►
Description
00:00 Meeting Commences, Attendance/Apologies, Leave of Absence, Confirmation of Minutes, Conflict of Interest Declarations, Committee Forward Planning Schedule
15:00 Meeting adjourned
18:00 Meeting recommenced, Reports and Presentations 6.1
19:00 Report 6.6
56:00 Report 6.5
1:12:00 Report 6.2
1:56:00 Report 6.3
2:33:00 Meeting adjourned
2:47:00 Meeting recommenced, Report 6.4
3:33:00 Report 6.5, General Business
B
A
Councilor
Patterson
lovely,
to
see
you
thank
you,
Casa
Bowden
Lumsden!
How
are
you
sorry,
councilor
Bob
Le
Castro,
this
planning
committee?
What
it's
a
pleasure
to
have
you
here
and
we
thank
you
for
your
attendance
and
look
forward
to
it.
Continuing
councilor
O'neill
good
morning
to
you,
councilor
Taylor.
A
A
Okay,
we'll
we'll
kick
things
off
so
councilor
young
will
be
here
in
a
few
minutes,
say
we'll
just
leave
that
open
for
now
I
have
no
leave
of
absence
requests.
A
confirmation
of
minutes
of
the
last
meeting
do
I,
have
a
mover
and
a
secondary
for
the
minutes
of
the
previous
planning
meeting,
councilor
Gates,
the
secondary
councilor
O'neill.
Thank
you
for
that.
We'll
take
the
vote
on
the
minutes
of
the
previous
meeting.
A
D
A
Very
good,
all
those
in
favor
of
that
motion.
How
are
you
voting?
You
have
to
do
this?
Oh
sorry,
division
on
this
one,
sorry
all
those
in
favor
councilor,
Hamill,
Council,
Owen,
Jones,
councilor,
Peter,
Young,
councilor,
Gail,
O'neill
and
councilor
vorster,
and
can
we
note
that
councilor,
Paul
and
Young
wasn't
in
the
room
and
that
councilor
Gates
did
not
vote
councilor
Gates?
The
next
item
was
in
regards
to
6.3,
correct.
B
Councilor
Hemel
and
I
just
wanted
to
remind
councilors
that
the
last
legal
opinion
confirmed
that
any
amounts
refunded
in
full
were
not
to
be
considered
as
part
of
any
declaration
that
they
were
irrelevant
and
not
considered
by
the
Electoral
commission
at
the
time.
And
so
there
was
1850
from
arcadis
in
2015.,
oh
sorry,
and
from
Mitchell
Bray
who's,
an
employee
in
2014
1950,
but
I'm
hoping
to
remain
in
the
room
and
participate
in
the
decision.
A
Councilors
we
have
seen
this
particular
declaration
from
councilor
Gates
several
times
and
I
know.
I
have
definitely
moved
procedural
motions
in
the
past
with
the
exact
same
wording
as
the
last
one.
So
I'm
happy
to
do
that
again.
Is
there
any
questions
on
this
one
for
councilor
Gates
before
I
seek
a
second
or
for
the
words.
A
In
that
case,
do
I
have
a
second
of
my
procedural
motion:
Council
Owen
Jones.
Thank
you
and
we'll
take
a
division
on
this
one
as
well.
So
all
those
in
favor
councilor,
Hamill,
councilor,
Owen,
Jones,
councilor,
Peter,
Young,
counselor,
O'neill,
councilor
vorster,
and
please
note
that
councilor,
Paul
and
Young
was
not
in
the
room
and
the
councilor
Gates
did
not
vote
Council
Gates.
The
item
for
6.7
is
the
exact
same
declaration.
Is
that
correct?
That's
correct
in
that
case,
I
am
happy
to
move
the
same
procedural
motion
again.
D
Mine's,
not
a
declarable
conflict,
but
it's
a
matter.
I
thought
it
should
bring
to
committee's
attention
with
regard
to
item
6.2,
which
is
a
proposal
for
a
hotel
at
movie
world
at
oxenford.
I
live
within
a
reasonable
vicinity
of
the
site
and
in
fact,
my
properties
or
just
outside
of
the
mapped
area
shown
on
the
maps
on
page
224
and
225.
So
it's
the
property
that
I
own
and
live
on.
I,
don't
think
it's
a
declarable
conflict
but
I'm
just
alerting
I'm
committed.
A
F
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr
chairman
on
today's
agenda
item
6.4
deals
with
a
child
care
center
proposed
at
62
coplu
Street,
one
of
the
submitters
against
that
particular
development
is
a
former
board
member
of
the
destination
Gold
Coast
I
served
on
that
board
in
my
capacity
as
council's
appointed
Observer
alongside
Mr
punch
for
some
time.
A
B
Don't
have
a
question
but
I'm
aware
of
a
submitter
who
was
also
a
donor
to
me,
so
I
hadn't
contemplated
I
never
met
with
them.
I
did
like
every
other
counselor
receive
correspondence
and
if
you
recall,
I
requested
permission
to
meet
thinking,
they
were
the
applicants
for
the
project,
but
they
were
actually
a
submitter.
So
it
was
ups
and
I'm
happy
to
declare
that
if
the
so.
A
I
might
just
come
back
first,
so
counselors
can
I
check
first.
Does
anyone
have
any
concerns
for
Council
of
vorster
or
any
further
interest
in
taking
any
further
detail
on
that
one?
No,
no
so
Council
of
War.
So
thank
you
for
raising
that
one
councilor
Gates.
If
you
think
it
is
best
to
raise
that
conflict
on
UPS
I.
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
C
Thank
you,
chair.
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
thank
the
team.
That's
been
working
on
this
plan
for
the
last
couple
of
years,
another
important
part
of
our
city,
business
district
and
over
the
years
we
have
had
upgrades
of
cert
parade,
but
there's
other
areas
of
the
mall,
the
four
four
Shore
that
we
need
to
ensure
that
we
keep
it
at
the
highest
level,
with
the
casino
Convention
Center
in
the
area.
A
J
The
site
consists
of
a
single
allotment
located
at
99
golden
foot
Drive,
which
is
a
corner
lot
and
has
a
frontage
to
both
golden
Ford.
Drive
and
Johnston.
Street
foreign
contains
a
two-story
dwelling
gaining
access
from
Johnson
Street
and
contains
a
single,
a
two-story
dwelling
and
doesn't
have
any
significant
vegetation.
J
In
the
broader
context,
the
site's
located
on
the
northeast
inside
of
the
Gold
Coast
Highway,
directly
opposite
to
the
main
entrance
to
Gold
Coast
Airport
Southern
Cross
University
is
located
to
the
South,
approximately
600
meters,
walking
distance
from
the
subject
site
the
site's
located
within
the
medium
density,
residential
Zone,
which
generally
extends
along
the
coastal
strip
of
blinger
to
the
North
and
South.
Moving
to
the
southeast.
There
are
two
smaller
neighborhood
centers
and
the
Kira
neighborhood
center,
located
to
the
Southwest,
sorry
Southeast
and
the
cool
and
get
a
major
Center.
J
The
applicants
proposed
to
establish
roomy
accommodation
use
providing
for
student
accommodation,
contains
a
total
of
182
bedrooms
and
212
beds.
The
thank
you.
The
development
is
proposed
in
12-story
building
with
a
maximum
height
of
34.5
meters.
The
application
is
impact
accessible
due
to
the
land
use
proposed
and
due
to
the
building
height
exceeding
the
map
tied
to
23
meters
by
a
total
of
50
percent.
J
The
development
includes
two
levels
of
basement
which
include
parking
for
25
resident
spaces,
17
car
share
spaces
and
bicycle
parking
on
the
ground
floor
and
ancillary
Cafe
and
student
dining
area
has
been
proposed
with
communal
open
space.
It's
noted
that,
within
the
officer's
recommendation,
conditions
have
been
included
to
limit
the
scope
of
the
ancillary
Cafe
to
only
service
the
residents
of
the
development
and
not
to
be
open
to
the
General
Public
above
on
level.
J
One
a
mix
of
units
and
communal,
open
space
has
been
provided
in
forms
of
game
in
the
form
of
a
games
room
at
theater.
The
remainder
of
the
building
contains
a
typical
floor
plan,
which
includes
14
single
bedroom
units
and
a
three
bedroom
unit
that
provides
a
total
of
six
beds
in
order
to
comply
with
acceptable
outcome.
One
of
the
transport
code.
The
development
must
provide
the
parking
rate
of
one
space
per
two
students
based
on
the
maximum
occupancy,
which
would
equate
to
a
total
of
106
total
parking
spaces.
J
Given
a
total
of
44
parking
spaces
have
been
provided.
Compliance
with
the
acceptable
outcome
is
not
achieved.
Notwithstanding
this
acceptable
outcome,
4.2
of
the
transport
code
allows
the
applicant
to
apply
car
sharing
travel
demand
measures
in
accordance
with
this
following
table,
so
this
table
shows
that
each
car
share
vehicle
offsets
five
parking
spaces,
which
equates
to
a
relaxation
of
four
spaces.
J
The
applicant
has
therefore
demonstrated
compliance
with
performance
outcome,
one
in
that
sufficient
off-street
parking
spaces
have
been
provided
to
meet
the
parking
demand
of
the
development
officers
have
considered
that
there
that
the
proposed
land
use
is
appropriate
for
the
subject
site,
given
its
proximity
to
a
university
and
the
offering
of
a
housing
type
that
is
not
readily
available
within
the
surrounding
area.
Offices.
Assessment
of
the
uplift
Provisions
within
the
Strategic
framework
have
considered
that
the
building
height
is
appropriate.
H
J
H
Another
question
too:
I
know
that
Southern
Cross
University,
that's
in
close
proximity
is
mentioned
in
the
report,
but
it's
only
mentioned
in
a
very
light
manner
that
there's
no
affiliation
between
the
university
and
the
developer
or
any
Management
Group.
That's
actually
that
could
actually
manage
the
the
student
accommodation.
Is
that
correct
through.
J
The
chair
to
the
council,
that's
correct.
There's
no
formal
link
that
they've
provided
between
the
between
the
applicant
and
the
university.
They
had
provided
a
draft
memorandum
of
understanding
between
the
two
bodies,
but
there
wasn't
actually
that
they're,
not
the
applicant
and
the
application.
The
uni
hasn't
been
included
in
the
application
and.
H
J
A
I
did
have
one
for
the
officer
just
in
regards
in
reading
the
there's
been
a
couple,
information
requests
and
further
information
requests
on
this
application
over
the
couple
years.
This
one
has
been
in
the
system,
can
I
get
an
idea
of
what
has
gone
on
in
that
time.
So
there's
been
a
lot
of
built,
form,
changes
and
other
changes
of
what's
what's
happened
during
those
information
requests.
J
That's
right
so
there's
been,
the
application
was
originally
lodged
in
July
2020.,
there's
a
bit
more
of
an
in-depth
analysis
of
the
background
on
page
688
of
the
agenda,
but
there's
been
a
numerous
further
further
information
requests
and
also
change
applications
which
resulted
in
a
different
built
form.
But
they've
also
included
an
extra
level
of
basement,
which
also
allowed
to
include
the
car
share
scheme
in
the
application,
which
has
ultimately
resulted
in
offices
recommending
approval.
E
K
E
K
L
So
so,
there's
one
in
Brisbane
at
green
slopes
around
there
there's
one
student
share,
accommodation
there
I
know
quite
a
few
students
who
are
living
in
it
where
it
has
a
very
none
of
them
have
cars,
because
it's
a
very
limited
Supply
they've
got
a
car
share,
experience,
they're
close
to
public
transport
and,
in
speaking
to
the
local
Council.
Are
there
not
long
ago
they
have.
It
has
been
a
very
successful
outcome.
L
B
Thank
you,
chair,
just
I.
Think
car
parking
is
definitely
a
concern
with
this
proposed
development.
I
think
we
all
recognize.
We
need
Student
accommodation,
but
in
regard
to
the
various
information
requests,
was
there
ever
consideration
given
to
an
additional
level
of
car
parking
being
provided
rather
than
the
solution?
That's
being
suggested.
J
J
J
J
J
D
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
focus
on
the
servicing
for
the
building.
It's
part
of
the
report
address
is
servicing,
so
there's
a
number
of
elements
of
that
I.
Imagine,
there's
servicing
for
Waste
servicing
for
the
residents
and
servicing
for
the
cafe
am
I
right
that
through
the
chain,
that's
correct.
Okay,
so
all
of
those
things
there
should
be
some
kind
of
provision
for
service
Vehicles.
D
J
The
chair,
the
in
terms
of
the
servicing
for
the
actual
student
accommodation-
it's
not
anticipated
that
it
would
be
there'd,
be
high
demand
for
servicing,
given
the
how
it's
intended
to
operate
is
that
the
rooms
will
be
furnished,
so
the
students
moving
in
and
out
of
the
site
won't
be
having
their
own
removable
Vehicles
great
in
terms
of
the
cafe
the
when
it
does
need
servicing.
There
is
a
dedicated
Park
whether
or
not
the
any
service
vehicle
could
use
that
Park.
If
it
couldn't,
it
would
be
on
the
street.
G
J
G
Okay
and
with
your
recommendation,
does
it
say
we're
two
or
three
years
down
the
track
and
they
go
look.
You
know
what
we
don't
actually
want
to
run
this
shared
car
anymore.
Is
there
any
enforcement
capability?
We
have
on
that
to
say
no.
You
can't
just
change
those
car
parks
to
a
normal
car
park.
How
do
how
do
we
force
them
to
maintain
a
shared
car
service
in
perpetuity.
J
Through
the
chair
to
the
council,
we
do
have
a
number
of
conditions
of
approval
that
require
it.
We'd
also
go
on
to
the
extra
step
of
including
a
property
notification
and
part
of
that
says
that
the
car
share
scheme
is
integral
to
the
development
and
that
if
it
isn't
operated
that
it
would
be
a
development
offense.
So
it
would
end
up
that
ties
back
to
the
conditions
of
approval.
So
we
have
included
conditions
to
ensure
that
it
has
to
be
operated.
G
Okay,
so
just
to,
if,
if
you
can
just
share
with
me,
practically
we're
five
years
down
the
track
that
occurs,
what
happens?
What
happens
then?
So,
but
we
we
find
they've
gone
looking
at
what
this
is
not
working.
We
just
want
to
turn
it
to
normal
car
Parks,
so
we
would
provide
an
enforcement
notice.
Is
there
a
fine?
How
does
that
work.
K
Through
you
Mr
chair
it,
as
Nathan
has
said,
we
have
several
conditions
and
property
notifications
that
really
what
that
means
is
if
they
chose
not
to
it,
would
be
a
development
offense.
It
would
be
in
and
show
cause
notice
enforcement
orders.
Council
would
have
the
the
option
to
take
legal
action
on
it.
G
Right,
okay,
so
we
through
the
chair
would
need
potentially
like
I
mean
this
is
something
we're
expecting
for
next
10
well
as
long
as
our
building's
standing
right,
so
we
could
say
30
years.
If
we
wanted
it
and
they
didn't,
it
would
require
Council
to
go
and
take
legal
action
against
them
against
the
body
corporate
of
the
time,
I
just
I
find
it
very
difficult
to
see
how
realistic
this
is.
If
that
body
corporate
in
the
future
just
goes,
you
know
what
we
don't
want
to
run
this
thing
anymore,
councilor.
A
Patterson,
that's
probably
Australian
debate,
we'll
let
the
officers
answer
the
original
question,
which
probably
isn't
one.
There
is
probably
more
of
a
point.
So
we
won't
even
worry
about
that
one.
But
the
point
your
points
made
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
question
amongst
that:
Council
Owen
Jones
and
then
we'll
come
to
you.
Council
of
Warsaw.
J
E
In
a
way
or
sorry,
so
if
the
building
gets
built
and
there's
original
development
conditions
that
don't
allow
that
they
could
go
through
another
application
process
at
a
future
date,
but
we
would
pay
some
attention
to
the
original
approvals
so
that
so
A
further
question,
if
that's
okay
chairs,
so
just
in
regards
to
the
car
parking,
so
I
I'm
I'm
struggle
with
the
car
sharing
in
this
volume
for
this
side.
But
this
single
ownership
in
a
way
leads
to
better
outcomes
in
that
space.
But.
F
Thank
you
very
much,
Miss
chimney
for
the
benefit
of
the
committee.
My
questions
are
informed
by
two
things:
number
one
I
have
a
student
accommodation
operator
that
does
not
have
a
relationship
with
University
operating
in
my
patch
and
also
there's
a
development
application
of
foot
for
student
accommodation
in
Varsity,
where
I've
interrogated
some
of
these
issues.
My
first
question
just
relates
to
the
the
car
sharing
program
and
whether
the
proponent
down
the
track
would
be
able
to
rely
on
third-party
car
sharing
Services
being
available
to
satisfy
their
development
conditions.
F
So,
for
example,
at
the
moment
we've
got
like
car
next
door,
which
was
purchased
by
Uber
I
think,
but
there
are
others
that
allow
people
to
share
cars
within
a
neighborhood
and
I
just
wanted.
To
what
extent
could
it
be
arguable
down
the
track?
Should
this
operator
not
so
this
proponent
not
operate
a
car
sharing
scheme
themselves.
Could
they
rely
on
the
fact
that
there
are
car
sharing
services
available
within
their
transport
catchment.
J
Through
the
chair
to
the
councilor
condition,
19
is
in
relation
to
the
car
share
scheme
and
point
AI
states
that
a
minimum
17
car
shared
vehicles
must
be
provided
for
the
exclusive
use
of
all
residents,
and
these
must
not
be
made
available
for
the
use
by
the
general
public
and
that's
in
relation
to
either
the
operator
operating
operating.
The
car
share
scheme
or
a
third-party
operator.
All.
K
Through
you
Mr
chair,
there's
a
number
of
conditions
that
tie
their
car
share
vehicles
to
the
site
at
condition.
18
provide
a
minimum
of
44
car
parking
spaces
comprising
42
resonance
spaces,
including
17
car
share
spaces
condition.
19
also
mentions
the
17
car
share.
Vehicles
must
be
made
available
on
on
the
site
condition.
One
will
have
a
basement
plan
with
the
car
share
Vehicles.
There
are
a
number
of
conditions
that
actually
require
them
to
be
on
site.
F
F
My
other
question
just
relates
to
the
issue
of
whether
or
not
this
property
will
be
started
on.
If
there
is
a
body,
corporate
and
I'm
asking
this
because
of
the
question
raised
by
councilor
Patterson.
So
do
we
have
a
sense
of
how
this
property
will
be
titled
each
unit,
a
separate
title,
or
will
it
be
one?
J
F
Well,
I
thought
yeah,
and
that
gives
me
some
level
of
comfort,
given
the
issues
with
the
the
one
in
Varsity
Lakes,
where
development
compliance
became
very,
very
difficult,
because
we'd
know
whether
we
were
sort
of
pinging,
an
individual
lot
owner
or
the
body
corporate,
in
the
interests
of
the
on-site
manager,
we're
often
at
odds
with
the
interest
of
the
lot
owners.
Those
are
some
minor
questions.
Thank
you.
F
L
So
I
would
like
to
think
that
if
this
is
something
that
eventually
gets
supported,
that
it's
conditioned
tightly
so
that
what
we
see
here
on
on
the
plan
is
something
that's
going
to
be
delivered
going
forward,
especially
seeing
as
they
don't
have
open
space.
We
need
to
know
that
the
communal
space
for
the
students
is
is
maintained
at
what
we
see
here.
L
L
A
E
Thank
you,
so
I
was
just
interested
in
knowing
whether
or
not
we
have
as
a
committee,
any
flexibility
in
so
that
they've
effectively
asked
for
additional
height
and
then
and
but
they're.
Also
asking
for
Less
car
parking
and
there's
clearly
been
a
series
of
negotiations
that
have
happened
at
the
officer
level
in
regards
to
adding
another
basement.
E
M
A
H
3.3.2.1
in
Brackets
8,
as
the
development
exceeds
the
height
identified
on
the
building
height
overlay
map
B.
The
proposed
development
does
not
comply
with
specific
outcome
3.3.2.1
in
Brackets
9
as
follows:
one
proposed
development
does
not
deliver
a
reinforced
local
identity
and
sense
of
place,
given
the
development
does
not
provide
a
design
that
adequately
reflects
the
local
character.
Two,
the
development
does
not
provide
a
well-managed
interface
to
nearby
development
and
it's
not
within
the
reasonable
amenity
expectations
of
nearby
residents.
H
Given
the
inappropriate
setbacks
and
bulky
building
appearance,
three,
the
development
does
not
contribute
to
an
ordered,
ordered
local
Skyline,
given
the
increased
height
proposed
in
the
appearance
of
the
building
and
for
the
development
does
not
provide
an
excellent
standard
of
appearance
of
built
form
and
Street.
Edge
to
the
development
does
not
comply
with
the
purpose
of
the
medium
density
residential
Zone
code
as
follows.
H
Three.
The
development
does
not
comply
with
the
purpose
of
the
general
development
Provisions
code
as
follows:
a
the
development
does
not
comply
with
performance
outcome,
2
and
overall
outcome
9.4.4.2
in
Brackets
two
in
Brackets,
a
as
a
development
is
likely
to
cause
an
amenity
impact
to
the
surrounding
area
as
a
result
of
increased
traffic
generated
from
the
development
4..
H
The
development
does
not
comply
with
the
purpose
of
the
transport
code
as
follows:
the
development
does
not
comply
with
performance
outcome,
1
and
overall
outcome
9.4.13.2
in
Brackets,
two
in
Brackets
e
in
Brackets
two
as
the
car
sharing
scheme
proposed
by
the
applicant,
has
not
sufficiently
demonstrated
that
the
parking
demand
generated
by
the
development
could
be
accommodated
within
the
subject
site
and
the
likely
utilization
of
a
non-street
parking
would
not
be
consistent
with
the
community's
reasonable
expectations
for
a
development.
In
this
context,
5.
the
findings
on
material
questions
of
fact
are.
H
Development
does
not
comply
with
the
relevant
assessment
benchmarks.
There
are
no
matters
which
warrant
approval
of
this
application.
Despite
non-compliance,
pursuant
to
section
60
in
Brackets,
2
and
brackets
B
of
the
planning
act,
2016
and
conditioning
compliance
is
not
possible,
as
doing
so
would
result
in
major
changes
to
the
development
pursuant
section
60
point
in
Brackets,
two
in
Brackets,
D
of
the
planning
act,
2016
and
six,
the
evidence
on
or
other
material
on
which
the
findings
were
based
are
the
common
material.
H
H
H
The
ride
share
scheme
came
in
at
the
12th
hour
and
yeah.
So
that
doesn't
give
me
much
joy
in
thinking
that
that
this
will
be
a
success.
This
development
I
just
want
to
talk
about
the
and
most
of
the
my
reasons
for
refusal
to
really
go
with
whether
we
really
need
to
approve
a
50
uplift
for
this.
This
building.
H
H
You
could
not
actually
say
that
that
there
was
not
a
a
decent
effort
put
in
for
the
appearance
of
the
building
I.
In
my
opinion,
this
development
doesn't
constitute
an
excellent
standard
of
appearance.
The
no
balconies,
for
instance
and
I,
know
that
that
in
the
report
it
says
something
about
there's
a
risk
assessment
where
student
accommodation
having
balconies
well
I,
know
of
one
along
Bermuda
Street,
that's
been
there
for
years
that
has
balconies
and
as
far
as
I
know,
there's
been
no
incidents.
H
I
think
that
usually
with
University
students,
I'm
they're
adults,
I,
just
don't
get
that
that
argument,
I'm
sorry
and
it
certainly
does
not
meet
the
amenity
expectation
for
residents
in
the
area.
This
is
medium
density,
residential
area,
The,
Zone
code,
States
for
rooming
accommodation.
More
than
four
unrelated
people
density
does
not
exceed
one
bedroom
per
133
square
meters.
This
development
is
proposing
one
bedroom
per
5.5
square
meters,
so
you
can
understand
why
nearly
200
people
in
the
vicinity
objected
to
this
development
application
and
can
I
State.
H
Here
now,
as
with
counselor
Gates's
comment,
we
certainly
do
need
Student
accommodation
throughout
the
city,
but
it
has
to
be
the
right
side
and
it
has
to
be
the
right
provider,
and
we
have
to
have
some
surety
of
that.
What
I've
heard
today,
there's
no
surety
of
who
is
going
to
run
this
who's
going
to
be
the
organizer
or
the
Management
Group
to
run
the
student
accommodation
building
and
a
very
likely
touch
on
the
Southern
Cross
uni
being
benefiting
from
student
accommodation
in
in
this
area.
H
I
get
that,
but
there's
been
no
commitment
from
that
University
either
again.
I.
Don't
much
have
much
confidence
in
how
this
is
going
to
work
and
I.
Guess
the
elephant
in
the
room,
of
course,
is
the
parking
we've
got
a
four
hour
four
hour
regulated
parking
area
around
where
this
application
is
coming
forward.
D
Young,
very
briefly,
chairman
thanks
I
think
councilor
O'neill's
encapsulated
all
of
the
arguments
very
well.
Then
I'm
happy
to
support
the
proposal.
That's
before
us
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
the
comment.
That's
been
made
that
we
certainly
need
Student
accommodation
and
it's
it's
unfortunate
that
we're
in
a
position
where
we're
having
to
refuse
this
thanks.
Jeff.
A
H
A
A
Okay,
councilors,
there
is
a
presentation,
but
I
haven't
had
a
response
from
anyone
seeking
the
presentation,
this
one
so
no
need
for
presentation,
cool,
I'm,
happy
to
move
the
officer
recommendation,
Council
Owen
Jones
seconds.
So
we
now
have
a
motion
on
the
floor,
but
I'm
happy
to
now
go
to
councilor
Castro
for
his
questions.
N
Thanks
Mr,
chairman
and
I
certainly
won't
be
opening
my
remarks
with
councilor
O'neill's
closing
remarks
so
I'd
like
to
thank
the
committee
for
their
support,
because
clearly,
there's
not
a
lot
already.
It's
moved.
We've
already
had
a
chance
to
to
eat
my
last
bit
of
pear
on
the
plate,
but
there
we
go,
but
all
right,
look.
I
I
do
actually
have
concerns
with
this.
N
With
this
application,
I've
spoken
at
length
to
the
adjoining
of
one
of
the
adjoining
properties,
but
to
cut
a
long
story
short.
There
are
two
main
issues,
but
one
of
the
other
issues,
and
we
can't
do
much
about
it.
Is
you
actually
look
very
very
closely
at
this
application,
where
you
don't
need
to
look
back
closely
because
it
sticks
out
like
the
proverbial
dogs,
but
there
is
a
duplication
on
on
both
sides
where
you've
got
basically
two
living
areas,
which
is
rather
unusual.
A
N
O
O
N
Yeah,
okay,
so
the
that
that
was,
but
there
were
two
two
main
questions.
One
is
the
concern
about
the
the
flood
zone,
so
the
I
would
actually
like
to
know
whether
there's
any
possibility
of
actually
moving
back
the
so
from
the
I
think
it's
about
18
meters
from
the
from
the
riverfront
at
this
point
in
time,
but
of
course
the
pool
the
spa
area
is
all
built
in
that
flood
zone.
N
There
is
a
concern
from
the
neighbor
about
about
the
impact
that
that
that
area,
and
also
the
fact
that,
as
I
say,
there
are
like
the
two
wings
of
the
house,
there's
like
a
barbecue.
It's
only
about
2.9
meters
from
the
fence,
so
with
the
pool
there
Etc
whether
this
could
be
moved
back
further.
Can
we
condition
this
in
any
way
to
to
actually
pull
that
so
the
pool
area,
the
spa
area,
that's
in
the
flood
zone
back
from
the
water.
P
Further
through
the
chair,
we,
our
Hydraulics
team,
has
looked
at
it.
So
conveyance
where
the
proposed,
where
the
dwelling
is
doesn't
affect
conveyance
flood
storage.
We
can
probably
go
through
some
drawings.
If
need
be,
and
at
least
you
can
explain
further,
but
they
do
they
have
accommodated
flood
storage.
It's
elevated,
there's
ability
for
flood
storage
beneath
the
building
and
within
a
tank.
So
Hydraulics
has
really
been
accommodated
in
the
in
the
present
in
the
present
proposal.
So
there's
no
real
ability.
N
And,
given
that
everything
else
has
basically
been
moved
to
the
absolute
extremities
of
the
of
the
setbacks
is
that
that
partial
third
story
is
obviously
a
an
outside
entertaining
area,
and
the
concern
is
that
that
that
could
actually
be
moved
closer
to
the
fence
line
to
the
property
at
number.
12
I
think
it
is
16
16
to
20
or
12
to
20
12
to
16..
Sorry,
that
is
there
any
condition
that
we
can
put
there
to
make
sure
that
that
balcony
can't
be
extended
further
to
the
South
I
think
it
is.
N
N
O
A
N
K
Through
you
Mr
chair,
that's
a
great
question.
Thank
you
of
Boston.
The
state
policies
is
really
around
residential
Zone
sites.
This
is
in
the
limited
development
Zone
in
the
Carrara
Mary
Mack
floodplain
area,
so
it
the
state
planning
regulations
wouldn't
actually
apply
to
this
site.
So,
in
answer
to
your
question,
our
condition
condition
4
would
prevail.
F
K
K
F
So
my
question
is:
have
you
now
proposed
conditions
of
approval?
Are
we
silent
on
the
issue
of
short-term
accommodation
and
would
it
be
unreasonable,
for
the
sake
of
the
community,
to
clarify
our
position
that
this
development
is
supported
on
the
basis
that
it's
providing
housing
and
not
the
Ritz
Carlton
Junior.
K
K
F
I,
don't
see
how
weak
how
it's
reasonable
for
us
to
attach
an
anti-party
house
provision,
but
not
take
it
one
small
step
for
forward
and
say
that
by
party
house
we
mean
all
short-term
accommodation
and
I
think
it's
an
important
distinction
to
make
because
definitions
change
all
the
time.
We
have
historic
approvals
that
had
talked
about
family
accommodation
that
no
longer
exists
so
I.
Just
wonder:
is
it
genuinely
all
that
unreasonable
to
say
no
short-term
accommodation,
given
that
we've
already
gone
90
of
the
way
there
by
saying
no
to
party
houses.
E
J
E
A
F
Strong
sorry,
Mr
chairman,
he
did
ask
a
question
and
I
deserve
an
opportunity
to
respond
to
it.
If
you've
accepted
the
question,
make
it
snappy
so
I
have
no
problem
with
properties
being
used
on
an
ad
hoc
basis
for
short-term
purposes,
but
I
do
have
an
issue
with
properties
being
put
on
the
short
term
accommodation
Market,
and
that
is
the
outcome
that
I'm
seeking
to
prevent
in
this
instance,
so
I
I
accept
and
I
congratulate
City
officers
for
picking
up
on
the
risk
that
party
houses
pose
to
residential
amenity.
F
All
I'm
merely
attempting
to
do
is
to
make
sure
that
we
use
a
slightly
broader
definition
to
give
us
some
security
moving
forward,
but
I
think
adult
use
for
the
likes
of
Julia
Julia
Gila,
so
she's
former
prime
minister
I
might
say
this.
Isn't
a
partisan
D.A,
I
I
have
no
issue
with.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman.
L
Thank
you
through
the
chair.
More
of
a
comment
than
a
question
on
the
two
bathroom
two
kitchen
thing
is
that
I
do
know
of
having
Hedges
Avenue
in
my
area
where
there
are
substantial
homes
where
people
have
spent
a
lot
of
money
to
this
size
that
are
coming
under
that
because
they
have
a
staff
that
looks
after
their
house
and
the
staff
is
at
one
end
of
the
house
and
the
rest
of
the
houses
for
the
family
use.
And
if
the
family's
not
over,
is
overseas,
it's
a
staff
thing.
L
So
it's
not
something
that
you're
going
to
say.
Let's
have
a
busload
of
of
schoolies
from
say
la
coming
here
to
celebrate.
I!
Think
it's
more
along
the
fact
that
a
lot
of
these
people
well
not
a
lot,
but
people
who
are
building
and
investing
that
amount
of
money.
In
a
property
of
this
size.
Chances
are
they're
going
to
have
support
staff
that
will
be
living
on
site.
A
N
A
F
K
F
Exclusion,
okay,
sure
as
party
house
or
short-term
accommodation
and
importantly
I,
a
question
really.
This
doesn't
actually
alter
the
development
approval
because
they
do
not
have
a
right
to
operate
it
as
short-term
accommodation.
They
require
they.
They
need
to
Lodge
a
fresh
ba,
so
this
doesn't
affect
them
at
all.
But
what
it
does
do
is
give
confidence
to
the
neighbors
that
there
absolutely
has
to
be
a
fresh
D.A.
A
A
A
A
Q
This
is
the
subject
site.
We
have
the
development
footprint,
including
the
car
parking
changes
in
red
and
just
a
general
indicative
building
outline
in
blue
foreign
obviously
includes
the
various
Village
Roadshow
theme,
parks
and
tourism
attractions
on
the
site,
including
wet
and
Wilds
movie
worlds,
Outback,
spectacular
and
Topgolf,
as
well
as
the
film
studios.
Q
Q
Q
Q
The
key
considerations
of
The
Proposal
are
discussed
thoroughly
in
the
report
are
just
noting
for
the
purpose
of
committee
today
that
the
building
height
it
does
the
50
uplift.
Provisions
of
the
Strategic
framework
do
not
apply
as
the
site
isn't
not
within
an
urban
neighborhood.
It's
identified
as
a
theme
park
in
the
Strategic
framework
mapping,
which
in
turn
anticipates,
as
I,
said
before
our
major
tourism
development
to
support
the
existing
theme
park.
Q
So
this
is
just
a
car
parking
layout
diagram,
showing
on
the
left
hand,
side
is
the
existing
car
parking
areas,
including
the
sealed
areas
in
blue
and
on
the
right
hand.
Side
is,
is
the
proposed
development
showing
where
the
development
footprint
results
in
the
removal
of
some
of
those
existing
sealed
car
parking
areas
so
at
at
the
back
there
in
zones
e
they're,
adding
new,
sealed
car
parking?
Q
As
the
car
parking
Supply
is
expected
to
meet
the
peak
demand
for
the
site.
Notwithstanding
this
offices,
as
a
result
of
some
submissions
received,
officers,
did
take
a
close
look
at
what
potential
impacts
there
could
be
from
overflow
parking
overflow
parking
in
terms
of
off-site
parking,
but
offices.
We
found
it
very
unlikely
that
any
impacts
would
occur
due
to
the
location
of
the
site
and
the
inability
to
I
suppose
park
nearby
in
a
way
that
would
affect
businesses
or
nearby
residential
areas.
Q
Just
a
floor
plan
of
the
function
facility,
showing
its
layout
also
on
the
screen,
are
the
recommended
hours
of
operation,
which
we've
closely
considered
and
they're
embedded
in
the
relevant
condition
in
a
decision
package,
yeah
and
also
detail
within
the
report.
Were
the
26
properly
made
submissions,
including
a
few
in
support.
Q
A
Kick
off
with
the
first
question
then
go
to
councilor
Peter
young,
but
I
noticed
in
the
submissions.
There
was
concerns
about
the
clearing
of
trees
for
development,
but
I
couldn't
work
out
where
that
actually
would
occur
in
this.
Is
that
because
there
was
a
different
version
of
this
originally
and
it's
changed
since
then,.
Q
There
are
some
Landscaping
trees
that
are
proposed
to
be
removed,
but
nothing
of
environmental
value.
So
there
was
no
no
con,
no
concerns
whatsoever
from
Council
offices.
In
regards
to
vegetation
removal.
There
is
some
amendments
required
to
the
the
banks
of
the
existing
salt
water
creek,
that's
just
to
improve
flooding
and
hydraulics
through
the
area
which
should
benefit
the
entire
catchment,
but
there's
basically
in
straightforward
terms:
there's
no
environmental
concerns
whatsoever
on
the
site.
Yeah.
E
Can
I
ask
some
follow-up
wisdom
too,
that?
Yes,
oh
so
at
least
one
of
the
submitters
was
concerned
about
koala
habitat
being
lost.
None
of
the
trees
that
are
in
the
car
parking
area
that
is
being
removed
are
actually
koala
habitat.
Are
they
through
the
show?
That's
that's
correct,
yeah,
so
I
think
that
there's
been
a
little
bit
of
an
extension
of
the
truth
in
regards
to
the
loss
of
koala
habitat
when
the
area
that
the
proposed
built
form
is
going
on
is
effectively.
D
First
question
was
about
the
trees
that
are
to
be
removed
from
Zone
e,
and
if
that
was
the
the
case,
that's
where
you're,
anticipating
the
trees
to
be
lost
along
the
frontage
there
they're
pretty
substantial
and
they
were
introduced
some
years
ago
in
a
deliberate
attempt
to
create
a
visual
amenity
barrier
might
say
or
component
and
I
am
unhappy.
With
that
being
reduced
removed.
Do
they
really
need
to
be
removed,
is
because
they're
quite
close
to
the
front
of
the
site.
Q
D
So
could
you
let
me
know
before
Council
how
many
trees,
sorry,
how
many
car
parking
spaces
would
be
lost
if
we
actually
retain
those
existing
trees
along
the
frontage.
Thank
you.
I
understand
that
there's
no
anticipated
use
of
the
car
park
that's
already
approved
on
the
Northern
side
of
Saltwater
Creek
and
cops
road.
Is
that
correct.
D
Up
on
that,
good
I
used
to
be
the
representative
for
this
all
of
oxenford
south
of
Michigan
drives
all
of
that
red
hashed
area.
So
I'm,
conscious
of
the
community
concerns
about
some
acoustic
impacts
upon
them
in
the
general
operation.
Normal
operation
of
movie
World,
particularly
the
high
performance
vehicles
that
are
used
for
the
cop
show,
and
the
squealing
of
tires,
which
occurs
a
few
times
a
day,
is
the
building
likely
to
reflect
any
of
that
noise.
I
know,
there's
been
acoustic
reports
done.
Has
that
been
a
particular
matter
of
attention?
D
Q
Through
the
chair,
it
wasn't
in
their
acoustic
report.
Their
acoustic
report
focused
I
suppose
on
the
proposed
development
being
the
function
facility
in
the
hotel
and
what
potential
impacts
that
would
have.
It
didn't
include
anything
in
regards
to
potential
changes
to
to
the
existing
noises
from
movie
worlds.
D
D
Also
in
regard
to
signage,
is
that
a
thing
that
we
can
address
now
because
there's
been
some
pretty
garish
sort
of
signage
put
up
in
this
vicinity
for
the
top
golf
and
and
I
think
the
Green
Lantern
ride
I
mean
there's
an
enormous
signs
and
not
necessarily
great
and
I,
see
the
signage
on
the
building
itself
here
or
the
the
V
there
for
village?
Is
there
any
other
proposed
signage
that
we're
aware
of
through.
Q
The
chain
not
through
this
application,
any
defined
advertising
device
would
need
separate
approval
through
local
laws.
Right
have
I
believe
in
the
past,
as
an
overall
visual
amenity
and
design
issue
officers
and
essentially,
obviously,
the
committee
could
apply
a
more
specific
condition
regarding
any
any
advertised
future
advertising
devices
and
any
requirements
for
that
that
the
subsequent,
like
or
law
application,
would
have
to
deal
with.
D
D
Pretty
limited
and
Saltwater
Creek
is
a
fairly
significant
environmental
value
or
it
should
have
it
and
I.
Just
wonder
if
there's
any
attention
to
that,
you
did
mention
hydraulic
function
but
I'm
more
interested
in
the
environmental
function,
because
in
the
vicinity
of
their
property,
it's
largely
been
damaged
over
the
years
by
one
bit
of
development
or
another
it'd
be
nice
to
see
a
bit
of
TLC
for
the
creek
in
that
vicinity
through.
Q
The
chair
definitely
so
as
part
of
their
Works
to
to
the
banks
of
existing
Saltwater
Creek,
which
is
a
flood
conveyance
Creek.
Obviously
they
are
proposing
some
Rehabilitation
to
the
banks,
obviously
including
additional
ecological
vegetation.
So
that's
all
part
of
it.
They
proposed
that
as
I
suppose
a
an
offset
to
the
creek
work.
So
we
would
anticipate
that
through
that
future
Environmental
Management
approval.
We
would
definitely
see
some
both
Visual
and
environmental
benefits.
To
that
correct,
then
that
diagram
there
provides
a
brief
visual
of
that.
D
B
B
Is
it
I
I'm
very
familiar
with
those,
because
I
actually
caught
a
member
of
the
community,
cutting
some
of
the
branches
off
one
day
and
I
stopped
and
had
a
conversation
with
him,
so
they're
pretty
Scrappy,
but
I
just
wondered
if
it
was
the
officer's
belief.
That
is
it
hedging
that
we
can
see
along
there
and
that
it
would
provide
a
better
screen
for
the
new
car
parking.
B
If
it
was
a
solid
sort
of
buffer
to
the
car
park,
it
would
be,
in
my
view,
a
superior
outcome
to
what's
there
now
with
the
car,
the
new
car
parks
behind
it.
But
if
we
could
have
a
look
at
what
type
of
planting
that
is,
I
won't
be
at
full
Council,
but
the
other
councilors
I'm
sure
could
consider
that
should
should
we
be
able
to
get
more
information
on
that.
Certainly.
Q
And
probably
just
further
to
that
through
the
chair,
we'd
anticipate
it
would
be
an
improvement
as,
as
we
probably
know,
most
of
us
drive
past
this
site,
it's
a
lot
of
mature,
very
tall
vegetation.
That's
completely
visual
visually
permeable
through
so
getting
a
bit
of
a
balance
in
terms
of
on
the
ground.
Screening
would
be
a
benefit,
despite
the
loss
of
potentially
some
of
that
more
mature
vegetation.
Thank.
A
You
officers
will
take
that
as
a
an
action
before
the
full
council
meeting
to
provide
a
memo
to
all
committee
members
and
non-committee
members,
just
on
that
particular
Landscaping
strip
and
I'm,
hoping
that
there
might
be
a
couple
of
the
visual
renders
of
the
site
that
maybe
pick
up
what
it's
intent
to
look
like
is
Castleton
Jones.
Your
question.
E
My
question
is
really
not
dissimilar
to
councilor
Youngs
in
regards
to
the
interaction
with
the
cops
Road
property
also
owned
by
Village
and
the
currency
of
that
existing
approval.
My
understanding
is
that
it's
still
on
foot,
it
was
resolved
through
through
a
planning
environment
called
action
through.
Q
The
chat
I
wasn't
around
for
the
original
approval
if
it
was
a
court
approval,
but
it
is
still
valid.
However,
it
is
a
it
was
a
superseded
planning
scheme
request,
so
not
a
full
development
approval,
so
they
would
need
to
subsequently
subsequently
come
in
under
that
superseded.
Planning
scheme
request
for
a
full
assessment
essentially,
but
it
only
permitted
a
six
story
about
27
meter
high
Hotel
building,
which
the
applicant
is
sorry
we're
a.
K
E
Can
I
ask
about,
if
you
don't
mind,
share
the
interaction
of
that
MCU
with
this
that
that
MCU,
one
of
the
conditions
required
a
pedestrian
linkage
across
Saltwater
Creek,
but
that
would
have
required
state
government,
no
consent
and
approvals
and
I,
don't
think
that
that's
been
received?
How
would
that
interact
with
visa?
Do
these
approvals
and
the
rehabilitation
areas
supersede
those
earlier
approvals.
K
E
Okay,
so
this
actually
doesn't
prevent
that
pedestrian
linkage
happening
because
it's
happened
after
okay.
So,
okay
in
regards
to
the
proposed
20
special
event,
type
nights,
I,
I
I,
don't
have
a
problem
with
them,
provided
that
we
are
able
to
manage
any
complaints
regarding,
in
particular,
acoustic
issues.
E
Q
We've
asked
the
applicant
to
provide
forward
notice
of
10
business
days
to
all
the
residents
in
that
area,
as
you've,
probably
seen
so
that
there's
some
forewarning
and
and
service
on
their
behalf,
but
I
might
just
get
Peter
Lindsay
to
go
through
the
potential
complaints
process.
If
there
is
complaints
received
about
the
function
facility.
R
Through
the
chair,
if
they
were
to
be
compliance,
the
area
would
be
licensed
or
through
liquor,
licensing
so
in
lieu
of
any
conditions
that
are
placed
through
the
development
approval
through
complaint
registers,
things
like
that
the
complaints
would
initially
go
to
Legal
licensing.
We
would
then
deal
with
the
complaints
if
there
were
to
be
conditions
placed
on
the
development
approval.
The
development
compliance
would
then
action
those
compliance.
E
D
Q
Q
Q
Through
the
chair,
it's
actually
probably
just
going
further
into
that.
It's
in
the
major
tourisms
I
encoded,
there's
an
acceptable
outcome,
specifically
for
Movie
World
Village
Road
shows
site
that
talks
about
these
are
the
acceptable
outcomes
for
the
site
for
noise.
I
can
probably
point
to
that
in
the
report.
D
E
Correct
yeah,
so
to
kind
of
just
say
in
regards
to
noise
and
amenity
issues
very
broadly,
I
think
that
the
community
of
oxenford
accepts
after
30
odd
years
of
trading,
that
the
movie
well
performs
with
an
important
function
for
that
local
community.
It
provides
an
enormous
amount
of
employment
and
I
think
that
there's
an
overall
expectation
that
there
will
be
activity
on
site.
It's
just
wrestling
with
that
interface
between
what
the
residential
Community
are
prepared
to
accept
and
that
economic,
a
generation
of
of
activity.
E
So
so
I,
don't
know
whether
or
not
the
answer
lies
in
a
number
less
than
20.
You
know
for
the
special
events,
which
would
still
allow
movie
world
at
a
future
date
to
come
back
and
have
a
conversation
about
extending
it
so
because,
once
we
give
the
20
it's
hard
to
regulate
it
back,
but
if
it
was,
for
example,
12
which
is
once
a
month
and
then
and
then
maybe
by
exception.
So
if
they
needed
to
do
15,
they
could
make
an
approach
to
to
the
CEO
under
the
under
the
code.
A
Other
questions
for
officers
at
all,
okay,
so
I,
just
one
question
further
question
quickly:
I
noticed
in
the
submissions
there
was
concerns
from
isometer
or
submitters
around
loss
of
Economics
for
existing
businesses
and
restaurants.
In
the
area
there
was
also
submitters
who
were
concerned
with
the
opposite,
but
can
I
just
check
the
restaurant
offerings
and
Cafe
offerings
that
will
be
part
of
this
facility.
They
are
open
to
anyone
in
the
public
to
come
to.
Aren't
they
not
just
specifically.
Q
E
Q
Q
I
suppose
it
is
a
it's
an
open,
I.
Suppose
it's
a
fairly
subjective
Manner
and
it's
it's.
A
broad
town
planning
issue
offices
arrived
at
20
through
some
discussions
with
the
applicant
and
on
balance
I
suppose
it
was
less
than
it
would
be
less
than
every
Fortnight.
That
residents
may
expect
noise
from
this,
so
that
was
a
reasonable
figure
and
the
applicant
also
sort
of
indicated
20
was
was
sufficient
for.
F
Q
Through
the
chart,
I
suppose
it
is
open,
officers
could
have
applied
no
conditions
whatsoever
and
not
simply
allowed
Village
Roadshow
to
operate
it
as
they
please,
but
we
did
arrive
at
that
figure
through
some
consideration
of
the
overall
Zone
code.
It's
intent,
the
higher
order,
strategic
outcomes
of
the
city
plan
and
obviously,
some
of
the
concerns
raised
by
the
residents.
F
M
Know
what
did
that
three
Mr
chair,
sorry
Thumb
in
a
couple
of
parts
of
that
question,
Council
of
also
I,
don't
know,
there's
any
precedent
elsewhere,
because
this
is
sort
of
the
first
application
of
this
nature.
We've
received
like
any
application.
It's
it's
an
applicant
driven
process.
They've
proposed
these
events,
they've
been
assessed
by
our
officers
and
I.
Guess
that's
the
level
of
assessment
that
occurred
and
resulted
in
a
recommendation
that
the
20
events
be
approved.
So
that's
what
was
proposed.
What
was
assessed
so
I
can't
tell
you
what
a
court
might.
E
Just
clarified,
this
is
special
events.
This
is
outside
the
built
form,
so
it
doesn't
prevent
the
the
convention
portion
of
the
building
being
used
365
days
of
the
year.
This
is
this
is
what
happens
on
the
greens.
This
is
where
you
know
we're
going
to
protect
the
lifestyle
of
the
adjacent
residents.
We
actually
need
to
do
some
things
every
now
and
then
to
do
that
so
Council.
A
A
E
You
so
just
in
regards
to
the
special
events
in
regards
to
Movie
World.
There
have
actually
been
a
really
good,
I'm
going
to
say
corporate
citizen
in
the
time
that
I've
been
an
elected
representative,
they
actually
contribute
to
the
to
the
community
Through
employment,
but
they
also
are
pretty
reasonable
people
to
deal
with.
E
So
the
the
black
and
white
elephant
approval
is
is
12.,
if
that's
the
mind
of
the
committee
and
the
council,
but
in
my
mind
it
doesn't
necessarily
prevent
the
operation
coming
back
at
a
future
day
and
seeking
more.
If
things
have
worked
out.
Okay,
you
know
so
so
I
think
so,
along
the
way
we
just
have
to
strike
that
balance
and
and
I,
don't
think
it's
an
unreasonable
balance.
E
You
know
the
the
building
itself
is
a
significant
investment
in
the
tourism
output
of
this
city
and
it
there's
been
ever
since
I've
been
a
boy,
there's
been
talk
of
hotels
at
Dreamworld
or
hotels,
at
Movie,
World
and
there's
been
several
applications
and
several
approvals.
But
I
think
this
is
probably
the
closest.
E
This
city
is
going
to
come
to
having
a
one
of
our
major
theme
park
owners
in
the
north,
investing
in
a
hotel
outcome
and
they
plan
to
run
it
themselves,
they're
a
successful
operator
off
the
of
the
Nara
Resort
North
of
SeaWorld,
and
they
were
going
to
develop
that
same
model
here
and
I.
Think
that,
given
the
importance
of
the
film
industry
to
the
Gold
Coast
as
well
having
this
type
of
accommodation
immediately
adjacent
to
our
Premier
film
studios
makes
a
world
of
sense
as
well.
E
The
the
height
of
the
building
initially
is
pretty
challenging
because
it
is
actually
a
significant
building
adjacent
to
the
M1
and
without
a
doubt,
that's
something
that
I
think.
Both
the
officers
myself
and
the
community
have
paid
a
fair
amount
of
attention
to
I
think
the
chances
of
a
second
building
at
this
height
turning
up
on
site
are
next
to
nil.
E
E
E
The
the
impacts
on
amenity
that
there's
been
some
submissions,
not
a
lot,
not
a
lot
in
the
scheme
of
things,
but
some
submissions,
and
there
was
concerns
in
regards
to
visual
amenity
and
impacts
on
neighbors
and
I.
Think
that
the
distance
from
the
the
hotel
to
the
neighbors
some
250
meters
is
is
is
is
kind
of
manages
that
there
are
no
external
balconies.
There's
the
the
building
is
shaped
in
a
form
to
try
to
help
alleviate
some
of
the
reflection
that
might
come
from
it.
E
There
is.
There
was
some
concerns
from
the
community
in
regards
to
the
visual
impact
of
Lights
and
and
I
think
the
officers
have
managed
that
as
well,
so
overall
I
think
that
it's
a
it's
a
significant
investment
in
the
in
the
north.
The
the
report
talks
about
some
300
million
dollars
worth
of
construction
costs.
I
think
that
that
was
maybe
when
it
was
submitted.
There's
been
a
little
bit
of
growth
in
the
in
the
cost.
E
A
A
Q
Q
B
I
just
I'm
interested
to
know
how
councilor
Owen
Jones
has
been
impacted
by
noise
complaints,
because,
before
you
answer
the
question,
I'll
tell
you
what
I
was
going
to
suggest
that
if
we
limit
it
to
12,
we
do
so
with
a
Proviso
that
any
additional
special
events
be
the
subject
of
an
application
to
council.
If
you
had
but
I,
don't
know
the
through.
Q
The
shower
volume
of
I
will
just
say
something
quickly.
The
special
events
under
the
acceptable
outcome
have
to
comply
with
a
different
noise
criteria
to
what
we're
permitting
under
the
development
permits
special
events.
So,
under
the
the
recommendation
for
this
D.A
there,
they
have
a
different,
a
higher
noise
level
permitted
for
the
special
special
events
as
opposed
to
the
AO.
So
that
would
be
some
difference.
There.
B
E
Already
happen,
but
I'm
also
not
opposed
if
they
get
to
12
and
they
haven't
been
complaints
that
they
can
go
through
a
process
of
actually
seeking
approval
from
the
CEO
for
more,
if
that
or
the
council,
in
at
a
few
in
as
a
future
application.
So
so
it's
kind
of
a
a
bit
of
a
mix.
I
like
I,
haven't
spoken
to
movie
well
directly
about
how
important
the
number
of
20
may
or
may
not
be
to
them.
E
But
12
was
the
number
that
we
struck
for
oxenford
in
regards
to
allowing
for
blasting
for
the
for
the
Quarry
once
a
month.
You
know
we're
dealing
with
potentially
the
Fright
Nights
and
the
white
Knights
and
all
of
the
other
things
that
may
happen,
and
then
how
does
that
impact
on
the
grass
and
the
and
and
special
activity?
So
thank.
D
On
thanks,
chair
I,
think
councilor
Aaron
Jones
has
spoken
pretty
comprehensively
about
the
proposal
and
I
agree
with
much
of
that
and
happy
to
support
The
Proposal
with
the
change
of
or
the
reduction
of,
special
events
to
12
in
the
conditions
I
do
have.
One
I
certainly
welcome
this
investment.
It's
going
to
be
very
significant.
Building
that
we'll
see
on
the
approach
to
the
Gold
Coast
from
the
north.
D
The
main
concern
I
have
about
this
is
any
Reliance
in
the
future
on
that
car
park
on
the
North
side,
which
is
not
part
of
this
application.
But
clearly
part
of
this
application
is
to
take
out
415
car
parks
and
I've
seen
that
car
park
really
full
many
many
times
and
I
know
that's
all
anticipated
and
they
think
that
it
can
be
accommodated.
D
But
my
concern
is
that
there
will
be
Reliance
upon
that
car
park
that
has
been
approved
on
the
Northern
side
of
the
creek,
and
it
is
a
real
choke
point
trying
to
get
across
the
creek
there
on
a
single
lane
bridge,
and
it
would
be
a
really
significant
addition
to
the
traffic
snails
in
the
area
in
peak
hours.
Obviously,
a
lot
of
people
coming
to
the
theme
park
and
leaving
from
it
their
timing
coincides
with
normal
peak
hour.
B
Subject
of
this,
application
is
okay,
so
I
just
want
to
make
the
comment
that
I'm
fully
supportive
I
think
this
is
a
really
good
indicator
of
our
City's
growth
and
the
success
of
the
theme
parks
in
this
city.
I
also
wanted
to
acknowledge
that
Village
Roadshow
were
exceptional
right
throughout
the
covert
period
in
supporting
new
development
at
their
sites
across
the
city
and
using
that
time
to
keep
investing
in
the
city
for
the
the
betterment
of
each
of
the
theme
parks,
and
this
is
just
the
icing
on
the
cake
for
me.
A
Interestingly,
two
on
page
237,
where
it
talks
about-
and
this
wasn't
the
figure
that
I
was
aware
of
that
one
in
two
conferences
held
in
Queensland
are
held
on
the
Gold
Coast.
We
have
heard
continuously
from
the
former
GGC
and
from
members
of
that,
how
important
that
conference
spaces
are
apparently
it's
referred
to
as
mice
activity,
meetings,
incentives,
conferences
and
events,
but
one
in
two
of
those
held
in
Queensland
happening
in
the
Gold
Coast,
and
that
growth
is
going
to
continue
and
that
can't
all
be
accommodated
in
our
existing
facilities
and
existing
sites.
A
So
seeing
this
site
take
up
that
as
well,
is
welcome
and
will
be
a
huge
addition
to
that
part
of
our
tourism
conference.
Market
and
I
was
just
going
to
finish
by
finally
saying
that
some
obviously
given
the
scale
of
this
and
where
it
is,
it's
had
an
incredibly
thorough
investment
from
offices
and
and
to
thank
David
and
Roger
and
the
team
on
this
one
for
the
assessment
and
the
recommendation
Jones.
Do
you
wish
to
close
in
that
case,
we'll
take
the
vote,
all
those
in
favor,
that's
carried
unanimous.
Thank
you.
Officers.
S
S
So
here
we
see
the
subject
site
counselors
It's
in
medium
density,
residential
Stone.
The
site
is
in
proximity
to
the
Southport
State
School
on
Park
and
St
Hilda's
school.
It's
also
nearby
the
Southport
priority
Development
Area
to
the
East
and
within
600
meters,
walking
distance
from
a
light
rail
stop.
S
The
proposed
this
is
the
proposal
that
we
see
on
screen.
It's
a
as
I
said:
multiple
dwelling,
31,
two
bedroom
units
and
four
three
bedroom
units
equating
to
a
total
of
35
units,
non-stories
29.5
meters,
which
exceeds
them
up
height
of
23
meters
for
the
site.
There's
a
combination
of
that
grade
and
basement
level.
Car
parking.
S
This
slide
demonstrates
the
city
plan
parameters
which
apply
so
as
I've
said,
the
site,
subject
to
a
building
height
overlay
of
23
meters.
There's
a
residential
density
designation
of
one
bedroom
per
50..
It's
in
an
urban
neighborhood.
It's
also
in
the
light
rail
urban
renewal
area,
specifically
the
transition
area.
S
So
the
key
consideration
for
the
proposal
councilors
relates
to
building
heart,
as
I've
said
it
does
exceed
the
map
type.
However,
because
it's
in
an
urban
neighborhood,
it's
subject
to
the
50
uplift
provisions,
officers
have
determined
that
it
meets
all
the
relevant
provisions
of
that
test,
namely
that
it
reinforces
the
local
identity
and
sense
of
place
provides
a
well-managed
interface
to
adjacent
properties,
and
it
provides
an
excellent
standard
of
appearance.
S
Another
key
consideration
relates
to
car
parking,
so
the
acceptable
outcome
for
parking
Supply
requires
45
resident
spaces
and
six
visitor
spaces.
The
applicant
is
Seeking
a
performance
outcome
whereby
35
resident
spaces
are
proposed,
along
with
two
car
share
spaces
for
residents
and
five
visitor
spaces
in
relation
to
the
proposed
car
share
spaces.
The
applicant
selected
to
use
the
travel
demand
measures
within
a04.2
of
the
transport
code.
Under
this
provision,
one
share
one
car
share:
space
equates
to
five
residential
spaces.
The
Proposal
includes
two
of
these,
which
equates
to
10
spaces.
S
So,
as
the
proposal
seeks
to
establish
35
standard
resident
spaces
and
two
car
share
spaces,
this
is
equivalent
to
45
car
spaces
which
meets
the
amount
prescribed
under
the
acceptable
outcome
of
the
transport
card.
So
officers
are
of
the
view
that
the
proposal
therefore
meets
the
car
parking
demand,
as
prescribed
by
City
plan
regarding
visitor
parking,
there's
an
shortfall
of
one,
but
we're
satisfied
that
is
appropriate
because
of
the
site's
Frontage.
It
can
accommodate
one
on
street
car
parking
space.
S
In
relation
to
public
notification,
a
total
of
four
properly
made
submissions
were
received
and
one
not
properly
made
over
an
objection,
concerns
related
to
building
heart
setbacks,
car
parking,
construction
activities
and
Shadow
impacts
officers
have
taken
these
matters
into
consideration
throughout
the
assessment
and
are
satisfied.
The
Proposal
meets
the
relevant
requirements
of
City
plan,
so
in
summary,
councilors.
The
proposed
multiple
dwelling
is
reflective
of
the
development
pattern
anticipated
or
intended
for
the
area,
and
it
meets
all
requirement
relevance
of
City
plan
and
the
Strategic
framework
officers
are
therefore
recommending
approval
subject
to
conditions.
E
B
S
S
B
G
Thank
you
through
you,
chair
yeah.
This
is
the
missing
middle
and
and
have
Us
increasing
this
type
of
developments
really
important
this
area
and
that's
why
I've
supported
so
many
of
your
DA's
that
have
come
through
and
not
brought
them
to
Committee
in
this
area.
But
if
you
could
just
speak,
my
concern
is
regarding
the
ability
to
to
support
further
developments
in
the
future
with
the
xero
site
setbacks.
S
S
Yeah,
so
the
basement
is
built
to
boundary.
That's
common
for
these
type
of
developments.
With
regard
to
the
northern
side,
the
the
developer
is
required
to
do
some
level
of
I
guess
fill.
However,
we've
had
we've
considered
the
interface
with
the
adjacent
premises.
We
don't
consider
that
it
unreasonably
impacts
their
amenity
and
I
I,
don't
believe
it
would
affect
their
ability
to
ever
develop
their
property.
G
In
the
last
last
occasion
that
we
just
saw
that
had
an
issue
with
shared
parking
officers
noted
that
they
were
comforted
by
the
fact
that
they
knew
that
there
would
be
a
single
owner
to
manage
that
this
applicant
has
developed
other
properties
in
the
area
they
don't
hold.
They
do
sell.
So
we
are
looking
at
a
significant
number
of
owners
and
we
also
have
high
transition
of
ownership
in
that,
given
that
in
the
last
application,
you
said
that
that
was
one
of
the
reasons
that
gave
you
comfort
for
the
public
for
those
shared
spaces.
S
G
S
Through
the
chair,
yes,
that
is
correct.
The
car
share
scheme
was
added
within
the
decision
period
after
a
number
of
information
requests
as
part
of
the
original
application.
The
applicant
just
proposed
standard
Cash,
Car
Parking
Arrangements,
where
but
result
that
resulted
in
a
shortfall
of
the
acceptable
outcome.
Offices
requested
the
applicant
increase
the
parking,
Supply
and
response
the
applicant
did
some
survey
work
of
other
developments
that
they've
had
in
the
area.
Officers
had
issues
with
those
surveys
and
were
not
supportive
or
in
agreement
with
their
findings.
A
Okay,
so
councilor
Patterson
has
alerted
me
beforehand
that
she
has
a
a
proposed
change
of
recommendations.
She
wishes
to
put
forward.
Obviously
she's,
not
a
Committee
Member,
so
she'd
be
looking
for
a
Committee
Member
to
put
that
up,
I'm
going
to
offer
the
chance
for
those
words
to
come
up
on
the
screen
and
for
community
members
to
decide.
If
there's
anyone
that
might
be
willing
to
move
that
particular
recommendation.
I'll.
A
A
G
The
reason
why
I
am
seeking
a
refusal
for
this
one
is
because
I'm
so
interested
in
the
growth
in
the
area
and
by
taking
every
an
inch
at
every
aspect:
zero
setbacks,
minimum,
not
meeting
the
bedroom
sizes,
a
our
parking
strategy,
which
really
has
no
Integrity
in
it.
To
be
quite
honest,
given
what
were
the
original
applications
and
is
just
a
way
of
getting
past
it?
This
causes
problems,
which
means
that
we
can
not
approve
or
that
we're
creating
conflicts
and
problems
for
ourselves
in
the
future.
G
So
the
the
recommendation
identifies
that
it
does
not
provide
a
well-managed
interface
to
the
to
nearby
developments,
given
the
inappropriate
setbacks
and
the
building
appearance,
and
that
it
does
not
meet
excellent
standard
of
appearance
in
Street
Edge.
It
is
quite
attractive
from
the
front,
but
effectively
is
a
wall
on
the
sides.
I
need
more
developments
of
scale
in
this
area.
If
we
let
them
come
through,
where
they're
too
much
is
going
to
cause
problems,
we
consistently
have
issues
in
Pullman
Street
in
parking
already,
as
it
is
already
also
in
this
document.
G
So
the
applicant
has
also
not
sufficiently
demonstrated
that
the
parking
demand
generated
by
the
development
could
be
accommodated
with
their
with
their
off-street
and
on-street
parking
proposal,
and
it
certainly
would
not
be
consistent
with
the
community's
reasonable
expectations
for
a
development.
In
this
context,
so
I'm
I'm
a
big
advocate
for
building
in
these
areas.
It
is
essential,
but
my
concern
is:
if
we
do
it
when
they've
taken
it
too
far,
then
it
really
it.
G
It
creates
roadblocks,
it
creates
problems
and
it
creates
conflicts
for
future
applicants
and
developments,
and
the
community
I'm
also
very
concerned
about
this
shared
car
parking,
which
was
not
a
strategy
at
the
at
the
outset
and
for
35
units.
A
lot
of
these
people
will
be
first
homeowners
to
be
then
responsible
on
a
body
corporate
to
consistently
assess
as
there's
new
in
and
outcoming
owners
to
identify
who
gets.
What
really
is
setting
up.
G
D
Be
very
brief:
I
am
a
bit
uncomfortable
with
moving
such
a
drastic
change
from
the
officer's
recommendation.
I
did
review
the
material
before
that
councilor
Patterson,
provided
she
said
that
officers
had
assisted
in
the
wording
of
that.
So
I
felt
that
that
was
a
reasonable
thing
to
bring
to
you.
I
am
a
bit
agnostic
about
the
development,
to
be
honest
and
although
I've
moved
it
I
am
not
yet
convinced.
D
F
Thank
you
very
much,
Mr
chairman.
My
primary
concern
with
this
particular
development
is
the
how
close
it
is
built
to
boundary
and
how
that
may
Prejudice
the
ability
for
adjacent
landowners
to
be
able
to
deliver
a
comparable
product
while
enjoying
some
level
of
amenity
for
those
future
residents.
So
I
would
have
much
preferred
to
seeing
an
outcome
where
there
was
some
amalgamation
of
an
adjacent
site
and
decent
setbacks
to
preserve
the
property
rights
of
the
adjacent
developers
and
I.
F
Think
this
is
a
I
want
to
call
it
opportunistic,
but
obviously
the
proponent
is
seeking
to
maximize
the
yield
and
the
economic
return
on
this
particular
site.
But
I
don't
think
it's
actually
in
the
interests
for
this
emerging
Community,
I'm,
very
uncomfortable
with
the
notion
of
pooled
car
parking.
It's
something
that
I've
fought
against
in
my
own
patch
yeah.
F
It
can
be
argued
that
it
affords
more
flexibility
in
terms
of
managing
demand
and
Supply,
but
also
think
it
provides
insufficient
certainty
to
Future
owners
or
renters
around
car
parking
availability,
and
we
might
end
up
inducing
more
traffic
in
or
Vehicles
you
into
the
precinct
than
we
imagined,
because
there
might
be
some
expectation.
Some
could
be
available,
whereas
it
would
be
stronger
position
for
us
to
say
that
there
is
only
one
space
or
two
spaces
available
and
that's
what
you
have
to
live
with.
B
B
We've
never
ever
before,
been
in
such
a
situation
in
our
city,
with
such
a
shortage
of
accommodation,
and
this
is
exactly
the
type
of
product
that
we
are
being
encouraged
to
deliver
in
areas
that
already
have
existing
Services
facilities
and
public
transport.
So
whilst
I
would
like
to
support
the
divisional
counselor,
who
is
intimate
with
the
area,
I
just
feel
that
the
two
car
share
spaces
can
make
up
for
the
Limited
shortfall
in
parking
and
that
there
will
be
an
appetite
from
buyers
for
a
unit
without
car
parking.
I
think
it.
T
Just
on
that
point,
counselor
Patterson's
raised
the
point
of
we
understand,
there's
need
for
accommodation,
and
we
want
to
be.
This
is
the
kind
of
spot
where
we
want
to
be
seeing
this
kind
of
scale
of
application,
because
there
is
a
need
for
housing,
but
the
concern
she's
raised
around
parking.
We
understand
that
we're
trying
to
make
this
shift
away
from
cars,
but
people
aren't
just
going
to
go
from
families
having
two
or
three
cars
to
all
of
a
sudden.
None
there's
going
to
be
a
transition
period
in
that
sense,
I'm
sure.
T
If
this
application
had
another
dozen
car
Parks
as
per
the
acceptable
outcomes,
there
probably
wouldn't
be
concerns
or
be
less
concerned.
The
the
setbacks
issue
as
Council
abortion,
Council
Patterson
raised,
is
also
a
factor
that
it
could
Prejudice
the
neighboring
properties
in
terms
of
delivering
a
similar
yield
outcome
moving
forward.
T
As
for
the
need
for
accommodation,
I
was
just
I
guess
grimacing
with
myself,
because
the
committee
about
an
hour
ago
refused
120,
odd
student
accommodation,
and
this
is
for
likely
people
who
will
be
long-term
living
on
the
Gold
Coast,
whether
they're,
long-term
renters
or
purchasing
the
property.
Whereas
the
student
accommodation,
they
would
be,
people
who
would
I
would
imagine,
be
more
likely
to
be
transient
or
would
be
looking
to
have
that
as
a
a
temporary
accommodation
option
until
they
decided
to
permanently
take
up
residence
on
the
Gold
Coast
in
something
perhaps
like
this.
T
When
they've
established
themself
with
an
education
at
a
university,
got
a
job,
perhaps
purchased
a
car
that
they'd
need
a
car
space
for
I
completely
understand.
We
need
accommodation.
We
need
to
be
providing
infill
in
places
like
Southport
right
next
to
the
CBD.
But
if
they're
all
going
to
have
these
kind
of
issues,
we're
just
causing
grief
to
the
city
that
we
don't
need
to
cause.
L
Thank
you,
and
through
the
chair,
I
am
I'm
going
to
be
unable
to
support
what
councilor
Patterson's
put
forward
there
and
very
much
coming
from
the
same
areas
as
councilor
Gates.
Yes,
it
does.
It
does
meet
our
city
plan
requirements
and
also
people
aren't
ever
going
to
change
their
behaviors
at
all
and
if
we
keep
just
demanding
demanding
demanding
of
the
industry
and
demanding
demanding
demanding
of
the
land
that
we
have
no
more
roles
and
we
have
no
more
street
frontages.
L
So
we
are
now
starting
to
condition
these
buildings,
as
such
we've
got
35
units
here.
Yes,
there
are
people
that
aren't
going
to
choose
to
purchase
a
car
because
they
may
rent
one
of
those
units
off
somebody,
while
they
do
their
three
or
four
years
of
accommodation,
three
or
four
years
of
University
here
living
on
a
light
rail
Corridor
that
will
take
them
out
to
one
our
biggest
university,
I'm,
not
sure
by
numbers.
But
here
on
the
Gold
Coast
Griffith
is
the
biggest
university,
so
they
are
going
to
accommodate
themselves
there.
L
L
So
I
think
time
and
time
again
in
these
reports
it
says
we
have
to
have
a
good
mix
of
accommodation
coming
forward
and
I
believe.
This
is
a
good
type
of
accommodation
in
this
area
delivering
people
to
a
to
wherever.
If
you
are
renting
in
that
area,
if
you're
purchasing
that
area,
it
is
encumbered
upon
you
as
a
purchaser
to
purchase
something
that
suits
your
needs
and
if
you
are
a
three
or
a
four
car
property
owner
or
prop
yeah
property
owner
and
you
purchase
a
two-bedroom
unit,
you're
not
going
to
get
delivered.
L
Four
bed
forecast
spaces,
so
the
market
will
quite
often
dictate
where
people
purchase
and
what's
available
to
purchase.
So
if
I
was
a
a
car,
I
had
a
family
and
had
three
or
four
cars
would
I
go
and
purchase
in
this
area,
where
potentially
there's
only
one
available
car
space,
so
I
think
the
developers
are
meeting
as
as
Ben
said
here
today
what
the
city
plan
demands
of
this
area.
It's
met
the
io
and
po
compliancy
side
of
things
or
approval
side
of
things.
L
It's
incumbent
upon
us
as
members
of
the
planning
committee
to
ensure
that
we
are
addressing
all
parts
of
accommodation
in
the
city
and,
yes,
we
do
need
Student
accommodation
that
was
a
past
one,
but
this
one's
delivering
35
car
spaces,
plus
it's
delivering
two
bride
check
house
spaces.
The
officers
have
indicated.
There's
a
visitor's
car
parked
short,
but
that's
available
on
the
street
at
the
front
of
this
building,
so
I
think.
L
C
C
Sorry,
the
habits
of
travel
around
the
city,
but
the
amount
of
applications
we
bring
to
the
city
and
the
mount
that
we
actually
put
through
when
we
bring
a
application
of
concern
to
the
table.
It's
because
we've
got
a
real
concern
at
that
particular
point.
I
think
we
really
need
to
be
consistent
in
two
factors.
We
did
have
a
conversation
down
south
about
student
accommodation
and
we're
now
having
a
conversation
about
accommodation
in
Southport.
C
The
reality
is,
there
is
a
shift
in
this
city
and
we've
all
seen
the
shift,
but
right
now
it's
important
that
we
just
don't
throw
out
every
car
spot
that
we
have
in
this
city
right
now,
because
down
the
track,
we'll
be
looking
for
car
spots
and
there'll,
be
a
group
of
councilors
sitting
here.
Looking
back
at
a
group
like
us
saying,
if
we'd
made
a
different
decision
back
10
years
ago,
we
would
have
a
a
different
outcome.
C
So
I
am
supportive
not
that
I'm
on
this
committee,
but
it's
really
important
that
when
a
application
comes
to
this
committee,
I
believe
there's
a
real
real
concern
at
that
particular
time
and
they're.
The
points
they're
the
times
that
we
need
to
ensure
that
we're
sending
a
message
to
the
developers
as
well,
that
they
don't
just
have
an
open
blank
foresight
under
the
performance
outcome
and
performance
Capcom
is
our
our
challenge
so
well.
Yes,
thank
you.
H
Look
I
I
think
that
as
a
council,
we
haven't
actually
investigated
how
car
share
is
going
to
work,
whether
it
be
student
accommodation,
whether
it
be
in
the
residential
zoning
and
and
I.
Just
when
I
saw
this
when
I
read
this
item,
first
up
I
was
absolutely
gobsmacked
that
they're
actually
putting
forward
a
car
share
situation
when
there's
only
35
units
and
they're
building
boundary
to
boundary.
H
U
A
A
D
G
Ly
no
I
will
be
brief.
I
will
be
brief.
I
am
the
strongest
advocate
for
increasing
population
in
this
area.
It
makes
so
much
sense.
I
have
dealt
with
DA's
with
our
offices
for
years
and
consistently
work
with
them
and
the
developers
to
get
to
an
approval
before
it
gets
here,
because
I
I
respect
developers,
time
I
know
that
that
is
money
and
I
make
sure
stuff
doesn't
come
to
this
committee
meeting
unless
it
is
critical.
G
The
reason
why
I'm
seeking
refusal
is
because
I
see
so
much
value
of
increasing
the
population
capacity
in
this
area.
Anyone
who
goes
down
Pullman
Street
now
will
know
the
parking
issues
there.
It
is
a
tiny
little
Street.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
developers
recognize
that
they
don't
get
carte
blanche
on
the
on-street
parking
now,
which
effectively
is
what
this
development
does
so
I
am
seeking
refusal.
Thank
you.
A
So
change
recommendation
move
by
councilor
Peter
Young
executed
by
Council
of
also
we
have
a
foreshadowed
motion
from
councilor
gates
to
revert
back
the
officer
recommendation
everyone's
had
a
chance
to
contribute
so
we'll
vote
on
the
change
recommendation
now,
so
all
those
in
favor
division,
so
councilor,
Hamel,
counselor,
O'neill,
councilor,
vorster
against
the
gates,
Council
Owen,
Jones,
councilor,
Peter,
Young,
councilor,
Paul
and
Young.
So
the
motion
is
lost.
We
will
go
to
councilor
gates
for
shadowed
motion,
which
is
the
officers
motion.
B
Thank
you
chairman
and
I
won't
say
too
much,
but
there's
been
a
couple
of
comments
about
a
previous
application
today,
and
I
would
like
to
suggest
that
this
is
very,
very
different
from
the
the
one
we
considered
earlier,
which
had
a
very
significant
shortfall.
Some
50,
odd
or
more
car
parks
and
17
car
share
spaces,
so
quite
different
from
what
we
have
before
us,
which
is
35
units
with
35
carbs
yeah
with
the
35
car
parks
and
the
two
car
shares
to
pick
up
the
slack
of
10
10
spaces.
B
B
So
I
just
feel
that
we
need
to
support
the
officer's
recommendation
here,
primarily
because
of
my
belief
that
if
there,
if,
if
we
were
to
refuse
this,
it
would
be
resolved
in
the
first
appeal,
because
it
complies
with
exactly
the
intent
of
our
city
plan
and
exactly
the
intent
of
the
Southport
area,
which
is
our
priority.
Development
Area
and
this
is
outside
it.
Admittedly,
but
it's
exactly
where
we
want
to
see
this
product,
this
type
of
product
delivered.
A
A
I
gave
everyone
an
opportunity
to
speak
on
the
last
motion,
so
if
everyone's
happy
I'm
just
going
to
call
the
vote
on
this,
one
I
think
we've
all
had
a
contribution
on
this
matter
and
you
just
sent
to
that
cool.
So
all
in
favor
of
the
shattered
motion
against
motions
passed,
the
councilors
we've
been
at
it
for
a
little
while
and
we've
got
two
items
to
go
still
so
we're
gonna
have
a
10
minute
break
and
then
we'll
come
back
for
the
last
two
items.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
F
A
S
Out
of
6.4
is
in
relation
to
a
development
application
for
a
material
change
of
use
to
establish
a
child
care
center
at
62
kotler,
Street
Ashmore,
the
sites
in
the
low
density,
residential
Zone,
where
child
care
centers
are
listed
as
impact
accessible
saw.
It
has
an
area
of
2500
square
meters
and
is
currently
improved
by
dwelling
house
and
Landscaping.
S
S
S
This
slide
shows
the
first
floor,
which
includes
the
three
external
playscapes,
there's
five
activity
rooms
and
an
inner
play
area.
The
this
level
also
includes
perimeter
Landscaping
at
the
sides
and
rear,
as
well
as
two
meter
high
acoustic
barriers
around
playscapes
two
and
three,
which
Illustrated
in
red.
S
The
key
considerations
for
the
proposal
include
the
protection
of
suburban
character
and
amenity,
so
officers
are
assess.
Officer
assessment
has
concluded.
The
proposal
achieves
an
appropriate
outcome,
because
the
building
has
an
attractive
building
design,
the
building
heart
site
cover
and
setbacks
achieve
compliance
with
the
provisions
of
the
Zone
code,
the
building's
well
separated
to
adjoining
dwelling
houses.
It
includes
appropriate
acoustic
attenuation
measures
and
Landscaping
is
provided
that
softens
the
built
form
and
car
parking
areas.
S
Another
key
consideration
related
to
the
traffic
impacts
associated
with
the
development,
where
the
applicant
submitted
a
traffic
impact
assessment,
which
was
reviewed
by
officers.
It
was
found.
The
development
does
not
generate
significant
impacts
on
the
safety
and
efficiency
of
the
road.
Network
officer
assessment
has
also
determined
Vehicles
can
safely
enter
and
exit
the
site
in
a
forward
gear.
S
So
the
low
density
residential
Zone
also
includes
Provisions
relating
to
small-scale
Standalone
commercial
uses.
These
are
contemplated
where
the
use
does
not
have
a
size
that
will
undermine
existing
neighborhood
centers.
It
will
provide
direct
service
to
the
immediate
neighborhood
development,
maintains
a
compatible
scale
and
form
to
nearby
development
and
does
not
detract
from
local
character
and
amenity
offers.
Us
satisfied
that
the
development
meets
the
prescribed
tests.
S
The
application
is
all
because
it's
impact
accessible,
we've
also
considered
relevant
matters
so
as
part
of
consideration
of
child
care
centers,
it's
commonly
considered
that
economic
need
and
impact
is
a
key
consideration
for
those
uses.
In
this
regard,
the
applicant
submitted
an
economic
need
assessment,
which
officers
had
peer-reviewed.
S
It
was
noted
that
the
findings
noted
that
there
is
presently
a
need
for
89
spaces
within
the
catchment.
This
is
representative
of
a
modest
level
of
economic
name.
It
was
also
found.
The
proposed
would
propose.
Center
would
not
impact
the
viability
of
other
centers
within
the
catchment
and
that
the
center
would
provide
increased
choice
and
competition,
which
would
support
parents
and
caregivers.
S
So
accordingly,
officers
found
that
the
economic
need
and
impact
consideration
supported
the
proposal.
We've
also
considered
the
locational
attributes
of
the
site.
It's
located
on
a
corner
lot
that
is
well
separated
from
neighboring
dwellings.
It's
located
on
the
corner
of
two
high
order:
roads
that
see
over
twenty
thousand
vehicle
trips
per
day,
the
site's,
also
in
close
proximity
to
Major
employment
areas
such
as
Southport
and
bundle.
S
Having
regard
to
these
factors,
officers
have
concluded
that
the
subject
side
is
like
a
logical
location
for
a
child
care
center
and
the
impacts
of
The
Proposal
have
been
appropriately
mitigated
in
relation
to
public
notification.
There
are
54
submissions
received
all
an
objection.
21
were
not
properly
made,
concerns
related
to
economic
need,
character
and
amenity
traffic
and
parking
and
acoustics.
These
concerns
have
been
considered
and
officers
satisfied
that
the
application
meets
the
requirements
of
City
fire,
not
standing.
So,
therefore,
the
officer's
recommendation
is
to
approve
the
development
subject
to
conditions.
F
F
one
was
the
silkwood
school
which
was
proposed
to
be
constructed
on
a
busy
roundabout,
and
this
is
a
busy
roundabout,
at
least
for
the
moment
before
it's
eventually
signalized,
but
it
also
reminded
me
very
much
of
the
child
care
center
that
Council
refused
at
the
end
of
I,
think
it's
Range,
View,
Court
and
Maddox
Road,
so
I've
I've
got
experience
in
dealing
with
applications
like
this
and
I.
Find
myself
asking
the
same.
F
Questions
in
this
committee
as
I
did
back
then,
could
I
just
get
a
sense
from
city
offices
around
how
it
is
that
we
assess
economic
need,
because
it's
not
economic
impact
but
economic
need
that
has
been
presented
on
the
screen.
So
is
it
purely
a
subjective
criteria
that
City
officers
develop
during
the
assessment
process,
or
is
there
a
framework
or
a
set
of
considerations
that
we
apply
consistently
between
different
DA's.
S
Through
the
chair,
there
are
no
Provisions
in
the
city
plan
in
relation
to
child
care.
Centers
that
require
consideration
of
economic
need.
We've
considered
economic
need
as
a
relevant
matter,
because
that's
what
the
planning
act
would
like
us
to
do
in
the
circumstance
of
an
impact
assessment
application.
S
F
It
though
I
mean,
can
you
point
to
me
point
me
to
the
standard,
because
merely
saying
and
I
don't
mean
to
be
argumentative,
but
when
I
think
about
economic
need,
I'm
thinking
in
terms
of
economic
activity,
in
other
words,
the
need
to
create
jobs
at
the
the
need
to
support
jobs,
not
to
put
89
kids
in
child
care
over
the
next
10
to
15
years.
So
so
is
there
a
standard
for
assessing
economic
need
with
respect
to
Child,
Care
Centers,
and
if
so,
where
can
I
find
that
standard.
S
There
is
not
a
prescribed
standard
if,
if
we
were
to
only
consider
the
relevant
assessment
benchmarks
that
City
plan
has
or
has
we
wouldn't
have
to
consider
economic
need
or
impact
so
in
and
in
that
regard,
The
Proposal
meets
all
of
the
requirements
of
City
plan
and
they're.
Sure,
therefore,
should
be
supported.
F
It
doesn't
because
we're
required
to
look
at
all
relevant
matters
and
you've
determined
that
economic
need
has
to
be
one
of
those
relevant
matters.
Correct
right,
so
I'm
not
quite
sure
if
I
read
your
point
correctly,
but
just
on
need
I'm,
I'm
of
the
view
that
the
assertions
of
submitters
should
always
be
contested
by
city
offices
right
and
quite
often,
if
some
representations
are
being
made
to
us
about
traffic
impact.
F
I
recall
with
the
child
care
center
at
the
corner
of
Maddox,
Road
and
Rangeview.
There
was
also
a
case
that
there
was
an
economic
need
to
provide
X
number
of
places,
but
I
did
the
work
of
checking
with
every
child
care
center
within
a
radius.
I
think
it
might
have
been
one
and
a
half
kilometers
to
see
whether
they
had
vacancies,
because
these
developments
are
approved
with
effectively
X
number
of
places
up.
F
That's
again
tempered
by
Federal
Regulation,
but
I'm
mounted
a
persuasive
case
that
there
were
actually
I,
think
300
additional
spaces
swirling
in
the
system
within
the
catchment
and
therefore
that
need
did
not
exist.
So,
given
your
presentation
talks
about
the
impact
on
Child,
Care
Centers
and
there
being
a
negligible
impact,
does
that
mean
that
City
officers
contacted
those
Child
Care
Centers
to
see
how
many
spaces
they
had
available
if
any
through.
S
The
chair,
City
officers,
did
not
make
contact
with
any
other
child
care
center
operators
within
the
area.
That's
not
within
a
purview
to
do
so.
We
received
an
economic
report
from
a
qualified
economic
consultant
or
an
economist.
We
had
that
peer-reviewed
and
the
findings
were
as
they're
presented
in
the
report,
demonstrating
that
there
is
a
need
for
89
places
in
the
catchment
hub.
F
S
F
F
S
F
S
Through
the
chair,
the
applicants
traffic
engineer
submitted
drawings,
which
demonstrated
this
thought
Ingress
and
egress
arrangements
sweatpaths
so
on
and
so
forth.
They
were
reviewed
by
city
offices
and
Traffic.
Engineers
internal
to
council
I've
advised
planners
that
this
the
arrangements
are
safe.
Okay,.
F
U
So
Cutler
street
is
the
frontage
by
which
access
has
been
taken
by
nature
of
the
center
Median
on
kotler.
The
access
will
be
left
in
left
out,
so
the
applicant
has
proposed
a
left
turn
deceleration
Lane
to
afford
drivers
the
ability
to
move
out
of
the
through
travel
Lane
in
order
to
then
turn
into
the
driveway
that
was
triggered
according
to
the
warrants
of
ostros
and
and
therefore
proposed
that
turning
lane
itself
has
been
designed
to
so.
U
The
the
road
Frontage
is
posted
at
60
kilometers
per
hour,
and
the
design
is
to
a
70
kilometer
per
hour
standard,
which
is
kind
of
typically
what
they
do.
They'll
they'll
design
it
to
10ks
above
the
the
posted
in
terms
of
speeding
through
the
the
soon
to
be
signalized
intersection
or
we,
we
can't
I,
don't
think
reasonably
assume
that
drivers
will
break
the
speed
limit.
F
U
F
U
F
Okay-
and
my
last
question
is
the
current
the
current
vxo
is
that
considered
safe
under
the
current
standard
and
the
reason
why
I
ask
that
is
one
of
the
submitters
I
suppose
against
the
development
finished
me
with
some
images
of
walls
being
kind
of
struck
down
due
to
vehicle
accident.
And
what
have
you
so
I'm
trying
to
get
a
sense
of
whether
it's
presently
not
a
safe
situation
and
will
be
made
safe?
U
So
presently,
on
the
side,
it's
a
dwelling
house
and
so
the
standards
prescribe
different
requirements
for
a
dwelling
house
to
say:
A,
Child,
Care,
Center
or
a
commercial
development.
So
the
existing
vehicle
Crossing
is
being
upgraded
to
a
you
know,
a
standard
that
is
suitable
for
two-way
access
into.
You
know
a
commercial
development
and
it
is
safe
in
in
the
sense
that
it
meets
the
relevant
design
requirements.
U
Through
you
Mr
chair,
if
I
could
just
clarify
so
we're
talking
about
the
existing
situation,
not
what
is
proposed.
That's
right,
part
of
the
child,
yeah
I,
have
not
reviewed
the
existing
situation
in
detail
because
that's
not
the
proposal.
The
Proposal
is
for
a
new
access
design
intended
for
the
purposes
of
a
child
care
center.
Okay,
thank
you.
Yeah.
C
Yeah,
thank
you.
There's
a
discussion.
That's
going
to
be
change
of
traffic
conditions.
Has
this
assessment
been
assessed
on
the
current
conditions
or
on
the
proposed
change,
and
is
there
a
difference
in
relation
to
the
conditions
in
relation
to
the
impact
of
that
property
if
it
was
approved
as
a
child
care
center.
U
Three
Mr
chairs,
so
the
the
design
of
the
access
has
taken
into
consideration.
The
proposed
signalization
of
the
intersection
that
has
been
reviewed
by
transport
and
traffic
Branch
through
this
assessment
process
to
ensure
that
the
two
will
work
together
and
marry
up
to
be.
You
know
a
safe
and
appropriate
outcome,
considering
the
future
situation,
one
of
the
great
things
about
providing
signals
there
is
that
it
does
actually
afford
breaks
in
the
traffic
flow
on
kotloo,
which
then
I
think
makes
it
easier
for
parents
to
turn
in
and
out
myself.
B
B
G
G
A
separate
expert,
Mr
Adam
pickol
advises
that
the
turn
in
is
non-compliant
and
substandard
against
the
OS
roads
guide
to
Road
design.
Part
4A
says
the
deceleration
distance
is
not
sufficient
under
either
a
60k
or
70k
consideration
and
will
adversely
affect
local
traffic
safety
and
operations.
Could
you
respond
to
that
expert's
opinion.
U
U
The
other
is
extended
design
domain,
which
is
intended
for
brownfields
built
up
areas
with
an
existing
Road
network,
with
Associated
constraints
that,
when
you're
trying
to
retrofit
turning
lanes
and
intersections
into
those,
it
provides
different
criteria
to
me
then,
and
that's
what
the
applicant
has
used
and
I
think
the
opposing
Tia
has
assumed
Greenfield
requirements,
but
certainly
austroads
upholds
extended
design
domain
as
safe
and
appropriate.
For
this
circumstance.
G
G
We
had
a
we've
got
a
Child
Care
Center
on
Ridgeway
Avenue,
which
was
approved
with
with
requirements
provided
on
it
for
amenity
for
Acoustics,
regarding
Neighbors
I
am
consistently
receiving
complaints
and
frustrations
from
Neighbors,
who
are
their
amenities,
severely
impacted
by
that
child
care
center.
We
have
engaged
and
looked
at
that
from
at
with
through
our
development
compliance
and
said
that
it's
completely
comfortable,
this
application
would
be
subject
to
those
same
rules,
but
the
residing
residents
are
up
above
so
they
would
be.
You
know,
noise
travels
up.
G
S
Through
the
chair,
we
do
have
prescribed
standards
for
assessing
noise
impacts.
Our
health
officers
have
assessed
this
particular
development
having
regard
to
those
standards
and
it
was
found
to
meet
the
relevant
criteria
under
the
Environmental
Protection
regulations.
So
therefore,
we're
satisfied
that
appropriate
amenity
amenity
outcomes
will
be
maintained.
G
S
Through
the
chair,
we're
considering
this
application
on
its
merits.
Having
regard
to
what
is
proposed
here,
this
site
has
an
acoustic
barrier
along
the
rear
for
weather,
where
playscape
is
that
there
is
also
adjacent
to
a
tennis
court.
I
think
the
dwelling
to
the
South
is
about
20
to
30
meters,
away
from
the
playscape
there's
also
road
traffic
noise,
that
is
to
be
taken
into
consideration.
G
Okay,
thank
you
another
question
regarding
the
scale,
so
we
have
identified
that
this
is
impact
accessible,
so
giving
a
material
change
of
use.
The
requirement
is
that
it
we
it
can
be
considered
for
small
scale,
services
and
Facilities.
It's
my
understanding
that
this
child
care
by
definition,
is
defined
as
a
large
Center
based
child
care
service.
How
do
you,
how
are
you
comfortable
that
that
meets
a
small
scale?
Use
given?
S
G
E
S
G
S
Through
the
chair,
we've
had
regard
to
the
built
form
Provisions
within
the
Zone
code,
whereby
we've
found
that
the
site,
the
development
presents
a
low
site
cover
of
36
and
the
setbacks
are
generally
compliant.
It's
also
compliant
with
the
prescribed
heart
for
the
site,
so
we're
satisfied
that
the
building
that
is
proposed
is
reasonably
expected
for
within
the
zone.
G
But
through
the
chair,
I,
don't
think-
and
forgive
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I,
don't
think
that
this
that
definition,
when
we're
looking
at
the
impact
assessment
talking
about
scale,
it
doesn't
refer
to
Psych
Care
as
a
site
service.
You,
because
it's
about
material
change
of
use
in
a
low
residential
area,
to
consider
something
different,
we're
saying:
okay,
it's
a
small
scale
business.
So
it's
not
about
site
coverage.
They're,
like
is
this
a
small
scale,
medium-scale
large-scale
business.
The
only
definition
that
we
have
of
child
care
centers
suggests
to
us
that
this
is
large
scale.
S
Through
the
chair
offices,
disagree
with
that
interpretation.
Okay,
the
provisions
in
City
plans
refer
to
small
Standalone,
small-scale
commercial
uses,
City
plan
doesn't
Define
small
scale
and
therefore
the
most
appropriate
course
of
action
for
offices
is
to
refer
to
the
zone
and
what
is
anticipated
within
the
zone,
and
we've
done
that
and
we're
satisfied
that
it
is
small
scale.
G
Thank
you,
and
lastly,
through
you,
chair,
coming
back
to
the
matter
of
economic
need,
so
for
us
to
consider
a
material
change
of
use,
which
is
a
really
significant
change
to
this
community
and
to
this
area.
It
is
a
requirement
that
we
can
Define
and
show
that
there
is
an
economic
need
by
our
economics
Economist
report.
They
have
defined
it
as
a
modest
need,
modest
by
definition
means
less
than
so.
G
S
Through
the
chair,
you
are
correct
in
saying
that
the
city's
engaged
Economist
has
referred
to
this
or
the
level
of
Need
for
this
as
modest.
It
is
important
with
when
we're
dealing
with
economic
reports
that
an
adjective
is
applied
so
that
planners
can
understand
if
there's
a
low,
modest
or
higher
level
of
need.
In
this
regard,
it's
neither
High
nor
low.
It's
modest,
modest,
equals
low.
Sorry,
the
chair
I
disagree
with
that.
S
G
So
you
had
to
go
down
three
before
you
went
down
less
than
small
okay,
okay,
so
there
is
a
modest
need
for
this.
We
do
have
1600
places
in
the
area
running
at
approximately
70
occupancy.
We
had
significant
submissions
from
Child
Care
Centers
that
are
concerned
about
something
of
this
size
and
also
of
of
parents
who
are
attending
Child,
Care
Centers.
So
the
other
sorry,
if
I
can
just
raise.
G
Patterson
yeah
I
know:
okay,
there
is
a
question
yeah
yeah
regarding
the
area
right
so
again,
the
the
difficult
thing,
too,
is
with
the
area
so
for
the
economists
to
have
come
up
with
it
Justified
that
there
was
an
economic
need.
They
had
to
look
at
the
local
area,
not
as
who
just
who
lives
there,
but
who
commutes
through
there
and
relied
on
a
judgment
by
judge
kefford
regarding
a
self-storage
facility
to
say
that
which
was
which
sounds
like
it
was
quite
a
different
matter.
How.
S
L
Thank
you,
and
through
the
channel
name,
it's
just
one
quick
question.
When
we
have
an
economist
report,
it's
not
based
it's
based
on
current
figures.
Current
demand,
current
what's
in
the
area,
so
I
would
imagine.
The
information
is
fed
back
on
that.
We're
looking
at
a
possible
construction
time
here,
at
least
12
to
18
months,
so
I
would
I
would
envisage
if
I
was
even
a
betting
person
that
the
demand
for
the
child
care
center
in
18
months
in
12
to
18
months
time
with
in
this
area,
would
be
higher.
L
Considering
the
amount
of
approvals
that
are
going
through
the
system
at
the
moment
and
in
Council
of
Patterson's
own
words,
she's
looking
to
drive
more
into
her
Division
and
to
have
that
missing
middle
in
her
division,
so
I
would
imagine
that
demand
for
a
child
care
center
now
will
be
different
to
what
demand
for
a
child
care
center
will
be
in
12
to
18
months
in
just
about
any
area
within
the
city.
Is
that
correct.
S
Through
the
chat,
it's
a
good
question:
councilor
young,
the
economic
needs
assessment
that
we've
been
presented
with,
says
that
there
is
an
additional
need
for
89
places
within
the
2021-2036
period.
So
it's
over
a
longer
Horizon
that
has
been
considered
as
part
of
that
assessment,
and
so
our
our
assessment
is
that
there
is
an
or
is
and
will
be,
a
need
for
an
additional
child
care
center
within
the
catchment,
and
this
proposal
satisfies
that
need
yeah.
E
C
V
C
C
An
assessment
I
know
you're,
assessing
this
particular
one,
but
how
do
we
come
to
that
and
I
think
it
comes
to
that
needs
of
when
we
need
a
particular
change
of
use
at
a
particular
time,
so
I
know
we're
growing
as
a
city
and
I
know,
this
conversation
will
always
come
as
we
grow
and
I
believe
we'll
be
able
to
do
this.
But
how
do
we
determine.
A
H
A
So
I'm
going
to
extend
the
same
courtesies
last
time
that,
since
councilor
has
prepared
some
words
that
we
will
see
them.
Councilor
Jones
indicator
he's
prepared
to
move
it,
but
I'll
allow
the
words
to
come
up
first
and
counselor
Patterson
to
quickly
and
I
mean
quickly
speak
to
her
intent
and
we'll
see
if
there's
a
second
for
them.
G
Okay,
so
we're
seeking
for
Council
to
refuse
recommendation
that
Council
refuses
this
development
permit,
because
it
does
not
comply
with
strategic
outcomes.
It
does
not
provide
safe
access
arrangements
to
the
site.
It
is
not
a
small
scale,
commercial
use.
It
does
not
maintain
a
compatible
form
and
scale
to
the
nearby
development,
and
there
is
no
economic
need
for
the
proposed
development,
which
is
a
relevant
matter
that
warrants
refusal
of
the
development.
G
There
are
matters
of
complying
with
the
performance
outcomes,
but
effectively
with
the
concerns
around
economic
need
and
safety,
and
also
scale
in
this
residential
area.
I'm.
Having
my
unicorn
moment,
I,
don't
think
I've
ever
sought
a
refusal
from
this
committee
before
and
I'm
doing
two
in
one
day,
so
there
you
are.
A
B
Thank
you,
chairman
and
I
think
the
reason
for
moving
this
is
that,
in
my
understanding
from
the
presentation
it
does
comply
and
it
is
considered
a
small
scale.
Development
in
relation
to
the
residential
amenity
and
the
nearby
low
res
area.
Directly
opposite
is
an
aged
care
residential
facility
and
just
a
hundred
meters
or
so
down.
The
road
is
Ashmore
Plaza
or
City.
Plaza
Ashmore
Plaza
shopping
center,
so
it
it's
not
strictly,
in
my
view,
with
the
very
large
Property
Holdings,
either
side,
it's
not
your
normal
low
density
res.
B
I
feel
very
strongly
too
that
we've
worked
hard
in
recent
years
in
regard
to
our
appeals
process
and
when
the
officers
present
us
with
reports
that
suggest
complete
compliance
with
City
plan
because
of
the
outcomes
that
are
achieved.
It's
it's
kind
of
stupid
of
us
to
keep
refusing
them.
If
it's
just
going
to
increase
the
appeals
and
the
costs
to
the
ratepayers.
B
This
actual
application
will
provide
a
service
to
rate
payers
that
is
identified
because
of
the
economic
needs
report
and,
in
my
view,
they've
I
mean,
with
the
left-end
left
out
situation
with
an
additional
Lane
I.
Don't
understand
any
that
there
can
be
any
argument
that
it's
unsafe-
it's
actually
probably
going
to
be
a
safer
situation
than
exists
at
present,
so
I'm
comfortable
in
moving
the
officer's
recommendation
to
approve
this
application.
A
E
If
you're
taken
against
is
that
okay
against
yeah
excellent,
so
so
I
actually
so
I
appreciate
the
concerns
in
regards
to
the
traffic.
But
my
personal
view
is
that
the
installation
of
the
traffic
lights
will
go
a
long
way
to
resolving
that
and
I
know
the
traffic
engineer's
comments
in
regards
to
the
brakes
and
the
traffic
that
are
caused
by
the
lights
and
I
think
that
that
will
be
a
significant
change
to
that
roundabout
area.
But
my
personal
view
is
that
it's
it's
not
small
scale.
E
The
adjacent
dwellings
have
roof
areas:
they're
approximately
half
the
size
of
the
proposed
roof
area
for
this
property
in
terms
of
economic
need.
There
are
18
and
19
other
child
care
centers
in
the
catchment,
providing
1600,
odd
places
and
there's
currently
According
to
some
correspondence
that
have
received
some
300
vacancies
in
those
spots
at
the
moment.
So
I
think
that
it
is
with
the
with
those
two
things
in
mind
that
I
don't
think
that
we
should
agree
to
the
to
the
application.
A
A
A
W
Thank
you
through
the
chair.
This
application
is
for
a
combined
application.
The
first
component
is
a
development
permit
for
a
material
change
of
use
for
short-term
accommodation,
153
units,
food
and
drink
outlet,
shop
bar
Hotel,
Indoor,
Sport
and
Recreation
functional
facility
and
Port
Services.
The
second
component
is
a
development
permit
for
an
operational
works
for
prescribed
title
works.
The
address
is
60
to
64
SeaWorld
Drive
Main
Beach,
which
is
commonly
referred
to
as
Mariners
Cove,
and
a
development
application
is
subject
to
impact
assessment.
W
W
W
More
specifically,
The
Village
Center
is
broken
down
into
three
sub
precincts
and
the
subject
size
located
within
the
Village
Center
South.
Each
sub
Precinct
includes
character,
conceptual
and
development
outcomes
that
guide
development
for
each
individual
site.
To
date,
Apple
development
applications
lodged
in
accordance
of
the
spit
master
plan
have
been
lodged
over
the
subject
site
and
the
sites
to
the
North
and
South.
W
W
The
proposals
for
a
mixtures,
development
that
provides
tourist
accommodation,
commercial,
tenancies,
marine-based
components
and
publicly
accessible
elements.
The
Proposal
is
three
stories
in
height
includes
three
levels
of
basement.
The
basement
levels
will
provide
car
parking
and
commercial
space
for
bar
function
facility
and
Indoor,
Sport
and
Rec.
The
ground
floor
will
provide
the
hotel
lobby,
commercial
Tendencies
to
public
Plaza
and
the
boardwalk.
W
The
marina
will
consist
of
66
Marine
personal
and
a
hotel
that
will
replace
the
existing
Fisherman's
Wharf
Tavern.
The
first
and
second
floors
comprise
the
hotel
keys
and
the
rooftop
will
consist
of
the
communal
open
space
with
the
southern
area,
doubling
as
function
facility
space
outside
the
function
facility.
The
rooftop
will
be
limited
to
Hotel
guests
only
when
assessing
the
proposal
offices,
key
considerations
related
to
compliance
of
the
spit
master
plan,
maintenance
and
tenure
of
the
publicly
accessible
elements,
amenity,
car
parking,
Supply
and
assessment
of
submissions
in
terms
of
compliance
with
the
spit
master
plan.
W
The
Proposal
includes
a
high
quality
activated
development
that
achieves
these
aspirations
through
the
mixed
scale
and
variety
of
commercial
tenancies
tourist
accommodation
opportunities
in
the
hotel
over
water
Additionally.
The
proposal
will
provide
the
anticipated
publicly
accessible
elements
being
the
plaza
to
the
South
and
the
boardwalk
along
the
water's
edge.
An
infrastructure
agreement
was
entered
into
that
requires
a
developer
to
deliver
the
publicly
accessible
elements
undertake
any
necessary
maintenance
or
repair
and
ensure
these
elements
are
publicly
accessible
at
all
times,
all
at
no
cost
of
council.
W
Another
key
consideration
of
the
proposals
ensuring
an
appropriate
level
of
amenity
is
maintained.
This
will
be
achieved
through
the
majority
of
commercial
Tendencies
being
internalized
within
the
site,
restrictions
to
operational
hours,
acoustic
attenuation
measures
and
a
cap
of
a
thousand
square
meters
of
bar
land
use
across
the
site
in
terms
of
car
parking.
The
short-term
accommodation
use
will
provide
45
spaces.
In
addition
to
five
car
share
spaces,
the
remainder
of
the
development
will
be
serviced
by
382
car
parking
spaces
and
30
motorbike
spaces.
W
Officers
have
Quantified
the
expected
demand
and
determine
their
sufficient
Supply
to
Services
development.
A
total
of
25
submissions
were
received.
All
an
objection,
the
key
concerns
related
to
wealth,
disparity
parking
and
traffic,
social
and
amending
impacts
and
the
displacement
of
local
businesses.
W
E
E
B
X
X
B
X
So
sorry,
the
the
180,
that's
if
if
they
were
to
comply
with
the
acceptable
outcome,
so
it's
one
space
per
room,
so
they've
got
180
rooms.
Total
the
50
spaces
is
a
performance
outcome,
so
the
hotel
operator
has
come
and
said.
We
need
50
spaces
to
operate
successfully
in
terms
of
like
in
in
the
transport
Hub
area,
we
usually
accept
a
rate
of
one
space
per
four
dwellings.
X
X
B
W
E
W
That
is
correct
and
just
to
clarify
more
on
the
wealth
disparity.
A
lot
of
this
missions
reference,
a
certain
part
of
the
spit
master
plan
that
talks
about
budget
and
premium
tourist
opportunities
being
provided
Spin,
and
that
was
where
the
sort
of
wording
of
that
heading
came
from
in
regards
to
that
officers,
assess
the
proposal
against
having
regard
to
the
entirety
of
the
locality,
which
provides
a
mixture
of
premium
and
budget
tourist
opportunities
which
we
consider
to
apply.
Thank
you.
W
A
E
It's
the
extension
of
that
also
include
the
ability
of
people
to
have
a
upon
not
a
pontooner
barge,
for
example,
attached
to
the
Pontoon
so
with
them
so
to
whilst
this
application
doesn't
allow
for
it.
If
somebody
comes
and
and
uses
one
of
the
births
to
have
a
barge
to
allow,
would
that
be
a
separate
application
that
would
need
to
be
lodged.
I'm.
W
A
Neil
any
questions
from
you
Patterson
on
this
one.
In
that
case
I'm
happy
to
move
the
officer
recommendation.
That's
seconded
by
councilor
Gates
I'll
use
my
open
as
my
clothes
as
well
just
to
say
that
you
know
the
spit
is
a
jewel
in
the
Gold
Coast.
It
is
much
loved
by
all
our
residents
and
by
the
entire
region
that
come
to
visit
it.
A
So
really
pleased
to
see
this
application
come
forward.
Look
forward
to
seeing
it
be
developed.
I
will
make
a
final
comment
on
the
records
now.
In
regards
the
existing
businesses
at
the
site,
so
while
it
isn't
something
that
officers
can
consider
as
part
of
the
application,
we
as
representatives
of
the
city
and
just
as
human
beings
recognize
the
fact
that
it's
been
a
rough
situation
for
those
businesses,
some
who
have
been
there
for
quite
a
long
time
and
while
as
part
of
the
application,
it
couldn't
be
considered.
A
We
as
a
city
working
with
those
businesses
to
attempt
to
find
other
sites,
and
what
I
hope
will
happen
is
that,
while
this
particular
developer
didn't
see
those
existing
companies
remaining
there
I
hope
there
may
be.
A
different
developer
may
see
that
as
an
opportunity
to
capitalize
on
and
propose
something
where
those
companies
find
another
long-term
home
base.
G
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
do
understand
that
the
lens
that's
on
this
today
is
the
planning
applic
planning
process
and,
and
with
that
is
approval.
But
I
do
want
to
take
this
opportunity
to
just
air
my
deep
concern,
not
only
for
the
small
businesses,
but
what
that
means
for
access
to
our
waterways.
For
those
who
aren't
super
wealthy,
mount
maunganui
in
New
Zealand
at
the
moment,
is
really
having
a
naval
gazing
experience.
Looking
at
what
have
they
created
where
now
a
lot
of
their
access
ways.
G
Are
you
know
it's
for
luxury,
Yachts
luxury
boats
and
is
limiting
access
to
the
everyday
person?
Our
Broadwater
is
essential
in
terms
of
to
so
many
people
as
a
way
of
life.
My
concern
is
for
this
to
have
come
here
without
support
from
the
state
state,
government
and
I
know
we're
doing
everything
we
can
to
find
a
home
for
these
small
businesses.
G
It
actually
impacts
that
capacity
for
the
everyday
day,
gold
coaster
to
get
out
and
experience
I
for
one
don't
have
a
super
boat
and
if
I
want
to
go
out
and
enjoy
the
Broadwater
I,
don't
have
any
vote.
I,
don't
even
have
a
tinny,
it
would
be
a
matter
of
using
a
day
hire
facility.
So
it
is
a
concern.
I
recognize
that
it's
not
in
the
remit
of
the
planning,
but
it's
something
for
us
to
consider.
B
We've
also
spoken
previously
about
our
places,
the
tourism
capital
and
the
need
to
keep
Reinventing
ourselves
and
providing
new
product
to
remain
at
that
status
and
to
keep
encouraging
people
to
our
city
and
I
think
this
will
most
definitely
be
not
just
within
our
country
but
internationally
with
the
Ritz
Carlton.
This
will
be
somewhere
that
people
will
want
to
come
to.
We
all
know
that
our
city
has
more
boats
than
anywhere
else
in
the
country
and
the
marine
marina.
B
C
Comment
on
spawn:
yes,
thank
you
and
look.
There
has
been
a
lot
of
commentary
about
this
particular
site
and
we
can't
actually
make
our
decision
based
on
the
tourist
operators
over
the
period
of
three
years.
There's
been
many
operators
that
have
found
other
homes,
but
what
this
has
highlighted
as
a
city
for
local
and
for
state
government
that
we
need
to
find
home
for
our
tourist
operators.
We
have
other
operators
that
moved
into
other
commercial
properties
that
could
have
the
same
problem
down
the
track.
C
So
what
this
is
highlighted
is
a
real
problem
that
we
do
have
as
growing
sitting,
and
we
need
to
be
looking
for
solutions
for
our
tourist
operators
in
this
this
area
moving
forward,
but
in
relation
to
this
proposal,
what
I
can
say
is
the
developers
did
work
with
our
planners
right
through
and
I
want
to
thank
the
officers
for
working
with
them.
It
wasn't
the
first.
C
C
There
was
many
concerns
raised
by
the
public,
but
we
have
improved
our
main
Beach
drive
down
there
recently
to
improve
traffic.
The
area
needs
it.
The
master
plan
has
been
developed.
It
talks
this
type
of
development.
The
area
needs
this
type
of
uplift
and
I.
Think
it's
going
to
be
really
really
positive
for
the
area
and
for
the
whole
city.
So
I'm
really
encouraged
with
this.
That
we'd
love
to
see
this
up
and
running
and
we
get
support,
but
it
also
does
highlight
some
other
challenges
that
we
need
to
look
at
moving
forward.
A
The
councilors
I'm
going
to
call
the
vote
on
this
one
now,
so
all
those
in
favor
that
is
carried
unanimous
counselors.
That
is
it
for
the
items
today.
There
was
a
gbi,
but
we're
going
to
hold
that
over
until
next
committee
can
I
take
a
moment
to
thank
officers.
Today,
it's
been
a
long
one
and
there's
been
a
lot
of
questions
and
backwards
and
forwards.
So
thank
you
for
your
efforts
and
Mick.
Please
pass
that
on
to
officers
who
aren't
here
any
longer.