►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
B
B
The
site
is
within
an
area
which
could
be
described
as
a
mixed-use
character,
immediately
adjacent
to
a
significant
transport
hub
in
the
rabina
train
station
and
bus
interchange.
Other
land
uses
in
the
proximity
of
the
site
include.
There
have
been
a
hospital,
a
seabus
stadium,
bond
university
campuses,
various
commercial
developments
of
varying
heights
and
and
configurations,
and
similarly,
residential
developments
of
varying
heights
and
configurations
from
low-rise
sprawling
to
residential
to
more
apartment,
tower
forms.
B
B
B
The
two
towers
are
general,
with
generally
consistent
floor
plates
orientated
to
face
north
and
northeast
and
are
separated
from
each
other
by
between
approximately
15
meters
and
39
meters.
B
B
B
B
The
pod
provides
council
with
the
consent
of
robina
to
dispense
with
any
of
the
provisions,
dispense
or
modify
any
of
the
requirements
or
guidelines
of
the
pod.
If
it's
satisfied
that
that
is
warranted.
Having
regard
to
those
points
on
the
screen,
I
guess
very
quickly,
for
the
for
the
basis
of
the
presentation
offices
are
satisfied
that
the
proposal
achieves
those
elements
and
I'll
just
run
through
quickly,
they're
articulated
further
in
the
report,
but,
generally
speaking,
the
existing
development
in
the
area.
B
B
B
So
in
producing
a
an
outcome
of
this
one,
where
there's
towers
in
a
broader
landscape,
setting
with
larger
setbacks
to
the
site,
frontages
and
the
site
boundaries,
it
affords
future
residents
a
greater
level
of
amenity
that
might
otherwise
be
the
outcome
of
lower
rise
perimeter
style
buildings
that
are
a
lot
closer
to
the
street
edges
and
those
interfaces
the
proposed
use
is
residential.
So
there's
nothing
that
officers
see.
That
would
be.
B
You
know
controversial
about
a
particular
residential
development
in
this
pod
which
or
this
development
section,
which
anticipates
residential
development,
the
provisions
of
the
strategic
plan.
Now
when
this,
when
the
rcpa
was
formulated
it
it
requires
well,
the
strategic
plan
that
it
relates
to
is
the
1988
strategic
plan
for
the
albert
shaw
council
planning
scheme.
B
As
we've
said
the
pod.
Well,
the
application,
in
our
view,
complies
with
all
of
the
other
provisions
of
the
pod,
except
for
this
provision
that
we're
seeking
to
to
modify
the
provisions
of
the
rcpa.
Similarly,
there's
nothing,
in
our
view
specific
to
the
in
the
rcpa
that
this
particular
application
would
offend.
B
Ameliorating
the
design
inside
in
a
landscape
and
officers
feel
that
now
the
modified
proposal
that
the
that
has
come
about
along
with
the
landscape,
that's
been
the
landscape
outcome.
That's
been
achieved,
satisfactionally
achieves
that
point
and
car
parking
requirements
again
the
site
provides
more
than
its
required
lance
car
parking
requirements
with
those
in
mind,
officers,
support
the
proposal
and
and
recommend
its
approval
questions.
B
It
then
requires
each
of
the
various
precincts
to
have
its
own
particular
intent
statements
and
then
this
drills
down
further
to
a
particular
development
section
and
then
in
each
of
the
development
sections
and
again,
as
this
one
is
within
the
railway
interchange,
there's
particular
requirements
that
are
prepared
and
I've
not
I've
been
in
an
area.
I've
not
been
involved
in
the
preparation
of
one,
but
I
understand
that
rabina
usually
does
those
and
then
a
pod
is
put
forward.
So,
yes,
it
is
a
very
it's
a
level
of
criteria
that
is
used
to
assess
an
application.
C
So
I
like
to
quite
a
plan
of
development
effectively
as
a
preliminary
approval,
perhaps
through
you,
mr
chairman,
to
mick,
would
that
be
or
to
roger
would
that
be
perhaps
not
an
accurate
but
a
fair
characterization
for
those
counsellors
who
are
unfamiliar
with
what
a
pod
is.
D
You,
mr
chair,
I
consider
the
pods
more
akin
to
the
old
local
area
plans
that
we
had
under
the
03
scheme.
Preliminary
approvals,
it's
possible
that
could
have
some
similarity,
but
we
do
actually
give
quite
a
lot
of
guidance
in
relation
to
what
development
outcomes
should
be.
So
it's
more
than
a
preliminary
approval.
Pods
are
quite
specific
to
their
specific
locations
within
robina
central.
C
D
C
C
So
so
the
pod
was
amended
in
october
october.
To
november,
is
one
month
november
to
december
is
two
months,
so
the
fda
was
lodged
two
months
after
it
had
just
been
amended.
Could
city
officers?
Perhaps
if
you
have
the
agenda
in
front
of
you
turn
to
page
18
and
counselors,
you
might
want
to
follow
along.
C
Specific
requirements,
specific
requirements-
and
it
reads
here-
a
the
maximum.
The
maximum
permissible
number
of
stories
within
the
development
section
is
eight
stories
now.
Does
that
come
from
the
preliminary
approval?
That
was
just
two
months
old
when
the
fda
was
lodged
or
is
that
found
somewhere
else
in
our
planning,
australia,.
C
So
so
we've
got
a
so.
The
local
government,
rubina
central
planning
act,
says
eight
stories
and
the
freshly
minted
plan
of
development
that
doesn't
deal
with
a
swathe
of
the
area,
but
this
site
specifically
barely
two
months
old
and
infant
in
planning
terms,
says
the
maximum.
The
maximum
permissible
height
in
stories
is
eight
now.
C
My
sense
of
it,
though,
is
officers,
are
arguing
that
eight
stories
should
be
set
aside
based
on
the
application
of
5.6.1,
which
is
on
the
screen
there
slide
12.
Is
that
correct?
That's
correct,
okay,
let's
just
talk
about
the
words
above
the
ordered
list,
counsel
may,
with
the
consent
of
rabina
dispense
with
or
modify
any
of
the
requirements
or
guidelines
in
the
plan
of
development.
C
Having
a
regard
to
can
someone,
perhaps
you,
mr
chairman,
or
the
director
in
the
first
instance,
explain
to
me
the
the
ordinary
meaning
of
the
word
may,
because
it
doesn't
say,
counsel
must,
and
it
doesn't
say,
counsel
shall
it
says,
counsel
may
what
does
may
mean?
Does
that
afford
us
more
jurisdiction?
C
A
That's
what
I
would
say
and
to
just
add
to
to
the
delight
of
the
words
it
says
we
may
dispense
with
or
modify
any
of
the
requirements
or
guidelines,
and
then
it
doesn't
say
whether
we
have
regard
to
all
of
them,
which
is
of
course
of
itself
a
double-edged
sword,
because
it
may
be
the
case
that
sufficient
weight
to
the
extra
car
parking
is
in
fact
a
reasonable
sole
justification
for
a
modification
or
dispensing.
So
it's
a
very
wordy
and
complex
yeah
tricky.
C
C
C
You
can
argue
that
car
parking
should
be
justified
without
needing
to
support
a
15-storey
outcome,
because
the
site
covers
so
low.
You
could
conceivably
have
a
different
development
outcome
on
the
site.
Right
that
maintains
density,
provides
car
parking,
but
doesn't
trash
the
height
limit
right
that'll
be
fair.
So,
mr
chairman,
I
guess
for
me
the
nub.
The
nub
of
the
issue
here
is:
do
we
have
a
defensible
proposition
by
city
officers,
because
when
I
look
at
the
development
proposal
now
that
it's
been
finessed,
it's
not
offensive
to
me.
C
C
That's
two
months
old,
and
I
just
wonder
if
city
officers
can
tell
me
that
when
they
proceeded
through
the
test
in
5.6
5.6.1,
whether
they
felt
that
they
were
compelled
to
make
an
assessment
to
support
the
100
increase,
or
did
they
look
at
the
balance
of
facts
and
the
merit
of
the
application
and
decide
that
it
was
justified
to
ignore
a
provision
ignore
those
provisions
just
two
months
old,
so
so
in
the
decision-making
process?
Did
you
go
into
it
through
you,
mr
chairman,
believing
that
you
had
to
carry
out
these
tests?
D
Through
through
you,
mr
chair,
it
has
to
be
put
into
context
that
the
recently
approved
pod
is
a
modification
to
one,
that's
quite
old
and
the
and
the
eight
story
height
wasn't
part
of
the
change,
so
the
eight
stories
has
actually
been
envisaged
for
some
time.
In
our
opinion,
the
major
change
was
an
increase
in
the
ep,
the
equivalent
persons
from
175
to
225.
That,
in
our
opinion,
was
the
significant
change.
D
So,
in
answer
to
council
of
voices
question,
yes,
we've
spent
a
considerable
amount
of
time
going
through
the
guidelines,
the
the
design
guideline
criteria
within
five
section
5.3
and
in
relation
to
what
you
see
up
there.
There
is
an
ability
officers
believe
in
terms
of
5.6.1,
to
approve
a
development
where
it
doesn't
meet
some
of
the
guideline
criteria
within
5.5.
D
In
our
opinion,
we've
had
lots
of
workshops
with
the
the
applicant.
Our
architects
have
been
integral
in
relation
to
bringing
this
building
up
to
a
standard
that
we
believe
meets
5.6.1,
so
council
divorce
to
yes,
we
we,
we
believe
that
this
this
development
complies
with
the
rcpa
and
the
relevant
pod.
Mr.
A
So
5.3.5
a
is
the
height.
Presumably
we
then
go
on
to
5.6
5.6.1
and
it
says,
counsel
my
with
the
consent
of
robina,
and
we
refer
to
presumably
the
document
at
the
back,
which
says
rpa
properties.
Note
there
are
a
few
relaxations
required
under
the
provisions
of
the
pod
discussed
earlier,
which
will
be
addressed
by
the
city
council.
However,
this
letter
provides
consent
to
the
proposal
and
raises
no
objections,
so
we've
relied
on
that
in
order
to
trigger
the
assessment.
A
C
Thanks
chairman,
before
I
get
to
that
question,
I
suppose
I
just
want
to
yeah
underscore
the
point
you
make,
but
note
that
the
first
test
is
where
the
council
decides
that
something's
justifiable,
because
if
we
don't
believe
it's
justifiable,
we
wouldn't
seek
the
consent
of
robina.
So
the
test
would
fail
earlier
to
my
reading
of
the
legislation,
but,
mr
chairman,
through
you
to
our
architectural
team,
let's
assume
that
we're
dealing
with
a
development
that's
outside
of
the
robina
central
planning
area
and
outside
of
an
area
that
normally
qualifies
for
the
50
handbrake
right.
C
A
So
counselor,
the
answer
I
can
give
you
is
no
okay
in
the
areas
where
the
uplift
is
provided
to
a
maximum
of
fifty
percent.
There's
been
nothing
that
has
exceeded
that
to
the
magnitude
of
100
percent.
Okay,
so
can
we
let's
try
and
bring
it
back
to
this
one?
C
A
C
Let
me
tighten
the
question,
mr
chairman,
if
this
development
were
anywhere
else
in
the
city-
and
it
was
a
hundred
percent
above
the
the
mapped
height,
and
maybe
it's
the
same
as
that
collective
building
in
palm
beach,
I'm
not
sure
what
they're,
what
they're
attempting
to
do
if
it
were
anywhere
else,
does
the
architectural
merit
in
your
professional
opinion,
of
this
building
justify
100
uplift.
F
Through
the
chair,
it's
a
combination
of
items.
Architectural
merit
is
one
of
them.
Also,
the
existing
and
planned
character
is
another
element
that
we
consider
in
conjunction
to
architectural
merit.
C
But
if
it
were
anywhere
else
in
the
city,
if
it
were
in
narang
mm-hmm,
is
the
architectural
merit?
It's
a
g
sufficient
that
professionally,
you
would
say
that
we
dispense
of
because
we
actually
have
to
do
it.
It
uses
the
word
dispensation
right.
So
would
we
dispense
of
dispense
of
provision
just
throw
away.
A
A
Question:
okay
is
to
get
philip
back
up
and
to
walk
us
through
how
he
got
to
a
threshold
that
tipped
him
over
in
making
the
recommendation,
which
is
all
it
is
at
the
moment,
to
help
us
inform
our
decision.
How
did
he
approach
the
assessment
of
a
to
h
in
such
a
way
that
it
persuaded
him
in
his
assessment
that,
on
balance,
the
recommendation
should
be
that
we
modify
our
dispense
with
the
height
parameter?
You
know
what
I
mean:
okay,
phillip.
B
I
was
just
deliberating
with
a
colleague
on
there.
Can
we
just.
B
I
think
to
make
the
guess
to
start
with
my
first
view
on
it
is
that
you
know
dispensing
or
modifying,
and
there
might
be
other
people
in
the
room
be
more
proficient
in
the
english
language
than
me,
but
I
don't
see
that
we've
dispensed
with
the
provisions
of
this
of
the
of
this
pod
to
me
dispense
would
mean
that
we
didn't
give
it
any
consideration
heights,
not
an
issue,
do
with
it.
What
you
will,
I
think
we
approached
it.
We
approached
it
from
the
position
of
modifying
some
of
the
provisions
and
understanding
them.
B
B
In
our
view,
it's
a
very
mixed
use
area.
It
has
a
for
anything
from
large
institutional
buildings,
a
large
sports
stadium,
lower
rise,
sprawling
residential
development,
more
medium-rised
residential
development,
high-rise
office
development,
a
significant
transit
hub.
There
was
nothing
there,
both
in
land
use
or
built
form.
That
necessarily
said
there
is
a
specific
character
here,
both
in
land
use
or
built
form.
B
B
What
would
be
the
amenity
impacts
of
this
application
and
really
the
most
significant
one
if
there
were
to
be
any,
was
what
impact
it
might
otherwise
have
on
that
lower
rise
residential
development
across
the
road,
and
in
that
respect
it
was
in
most
things
it
probably
came
down
to
shadowing,
and
the
shadow
provision
showed
that
this
was
not
going
to
have
a
significant
impact
or,
if
any,
on
those
particular
residences.
B
Well,
if
it
were
in
another
form
and
in
the
pod,
it
does
have
in
the
in
the
back
of
the
pod,
like
a
development
plan
that
shows
a
general
much
like
many
pods
or
would
have
one
form
of
achieving
the
outcomes
of
this
pod
and
that
is
perimeter-style
building
which
presumably
a
lower
rise,
pushed
to
the
boundaries
and
the
amenity
impacts
that
we
would
see
with
from
the
transit
hub
from
the
dr
from
the
street
frontages
from
the
service
station.
B
It's
probably
arguably
whether
the
strategic
plan
came
about
before
the
rcpa
was
even
put
together,
so
whether
it
really
had
a
lot
of
bearing
in
in
the
original
rcpa
the
plan
of
development.
Again,
we
were
satisfied
that
other
than
the
height,
which
obviously
we're
asked
to
assess
through
this
test,
all
other
aspects
of
the
pod,
the
intent.
B
The
the
type
of
development
that
was
being
proposed
was
consistent
with
the
plan
of
development.
Similarly,
the
rcpa
going
through
that
process
analyzing
that
there
was
nothing
specific
other
than
the
intent
statements
which
were
really
the
same
statements
that
are
then
picked
up
in
the
pod.
That
would
cause
this
particular
development
to
say
otherwise.
It
doesn't
it's
not
appropriate
on
this
site.
B
Again,
I
think
we've
talked
about
point
g
and
then
point
h
in
that
the
car
parking
that
is
provided
is
an
increase
in
both
visitor
and
residents
above
the
the
requirements
that
may
be
long-winded.
But
that
was
the
process
that
we
went
through
in
understanding
whether
or
not
and
if
and
in
our
recommendation,
it
is
reasonable
to
support
the
additional.
A
D
D
We
we
believe
that
the
eight-story
threshold
that
is
on
many
pods
within
rabina,
is
because
of
that
ep
cap.
So
heights
are
limited
because
of
the
restriction
or
the
inability
to
go
above
the
23
000
ep.
So
being
cognizant
of
that,
there
could
have
been
another
example
of
a
development
on
the
site
for
four
eight
story
towers.
G
Just
a
couple
of
questions
through
the
chair:
should
this
application
be
granted
its
approval
today.
Will
this
become
the
tallest
residential
building
in
robina.
D
G
E
G
B
I
think
it
would
be
within
that
riverwalk
precinct,
probably
around
eight
rounds.
It
wouldn't
be
in
that
in
that
immediate
vicinity.
G
And-
and
I
could
be
speaking
out
of
turn-
I
don't
know
it
just
this
would
concern
the
concern
that
I
have
is
going
to
almost
like
100
uplift.
What
if
we
get
an
application
at
the
spit
for
six
stories,
are
we
going
to
sit
here
and
make
the
same
sort
of
decision
if
we
had
an
application
for
a
six-story
building
at
the
spit?
But
we
sit
here
and
and
not
say
anything
as
well.
A
Yeah
I
mean
look
it's
difficult
because,
as
we
said
before,
the
planning
provisions
are
different
in
the
different
areas.
So
I
can't
exactly
forecast
what
the
officers
would
do,
but
I
would
imagine
that
it
would
come
up
before
it
gets
here
as
a
recommendation
for
refusal
based
on
their
assessment
of
the
height
and
the
way
that
the
height
parameters
intended
to
work,
which
is
what
the
officers.
B
E
Chair,
I'm
interested
in
so
at
the
start
of
the
presentation
you
showed
a
render
of
what
the
building
was
proposed.
Look
like
in
the
first
place,
which
I
think
you
called
it
stark
and
something
else,
I'm
just
interested
apart
from
the
green
vertical
stripe
of
plants.
What
else
has
changed
in
terms
of
the
architectural
design.
F
Through
the
chair,
as
discussed
previously,
there
was
a
number
of
workshops
held
with
the
applicant
and
we
worked
with
them
to
improve
the
design
to
a
higher
degree
of
excellence.
So
the
first
things
we
did
was
to
thin
the
balcony
edges.
So
previously,
there
was
a
concrete
up
stand,
creating
a
lot
of
bulk
to
the
edges
of
the
building.
That's
been
since
been
replaced
with
glass.
If
we
can
just
flick
between
the
two,
then
we
also
broke
up
the
visual
scale
and
formed
the
building.
F
F
Thanks
chair,
I
just
want
to
go
back
to
the
process
that
council.
This
is
for
phillip
thanks
jeremiah
the
process
that
council
officers
followed
about
getting
the
approval
from
rpa,
because
I
noticed
in
the
letter
that
the
document
the
approval
application
went
to
them
on
the
15th
of
february.
So
just
to
go
back
to
council
of
oysters.
F
It
was
just
opinion
that
that
we
made
the
decision.
The
planning
officers
made
the
decision
that
that
they
were
okay
with
the
height
increase
and
then
sought
the
approval
of
of
rpa.
Is
that
correct?
And
I
I'm
I'm
thinking
that
this
is
the
first
application
that
we've
had
to
actually
implement
this
process
as
well.
B
Through
the
chair,
I'll
I'd
probably
have
to
check
the
details
on
that,
because
I
wasn't
the
assessing
officer
when
it
started,
but
I
understand
that
it
may
have
been
through
the
information
request
that
that
consent
was
asked
for,
but
I'll.
I
can
confirm
that
and
that
it
was
an
oversight
that
they
didn't
provide
that
and
that
it
came
after.
But
I
believe
that
might
have
been
the
case,
but
I
can
check
so
it's
possibly.
G
Thanks
chairman,
could
I
just
through
you
have
an
understanding
of
council
of
worster's
concern?
Is
it
simply
that
the
height
varies
from
the
plan
of
development,
or
is
there
some
other
concern?
I
mean,
I
think,
we'd
all
accept
that
they're
attractive
buildings
they've
got
a
smaller
footprint
which,
to
me
is
a
benefit
rather
than
forced,
brawling
eight-story
buildings
it
most
certainly
in
my
opinion,
provides
a
better
amenity.
G
So
is
your
concern
simply
the
variation
from
the
plan
of
development,
albeit
we've
been
told
that
the
officers
can
have
discretion
in
that
regard,
or
is
it
that
it
may
set
a
precedent
for
residential
height?
Are
there
other
opportunities
nearby
that
are
giving
you
concern
that
this
may
set
a
precedent.
C
I
am
aware
of
residential
developments
that
may
seek
to
exceed
an
eight-storey,
a
notional
eight-story
height
limit,
for
example,
the
state
government's
proposed
athlete's
village
at
rubina,
but
that
is
not
at
the
center
of
my
thinking
on
this
application
whatsoever.
So
precedent
does
concern
me,
but
I'm
more
concerned
about
the
defensibility
of
at
a
possible
decision
to
support
the
officer
recommendation
to
our
communities
and
my
my
sense,
through
this
process
and
through
the
questioning
of
city
offices
is.
C
I
believe
this
is
my
view
that
city
officers
have
looked
for
a
way
to
support
an
application
by
a
developer,
rather
than
looking
at
it
from
the
public
interest
perspective,
which
is
what
I
think
is
actually
captured
in
the
provisions
by
asking
first
whether
counts.
Whether
council
should
dispense
with
the
planning
instrument-
and
I
think
or
aspects
of
the
planning
instrument-
and
I
think
it
becomes
very
difficult
for
us
to.
C
This
pod
was
modified
in
october
2021
to
lift
the
ep
right
to
effectively
put
more
residents
on
the
site
than
they
would
otherwise
have
been.
So
I
don't
have
an
issue
with
people
living
and
working
next
to
a
heavy
rail
station.
C
I
think
it's
very
disingenuous
for
the
applicant
then
to
lodge
an
fda
that's
twice
the
height.
They
should
have
been
upfront
with
their
intent
during
the
pod
assessment
process.
They
should
have
said
we
want
these
concessions.
We
aim
to
get
to
15
stories
and
then
the
pod
would
have
come
to
committee
with
the
leave
of
the
director
and
not
been
handled
under
delegation.
C
So
for
the
sake
of
the
integrity
of
our
decision-making
process
and
the
defensibility
of
the
decision,
I
think
we
need
to
be
a
hundred
percent,
confident
that
city
officers
are
so
overwhelmed
by
the
merit
of
this
application
that
we
can't
help
but
support
their
view
that
100
increase
is
benefit
and
just.
Lastly,
mr
chairman,
through
you
to
councillor
gates,
as
I
said,
this
development
is
nice.
Looking
as
I
keep
saying,
it
would
be
nice
in
maine
beach.
C
But
the
thing
about
robina
is
one
of
the
issues
that
we've
had
with
the
pattern
of
development
in
robina
is
we
haven't,
had
good
activation
at
the
pedestrian
level
and
with
the
street,
and
it's
actually
harmed
the
development
of
robina,
because
we've
got
sporadic
pockets
of
an
inner
city,
cbd
feel
but
then
punctuated
by
unactivated
edges
and
nothing
for
people
to
see
and
do
or
passive
surveillance
to
support.
You
know
good
safety
outcomes.
C
I
would
have
thought
that
a
better
outcome
for
the
site
and
one
that
could
have
justified
some
concessions
was
actually-
and
this
might
astound
many
who
believe
setbacks
are
always
best
to
preserve,
but
to
actually
have
less
setback
to
the
road
so
that
we've
got
an
actual
continuity
of
activity
through
to
stadium
drive
and
the
stadium
village
precinct
by
actually
putting
development
further
back
and
taking
it
out
of
the
built
environment.
I
actually
think
we
harm
the
eventual
amenity
that
we
aspire
for
aspire
to
and
what
functions
as
a
cbd.
G
So,
chairman,
sorry,
I
hadn't
quite
finished.
If
that's
okay,
I'm
I'm
struggling
a
little
bit
to
balance
the
requirements
of
the
seq
plan
for
80
uplift
in
the
consolidated
area
close
to
services
and
public
transport
and
the
like.
But
through
you
to
the
offices,
I
wasn't
clear
was
the
plan
of
development
that
was
amended
two
months
ago
or
in
october.
2021
was
that
at
the
request
of
this
applicant
that
that
amendment
occurred.
A
G
A
Council
of
also,
you
know
as
contemporary
as
the
eight
stories
decision
was,
the
paragraph
that
follows
is
as
contemporary
that
compels
us
to
apply
that
test.
So
I
just
want
us
to
follow.
C
A
C
So,
madam
chair,
oh
sorry,
mr
chairman,
threw
you
to
the
deputy.
C
C
You've
got
a
resort
style
pool
and
you
live
next
to
a
servo.
It's
like
what
more
could
you
want?
C
A
B
Sorry,
oh,
no,
not
40.,
yes,
20
odd
pages.
B
A
A
B
A
If
you
have
a
look
at
that
document-
and
this
is
where
I
get
to
in
terms
of
the
context
of
the
whole
document-
it
has
a
sighting
plan
there,
which
talks
to
exactly
the
point
that
council
of
wars
has
talked
about
around
activation
of
the
street
frontage.
So,
to
me
never
mind
the
height,
the
departure
could
just
as
much
be
as
important.
The
fact
that
the
floor
plates
are
nowhere
near
the
street
frontage,
which
is
what
the
pod
calls
for.
So
it's
actually,
I
think,
there's
more
to
this
than
just
the
height.
B
Through
the
chair,
if
I
may,
there
is
a
provision
in
the
pod
at
section
three
and
yes,
there
is
that
that
indicative
layout
in
the
back,
it
does
talk
about
the
development
control,
the
concept
plan.
Being
that
plan
that
you're
looking
at
is
based
on
the
development
requirements
and
guidelines
contained
within
the
pod.
B
It
goes
it
says
an
illustrative
and
illustrates
indicative
layouts
for
the
general
site
in
configuration
of
buildings,
car
parking
and
landscape
areas.
It
goes
on
to
say
that,
however,
other
forms
of
development
which
meet
the
development
requirements
and
guidelines
may
be
approved,
so
I
guess
in
in
offices.
Reading
of
the
document,
it
was
a
case
of
that
is
an
indicative
outcome.
B
B
A
I'm
open
to
some
emotions
on
this.
I
I'm
also
inclined
to
just
think
that
it
might
be
a
little
bit
difficult
for
us
to
deal
with
this
today
and
that
we
should
defer
it
to
full
council,
because
if
in
circumstances
where
a
further
analysis
of
the
pod
doesn't
support
the
approval
under
this
assessment,
I
think
we
need
to
be
laser
focused
on
making
sure
that
we
articulate
exactly
what
those
reasons
are.
A
A
C
Mr
chairman,
only
to
say,
I
think
we
all
agree.
It's
a
great
development,
it's
a
great
looking
development,
but
it's
a
development
that
proposes
to
take
place
in
in
an
area
with
a
very
peculiar
and
particular
planning
approach,
and
in
this
case
we've
got
a
six-month-old
planning
instrument
that
deals
with
this
site.
Specifically.
C
E
Want
to
speak
against
it
just
a
final
question
in
regards
to
this
that
was
circulated.
Does
the
pod
detail
any
shadow
diagrams
for
the
eight
stories,
so
the
in
here
the
notional
three
footprints
on
lava
drive?
Do
they
cast?
Does
it
would
an
eight
story
building
cast
a
shadow
across
to
the
residential
properties
on
the
other
side
through.
E
Okay,
but
good,
because
I
think
I
think
that
should
in
part
inform
the
conversation
at
council
because
on
one
hand
we
say
well,
it'd
be
nice
if
it
followed
the
pod,
but
then
one
advantage
of
a
taller
building
set
back
away
on
on
the
other
boundary.
Is
that
that
shadow,
which
you
have
done,
the
work
on
doesn't
cast
over
to
other
residential
products.
So
I
think
that
that's
the
balance
that
we
might
need
to
look
at
in
the
context
of
what
a
taller
building
might
mean
for
the
existing
residents
in
the
in
the
immediate
area.
E
C
I
think
these
are
precisely
the
sort
of
questions
that
need
to
be
asked
when
determining
whether
it's
supported
or
not,
and
so
we've
had
shadowing
diagrams
produced
by
the
applicant,
but
we
haven't
looked
at
other
outcomes
on
the
site,
which
I
think
talks
to
whether
an
outcome
is
justifiable
or
not.
We
don't
have
to
accept
that.
This
is
the
only
outcome
and
council
erwin
jones
makes
a
good
point
that
we
should
look
at
what
different
outcomes
could
mean.
I
don't
know
think
that's
essentially
why.
E
Council
patio
chairman
I've
been
sympathetic
to
councillor,
bolsters
arguments
today
and
I'll
support
the
motion,
but
I
just
want
to
express
an
opinion
through
you
to
him
that,
hopefully
he
can
give
us
some
clarity
about
what
his
expectation
would
be
for
the
site
when
we
debate
this
at
council,
because
I've
only
got
this
bit
of
paper
and
despite
which
way
I
hold
it
it.
It
doesn't.
E
Look
that
great
and-
and
there
are
some
merits
of
the
proposal
that
we've
seen
not
a
lot,
but
I
would
just
like
to
get
a
really
clear
understanding
of
what
that
alternative
outcome
might
be.
Thanks.
Chairman.