S & S No. 4 Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Ors [2024] QPEC 42

Brisbane City Council v YQ Property Pty Ltd [2020] QCA 253; [2021] QPELR 987

S & S No. 4 Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Ors [2024] QPEC 42 | Case summary | Zoe

[11]

[1] This is an applicant appeal against Council's decision to refuse an impact assessable development application seeking approval for a high-rise development in the Centre zone at Palm Beach.
[2] The land the subject of the development application is a prominent site, located towards the middle of the Palm Beach district centre, on the south-western corner of the intersection of Gold Coast Highway and Palm Beach Avenue (the site). Having regard to existing improvements in combination with its centre zoning, the site is materially underdeveloped; it is ripe for redevelopment. It was uncontroversial that Council's adopted planning controls encourage a form of redevelopment significantly greater than the bulk, height, scale and density of the existing development on the site.
[3] Council, and the co-respondents by election who made properly made submissions adverse to the development application (the submitters), oppose the appeal and contend for refusal. The planning issues advanced in support of refusal by Council and the submitters overlap. The issues go to matters of building height, traffic safety and compliance with version 8 of Council's 2016 planning scheme (the planning scheme).
[4] At first blush, the case in favour of refusal starts on a solid footing. The proposed development exceeds the standard prescribed in Council's planning scheme for building height in the order of 50%. The significance of the exceedance was not lost on the public; 1863 properly made submissions objecting to an earlier iteration of the development took issue with excessive building height and density. While the building height exceedance is an important issue, it is not fatal to the success of the development application. Unlike other parts of the planning scheme area, the land is not included in a designation where there is an expression of planning policy discouraging building height at or above 50% greater than the prescribed standard: cf with s 3.3.2.1(10). Relevantly here, the planning scheme provides an opportunity for building height 'uplift' in excess of the prescribed standard in a mixed use centre, provided specific requirements are met. Whether the requirements of the uplift provision are met in the circumstances of this case is the key planning issue in the appeal.
[5] The appeal is a hearing anew: ss 43 and 46(1) of the Planning & Environment Court Act 2016.
[6] It is for the appellant to establish the appeal should be upheld: s 45(1)(a) of the Planning & Environment Court Act 2016.

[13]

[8] As to adjoining neighbours, the site is well placed. It has no residential neighbours. The only adjoining neighbour is the Palm Beach Hotel. This use sits on an 'L-shaped' lot, which is 5,050 m2 in size and adjoins the southern and western boundaries of the site.
[9] To the immediate south of the site there is an aggregation of built form comprising older single and two storey commercial buildings. It is either built to boundary or has a small setback to the Gold Coast Highway. The two-storey built form is the Palm Beach Hotel, which includes a drive-thru liquor component. The rear of the hotel faces an at-grade carpark that spans between Palm Beach Avenue (to the north) and Fifth Avenue (to the south).
[10] To the immediate west of the site is the same at-grade carpark discussed above. It presents a 40 metre wide frontage to Palm Beach Avenue. The carpark is available to hotel patrons and provides paid parking facilities for the public. The at-grade carpark area provides a generous separation distance from the rear of the site to an older single storey commercial building to the west of the carpark.
[11] The site has two road frontages. It has a 29 metre frontage to the Gold Coast Highway, which is a four lane median divided State controlled road with peak hour volumes (past the site) in the order of 2,640 to 2,800 vehicles. On-street parallel parking is available on both sides of the Gold Coast Highway. The site has a 39 metre frontage to Palm Beach Avenue, which is a two-way, two-lane Council controlled sub-arterial road providing the main connection from Palm Beach to the Pacific Motorway in the west. This road carries peak hour traffic volumes past the site in the order of 610 to 680 vehicles. On-street parallel parking is available on the sides, and in the centre median, of Palm Beach Avenue.
[12] Forward planning documents convey an expectation that the Gold Coast light rail is intended to pass the site through a passenger transport corridor, connecting Broadbeach and Coolangatta. While no funding is committed, and the precise timing for the delivery of this infrastructure is unknown, it can be observed that the Department of Transport and Main Roads has started planning for the project. The planning reflects, at this stage, that a light rail station will be provided on the northern side of the Gold Coast Highway/Palm Beach Avenue intersection: Ex. 6.10, Figure 3.
[13] A broader study area reveals the site is located at the southern end of Palm Beach, which is a well-defined and consolidated suburb. The suburb is bookended by Tallebudgera Creek to the north and Currumbin Creek to the south. The eastern edge of the suburb is defined by the ocean. The Pacific Motorway defines the western edge. A prominent character element is the Gold Coast Highway, which provides a north-south spine. Perpendicular cross-streets extend from the spine in an easterly and westerly direction, providing an orthogonal street network. This facilitates permeability and walkability for pedestrians, particularly where cross-streets terminate at the beach. This occurs at the eastern end of Palm Beach Avenue, about 140 metres east of the site.
[14] The existing built form character of Palm Beach is not homogenous.
[15] The area to the east of the Gold Coast Highway between the two bookends includes medium to high rise residential buildings. The built form is a prominent visual and character element. The age, height, scale and design of the buildings vary. Modern built form (about 29 to 39 metres in height) is visually dominant near the site when it is viewed from the Gold Coast Highway (looking north and south). Existing development to the west of the Gold Coast Highway is less intense than the eastern side. It retains a low-rise character, albeit with prominent exceptions. Existing built form also varies in age, scale and design. While predominantly residential in nature, the western side of the Gold Coast highway is punctuated with commercial uses. Uses of this character are concentrated in the Palm Beach district centre. The site is located in about the middle of the centre.
[16] The Palm Beach district centre is a traditional highway orientated centre occupying five street blocks, from Eighth to Fourth Avenue between the Gold Coast Highway and Cypress Terrace. In land use terms, the centre comprises a mix of shops, offices, commercial and personal services, older houses and newer multiple dwellings. The tallest buildings in the centre are: (1) a mixed use development between Fourth and Fifth Avenue; and (2) a new 39 metre high multiple dwelling (comprising a tower and modest podium) located at the corner of Seventh Avenue and Cypress Terrace.
[17] Mr Curtis, who is an architect and landscape architect, undertook a detailed examination of the existing character of the Palm Beach district centre. His examination and conclusions about character are helpfully set out in s 3.1.1.2 of exhibit 6.03. I accept this evidence. It establishes the following matters.
[18] First, a significant contributor to the character of Palm Beach and its district centre is the Gold Coast Highway. The highway defines the eastern edge of the centre. It is visually dominant. Its presence and level of activity is unmistakeable, undeniably contributing to the feel, identity and sense of place. In terms of streetscape character and pedestrian amenity, the highway edge makes a poor contribution. Mr Curtis described the streetscape in the centre as exposed, robust and harsh. This can be accepted given the highway edge lacks meaningful landscaping and exhibits limited pedestrian amenity. This is not assisted by the existing built form in the centre that faces the highway.
[19] The existing built form facing the Gold Coast Highway generally comprises one and two storey commercial buildings built to boundary (or close to it). It is visually dominated by the height and scale of new development on the eastern side of the Gold Coast highway, which is transitioning to a taller and more intense residential character.
[20] In the district centre, a review of existing built form reveals that tower and podium design is uncommon, if not the exception to the rule. The built form is also fragmented, varying in age and design. From a streetscape perspective, the built form does not present a continuous activated face to the highway. Rather, it is a collection of buildings that are punctuated by local roads, driveways, service areas and access points to carparks. The disruptions in built form continuity have resulted in the presentation of hard building edges to local roads, adjoining properties and the Gold Coast Highway.
[21] Second, the road network in and around the centre is rectilinear. The roads connecting to the Gold Coast Highway at right angles are 'Avenues'. The layout of the road network, and legibility it provides, contributes to the character, local identity and sense of place of Palm Beach, including the centre.
[22] Save for a few exceptions I will mention shortly, a number of common character elements can be identified in the Avenues comprising the centre. The 'street edges' of the Avenues are, in the main, hardscaped and exhibit varying degrees of pedestrian friendliness. Built form is predominantly one to two storeys in height. Save for one exception, tower and podium design is not present. There are significant variations in the design and age of built form. The streetscape and built form, in the main (save for a few exceptions) are, as a consequence of the above matters, visually discordant, lacking the activation and amenity expected in modern planning terms for a centre location.
[23] As I have said, there are exceptions to the above. They are as follows:

[17]

[26] Finally, the contribution Palm Beach Avenue makes at present to the feel, identity and sense of place of the district centre is not particularly telling. The northern side of the street is improved with a two storey commercial building that wraps around the corner. The balance of this side of Palm Beach Avenue is characterised by development that varies in age and design. It is fragmented. The fragmentation is the product of inconsistent setbacks and the disruption of built form by driveways. While there is some landscaping, the pedestrian environment does not enjoy particularly good amenity. The southern side of Palm Beach Avenue includes the site. The streetscape is activated in part in this location by commercial built form. That form varies in quality, design, age and setbacks. The balance of the streetscape is visually dominated by the at-grade carpark to the rear of the Palm Beach Hotel.
[27] With the benefit of considerable visual aids before the Court, and the evidence of Mr Curtis, I have little hesitation in concluding that the existing character, identity, feel and sense of place for the Palm Beach district centre is informed by a combination of elements, namely that: (1) it is exposed on one side to a highway carrying significant volumes of passing traffic; (2) it has a mix of low intensity land uses; (3) there is a clear predominance of low rise and small-scale built form, which is fragmented, varies in design and is dated; (4) existing built form is subordinate (in terms of bulk, height and scale) to new development on the eastern side of the Gold Coast Highway; (5) there is a clear predominance of street frontages, which are not activated, or lack the pedestrian environment/amenity expected in a centre of this size and function; and (6) the district centre is within walking distance to the beach and proximate to natural features (see paragraph [13]).
[28] With respect to item (4) above, this conclusion is not difficult to reach having regard to recently approved and constructed development to the east of the site, across the Gold Coast Highway. This area is earmarked for medium density residential living and is outside the district centre. Exhibit 9.20, in conjunction with the site inspection conducted with counsel, confirms the eastern side of the highway is undergoing significant redevelopment to the north and south of Palm Beach Avenue. In this location, older development is being replaced with taller, modern built form ranging in height from five to 13 storeys. Adjacent to the site, there is a new mixed use nine storey building on the south-eastern corner of the intersection of Gold Coast Highway and Palm Beach Avenue: Ex. 9.20, building H. A modern nine storey building has been constructed further to the east of this development (Ex. 9.20, building I), which adjoins a site with an approval for a ten storey building: Ex. 9.20, building J. A nine storey building is also approved to the north of the eastern side of the intersection of the Gold Coast Highway and Palm Beach Avenue. It is not yet constructed: Exhibit 9.20, building G.
[29] It was suggested during cross-examination that, in character terms, the Palm Beach district centre exhibits characteristics of a village, or has a village feel. I do not accept this is a fair characterisation of the existing character of the centre. It does not have, nor does it exhibit, a village character. This is, in large measure, for the reasons given by Mr Curtis, which I accept. He concluded that the district centre was not a village given its size, highway orientation and feel/identity/sense of place derived from existing built form. These matters, taken together with the features identified in paragraph [27], do not exhibit a village character or village feel.

[21]

[32] Contrary to paragraph 21 of the architects' joint report, the proposed elevations and floor plans indicate that the overall building height is, at its tallest, 58.83 metres. This figure differs not only to that stated above, but also to: (1) the building height stated in the town planning joint report (58.65 metres); and (2) the building height suggested by Mr Batty in cross-examination to Mr Curtis (61.85 metres). The figure of 58.83 metres is calculated by deducting the height of the ground floor at its lowest level (north of grid line A in the outdoor dining area), which is RL 5.37, from the highest point on the roof of the development, being the 'Top of Screen & Fire stair' at RL 64.200.
[33] I am satisfied this point of clarification is without consequence. This is because I have proceeded on the footing that the maximum height of the built form, including any structures or plant on the roof, will not exceed RL 64.200. This is consistent with the proposed plans and photomontages. It is also consistent with Mr Curtis' evidence. To remove any doubt, a development condition should be imposed prescribing the maximum height of the development, including any structures or plant on the roof, by reference to a registered level. This level will be RL 64.200 AHD.
[34] The architects examined the setbacks of the proposed development to the site boundaries: Ex. 6.05, para 24. While there was some disagreement about particular dimensions, a review of the plans confirms Mr Curtis' opinion should be accepted. His evidence establishes that the setbacks for the proposed development vary as one moves from the building base up the tower. The development (save for particular protrusions identified by Mr Curtis): (1) is built to boundary from ground level to level 2; (2) is set back from three of the four site boundaries on level 3, ranging from 0.6 to 1.5 metres; (3) is set back from all boundaries on level 4, ranging from 1.62 to 3.0 metres; (4) is set back from all boundaries on levels 5 to 13, ranging from 2.38 to 4.5 metres; and (5) is set back from all boundaries on levels 14 to 17, ranging from 1.4 to 4.5 metres.
[35] Photomontages were prepared for the proposed development by Mr Petersen. The images depict the development from viewing points agreed in the joint report marked exhibit 6.01. It is Mr Petersen's view, along with Mr Curtis, that the photomontages are an accurate depiction of the proposed development. I accept this evidence. The photomontages are of great assistance.
[36] Mr Petersen was cross-examined about the accuracy of the photomontages in light of condition 7 of the Chief executive's amended referral agency response (Ex. 4.03). He was asked whether condition 7, which requires all but a few balconies to be treated with gap free materials, had been reflected in the photomontages. Mr Petersen confirmed this was not the case. This point was then taken up in cross-examination with Mr Curtis. He explained that the requirements of condition 7 were of little moment and could readily be included in the design without altering the appearance of the development as depicted in the photomontages. I accept Mr Curtis' evidence in this regard.
[37] The photomontages, examined together with the proposed landscaping plans and architectural plans, make good Mr Curtis' evidence about the design of the proposal and its acceptability. The particular part of his evidence to which I refer is comprehensive. It is set out in paragraphs 31 to 169 of exhibit 6.05. Save for two points of clarification, I accept this evidence. It was of great assistance.
[38] The two points of clarification relate, in the first instance, to a red line at 10.5 metres high in the photomontages and, secondly, the reference made to impacts of an 'alternative 39 m high development'. The former is a reference to a height standard stated in an acceptable outcome in the planning scheme for new podiums: AO1.1(c) of the High-rise accommodation design code. The standard envisages a situation where there is no neighbouring low-set built form. This applies to the Palm Beach frontage of the site but not the southern end of the site on the Gold Coast Highway frontage. In my view, it is unclear whether the 10.5 metre standard is intended to apply to this case. As a consequence, I have put it to one side, along with any reference to it in the evidence. The latter point of clarification, at first blush, appears to represent an attempt to call in aid an alternative development as a point of comparison. On closer inspection, this is not the case. I have approached this aspect of Mr Curtis' evidence on the basis that where reference is made to a 39 metre high development, this is for the purposes of comparing the proposed development, in terms of impacts, to one that complies with the applicable Building height overlay map.
[39] With the benefit of Mr Curtis' evidence, the architectural plans, landscape plans and photomontages, I was satisfied about the following matters of siting, design and built form appearance.
[40] The proposed development has been designed and sited as follows:

[26]

[43] The podium, which is built to boundary for the first 3 of its 5 storeys, is differentiated from the tower above. The differentiation is achieved by a combination of setbacks, articulation and the use of varied external materials and finishes. In particular, there is a clear separation between the top floor of the podium and the tower above, where recreation facilities are provided. This separation is such that it provides an appreciable visual break between the podium and tower above. It can be observed that Mr Robinson, Dr McGowan and Mr Richards, who also gave evidence about the design of the proposal, suggested the separation between the podium and tower was insufficient and the transition confusing. I do not accept this evidence is made good by the photomontages.
[44] The podium is built to the western boundary. The photomontages reveal this wall will be visually apparent because of its juxtaposition with an at-grade carpark. Redevelopment of the adjoining land, as encouraged by the planning scheme, is likely to conceal most of this built to boundary podium wall. In the interim however, the wall has been designed with a decorative pattern to visually articulate and fragment its visual mass. The top storey of the podium also includes fringe landscaping that provides a cap, which will soften its visual impact.
[45] The southern podium wall is built to boundary and adjoins an existing low-rise commercial building. The podium wall is visible above the adjoining development when viewed from the south. Redevelopment of the adjoining site in accordance with the planning scheme is likely to conceal most, but not the upper most part, of the podium wall. Again, for the interim period, the design of this part of the podium will display decorative patterns and has changes in colour. This will serve to visually articulate the appearance of the podium and fragment its visual mass.
[46] The tower sitting above the podium has two distinct components. The first component can be seen from levels 5 to 13. This is where the hotel suites are located. The second component can be seen from levels 14 to 17. This part contains the proposed residential apartments. The two components are readily distinguishable by reference to: (1) the proposed landscaping regime; (2) differing building materials; (3) the position of windows/external openings; and (4) the provision of continuous or non-continuous balconies. Only the residential component has continuous balconies on its northern and eastern sides. As would be expected, the balconies for the hotel suites are limited by the size of each suite and the need to achieve physical separation from any adjoining suite.
[47] The photomontages and architectural plans also reveal that the western and southern facades of the tower have been designed in anticipation of redevelopment of the Palm Beach Hotel and the associated at-grade carpark. The design response is entirely sensible and explains visual differences between the north/east facades on the one hand and south/west facades on the other.
[48] The provision of a cap, or skirt, around the top of the tower differentiates it from the residential component beneath. The cap finishes the top of the building in an attractive way and further breaks down the visual height, bulk and scale of the development.
[49] The hotel is intended to achieve a 4 plus star standard. In support of this stated intention, evidence was led from Mr Gedoun; he is an experienced hotel operator. The proposed hotel will be owned and operated by one of Mr Gedoun's companies, with assistance from the TFE Group.
[50] Mr Gedoun's evidence establishes that the intention to operate the hotel to a particular star rating is reflected in the design of the development. For example, his evidence helps to understand why the internal layout of the hotel includes services and facilities, such as a day spa and conference area. While I accept Mr Gedoun's evidence in this regard, it does need to be treated with some caution. Whether the hotel will be operated in a way that achieves a particular star rating is, in my view, elusive in planning terms; it is not a feature of the development I am satisfied should be the subject of a condition. As a consequence, the matter of importance in my assessment has been the built form and the extent to which it manifests Mr Gedoun's stated intention. This is to be ascertained from the proposed plans. The built form depicted in the plans, unlike the stated intention, can be the subject of a condition.

[44]

[70] The absence of 'limited circumstances', in combination with the absence of an analogue to s 3.3.2.1(10), indicates Council, as the planning authority, has made a deliberate planning decision in relation to building height uplift for land in mixed use centres. The deliberate decision is one that admits of greater flexibility for increased building height (in comparison to urban neighbourhoods). This is perhaps unsurprising given medium and high rise buildings are intended to be concentrated in mixed use and specialist centres to 'reinforce urban legibility, centre identity [and] sense of place': s 3.2.2.
[71] This should not, however, be taken as a suggestion that building height prescribed for development in centre can be treated as if it were unlimited or without constraint. The overlay maps are an important metric. To exceed the height shown on an overlay map, a proposal located in centre must meet all of the requirements set out in s 3.4.4.1(5) to avail itself of planning scheme support. The requirements may, unlike the urban neighbourhoods designation, be met by a proposal that is more than 50% greater than the height prescribed by an applicable overlay map. Whether these requirements are met in any given case turns on matters of judgment, impression, fact and degree.
[72] Finally, it should be observed as a matter of context that the scale and intensity of development proposed in centre is expected, inter alia, to be consistent with what is anticipated by the hierarchy of centres: see overall outcomes (2)(b)(ii) and (2)(d)(i) of the CZC. It is unnecessary to dwell upon this in any detail here because it cannot be sensibly suggested that an approval will: (1) disrupt the centre's hierarchy; or (2) detract from the stated intention that the highest intensity of built form occur in the highest order centres (as anticipated by, among other things, s 3.4.1(8) of the Strategic framework). As to item (1), it was not suggested by any party contending for refusal that the proposed development, if approved and constructed, would lead to the Palm Beach centre having a role and functioning as anything other than a district centre. As to item (2), I accept Mr Perkins' evidence. He said the proposed development will not blur or confuse the distinction between the height, bulk and scale planned for Palm Beach in comparison to that planned for higher order centres. This would include areas such as Broadbeach and Surfers Paradise on the coastal strip of the Gold Coast. That these areas will not be usurped by the bulk, height and scale of the proposal is obvious once it is appreciated that they include sites promoted for high rise development, free of a building height limit.

[55]

[86] Subsection (a) requires consideration to be given to whether the increase in building height proposed above that prescribed on the relevant overlay map will, if approved, reinforce 'local identity and sense of place'. This phrase is not defined in the planning scheme. Having regard to the immediate context in s 3.4.4.1, there is no reason to conclude it is to be given anything other than its plain and ordinary meaning. No party suggested otherwise.
[87] What is the local identity and sense of place?
[88] The local identity and sense of place is influenced by a combination of features. They are identified at paragraph [27] and can be split into two categories; natural features and the existing built environment.
[89] With respect to the natural environment, the suburb of Palm Beach is surrounded by the beach, coastal edge and natural landscape features: paragraph [13]. The proposed development will not remove, alter or detract from these natural features. Rather, the proposed development will activate two streets in the district centre and, in doing so, improve pedestrian comfort and access to, among other things, the beach. This will reinforce local identity and sense of place to the extent it is informed by the provision of pedestrian access (for residents and tourists) to an important natural feature of the suburb, namely the beach.
[90] The existing built environment of Palm Beach is discussed at paragraphs [7] to [28]. The existing character, feel and sense of place of the district centre is informed by a combination of the following elements, namely: (1) the presence of a highway carrying significant volumes of passing traffic; (2) the predominance of low rise and small-scale built form that is fragmented, varied in design and dated; (3) that existing built form is subordinate (in terms of bulk, height and scale) to new development on the eastern side of the Gold Coast Highway; and (4) a predominance of street frontages, which are not activated, or lack the pedestrian environment/amenity expected for a centre of this size and function. These matters in combination indicate that the local identity and sense of place for the centre is fairly described as a busy, highway orientated centre with a built environment ripe for redevelopment and, save for limited exceptions, is lacking pedestrian amenity.
[91] Having regard to the features of the built environment discussed above, I am satisfied the proposed development will 'reinforce' the character/sense of place/local identity in five ways. First, it will be located in the 'centre of the district centre' on a prominent site; this will reinforce the importance of the centre in land use terms. Second, the contrast between the proposed development and existing built environment will reinforce that the district centre is ripe for redevelopment. Third, the proposed development will likely act as a catalyst for the redevelopment of other sites within the centre. Fourth, a comparison between the proposed development and existing development in the Medium density residential zone will reinforce that the district centre accommodates the tallest and most intense land uses in Palm Beach. Fifth, the proposed development will not interfere with those parts of the district centre exhibiting appropriate levels of pedestrian amenity.
[92] Before dealing with the future built form character of the district centre, it is correct to observe, as Mr Schomburgk said, that there are elements of the existing centre the planning scheme seeks to maintain. It was his view that this captured the pedestrian friendly parts of the centre where there are activated street frontages: T4-28, L21-33. This can be accepted as correct. The proposed development will not detract from these features of the centre and, in my view, will reinforce them. It will do so by creating a pedestrian focus at the corner of Palm Beach Avenue and the Gold Coast Highway. This focus will activate two street frontages, reinforcing the prominence and identity of Palm Beach Avenue.
[93] When an assessment of a development application involves an examination of character, sense of place and local identity, it can be approached in the manner discussed in Catterall & Ors v Moreton Bay Regional Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 52; [2021] QPELR 850 at [86]:

[57]

[94] Here, an examination of built form character, and the acceptability of the proposal in this context, must take into account the extent to which development approvals (yet to be activated) and the planning scheme represent a departure from existing character. The former is not a matter of particular moment for the centre at present. It is the impact of the planned change that is significant.
[95] In this case, there is little doubt the planning scheme heralds a significant departure, in built form terms, from the existing character of the district centre. Mr Schomburgk, the town planning witness called by Council, correctly characterised the extent of the change as 'dramatic'. The planned change manifests in the promotion of materially bulkier and taller buildings, which may comprise towers sitting above a podium. Built form of this nature will materially alter the character of the centre - it would no longer be characterised as predominantly low rise, low intensity uses. The centre is intended to exhibit a greater scale and intensity of development in comparison to development outside of the centre. This is clear once it is appreciated that: (1) the building height profile of the centre as depicted in the relevant Building height overlay map is higher than the surrounding area (included in the Medium density residential zone); and (2) inflexible standards (empirical) are not prescribed in the planning scheme for setback distances or three-dimensional building controls (such as a site cover limitation) for towers that sit above a podium in the Centre zone. Item (2) means that the size and bulk of future built form, along with building-to-building relationships is, save for building height, examined primarily against qualitative rather than quantitative criteria.
[96] The proposed development, in my view, will reinforce the local identity and sense of place planned for Palm Beach, in particular the district centre, through a combination of matters. They involve the matters traversed in paragraphs [89] and [92], taken in combination with the following considerations, namely:

[59]

[97] Council's written submissions advanced a number of reasons why the proposed development will not reinforce local identity and sense of place: Ex. 9.29, para 34 to 45. In summary terms, it was submitted this was the consequence of: (1) the proposed development appearing as bulky and overbearing; (2) the proposed development being 'obviously' different to the rest of the centre; (3) the proposed development being inconsistent with elements of existing built form character; (4) the podium height and design; and (5) the density of the development.
[98] I do not accept items (1) and (2).
[99] Items (1) and (2) are interrelated. The submission about the bulk and overbearing nature of the built form is founded, in large measure, on the proposition the development will be taller and bulkier than what presently exists in the district centre and surrounding area. It was in this very context that Mr Schomburgk said the proposed development would stand out like a 'sore thumb'.
[100] Putting this colourful imagery to one side, I accept the proposed development would be visually prominent in Palm Beach. This would be the product of it being one of the first re-development sites in the district centre. This prominence will persist during the period it takes the balance of the centre to transition from existing to future character. The extent of the built form prominence will, logically, reduce as the character of the centre transitions to what is envisaged by the planning scheme.
[101] That the proposed development will stand out during a period of transition, and is different to what presently exists, does not mean it is unacceptably bulky and/or overbearing. Mr Curtis' evidence, read together with the visual aids before the Court (principally the architectural plans and photomontages), establishes the development, when appreciated in its existing and planned context, will be of an appropriate height and bulk for the district centre. It will not be unacceptably bulky or overbearing due to at least the following considerations that emerge from paragraphs [28] and [39] to [48]:

[66]

[103] Compliance with PO4 is demonstrated in this case by compliance with AO4.1 and AO4.2: cf s 5.3.3(4)(c)(ii) of the planning scheme. With respect to the former, the tower floor plate (at the apartment levels) is 712 m2. With respect to the latter, the tower form provides, in my view, a unique profile compared to existing and proposed towers of a similar height in the centre and surrounding land. This is achieved by the combination of design features discussed at paragraphs [43] and [46] to [48].
[104] It follows from compliance with performance outcome PO4 that the proposed design is a 'slender tower form' and promotes a number of things, including: (1) an open, attractive and distinct skyline; and (2) small, fast-moving shadows. The architectural and visual amenity assessment undertaken by the experts retained by Council and the submitters (Mr Robinson, Mr Richards and Dr McGowan) proceeded on a contrary footing. This is but one reason why I did not accept their evidence.
[105] Performance outcome PO5 of the HRADC requires tower form to mitigate negative visual and physical impacts, including impacts on privacy, by setting back from streets, adjacent properties and tower forms. I am satisfied compliance is demonstrated having regard to the proposed architectural plans and photomontages. Council, and the submitters, did not contend otherwise.
[106] Dr McGowan's evidence is relied upon to advance the point identified at item (3) in paragraph [97]. The point made by Dr McGowan was to the effect that the proposed development does not incorporate design features consistent with medium and high rise buildings located in the area. These features are said to include large balconies, clear vertical recesses, horizontal articulation and expression. He also pointed out that the lower levels of the development do not relate well to the streetscape and are not responsive to the finer grained arrangement of smaller buildings, shopfronts and awnings that characterise the area.
[107] I have difficulty accepting Dr McGowan's evidence in this regard (and the evidence of Mr Robinson and Mr Richards that advance similar views). An objective review of the design reveals features that are part of medium to high rise buildings in the area. In this regard, the design: (1) incorporates a podium (paragraph [23](a)); (2) seeks to activate street frontages with active uses; (3) includes large balconies for residential apartments; and (4) is expressive with architectural modulation and articulation. These features do not mimic or copy existing designs. This is not problematic; the planning scheme does not call for existing development to be copied or mimicked. The planning scheme seeks a different response, as is evident from AO4.2 of the HRADC (set out in paragraph [102]). This provision promotes, inter alia, 'unique' tower profiles.
[108] I also do not accept, in this context, Dr McGowan's evidence about the 'lower levels of the building' and the suggestion there is a lack of response to smaller buildings and awnings that characterise the area. The reality, having regard to the planning scheme, is that built form in the centre is going to change dramatically - this was uncontroversial. It will include podiums that are built to boundary to strengthen the urban 'street edge'. This will be achieved by the proposed development on a prominent site at a busy intersection in the district centre. That it will appear different (in scale and presentation) to the finer grained shopfronts adjoining or nearby is not, in my view, to be regarded as a negative. Such an outcome is inevitable once the level of redevelopment promoted for the district centre by the adopted planning controls is taken into account. To this I would add that the podium levels of the development, in any event, comply with two provisions of the HRADC. These provisions were relied upon by Council and the submitters as evidencing inconsistency with subsection (a) of the uplift provision. I will deal with them in the context of item (4) at paragraph [97]
[109] Item (4) at paragraph [97] reflects Council's criticism of the podium design and its overall height. The criticism is founded on two propositions. First, that the podium height is larger than any podium in the Palm Beach area - this can be accepted as a matter of fact but does not advance the assessment one way or another. Second, it is said the podium design fails to respect, or have regard to, adjoining built form. Council relies upon overall outcome 2(d) and performance outcome PO1 of the HRADC to demonstrate this point.
[110] Overall outcome 2(d) provides:

[72]

[114] I am satisfied compliance is achieved here with AO1.2, which is demonstrated by the visual aids before the Court. For the same reason, compliance is also demonstrated with AO1.1(a), to the extent it is applicable (i.e. in relation to on-site open space). The visual aids do not, however, demonstrate compliance with AO1.1(b). The podium does not match neighbouring low-set built form in a manner consistent with the yellow awning line depicted in Figure 9.3.10-1 of the planning scheme. As a consequence, it is necessary to undertake an assessment against the terms of PO1.
[115] While the CZC does not speak expressly about 'podiums', the built form anticipated in the zone will have 'little or no setback to the street': CZC, overall outcome 2(d)(vi). This is intended to achieve, among other things, a street edge with active uses. In planning terms, this can be achieved by a podium and tower design. In this sense, the Centre zone can be said to 'envisage' a podium for the purposes of PO1 above. This was not a matter of dispute between the parties.
[116] No point was taken, as I understood the submissions, to suggest the form of the tower base (podium) fails to respect the framework of adjacent streets, parks and public or private open spaces. This, in my view, was a sensible approach because: (1) the tower base has been sited to align with its boundaries and therefore respect the framework of adjacent streets; and (2) there are no parks and open spaces that have a part to play in the assessment against this provision of the planning scheme.
[117] Council submitted there was non-compliance with the remainder of PO1. This was said to arise because the height and form of the proposed podium will not appropriately integrate with neighbouring built form. The built form to which reference was made included both existing and planned. I do not accept this submission.
[118] The controversial part of PO1 does not require 'integration' of new and existing built form. Rather, the question is this: does the tower base 'respect' the 'framework' of established built form? The answer to this question turns, in the first instance, on the meaning of the words 'framework' and 'respect'. What can be said immediately is that: (1) neither term is defined in the planning scheme; and (2) the plain and ordinary meaning of either word does not require development to complement, mimic or replicate established built form. If it were otherwise, it would have been a simple matter for the drafters of the planning scheme to adopt words of this kind. For example, the drafters could have used words similar to overall outcome 2(d) of the HRADC above, namely '...and be of a scale that is complementary to adjoining or nearby buildings'.
[119] What meaning is to be given to 'framework' and 'respect' in PO1?
[120] In my view, the word 'framework' is a reference to the three-dimensional shape created by the underlying structure (i.e. its superstructure) of established built form. The three-dimensional shape is created by the height, width and length of the superstructure. It is this framework that is to be 'respect(ed)', or put another way, is something to which due regard is to be given.
[121] Does the proposed development respect the framework of established built form?
[122] This question is answered in the affirmative.
[123] The established built form can be seen in the visual aids before the Court and is discussed at paragraphs [7] to [28]. The photomontages permit the three-dimensional shape created by the base of the proposed design to be compared with the established form. A comparative exercise reveals the proposed podium is larger than adjoining and nearby development, which is predominantly low set. Despite this, the podium has been designed to respect the established framework of built form through a combination of the following design features: (1) by adopting similar setbacks to established built form on the Gold Coast Highway; (2) by aligning the built form on the site with its street frontages; (3) through the use of awnings in the design along the Gold Coast Highway and Palm Beach Avenue, which create a human scale and an eyeline that is of a height commensurate with adjoining structures; (4) by providing a clear distinction and transition between the podium and tower components of the proposal; and (5) by architecturally treating the southern and western facades of the building in a manner that is visually interesting to soften the height of the podium relative to adjoining low rise development.
[124] Dr McGowan, Mr Robinson and Mr Richards each formed a contrary view to mine in relation to compliance with PO1. They also formed a contrary view to mine in relation to PO2 of the HRADC. This provision requires tower base facades to reinforce the intended neighbourhood character and enhance the pedestrian experience. I am comfortably satisfied, in light of reasons already given, that compliance has been demonstrated with this performance outcome.
[125] With respect to item (5) at paragraph [97], Council contended the density of the proposed development supports a submission that subsection (a) of the uplift provision is not met. It was pointed out that the residential density proposed is 1 bed/6.87 m2 in comparison to the applicable overlay map that provides for 1 bed/25 m2. It was not submitted that this exceedance will give rise to an adverse planning impact (in and of itself). Rather, in reliance upon Mr Schomburgk's evidence, it was said that the extent of the exceedance is a hallmark of overdevelopment of the site.
[126] I do not accept the density of the proposed development is indicative of overdevelopment or inappropriate. This is so having regard to three matters.
[127] In the first instance, I have serious misgivings about Council's density calculation. The calculation assumes a hotel with over 100 suites provides residential accommodation and contributes to residential density. If a different view to Council's is adopted about the hotel suites and they are excluded from the density calculation (because they provide short term accommodation as part of a non-residential use), the residential density of the proposed development equates to 1 bed per 18.6 m2. This exceeds the value shown on the residential density overlay map, but to a lesser degree than Council's case suggests. In my view, the ambiguity about this undermines the confidence one can have in an assertion that the density calculation is indicative of overdevelopment.
[128] Second, I am persuaded, in any event, that the residential density as calculated by Council will be provided in a form, scale and intensity that is appropriate to the zone and locality. The absence of any identifiable planning consequence by reason of the density proposed, taken in combination with my assessment of the architectural and visual acceptability of the form of the development, is sufficient to arrive at this conclusion.
[129] Third, the proposed development satisfies overall outcome 2(f) of the CZC. This provision is akin to a density uplift provision. It comprises 10 subsections. Council put in issue only three of those subsections, namely (v), (vii) and (viii). Non-compliance is not alleged with the balance of the provision.
[130] Overall outcome 2(f)(v), (vii) and (viii) is in the following terms:

[76]

[131] For reasons given in relation to the acceptability of the design of the proposal, and its impacts, I have no difficulty in concluding that compliance is demonstrated with (v) and (viii) above. Moreover, (v) has in mind that consideration is to be given to 'undesirable local development patterns' and associated 'cumulative effects'. It is unnecessary to dwell on these matters because the proposed development will not lead to an undesirable development pattern. Rather, it will have a positive catalytic effect. It will provide a catalyst for the redevelopment of the district centre. A catalytic effect is a matter in the public interest. The matter of public interest, reflected in the planning scheme, is to the effect that the district centre, to meet the legitimate land use needs of residents and tourists, will look dramatically different - it will exhibit much greater height, bulk, scale, intensity and density than is present today.
[132] Subsection (vii) requires consideration be given to impacts on adjoining residential amenity. Compliance is demonstrated with this provision because, taking existing development, there are no adjoining residential uses. As to prospective development, the adjoining site, namely the Palm Beach Hotel, is large. As Mr Perkins correctly observed, and I accept, the area and dimensions of this site are sufficient to allow design flexibility in the positioning and shape of future development. This, as a consequence, will have the effect that the design of any redevelopment on the adjoining site is able to achieve a level of residential amenity consistent with that anticipated in a district centre. In this regard, it should not be forgotten that the planning scheme expressly recognises that residential amenity may reduce as a result of the intended intensity and mix of activities in a mixed use centre: s 3.4.4.1(3).
[133] Finally, as I have already observed, many of the submissions objecting to the development application said an approval would adversely impact local identity and sense of place. For the reasons given above, I do not accept such an objection is supported by the evidence I accept.
[134] For the above reasons, I am satisfied compliance has been demonstrated with subparagraph (a) of the uplift provision.

[84]

[142] Council submitted a different conclusion ought be reached having regard to the evidence of Mr Schomburgk and Mr Robinson. By reference to their evidence, it was contended the proposed development would be 'out of place in the local skyline', 'unlike anything in its immediate vicinity', 'out of alignment with the height contemplated for the centres hierarchy' and 'a highly conspicuous punctuation above 29m' when only a 'modest variation' to the desired building height profile is intended.
[143] Reasons already given are sufficient to dispose of contentions that assert the development will be out of place, unlike anything else and out of alignment with the centres hierarchy. Assertions of this kind do not call for a different view to be reached in relation to my assessment against subsection (c) of the uplift provision by reference to Mr Perkins' evidence.
[144] As to the evidence of Mr Schomburgk and Mr Robinson as against Mr Perkins, I preferred Mr Perkins. He gave appropriate weight to the character planned for the district centre, the extent of transition required to achieve the planned character, and that the proposed development will be visually prominent during the transition. It was correct to assess compliance with subsection (c) of the uplift provision against this background. Mr Perkins' assessment is also supported by the photomontages.
[145] In the same context, Mr Robinson's assessment of the skyline assumed that only 'modest' punctuations above the metric identified on the building height overlay map could be achieved or were consistent with an ordered skyline. The planning scheme contains no such limitation in my view. The extent to which any development may punctuate the height prescribed on a Building height overlay map for land in the Centre zone requires a detailed examination of a range of factors specified in the uplift provision. The factors cannot be reduced to a simple test that suggests no more than a 'modest' punctuation is envisaged.
[146] For the above reasons, I am satisfied compliance has been demonstrated with subsection (c) of the uplift provision.

[101]

[156] Mr Pekol concluded that the proposed driveway entry was acceptable in traffic safety and operational terms. Unlike his counterparts, I am satisfied he gave appropriate weight to the matters set out in paragraph [155]. I accept Mr Pekol's evidence in this regard.
[157] The submissions made on behalf of Council were critical of a number of aspects of Mr Pekol's evidence. The criticisms are set out in paragraphs 77 to 84 of exhibit 9.29. In summary terms, it was submitted that: (1) the traffic survey data relied upon by Mr Pekol was insufficient; (2) the porte-cochere entry does not comply with any of the standards adopted by traffic engineers; (3) there is a dearth of assessment of the queuing impacts of the proposed development; and (4) the traffic impact assessment relied upon by Mr Pekol is inaccurate and underestimates the vehicle throughput to the site.
[158] While I accept there was good reason to criticise Mr Pekol's reliance upon AS2890.1 in support of his opinion (in respect to item (2)), the balance of the criticisms advanced were, in my view, unfair. This was because: (1) Mr Healey and Mr Trevilyan did not carry out any of their own surveys, nor was I directed to any particular part of the traffic joint report that called for, or explained the need for Mr Pekol to furnish further survey data; (2) the evidence suggests no adopted engineering standard could be complied with for access here because there are two factors that cannot be changed, namely the width of the site and the proximity of the site to the signalised intersection - an alternative design solution was always required here because direct vehicle access is not permitted from the Gold Coast Highway by the Department of Transport and Main Roads; (3) impacts downstream of an intersection do not form part of a 'queing' assessment - the reference to an absence of such an assessment is misguided; and (4) the traffic impact assessment relied upon by Mr Pekol examines a form of the development that is more intense than the one for which approval is now sought - the assessment report, combined with Mr Pekol's evidence, is conservative and comfortably demonstrates that the capacity of the porte-cochere is sufficient. The design and siting of the porte-cochere and access will not give rise to any unacceptable safety risk for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.
[159] To this I would add that Mr Pekol completed a substantial body of work to address the issues raised by Mr Healey and Mr Trevilyan in this appeal. I was grateful for that assistance. The body of work was founded on a practical approach to the issues raised and provided considerable assistance. It stood in stark contrast to the evidence of Mr Healey and Mr Trevilyan. Unfortunately, Mr Healey and Mr Trevilyan left me with the impression that they were willing to raise concerns about the proposed development but, unlike Mr Pekol, and for reasons that are not identified, were disinclined to undertake their own analysis or surveys to establish whether those concerns, in fact, warrant refusal of the development application. A good example of this is to be found in relation to the point identified at paragraph [155](b) and the response to it. Neither Mr Healy nor Mr Trevilyan explained why, after raising this issue, they did not request or undertake at their own initiative the same swept path diagrams prepared by Mr Pekol. The absence of such an explanation, in combination with my assessment that the so-called safety and operational issues with the driveway have been overstated, materially undermined my confidence in the evidence of Mr Healey and Mr Trevilyan.
[160] The second traffic issue raised goes to the sufficiency of the provision of on-site carparks.
[161] The proposed development includes 102 carparks and 12 motorcycle spaces. For the purposes of the planning scheme, this is to be treated as 108 car parks. Council submitted that 'it is likely insufficient car parks are provided'. This submission was made in reliance upon the evidence of Mr Healey. He opined that compliance with an acceptable outcome in the Transport code (AO1) required 196 spaces. The calculation supporting his conclusion is set out at paragraph 64 of exhibit 6.10.
[162] I do not accept Mr Healey's carpark calculation. It assumes the carparking rate applied to multiple dwelling units also applies to the hotel suites (short term accommodation units). Unsurprisingly, Mr Healey's positioned softened in oral evidence. He accepted in cross-examination that the provision of 196 car parking spaces is higher than what is required. That said, Mr Healey was not prepared to express a view as to what was in fact required. This was because he did not '...have sufficient confidence in what an alternative solution might be based on' in light of the data available: T3-82, L20-45. To remedy the shortcoming in the information available to assess an alternative solution, Mr Healey and Mr Trevilyan called for parking surveys of a similar development in the Palm Beach area (Ex. 6.10, para 74). Mr Pekol sought to obtain this information. The information he did obtain was put before the Court. In contrast, neither Mr Healey nor Mr Trevilyan carried out, or sought to obtain, the data they said was required to complete the assessment. This was troubling given if they had done so, the experts would have been in a better position to assist the Court. Further, survey work of the kind they requested would have revealed there is no similar development in Palm Beach to that proposed. This was pointed out to Mr Healey in his oral evidence. Troublingly, this came as a matter of surprise to him.
[163] Mr Pekol, on the other hand, calculated an assumed parking demand of 92 to 115 spaces. His calculation was based on a number of considerations, including the nature of the proposed uses, relevant context (proximity to public transport), a single day of survey data obtained from Hotel X in Brisbane (which is operated by one of Mr Gedoun's companies), published parking rates, the Gold Coast visitor travel survey data and the economic benefits report provided with the development application. With his calculation in mind, Mr Pekol examined the sufficiency of carparking supply. He expressed the view that the proposed development, with 108 equivalent carpark spaces, would adequately cater for the vast majority of the parking demand while also meeting a competing consideration. The competing consideration is this: an oversupply of carparks should be avoided as it would counteract an intention that alternative transport options are encouraged (i.e. public transport, walking etc). I accept Mr Pekol's evidence.
[164] Assuming it is accepted that AO1 of the Transport code is not met, it is necessary to consider compliance against performance outcome PO1 (Table 9.4.13-2). This provision states, in part:

[110]

[170] With respect to (e), concern was expressed about the waste collection vehicle entering the site in a forward gear and exiting by reversing onto Palm Beach Avenue. At first blush, this is cause for concern. Any concern however was addressed by two things. Firstly, as was correctly pointed out by the traffic engineers, the planning scheme contemplates that it is acceptable for a waste collection vehicle to exit the site in reverse gear (exit) onto Palm Beach Avenue: Ex. 6.10, para 39. Second, Appendix C to Mr Pekol's statement of evidence contains a waste management plan. The plan identifies the location of the refuse collection points, the size of refuse collection vehicles and swept path diagrams for waste collection vehicles as they enter and exit the site. I am satisfied this material demonstrates that waste collection can occur safely and efficiently. The conditions of approval should include a requirement that there is compliance with the waste management plan, updated as necessary to reflect the form of development before the Court.
[171] In the circumstances, I am satisfied the traffic matters set out above do not call for refusal of the development application.
[172] The submitters advanced additional traffic reasons for refusal beyond those set out above. The additional matters can be identified as follows: (1) non-compliance with PO2, PO11, PO13 and PO14 of the Transport code, which it was said cannot be cured by condition/s; (2) the dynamics of vehicle movements within the porte-cochere will mean it is not a safe place for pedestrians, mobility scooters and cyclists, which it was said cannot be cured by conditions/; (3) the proposed development does not comply with additional overall outcomes in the Transport code; and (4) insufficient on-site carparking will result in adverse effects on the local community and visitors.
[173] It can be observed immediately that the submitters' case in relation to items (1) to (4) assumes the Court does not accept Mr Pekol's evidence. For reasons given above, my assessment of the development application has proceeded on a contrary footing. This is sufficient, in my view, to dispose of the further traffic issues raised by the submitters.
[174] If, however, a contrary view is taken about this, I am satisfied the proposed plans (which depict the layout of the porte-cochere and its interface with Palm Beach Avenue), taken in combination with Mr Pekol's evidence comfortably demonstrates the following:

[112]

[175] Performance outcome PO14 of the Transport code requires development to contribute to the safe and efficient provision and operation of the bicycle network. The submitters, as I understood their case, contend that non-compliance arises with this provision because there was 'an absence of incentives to encourage guests and employees to utilise existing bicycle infrastructure'. Putting to one side the misgivings I have as to whether PO14 requires 'incentives' of the kind submitted, I am satisfied that non-compliance with the provision does not call for refusal. This is for three reasons taken in combination. First, it is unrealistic to expect all of the uses proposed to encourage guests, visitors and staff to meaningfully utilise existing bicycle infrastructure in Palm Beach. As an example, it is nonsense to expect a guest staying at the hotel to arrive, or depart, with their luggage on a bicycle. Equally, it is nonsense to suggest visitors to the hotel for a function should be encouraged to ride a bike to and from the venue. Second, the proposed development does not have any unacceptable safety, functional or operational impacts on the bicycle network. The existing infrastructure will, in the event the development is approved and constructed, continue to function as intended and planned. This is so despite the absence of any incentive/s pressed by the submitters. That infrastructure will be available for use by residents, visitors and tourists taking up the facilities offered at the proposed development.
[176] A significant part of the submitter's case about traffic was directed to the porte-cochere and the safety of that environment for pedestrians. Particular emphasis was given to the 'dynamic' of this part of the development. It was said to be a busy place with: (1) vehicles coming and going; (2) heavy vehicles reversing onto Palm Beach Avenue; and (3) insufficient queuing capacity for vehicles waiting to enter the porte-cochere. It is correct to say that the porte-cochere will be a busy place. It is where guests and visitors will arrive. They will arrive by car, small coach or taxi/rideshare vehicle. Pedestrians will be coming and going in and out of the lobby and dining facilities. I do not, however, accept the porte-cochere will be unsafe.
[177] Having regard to the proposed plans and Mr Pekol's evidence, there can be little doubt that the dynamic, as it is described on behalf of the submitters, has been taken into account in the design. Indeed, the proposed plans indicate appropriate provision has been made: (1) for safe vehicle and pedestrian access; (2) for safe and functional vehicle set down areas; (3) for a pedestrian crossing to provide prioritised access from Palm Beach Avenue to the lobby of the hotel; and (4) for service vehicle requirements, including waste collection. These features of the design will contribute to the safety and efficiency, in traffic terms, of the development. This is in circumstances where the porte-cochere will be a slow speed environment under the control of the hotel operator. Contrary to the case advanced on behalf of the submitters, the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and mobility scooters can be secured by conditions. A condition will require the development to proceed generally in accordance with, among other things, the proposed plans of development and an updated waste management collection plan.
[178] The submitters also contended that non-compliance arises in this case with particular overall outcomes in the Transport code. This contention assumes the evidence of Mr Healey and Mr Trevilyan was preferred by the Court. Further, the contention also assumes that the Court formed a different view to that set out in paragraphs [172] to [177]. Given the reasons relied upon to establish non-compliance have been rejected, it is unnecessary to dwell any further on this part of the traffic case advanced on behalf of the submitters.
[179] Finally, the criticisms advanced by the submitters in relation to the provision made for carparking assumes the proposed development will not be able to meet the demand for guests, visitors and staff, which, in turn, will place extra demand on the adjoining paid parking facility and on-street parking. This is not a criticism I accept. It is overstated. Moreover, it is contrary to the reasons set out above and the finding that compliance has been demonstrated with PO1 of the Transport code.
[180] I am satisfied the appellant has demonstrated that the traffic issues raised by Council and the submitters do not warrant refusal of the development application. Further, I am satisfied the issues raised do not give rise to non-compliance with the planning scheme that attracts meaningful weight adverse to approval in the exercise of the discretion.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (116 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)