2016-08-09 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA   9 AUGUST 2016




                                                   Page 43 of 119

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                              9 AUGUST 2016

     noncompliance of Council’s approval.   Council appears to be convinced that only 50 seats are possible
     within the proposed outdoor dining area.    It is unknown how Council arrived at this figure with such
     confidence. In order to further assist Council in this regard, the applicant has prepared the attached scaled
     seating diagram which confirms the 70 seats remain possible as previously quoted to Council.

     Requested Response: The applicant requests that Condition 4 be amended as follows:

            Patrons in the outdoor dining area must be have a seat allocated on the premises and the maximum
            number of seats in the external dining area is 70 and generally in accordance with the seating
            diagram as provided to Council. ‘

     Condition 7 — “This development permit lapses on 21 June 2017, unless an application is received
     to extend the approval. In assessing an extension to the approval, Council will have regard to any
     breach details available from the Office of Liquor & Gaming Regulation and any other relevant
     matters ”

     Representations to condition 7 —
     The applicant wishes to register a number of concerns with this condition with Council in these
     representations. These concerns include that the condition:-
         (a) lacks clarity;
         (b) is in conflict with relevant provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act; and
          (c) lacks certainty/finality.

     (a) | Those matters that more specifically identify the applicant's concern with respect to a perceived lack
            of clarity include:-
                I.    Condition 7 states that “an application” needs to be lodged.   It is assumed that this
                      reference is to a type of formal development application under the Sustainable Planning
                      Act. It is unclear what specific “application” is required to be lodged by this condition. It
                      may be that Council is referring to a formal request to extend the relevant period under
                      Section 383 of the Sustainable Planning Act or perhaps the change/deletion of condition 7
                      is considered by Council to be a permissible change that can occur by a request to change
                      an existing development approval under Section 369 of the Sustainable Planning Act (as
                      amended).
                Il.   Condition 7 suggests that all Council requires is for an “application” to be simply lodged
                      before 21 June, 2017 and then the current development approval does not lapse.     It is
                      unclear if that “application” needs to be also decided and approved by Council.
               Ul.    Procedurally, Condition 7 does not address the status of this current development approval
                      between 21 June, 2017 and any Council approval of the assumed request to extend the
                      relevant period. It is uncertain if Village Bicycle need to cease operations after 21 June,
                      2017 until Council decides the application/request. The condition is therefore considered to
                      be unclear on this aspect as well.
               IV.    The above decision notice approves the use within the existing premises between 5am and
                      12pm seven (7) nights a week as well as the outdoor dining area between 5am and 10pm
                      seven (7) nights a week and between 10pm and 12pm on four (4) nights a week.      The
                      condition would mean that the development approval would no longer apply to the
                      proposed use both within the existing premises and in the outdoor dining area at all times.
                      The business would therefore need to close unless some form of limited development was
                      possible under the then relevant planning scheme.       This is not only unclear but
                      unreasonable.

                                                                                               Page 43 of 119