
in
the
context
of
the
development
approval,
and
it
lists
at
least
five
items
so
number
one.
K
N
The
chair
any
other
relevant
matter.
This
is
an
impact
accessible
application,
so
we
can
have
regard.
Obviously
it's
an
impact
D.A.
So
all
of
the
planning
scheme
is
a
is
a
benchmark
and
any
other
relevant
matter
can
be
and
as
we
outlined
in
the
previous
committee,
so
a
relevant
matter
that
we've
assessed
and
and
that
we've
had
regard
to-
is
previous
planning
decisions.
So
being
that
there's
a
existing
approval
for
a
16
story,
10
story,
a
four
and
a
three-story
on
the
on
the
subject
site.
N
The
Proposal
represents
substantive
compliance
with
the
balance
of
City
plan
benchmarks.
The
Proposal
presents
an
appropriate
character
outcome.
The
Proposal
presents
a
high
quality
architectural
outcome.
We
spoke
about
the
hard
impacts
being
the
visual
impacts,
the
amenity
impacts
and
Shadow.
We
spoke
about
the
economic
benefits,
so
all
of
these
things
are
relevant
matters.
K
And
the
emerging
character
of
the
locality
right
turning
to
page
67.
now,
I
suppose
my
question
is:
do
these
relevant
matters
that
we've
tested
this
against
when
we
look
to
45,
b
or
whatever
it
is,
are
they
prescribed
in
the
act
on
regulation
or
did
city
offices
develop
the
criteria
against
which
the
application
was
assessed
through.
K
K
My
concern
is
that
I
don't
see
anywhere
where
there
has
been
a
a
list
of
usual
relevant
matters
against
which
this
development
has
been
assessed
and
instead
the
the
impression
I
get
is
we've
picked
for,
in
our
own
estimation,
the
best
relevant
matters
and
we've
assessed
the
development
against
those,
and
it
feels
very
arbitrary.
So
can
you
give
me
some
confidence,
please
that
the
relevant
matters
that
we've
picked
against,
which
this
development
has
been
assessed,
are
robust
and
not
very
narrow
in
order
to
support
the
development
through.
N
K
K
Would
it
be
fair
to
say
that
the
assessment
benchmarks,
apart
from
these
other
relevant
matters,
lie
in
City
plan
version?
Eight
correct?
Okay,
so
the
ACT
contains
lots
of
explanatory
notes
and
you've
been
kind
enough
to
provide
an
extract
here
and
Page.
Sorry,
yeah
page
66,
paragraph
three,
but
there
are
other
explanatory
notes
in
the
act,
one
of
which
reads
as
follows:
if
there
is
a
development
approval
for
a
10-story
building
and
an
applicant
seeks
to
change
the
approval
to
add
a
further
two
stories,
this
is
sounding
very
familiar.
K
K
N
Through
the
chair,
that's
a
difficult
question
to
answer
and
I
think
in
in
this
particular
site:
we're
going
on
the
fact
that
there's
a
red
there's,
there's
an
existing
approval
for
a
16
and
10
store
building
already
here.
So,
as
I
said,
we're
looking
at
this
as
a
whole.
So
we're
looking
at
this
development,
we're
not
there's
been
no
change
to
building
one
which
is
the
tallest
building.
K
Madam,
chair
I
promise
I'm
wrapping
it
up
now.
I'm
I
fully
acknowledge
that
Milan
of
questions
have
touched
on
height
but
as
you'd
recall
from
committee
meeting,
I've
got
some
concerns
around
the
interface
of
the
development
and
particularly
the
Balkan
scale,
at
the
perimeter
and
periphery
of
the
site.
The
Musgrave
bulkiness
that
70
meter
stretch
gives
me
the
heebie-jeebies
I
appreciate
the
applicant
has
provided
us
A
New
Perspective,
but
it
actually
doesn't.
They
haven't,
shown
us
a
perspective
from
the
middle
of
Musgrave
Ave.
K
Looking
at
the
building,
it's
taken
up
the
hill
and
I
I.
Don't
think
that
is
given
us
as
much
information
as
we
might
need
to
test
this
notion
of
the
development
being
compliant
with
the
emerging
character
of
the
locality,
so
just
on
the
development
itself
and
then
I'll
wrap
it
up
with
two
last
very
quick
questions
when
you
have
given
or
had
regard
to
the
positive
contribution
that
this
will
have
to
the
emerging
character
of
the
locality.
K
Could
you
please
point
to
a
development
nearby
that
foreshadows
this
character,
because
for
me
this
this
appears
to
be
the
beach
head
development
setting
the
standard
it.
It
doesn't
seem
to
be
it's
a
great
looking
development,
but
it's
the
one
breaking
new
ground
I,
don't
have
a
sense
that
there
is
comparable
developments.
N
Through
the
through
the
chair,
this
is
one
of
a
kind
I
I
guess
for
for
the
area.
It's
a
it's
a
huge
8,
000
square
meter
plus
site.
It's
a
neighborhood
center
zoning
which
does
encourage
or
higher
intensified
developments
on
these
sites
through
the
throughout
the
assessment.
In
our
report,
we
have
concluded
I
guess
that
we
are
comfortable
with
the
development,
in
addition
to
our
visual
amenity
expert,
who
has
assisted
us
with
the
assessment
as
well
and
we're
comfortable
with
our
recommendation
for
an
approval.
K
And
lastly,
Madam
chair,
we
heard
before
that
we're
now
outside
the
decision
period.
Correct.
Does
that
mean,
notwithstanding
any
Council
resolution,
to
support
this
development
with
these
new
conditions
that
the
applicant
could
exercise
their
right
to
claim
a
deemed
refusal
and
take
this
to
the
planning
environment,
Court.
N
K
N
K
N
I
You
just
to
clarify:
there's
no
deemed
approval
between
now
and
the
full
council
meeting
the
applicant
could
if
they
wanted
to
go
to
court
and
say
we've
deemed
this
application
to
be
refused
and
we're
appealing
it's
up,
but
one.
That's
that's
right.
Once
Council
makes
its
decision
at
the
council
meeting,
that's
the
decision,
there's
no
ability
for.
K
I
N
N
That
one,
there
is
probably
the
best
one,
so
the
pink
is
the
additional
height
on
building
two
and,
as
you
can
kind
of
see
to
the
left,
there's
that
blue
dotted
line.
So
that's
what
was
originally
submitted.
So
there
is
some
reduction
in
height
as
part
of
the
negotiation
throughout
the
assessment
process
and
obviously
that
bulk
part
on
the
on
the
left
of
the
building
there
represents
about
11
meters
and.
N
D
N
N
D
D
And
then,
if
I
could
just
ask
a
question
in
regards
to
the
office
of
liquor
and
gaming
and
and
the
suggestion
that
we
had
made
at
the
last
committee
meeting
in
regards
to
actually
monitoring
it.
So
the
officers
proposed
condition
here,
talks
about
register
being
available
to
the
city,
but
the
actual
enforcement
of
that
would
sit
with
the
office
of
liquor
and
gaming.
Wouldn't
it
so
because
it
would
be
a
breach
of
their
their
licensing
obligations.
D
So
it's
a
Mildred
experience
of
the
night
quarter
was
resident
complaints.
You
go
to
the
office
of
liquor
and
gaming.
They
do
some
noise,
so
it
almost
like
cuts
out
a
period
of
time
if
there
was
actually
a
log
of
noise
yeah
and
it's
not
until
officer
licking
gaming,
either
pursue
a
complaint
or
ignore
a
complaint
that
you
can
actually
do
something,
and
even
then
it's
not
the
council
that
does
it
so
so
I'm
still
a
bit
doubtful
as
to
whether
or
not
the
disapproval.
D
D
D
C
D
D
Well,
I'm
in
the
office's
hands
as
to
what
the
the
most
effective
state
agency
might
be.
You
know,
so
we
could
either
be
very
Broad
and
because
we're
saying
the
City
of
Gold
Coast,
we
could
say
the
state
Regulators
or
we
can,
or
we
can
be
more
narrow
and
say
office,
liquor
and
gaming
and
Queensland
Police
Service.
D
Only
only
briefly
and
and
I
need
to
say
that
it's
a
difficult,
it's
a
difficult
proposition
that
we
have
today
because
of
the
changes
to
the
state
legislation,
basically
made
it
very
difficult
for
the
sitting.
City
councilor
for
the
area
to
be
in
the
room,
whereas
previous
legislation
would
have
enabled
the
people's
representative
to
be
here.
D
But
I
accept
the
officer's
recommendation
in
their
explanation
to
Council
of
author
in
regards
to
the
need
for
us
to
strike
that
balance
between
acknowledging
the
approval
that
already
exists
for
the
10-story
building
and
then
that
Balancing
Act
of
this
being
a
a
change
other
in
regards
to
the
process.
So
I'm
not
really
concerned
about
it
being
out
of
time.
I.
Think
that
the
applicant
had
provided
so
information
is
to
some
and
has
had
some
of
the
submitters
for
the
applicant
suggested.
D
That's
been
over
a
million
dollars
on
Consultants
fees
to
achieve
effectively
what
they're
trying
to
do
and
so
I
don't
see
a
real
risk
in
regards
to
a
decision
being
made
a
committee
and
a
decision
being
made
at
Council
in
regards
to
out
of
time,
but
unless
it
doesn't
suit
them
and
then
we're
in
the
same
position
as
what
we
would
be
today.
So
so
I
I
think
that
it's
important
to
note
that
it
is
a
a
unique
site
and
it's
a
city
block
of
effectively
eight
thousand
odd
square
meters.
D
So
and
then
I.
Look
at
the
the
images
on
page
75,
which
is
the
aerial
view
showing
the
local
context
and
the
number
of
other
approvals
that
and
and
constructed
buildings
that
exist
for
similar
Heights
and
similar
foot
prints
and
I.
Think
that
I
think
that
that's
important
to
acknowledge
as
well
in
regards
to
the
context
of
this
site.
K
Think
councilman
Jones
for
acknowledging
councilor
O'neill,
who
is
not
in
an
enviable
position,
not
in
an
enviable
position
at
all
and
I'm
sure
she
would
have
had
something
to
contribute
to
this
debate
at
the
state
government,
not
change
that
legislation.
I
think
it's
also
want
to
acknowledge
the
work
of
City
officers,
who
have
had
to
wrestle
with
the
complexities
of
State
legislation
and
their
own
City
plan
and
I've
had
to
write
multiple
reports.
Now.
K
That
must
be
quite
harrowing
to
have
to
revisit
the
same
D.A
over
and
over
again,
but
I
also
want
to
acknowledge
the
applicant
who
took
time
to
meet
with
me
and
to
set
out
their
vision
for
the
site,
they're
very
excited
about
what
they
hope
to
deliver
and
I
get
a
sense
that
they're
acting
in
good
faith.
But
most
of
all
I
want
to
acknowledge
the
work
of
the
residents
who
contacted
me
quite
often
I'm
sure
all
of
us
are
contacted
by
residents
who
might
oppose
a
development
because
they
don't
like
the
look
of
it.
K
They
don't
like
the
Shadows.
They
don't
like
the
sound.
They
don't
like
this
that
and
the
other
they
don't
like.
The
vibe,
but
I
have
been
provided
time
and
time
again,
with
the
most
thoughtful
and
well-reasoned
documentation
that
I
have
ever
seen
from
anyone
on
a
planning
matter.
This
information,
I'm
sure,
has
been
sent
to
every
other
counselor
and
it
is
the
most
extraordinary
body
of
work
that
has
ever
been
produced
by
residents
concerned
about
the
future
of
their
neighborhood.
K
K
It
is
council's
discretion
council's
discretion
to
tilt
the
scales
the
other
way
and
on
balance,
I.
Don't
think
that
is
appropriate
and
I.
Don't
think
it's
appropriate,
because
the
existing
approval
is
already
quite
a
significant
development
that
markedly
exceeds
the
benchmarks
in
City
plan.
8A
will
generate
jobs,
will
support
the
tourism
economy,
will
add
to
the
character
of
the
area.
K
What
they
have
will
already
achieve,
what
they
aspire,
tilting
tilting
the
balance
won't
actually
achieve
much
more,
in
my
view
and
I
think
will
actually
break
faith
with
the
community
in
that
we
hold
hold
very
firm
to
City
plan,
it's
yeah.
So
for
those
reasons,
I
can't
support
it.
I
hope
the
councilors
that
do
can
reflect
on.
Maybe
that
closing
comment
between
now
and
full
Council,
but
thank
you
to
all
parties,
especially
the
residents
of
the
way
they've
conducted
themselves.
Thank.
M
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
as
I
did
at
the
previous
committee
on
this
I.
Think,
given
the
size,
that's
development
in
the
site
and
history
with
it,
it's
it's
only
right.
That's
be
on
the
record
of
why
I'm
supporting
the
application
so
I'll
do
that
again.
Today,
in
approaching
my
decision
to
support
this
application,
I
just
want
to
make
the
point,
because
it
was
raised
with
me
by
some
residents
that
I
visited
the
site
in
the
area
on
several
occasions.
M
Again
and
Lara
made
the
point
really
well
so
in
my
eyes,
building
one
given
that
it's
already
out
of
construction
there's
no
changes
is
not
relevant
to
supplication,
except
in
considering
the
holistic
site
as
a
whole.
In
how
I
do
the
other
buildings
work
with
the
16-story
building
in
regards
to
building
two,
so
it
seeks
a
height
increase
of
11.2
meters
on
the
site.
I
think
that
a
reasonable
person
can
probably
tell
the
difference
between
a
37
meter
building
and
a
48
meter
building.
M
So
there
needs
to
be
strong
consideration
of
what
is
the
positive
impact
that
that
is
going
to
come
with
that
and
what
other
implications
does
it
involve
in
reviewing
the
technical
reports?
The
extra
height
doesn't
change
the
sight
lines
or
the
shadow
impacts
to
a
huge
level
for
any
local
residents
in
the
associated
buildings.
M
I
believe
that
the
far
superior
build
form
outcome
which
the
in
the
report
in
the
details
from
our
architecture
area
and
the
visual
amenity
expert
and
as
was
come
through
last
Committee
of
the
comment,
was
that
it's
a
superior
architectural
outcome
compared
to
the
currently
approved,
building
and
I
agree
with
that
and
I
think
that
justifies
the
height
increase
on
building
two
building,
three
being
the
resort
building
and
seeking
a
height
increase
of
5.1
meters.
An
additional
12
rooms
in
the
hotel
I.
M
M
One
of
the
main
thing
I
heard
I
hear
from
residents
along
the
coastal
spine
that
are
affected
by
development
applications
or
live
in
these
suburbs.
Is
they
they
hate
when,
in
one
city
block
you
end
up
with
four
or
five
or
six
buildings
that
don't
work
together
at
all?
Where
there's
no
common
architectural
form?
M
There's
no
common
Landscaping
form
like
they
don't
have
any
synergies
together
that
they
don't
like
the
look
of
that,
and
they
don't
feel
that
adds
to
an
area
which
I
think
is
really
important
here
that
we've
had
a
develop
a
spend
a
decade
amalgamating
an
entire
city
block
like
we
constantly
are
requesting
this
at
the
development
industry
amalgamate
blocks
amalgamate
blocks.
We
hear
it
from
residents
and
Community
groups
that
we
should
be
doing
more
to
force
people
to
amalgamate
blocks.
M
Planning
legislation
and
City
plan
and
I
think
Council
of
wars
did
an
excellent
job
of
reinforcing
this.
For
me
today
that
planning
legislation
in
the
city
plan
are
difficult
enough
to
understand
at
the
best
of
times
when
you
compile
this
with
several
applications
and
changes
alterations
over
a
decade,
it
becomes
a
very
difficult
thing
to
track.
M
I
think,
especially
for
local
residents
and
I,
would
Echo
Council
of
horses
comments
and
counselor
Gates's
comments
on
the
quality
of
the
material
provided
from
residents,
not
just
in
this
application
with
previous
ones
and
councilor
Gates
has
comment
on
the
the
way
they've
gone
about
tackling
the
issue
so
on
the
record.
I
would
thank
local
residents
for
truly
participating
in
the
process
and
their
ongoing
interest
in
the
development
pattern
of
this
suburb.
M
F
F
F
The
Reliance
by
the
applicant
on
the
economic
benefit
argument
is
not
relevant,
in
my
opinion,
for
the
site,
the
fact
that
it
appears
as
councilor
Owen
Jones
showed
us
with
one
of
the
images
in
the
report,
page
75
the
fact
that
it
appears
as
a
consistent
with
the
the
height
overall
height
of
this
proposed
development
is
consistent
with
those
along
the
coastline.
There
is
in
itself,
inconsistent
with
what
the
city
plan
has
sought.
F
C
I
have
had
an
opportunity
to
have
a
a
very
close
look
at
the
entire
situation,
as
we
all
have,
since
the
clock
was
stopped,
I
think
overall,
I
I'm
still
torn
because
the
departure
from
City
plan
is
so
very
great
and
I
still
fail
to
understand
how
the
officers
have
not
been
able
to
give
more
regard
to
that
and
less
regard
to
the
existing
approval.
I
I.
Don't
understand
that
and
I
think.
Maybe
the
passage
of
Time
ahead
of
us
will
perhaps
provide
some
clarity
because
one
way
or
the
other
I
don't
think.
C
This
is
the
last
time
that
this
matter
will
be
before
us.
But
in
changing
my
vote
today,
it's
because
I
would
support
the
officer's
recommendation.
If
it
was
three
all
anyway
and
I
do
think.
There
have
been
some
meaningful
improvements
along
the
way
in
terms
of
the
increased
separation
to
adjacent
development.
I
don't
think
there
is
a
a
huge
impact
on
the
visual
amenity
of
the
nearby
other
properties
and
I.
Don't
think
that,
with
the
increased
attention
to
amenity,
that's
been
provided
through
new
conditions,
that
noise
will
be
an
issue
for
them.
C
So
with
that
I'll
take
the
vote,
those
in
favor
we'll
call
it
division
I'll,
do
it
myself,
counselor
Hamill,
councilor,
Owen,
Jones,
councilor,
Pauline,
young
councilor,
Gates
against
councilor,
Peter,
Young
and
councilor
vorster.
That
is
carried.
Thank
you
councilors.
Thank
you
officers.
Thank
you.
Lara
too,.
C
C
P
P
P
As
shown
on
the
screen.
Under
the
Gold
Coast
planning
scheme,
1994,
two
small
tenancies
were
Amalgamated
into
one
expanding
the
gloss
floor
area
on
the
site
to
196
meters.
Squared
the
plan
on
the
screen
shows
the
existing
restaurant
of
Manos
Bar
and
Grill,
which
has
been
expanded
over
time
with
the
addition
of
an
outdoor
dining
area
shown
in
blue.
This
tenancy
now
has
a
total
use
area
of
250
meters
squared
and
this
fit
out
is
to
remain.
P
P
The
applicant
seeks
a
hotel
liquor
license
which,
under
the
state,
licensing
requirements,
requires
a
corresponding
Council
land
use
approval,
permitting
consumption
of
alcohol
as
the
primary
use.
The
applicant
states
that
day-to-day
operations
are
to
remain
the
same,
despite
applying
for
this
hotel
land
use.
This,
however,
cannot
be
assured,
as
development
permits
are
issued
onto
the
land
and
not
to
land
owners.
P
The
existing
restaurant
and
proposed
Hotel
land
users
are
not
considered
to
be
comparable
and
there
are
distinct
differences
in
the
amount
of
amenity
impacts
from
each
key.
Differences
between
the
restaurant
and
hotel
functions
are
found
within
the
Landry's
definitions,
and
they
include
scale
and
intensity
with
differing
primary
and
secondary
operations.
The
provision
of
substantial
meals,
with
meals
being
a
secondary
service
to
hotels
which
can
contribute
to
or
exacerbate
amenity
impacts
from
the
hotel,
as
well
as
the
provision
of
accommodation
where
hotels
are
capable
of
providing
accommodation.
P
P
O
O
Q
So
through
the
chair,
there's
46
car
parking
spaces
on
the
premises.
It's
a
rooftop
car
parking
area.
There
is
no
delineation
between
the
the
tenancies
and
and
how
they're
to
to
take
up
each
car
parking
space.
So
yeah
I
mean
it's
a
let's
run
by
secure
parking.
So
there's
zero
to
two
hours
is
free
parking
paid
after.
Q
O
What
consideration
can
you
see?
A
commercial
Hotel
have
a
a
larger
impact
to
the
current
operation,
considering
there's
unlimited
numbers
at
the
moment
with
the
current
operation
in
relation
to
a
commercial
hotel
and
the
impact
of
people
going
out
into
their
mentees,
including
the
fact
we
have
16
up
14
plus
two
other
takeaway
operations
that
are
got
liquor.
Licensing.
Q
So
through
the
chair,
I
think
it
is
a
significant
impact
of
having
a
hotel
land
use
established
in
enabled
Center
Zone,
where
the
primary
function
is.
The
service
of
alcohol
I
fully
acknowledge.
There's
restaurants
that
you
know
through
the
tenor,
Avenue
Main
Beach
neighborhood
center,
with
its
primary
use
being
for
the
consumption
of
substantial
meals,
so
I
think
like
for,
like
there's
a
significant
difference.
There.
O
Thank
you,
and
in
relation
to
intoxication
and
managing
legal
licensing,
my
understanding
is
liquor
license.
Sensing
has
a
body
that
manages
the
consumption
of
alcohol
and
venues
are
required
to
manage
the
consumption
of
alcohol
and
ensure
that
any
patrons,
whether
they're
in
a
restaurant
or
in
a
hotel,
managed
the
same
way
so
that
when
they
actually
are
in
the
premises
or
leave
the
premises,
I
made
sure
a
liquor
license
sink
is
at
that
a
state
body
control.
Or
do
we
have
other
controls
to
manage
that.
Q
Through
the
chair,
I'm
not
completely
familiar
with
the
state
body
controls,
but
I
do
note
that
the
information
that
the
applicant
provided
in
terms
of
their
liquor
and
gaming
assessment
there's
very
and
very
clear
information.
That
suggests
that
it's
the
licenses
requirement
to
manage
the
on-premises
and
then,
if
drunken
disorderly
people,
for
example,
are
asked
to
leave.
Then
I
think
they're
going
on
to
the
street,
and
then
that
becomes
a
broader
issue
so
that
they
made
it
very
clear
that
that
is
how
it
would
operate.
D
I
just
ask
a
question
in
regards
to.
There
was
a
slide
that
you
put
up,
which
specifically
reference
bars,
which
I
think
was
in
regards
to
the
small
bar.
That's
nothing
good
about
yeah!
Oh
sorry,
so
that
so
that
that
is
the
small
bars
which
is
a
hundred
square
meters
and
60.
No
more
than
60
users
is
the
100
square
meters,
the
GFA
or
the
net
level
area.
Q
Through
the
chair,
it's
the
total
use
area,
so
that
includes
that
outdoor
dining
area
and
also
just
additional
contacts
in
the
neighborhood
center
Zone
there's
an
additional
sort
of
tightening
of
that
control
and
that
the
consumption
of
alcohol
is
only
permitted
between
10
p.m
and
sorry,
10
a.m
and
10
p.m.
So,
okay,
so
the
name
of
Center
goes
to
the
next
level
as
well.
D
D
D
Q
I
mean
to
to
a
degree
the
the
transport
code
car
parking
requirements.
Officers
took
it
up
to
the
overall
outcomes,
which
is
the
expected
amenity
impacts
for
car
parking.
So
we
have
acknowledged
and
identified
that
the
applicant
has
not
addressed
the
car
parking
requirements.
However,
just
in
that,
you
know
acceptable
outcome
up
to
the
overall
outcomes
we've
taken
it
there,
and
indeed
that
it's
it's
not
it's
a
commercial
change
of
use,
so
expected
level
of
demand
could
be
similar.
Okay,
thank
you.
M
Madame
Deputy
May
through
you
to
councilor
Taylor
I'm,
trying
to
understand
something
on
this,
so
it
is
stated
through
the
report
and
stated
in
the
submissions
and
support
for
this
that
the
owner
has
no
intent
of
changing
the
day-to-day
operations
as
they
currently
are.
So
could
you
give
us
some
sense
of
why
the
owner
is
seeking
to
change
that
liquor
license
then,
if
there's
no
intent
to
change
what
he
currently
does.
O
O
He
went
to
liquor
licensing
to
understand
how
he
could
improve
his
offering
to
maintain
for
the
local
community,
which
they're
supportive
of
and
the
trouble
we
have
with
liquor
licensing
they
look.
They
need
to
see
a
change
of
the
usage
for
him
to
get
that
change
of
operation,
so
the
community
is
very
strong
in
relation
to
it
being
an
offering
for
the
area.
O
M
Madam
chair
threw
you
to
councilor
Taylor
do
so
you
have
provided
all
counselors
with
a
copy
of
the
letter
from
the
two
local
groups.
Sorry
I
thought
everyone
had
it
so
accounts.
The
tablet.
Do
you
understand?
So
it
is
obvious
in
the
officer's
report
that
one
of
the
main
concerns
is
while
they
accept
that
there
is
an
intent
by
the
current
owner
just
to
continue
doing
exactly
what
he
currently
does
that
we
have
no
control
over
what
happens
next,
that
the
current
owner
could
fall
off
a
cliff
tomorrow.
M
Someone
else
buys
it
and
they
then
have
a
hotel
approval,
possibly
and
that
hotel
use
comes
with
other
other
opportunities,
so
pokies
and
tab
are
anticipated,
uses
in
hotel.
So
through
you
to
counselor
Taylor.
Do
you
think
the
residents
that
maybe
put
letters
to
support
in
for
this
support
the
current
business?
But
do
they
appreciate
that
if
this
business
wasn't
there
that
they
could
end
up
with
something
very
different
with
as
of
right
use
approvals.
O
The
the
big
challenge
for
the
particular
areas.
It's
the
neighborhood
center.
That's
a
challenge.
We've
got
here
at
the
moment
and
we
we're
talking
about
a
neighborhood
center.
That's
designated
at
the
moment,
that's
in
the
middle
of
a
growing
area
which,
in
my
view,
is
a
dining
precinct,
which
we've
already
got
an
extension
of
time.
That's
acknowledging
that
it's
not
just
the
community
center.
O
It's
acknowledging
that
it
is
a
a
dining
Precinct
that
is
going
out
to
12
o'clock
and
part
of
the
offering
of
these
type
of
areas
is
the
opportunity
of
a
hotel
offering
which
could
at
some
point
talk
to
gaming.
It
could
go
to
other
activities
as
I
my
personal
opinion.
Many
people
do
have
different
offerings.
Don't
everyone
don't
don't
always
go
to
a
high
class
restaurant?
They
don't
always
go
to
a
just.
A
cheap
restaurant
there's
a
pub
where
you
can
go
and
have
a
meal,
and
some
people
may
go
gaming.
O
M
M
Is
this
the
appropriate
way
to
be
going
about
introducing
this
into
the
area,
or
would
it
be
better
for
that
to
be
done
through
the
next
city
plan?
Where,
as
we
look
at
individual
neighborhood
centers
and
presents,
we
could
identify
that
Main
Beach
is
different
to
all
the
other
neighborhood
centers
they're
all
different
themselves.
They
all
have
different
or
not,
or
not,
yeah
I'm,
just
that
there
that
it's
a
I
can
understand
from
the
officer's
report.
Why
there's
a
concern
that
what
does
this
open
up
in
other
neighborhood
centers?
M
O
I've
already
spoken
to
officers
about
this.
It's
something
that's
been
on
my
agenda
for
quite
a
while,
because
the
neighborhood
center,
in
my
view
in
the
area
that
we
are
I
feel
is,
is
different
to
a
neighborhood
center
like
a
Commerce
rental,
Shopping,
Center
or
small
areas.
My
chevron's,
which
we
had
previously
a
discussion
about
this
Main
Beach
they're,
actually
different
areas
in
a
large
in
our
city,
but
growing
areas
and
and
the
Dynamics
is
definitely
changing.
O
So
in
relation
to
a
city
plan,
a
nurse
looking
at
overall
City
review
of
these
areas,
I
think
it's
important
that
we
are
doing
this
body
of
work
because
we
are
continuing
to
grow.
The
challenges
at
the
moment
is
you've
got
a
community.
That's
out
there
at
the
moment,
that's
wandering
off
our
offering
as
the
city
is
growing,
and
we
all
know
how
the
city
plan
takes
to
go
through.
O
F
You
thanks
officers
through
you,
chair,
I,
appreciate
the
the
various
arguments
and
I
certainly
was
originally
considering
supporting
the
recommendation
before
us.
But
do
you
think
it's
feasible
that
the
changed
operation
could
be
appropriately
conditioned
despite
the
lack
of
relevant
land
use
being
defined
for
the
site.
C
K
So
I
just
want
to
go
through
you,
madam
chair
to
counselor
Taylor
I,
just
want
to
wrap
my
head
around
what
has
prompted
this
and
it's
congruence
with
the
feedback
from
the
main
Beach
Association
I
I,
don't
want
to
jump
to
conclusions,
but
it
intrigues
me
when
I
read
this
correspondence,
which
I'm
assume
is
being
tableds
I'm,
not
breaching
the
Privacy
Act.
Here
it
says
here:
I've
consulted.
C
O
Yeah,
as
previously
mentioned,
the
bar
the
bar
as
we
call
it
a
bar,
but
it's
under
the
conditions,
that's
the
orange
kind
of
u-shaped
thing
right,
correct
so
around
and
then
they've
got
the
dinings
more
to
the
front
the
conditions
of
that
60
people
Everyone.
That
goes
there
see
it
as
a
bar,
but
it
has
to
have
the
food
offering
that's
there.
So
it's
designed
to
have
a
bar
operation,
but
it's
got
the
food
component
to
maintain
the
current
licensing
and
operational
use.
O
K
O
O
C
Sorry,
I
I,
don't
I
believe
this
is
a
restaurant
approval
which
requires
food
to
be
served.
It's
not
a
small
bar
where
60
people
can
have
a
drink
at
present,
but
it
would
appear
to
me
from
the
commentary
that
people
are
using
it
that
way
and
they're
happy
for
it
to
continue
that
way.
But
that's
not
what
we're
looking
at
it.
Q
Yeah,
no,
this
application
isn't
made
in
response
to
a
show
course
notice.
Okay,
what
is
probably
important
to
note
is
the
Gold
Coast
94
planning
scheme
had
the
restaurant
land
use
definition,
Hotel
land
use
definition,
I'm,
not
I,
don't
believe
it
had
a
bar
definition.
So
this
restaurant
is
probably
the
definition
you
see
on
the
screen.
It's
probably
a
little
bit
broader
to
the
current
scheme.
So
it
the
scheme
started
to
take
away
sort
of
you
know,
pull
away
from
bar.
It's
now
got
its
defined
use
right:
okay,
okay,.
K
For
example,
in
your
discussions
with
them
and
I
acknowledge
that
the
issue
of
pokies
hasn't
come
up,
but
have
they
do
you
think?
Would
they
have
an
appetite
to
say,
look
we're
happy
to
if
we
can
get
the
approval,
we're
happy
to
get
on
board,
even
if
the
approval
says
no
poker
machines,
trading
limited
to
x,
amount
of
time
and
all
patrons
have
to
be
seated.
For
example,
yes,.
K
My
last
question
is
through
you
to
our
city
offices.
If
the
applicant
were
seeking
to
I
suppose
legitimize
their
operations
under
the
current
prevailing
regulations.
By
seeking
this
approval,
would
it
be
reasonable
to
work
with
the
applicant
to
add
on
additional
conditions
which
might
Fetter
their
operations
so
that
they
achieve
effectively
at
half
a
hotel
outcome
if
it's
voluntarily
done
so
on
their
behalf,.
I
Through
the
chair
that
that's
an
option
available
to
the
council,
if
that's
what
it
wanted
to
do,
we
have
had
a
recent
example
where
there
was
a
similar
situation
on
Chevron
Island,
where
we
ended
up
in
an
appeal
we
weren't
able
to
hold
on
to
those
conditions
which
were
limiting
the
gaming.
So
if
the
council
wanted
to
do
that,
it
could.
But
my
advice
is:
I
can't
guarantee
that
those
conditions
would
ever
withstand
a
challenge.
R
You
chair
just
a
couple
of
things:
I
just
want
to
go
back
to
through
you
something
that
councilor
Taylor
said
about
these
16
restaurants
in
the
area
with
unlimited
numbers,
because
they're
not
limited
by
anything
and
I.
Think
I'd
have
to
question
that,
because
we
all
know
that
when
you
go
to
a
restaurant
to
eat,
you
make
a
reservation
and
it's
availability.
So
if
there's
nothing
available,
you
don't
go
along
and
stand
around
the
walls
and
and
wait
to
be
able
to
get
a
seat.
R
So
I
think
when
it
comes
to
saying
there's
16
restaurants
within
an
area,
there
is
a
limitation
on
the
numbers
of
people
that
will
attend
there
and
then
the
other
thing
is
if
the.
If
there's
such
a
high
demand
for
for
this
sort
of
offering
in
the
area,
I
would
have
expected,
there
would
have
been
far
more
letters
of
support
but
10
letters
of
support
in
an
area
that
has
multiple
high-rises
and
multiple
multi-dwelling
offerings.
R
C
Q
B
Q
Through
the
chair,
it's
a
really
good
question.
It's
difficult
one
to
answer.
I
think
planning
need
needs
to
be
established
that
this
is
a
entertainment
activity.
So
I'm
not
sure
what
information
we
can
get
to
suggest
that
what
was
given.
You
know
large
population,
the
socioeconomic
status
of
an
area,
not
confident
to
say
that
that
information
suggests
needs
for
a
entertainment
activity
of
this
this
type.
So
it
is
a
very
difficult
question
to
suggest
what
they
could
have
done
to
to
stack
up,
planning
need
and.
B
Q
B
C
Q
M
Madame
McNamara
through
you
to
councilor
Taylor
I,
haven't
visited
Taylor
Avenue
in
probably
six
or
seven
months,
but
I'm
interested
in
talking
about
demand.
Have
there
been
any
other
small
bars
open
up
recently?
That
would
demonstrate
that
there
is
a
desire
from
the
local
community
for
this,
because
the
market
would
drive
that
that
they're
I
knew
there
were
empty
shops.
Last
time,
I
was
on
Tether
and
there
would
be
places
where
a
small
bar,
as
per
second
plan,
could
be
established.
Has
there
been
any
established
I.
O
F
O
Q
Through
the
chair,
no,
there
was
not
a
formal,
further
advice,
but
there
was
a
number
of
email
correspondents
in
meetings
with
the
applicant
in
respect
to
the
land.
Use
I
think
the
most
important
element
is
the
land
use
and
then
the
other
technical
items
very
well
could
have
been
addressed.
However,
the
applicant's
opportunity
to
address
that
they
didn't.
F
Just
briefly
and
I'm
I'm,
very
mindful
of
the
representative
or
the
the
representation
made
by
the
divisional
counselor
and
the
material
that
is
brought
forward
for
us
for
our
consideration,
but
I
and
I
am
sympathetic
to
the
desires
of
the
local
community,
and
that
would
normally
completely
Prevail
in
my
position.
But
my
concern
was
the
appropriate
conditioning
of
any
land
use.
That's
not
envisaged
in
the
current
Town
plan
for
the
site
and
I,
don't
think
the
appropriate
conditions
can
be
applied
in
a
ways
that
can
achieve
that.
F
F
Mindful
of
the
fact
that
terrible
Avenue
is
a
very
different
place,
as
opposed
to
the
neighborhood
centers
that
are
in
in
my
division
and
I'm,
mindful
of
the
local
amenity
and
the
fact
that
people
might
currently
be
using
this
facility
for
a
purpose
that
wasn't
entirely
intended
to
be
used,
and
that's
just
a
kind
of
natural
process
that
it
might
occur
over
time.
But
I
don't
think
we're
in
a
position
to
approve
anything
apart
from
anything.
B
I
know
this
is
a
bit
unusual
and
I
just
understand
in
the
area
that
the
Tedder
Avenue
used
to
be,
and
maybe
not
anymore,
and
how
it
used
to
operate.
How
it
wants
to
operate
again
and
I
think
that
the
applicant
is
actually
trying
to
do
the
right
thing
rather
than
the
wrong
thing,
because
if
he,
if
he
does
start
servicing
people
that
he
shouldn't
be
servicing
and
just
giving
them
drinks,
he
will
get
himself
into
a
whole
lot
of
trouble
and
I
think
he's.
B
B
I
was
absolutely
surprised
that
those
groups
that
that
sort
of
swayed
me
a
bit
too
so
I
am
going
to
vote
against
this,
even
though
we
haven't
successfully
done
this
before
it's
I
was
hoping
that
we
could
do
this
with
conditions,
but
just
that
information
about
Chevron
has
obviously
put
a
question
on
that,
but
I'm
actually
just
going
to
go
with
my
gut
on
this
one.
Thanks.
Thank.
D
Thank
you
so
I'm,
going
to
speak
in
favor
of
the
officer's
refusal
and
I.
Think
it's
in
the
context
that
the
city
plan,
as
it
exists,
actually
enables
Proprietors
to
make
application
for
small
bars,
and
that
would
have
probably
been
a
bit
more
appropriate
in
this.
In
this
particular
location.
I
think
that
it
is
a
it
actually
is
a
challenge
that
the
number
of
car
Parks
can't
be
easily
identified
to
the
to
the
use.
D
I
am
not
an
infrequent
visitor
to
the
main
Beach
area
and
I
think
that
if
anybody
wants
to
have
a
drink,
it's
pretty
easy
and
in
particular,
we've
got
the
Southport
Yacht
Club
and
the
surface.
The
Southport
surf
life
saving
Club,
basically
offering
the
ability
for
people
to
partake
in
in
a
drink
without
the
inclusion
of
food.
O
Thank
you
look
as
I've
mentioned
today,
we're
in
a
high
density
area.
The
city
is
growing.
These
areas
are
changing,
the
community
is
once
a
offering
that
is
provided
for
that
particular
error,
and
it's
important
that
as
a
city,
we
do
understand
our
growth
of
our
city
and
we
review
it
accordingly,
but
also
when
there's
operators
that
are
trying
to
do
the
right
thing
as
well.
O
We
should
be
out
in
a
position
to
actually
understand
that
and
I
think
that's
out
of
job
here
is
to
understand
what
we
we
can
make
a
decision
on,
and
it
was
really
important
for
me
to
understand
that
it
was
an
offering
for
the
community
now
and
that's
why
I
went
out
there
and
got
a
broad
view,
and
obviously
the
local
associations
were
very
important
to
part
of
that
discussion.
But
this
is
an
operator
that's
trying
to
do
the
right
thing
under
current
conditions.
O
We
talk
about
transport
and
it's
always
mentioned
in
relation
to.
We
don't
want
people
on
roads.
We
so
often
mention
in
our
city
plan
that
we
don't
want
cars
out
there.
We
talk
about
light
rail.
This
venue
is
just
in
that
lightrail.corrid
Hall
we've
got
uplift,
we've
got
people
that
can
walk
in
those
areas,
so
we
don't
want
them
to
get
in
the
car
and
drive
at
a
further
distance.
So
this
is
just
a
a
venue.
O
C
Cancer
Taylor
and
just
before,
I,
go
to
counselor
young
to
close
I
just
want
to
re-emphasize
that,
despite
the
fact
that
this
operation
might
be
trying
to
do
the
right
thing,
as
has
been
suggested,
this
should
a
hotel
operation
be
approved
on
this
site.
The
approval
goes
with
the
land,
not
with
the
applicant.
We
have
no
Assurance
whatsoever.
C
What
happens
from
this
point
forward
because
the
approval
goes
with
the
land
and
for
me
personally,
it's
disconcerting
that
no
Acoustics
report
was
provided
and
that
no
social
health
impact
assessment
was
provided
despite
those
requests
being
put
forward.
But,
most
importantly,
the
approval
goes
with
the
land.
Is
that
appropriate
at
this
location
within
a
neighborhood
center
I'm,
not
convinced
that
we
haven't
foreseen
many
unintended
consequences
of
what
is
being
proposed,
so
I'll
go
to
you
to
close.
F
Give
some
rest
it
will
Deputy
May
I
think
that's
where
we're
at.
If
we
would
were
to
approve
it,
it
just
leaves
us
really
exposed
in
the
future,
because
there
are
ungovernable
conditions
or
conditions
that
could
not
really
be
properly
exercised
in
response
to
any
future
complaints
on
that
basis
and
I'm.
Sorry,
because
councilor
Taylor
did
mention
this
to
me
before
the
meeting
and
I'm
sympathetic
to
his
representation
and
the
position
of
the
local
community,
but
I
think
I've
overwhelmingly
it's
a
position.
We
can't
support
thanks.
Okay,.
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
S
S
The
proposed
development
seeks
to
utilize
a
recently
approved
and
constructed
360
square
meter,
shed,
as
demonstrated
in
yellow
on
the
site
plan.
It's
important
to
note
that
this
shed
was
approved
through
a
referral
assessment
application,
and
this
was
done
prior
to
the
lodgement
of
the
subject:
MCU
application.
S
There
is
an
existing
dwelling
house
on
site
and
separate
shed,
which
will
remain
unchanged
as
a
result
of
The
Proposal.
The
educational
establishment
will
facilitate
carpentry
training,
which
is
encompassing
approved
courses
associated
with
the
certificate
III
carpentry
course.
The
proposal
has
13
on-site
car
parking
spaces
and
available
space
for
a
small,
rigid
vehicle
standing
area
in
support
of
the
application.
The
applicant
submitted
an
operational
management
plan
which
detailed
specific
operational
parameters
for
the
educational
establishment.
S
S
Key
considerations
of
the
assessment
included
visual
amenity,
so
in
regards
to
the
built
form,
the
proposal
is
to
be
undertaken
within
the
approved
shed,
which
is
constructed
on
site
already,
in
order
to
reduce
any
perceived
predominance
of
the
shed
offices
have
requested
increased
Landscaping
buffers
from
that
previously
approved
from
the
referral
agency
assessment
application,
which
will
screen
the
shed
when
viewed
in
both
directions.
The
Landscaping
buffer
will
incorporate
both
trees
and
screeding
shrubs
in
quite
a
dense
setting
in
terms
of
noise.
S
The
subject
site
has
an
existing
High
background
noise
level
due
to
the
proximity
of
bunula
drive
and
the
Pacific
Motorway.
Notwithstanding,
officers
acknowledge
there
are
multiple
sensitive
receivers
within
the
immediate
proximity
of
the
site.
In
order
to
maintain
noise
levels,
significant
operational
restrictions
have
been
conditioned,
and
one
of
these
includes
ensuring
all
doors
and
windows
are
closed.
During
the
operation
of
handheld
tools,
a
total
of
24
submissions
were
received
during
the
public
notification
period.
These
were
23
in
objection
and
one
in
support.
S
The
concerns
raised
in
relation
to
the
proposed
development
included
amenity
character,
operational
restrictions,
environmental
impacts,
parking
access
and
the
appropriateness
of
the
land
use
within
the
immediate
locality.
The
matters
raised
by
submitters
are
being
considered
throughout
the
assessment
of
the
application.
S
S
Yeah
no
worries
so
the
the
shed
was
approved
through
the
Ria
process,
and
that
is
a
citing
variation.
So
the
building
certifier
would
send
that
in
and
we're
looking
at
the
criteria,
for
that
is
adverse
amenity
impacts.
So
within
that
assessment
office
has
determined
that
the
shed
was
not
of
an
adverse
amenity
impact
and
Landscaping
was
also
proposed,
and
that
approval
was
granted
in
October
of
2021.
and.
S
F
D
Does
that
process
come
through
the
dart
system,
so
would
have
there
been
a
line
of
sight
to
accounts
like
I
mean?
Is
it
not
so
I,
don't
know
what
you
do
Pete
and
I'm,
not
picking
them
on
yet
no,
but
as
in
so
in
the
dart
we
actually
can
see
if
certain
things
come
through
and
you
can
ask
for
addition.
Additional
information,
but
is,
is
that
referral
would
have
it
been
through
the
dart
system
as.
T
T
Our
as
Emily
has
said,
our
jurisdiction
is
just
on
the
sighting
of
these
applications,
and
on
that
that
basis,
our
assessment
criteria
was
fairly
limited,
so
standard
policy
in
terms
of
assessing
that
Raa
officers
provided
favorable
comments
to
the
private
certifier
for
the
private
certified
to
approve
it.
Okay,
thank
you.
T
Through
you,
madam
chair
in
the
industrial
Zone
and
education
establishment,
is
not
a
listed
activity,
so
there
is
some
conflict
in
an
industrial
area.
If
such
an
application
was
was
lodged
in
the
rural
residential
Zone
education
establishments
are
a
contemplated.
Land
use,
whether
of
an
appropriate
size
and
scale.
So.
M
Just
to
clarify
with
Roger
said:
if
someone
made
this
application
in
a
small
industry
and
inside
industrial
area,
if
they
call
it
education,
establishment
they'd
have
a
problem,
could
they
call
it
something
else?
I
just
I
was
surprised
to
read
that
this
isn't
something
and
I'd
have
no
problem
with
this
as
a
pre-context,
but
I
was
just
surprised
that
someone
couldn't
propose
to
do
this.
Insider
200
meter
industrial
unit
as
part
of
a
complex.
T
F
Chair
I'll
move
the
officer's
recommendation
with
a
slight
change
to
condition
10.
It
should
come
up
on
our
screen.
This
is
just
relates
to
the
Landscaping
works
and
the
addition
that
I'm
seeking
is
just
for
some
garden
beds,
adjacent
to
the
the
Big
Shed
to
be
planted
out
with
shrubs
the
conditions
being
prepared
by
officers.
C
F
Briefly,
it's
a
very
diverse
city,
as
has
been,
has
been
shown
in
the
agenda
before
us
today,
and
the
kind
of
matters
that
we're
dealing
with.
Generally
speaking,
people
don't
like
change,
and
there
were
a
number
of
submissions
made
about
this
proposal.
I've
met
with
the
operator
I'm,
mindful
of
the
submissions
at
the
local
committee,
made
I,
think
he's
a
good
operator.
I
think
he's
very
genuine
I
think
he's
presented
himself
in
a
way
that's
mindful
of
and
and
respectful
for
the
local
community
and
his
appropriately
changed
his
proposal
over
time.
F
The
I
think
it'll
be
a
really
good
Enterprise,
a
great
Enterprise
to
have
young
people
being
trained
in
carpentry
and
building
skills
on
this
site.
There's
a
great
operational
management
plan,
that's
fully
detailed
in
the
report
before
us
and
will
be
available
publicly
and
that
restricts
the
use
to,
as
we
heard
only
10
students
at
a
time,
no
power
tools
or
any
electrically
operated
battery
operated
tools.
F
C
Thank
you.
I
would
like
to
just
comment
myself
that
it's
great
to
see
the
level
of
acoustic
reporting
provided
on
this,
and
it
does
give
us
greater
confidence
when
the
reports
that
are
necessary
to
inform
our
decision
making
are
comprehensive
and,
and
this
one
was,
would
anyone
else
like
to
speak
to
this
item
or
I'll
go
to
you
to
close
counselor.
F
C
F
It's
a
weird
Circumstance
whereby
the
site
had
been
cleared.
Aerial
mapping,
photography
and
mapping
had
been
undertaken
which
showed
the
cleared
area
now
cleared
and
not
included
in
the
vegetation
that
should
be
protected
through
this
anomaly.
We've
got
an
opportunity
to
draw
attention
to
that
and
resurrect
things
so
so.
C
F
So
I'll
move
this.
It's
a
change
recommendation
with
the
yellow
part
there
being
the
addition,
so
the
environmental
and
Zone
mapping
for
that
particular
site
in
guanaba
be
corrected
to
reflect
what
did
exist
beforehand
and
and
that
that
be
submitted
to
the
state
for
consideration
as
part
of
the
addendum
and
so
forth.
Thank.