The Panel deferred consideration of Development Application No. D/2021/893 until a subsequent meeting of the Local Planning Panel to enable the applicant to submit additional information and amended plans which address the Panel’s concerns regarding the inadequate clause 4.6 variation request – height of buildings and/or the potential to minimise the view impacts by reducing the height of part of the proposed development above the fly tower.
The question of reversibility is also required to be more effectively addressed. The privacy and amenity of residents to the north requires more consideration with suitable design amendments, as well as further design resolution in separating the cabaret area from the hotel use.
The issues of hotel room amenity, hotel and venue circulation, the lack of hotel back-of-house facilities and the inadequacy of theatre back-of-house needs to be resolved.
The operational constraints imposed on the venue due to the number of hotel rooms and the potential conflicts between discrete uses also require further consideration.
The Panel expressed reservations regarding the application in its current form, however considered it reasonable to defer rather than refuse the application as there appears to be reasonable potential for additional information and design refinements required to enable finalisation of the assessment.
The motion was carried on the following show of hands –
Ayes (3) Steven
Layman, Marcus Trimble and Amelia Thorpe
Noes (1) Brendan
Randles*.
Carried.
D/2021/893
(*Note – Brendan Randles would refuse the proposal as it
fails to resolve circulation and amenity issues identified by Design Advisory
Panel (thereby failing to demonstrate design excellence), unnecessarily
breaches height, irreversibly alters a significant heritage-listed
purpose-built cultural building and fails to demonstrate the appropriateness
and practicality of the uses proposed).