15 April 2021 - HLPP

Okay, welcome to the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel meeting of the 15th of April 2021. This panel has been appointed by the Minister for Planning and the Council to determine certain categories of development applications. My name is David Ryan and I'm the chairman for today's panel. The other panelists with me today are John Brunton, Jane Fielding and Graham Eds. I'd like to start by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land, the Darug people, their elders past and present. As a courtesy to others, please turn off or switch mobile phones to silence. This meeting is being audio visually recorded and the audio recording will be by a podcast on Council's website. Any part of this meeting that's held in a closed session will not be recorded.

In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, personal information provided at the meeting will be recorded. Provision for any information that is recorded is voluntary. Any person who does not wish to be recorded should not address the panel. The recordings are used to assist staff in compiling the minutes for the meeting. For persons who will be addressing the panel, it's expected that you refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates both to your address to the panel and any answers given in response to questions from the panel. As required by the Code of Conduct, panel members are required to disclose any pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest in relation to the matter on today's agenda, and each panelist has completed a disclosure form on that basis.

I declare that I have no conflicts of interest in relation to today's item and ask each of the panel members whether they have any conflicts of interest to declare. I'll start with John Brunton. I have no conflicts to declare. Jane Fielding. I have no conflicts to declare. Ryan. I have no conflicts either. Thank you. In relation to today's agenda item, the panel has visited or otherwise familiarised themselves with the site, read the assessment report prepared by Council, and read the submissions received. Only those people who have registered to speak will be permitted to address the panel. Submitters will be given three minutes to speak. However, I may provide extra time if appropriate to do so, and the applicant may be afforded a little bit longer to address matters raised by other speakers.

At the end of your submissions, please refrain from— sorry, please remain in the meeting to permit the panel to ask questions. Once all submitters have addressed the panel, the panel may adjourn into a closed session to deliberate. This may take some time. Generally, the panel will resume the meeting to announce its decision to the public. The determinations of the panel will be confirmed in the official minutes, which will be available on the Council website most likely next Thursday.

There

Is only one matter

On today's agenda. It relates to CPDA 233-20, 6 Ketter Circuit, North Richmond, in relation to a childcare facility. I've received registrations

From three people. There's one speaker speaking for the recommendation, which the recommendation being for refusal of the application, and two representatives of the applicant, as I understand. I will start with Pamela Lan. Is Pamela there?

Pamela hasn't joined the meeting as yet. I'll let you know when she does.

Okay. All right. So as not to delay the meeting, I will ask the applicant's representatives to speak, but there may be, when Pamela, if she does join the meeting, I'll give another opportunity for you to respond to anything that she might raise. So I have George Aridia.

Mr. Aridia, are you there? Good morning. Okay.

Thank you, George. Can you provide us with your name and other details for the purposes of the audio, please?

Yes. So my name is George Aridia. I am speaking on behalf of Beni Design with respect to the property at 6 Ketter Circuit, North Richmond, for the proposal of a childcare centre. I'm meeting here to answer any questions the panel might have, as well as seek a request that the panel considers the points that I'm about to mention in the event that we can get a deferral for the determination, as opposed to an 8.3A review request. So I'm happy to go through our points, or I'm happy to wait for Pamela's input and then comment on that. Okay,

Thank you, George. Do we have Pamela yet ?

Sounds like we don't have Pamela yet.

Could I just, I understand Desmond Raymond is the other speaker, and I understand that's in relation to acoustics. Is that right?

That's correct. Desmond's here to clarify any points that we have regarding acoustics.

Are you together or are you on separate...? We're on separate. Separate panel, yes. That's right.

Look, unless Ms. Lam arrives shortly, I think we will probably open it up to non-acoustic related questions to you, George, at the moment. So I'll ask the panelists if they have any questions for the architect. Graham, I believe you had some questions that you wished to ask.

Brian, off mute.

Brian Apologies, yes, I have—off mute now. Yes, I have a few questions, George, and I guess I was curious as to the scale and massing of this development and the amount of variation , particularly along the side boundaries, or one particular, I think it's the western boundary, as to how that would look in that respect to the neighbouring property, and also whether there was actually any variation of that fenestration that comes through in that location as to what was glass, what wasn't. Because I was a little confused in the plan in respect of the indoor play area. There looked to be a sort of a glass panel facing out towards the—sorry, it's the east actually—facing out that way. And then there's another couple of lines on the drawing there that actually show the exterior of the building, I believe.

But I wondered what sort of material that is, whether it's again glass or whether it is actually something else. If you could just help me with that, that would be good.

Yeah, no problem. So the elevation you're referring to on the north piece, that's merely just a window. We've projected that onto our floor plan for the mere basis of allowing sunlight or indicating that sunlight is able to penetrate through that wall. Now, with reference to the western elevation, sorry, your question was, you were concerned as to how— It would look.

That's right. I did actually, I was actually incorrect there. It was the eastern elevation I was more concerned about rather than the western one.

Yes, okay. So if you refer to page drawing number eight,

It references to the northeast elevation. That should give a better indication as to how our building will look.

Yes, I have actually looked at that, and I guess I'm not sort of seeing a lot of variation there as to modulation of that facade.

And I guess I was curious also with the envelope that one designs to, whether you consider the envelope that you have actually designed now, because I see blue lines which actually cut through the building rather than the building being within that sort of delineation. What do you have to say about that?

Given our determination of the VCP, we have tried our best to keep within those variations. We believe that the cut that you can see within those blue lines offer minimal resistance to the site setbacks. If the panel does determine that it's still not good enough, we're happy to reduce the envelope even further, and in consequence, that would reduce the numbers.

Okay. Do you believe, and George, that the actual view from the street and also the sides of this building would actually fit within the residential area?

Sorry . Yes, I do believe we've given sensitivity to the use as well as the adherence for the elevation. It doesn't look like your conventional childcare centre. However, we have adopted a certain parameter within the central northwest elevation whilst considering residential aspects along the sides. Again, we're happy to work with the panel to further alleviate this in the attempt that we do want to see a successful result. Okay,

Thank you. I'll change my questioning now to

How you perceive people would actually arrive, drop off and deliver their patrons to the childcare centre. Could you actually just take me through what you perceive to be, or how that would happen?

No problem. Just give me one sec.

So,

I believe there was concerns of queuing for this proposal, so we've allowed for a two-way ramp with respect to our traffic engineering. With this instance, you're coming off Keto Circuit and it'll be left in, left out. This will allow for two cars to pass by each other, be one in, one out at the same time. So the likelihood for queuing is very minimal , as discussed by our traffic engineer. I do believe there was further concerns for a turning bay. Now we've allowed for a surplus of five spaces. In this event that the panel does determine that a turning bay is absolutely necessary, we do have five spaces to work with to accommodate for that. Again, the problem with what we're facing is a plan of management needed to be put in place, which we completely agree with.

We're happy to provide supporting documentation for, or in conjunction to, the traffic management plans. So we believe, based off the plan of management, and even in relation to certain things such as loading, we can make sure that these are occurring at times before or after drop-off and pick-up times, and this will eliminate any problematic issues with visitor spaces being implemented. So I guess coming in at the site shouldn't be an issue. Coming out shouldn't be an issue, given we've got two-way entry and exit, and we've got a surplus of five spaces to accommodate for a full basement, considering the number of kids we have.

So I guess considering that, if you've got someone driving in, they would actually park their car, they would bring their child out and take it to either the lift or go up the stairs, I gather, to deliver the child to wherever, and then come back down, and I guess that would take a bit of time.

I guess I'm just a little bit curious as to how you would actually govern people doing that within the car park area and not actually out in the street, parking out in the street and just bringing their children in and then having that sort of time. So can you talk to me how that might be governed?

Yeah, well, again, it's not—

Yeah, sorry ,

Continue.

George, I think it's over to you.

Okay, yep. So again, with anything, we can't impose individual changes that they might decide to do. However, we can impose our own personal plan of management, which will consider all aspects of that. Now, we'll have to speak to our traffic engineer to see further alleviations in terms of on the street where there's no parking in front of the childcare centre, and that may be permissible via a public domain plan, which we could throw into place as to alleviate that. Now, with respect to people, parents parking on the streets or whatnot, as long as it's within the parking strategy that council's put in place, then we can't actually impose any restrictions on that. We can only do the best we can within our site and make sure that it works from our end.

Yeah, I guess I would consider people being people that they would, and if they're in a hurry, they would actually utilise the most effective and fastest way of delivering, and I guess the street would be that particular method. So I'm just curious as to how the on-site parking will really turn out, whether you'll actually utilise it or whether it won't get utilised at all. or in a very minor way. I guess that's just a comment from my perspective, and I don't expect that you would have an answer to that. Can I move on now, David, just to the acoustic panels? I had some

Questions in regard

To that. Graham

Could I just—we haven't heard from the acoustic expert, Mr. Graham, yet, so I might give him an opportunity to have a say, and then any questions you have arising from that, we'll hear from him.

Sure. Okay, well, I'll leave it at that for the moment then, David. Thank you.

Thanks, Graham .

Mr Chair, we've now got Pamela who has joined the meeting, if you would like to let her speak.

Oh, okay. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Lam, could you provide us with your presentation? You have three minutes. If you need longer, you can ask, and I can decide whether to extend that. If you could just commence with your name and who you're speaking on behalf of

Ms. Pamela Lam. Sorry I'm late. I had the wrong Zoom link. I am a resident of Tudor Circuit, and I think I represent—sorry—I represent a lot of the people on this street. Okay thank you. So I'd just like to say that it is a concern about how cars.. . Our parking, when they drop off children at daycare, but there's also the turnoff when they go out of, on, off Sunnyside onto Grosvenor. There is already a backlog of cars there, especially during school drop-offs and pick-ups during the morning and the afternoon, because there's no lights, there's a crosswalk there, but it's already so busy now. With the 78, what is it, 78 place daycare, it would just be so unsafe. There's no path, there's no sidewalks when I'm walking my children.

It's already pretty unsafe, and with that many more cars, it would just become really dangerous, especially for the students walking to and from school. And those are my major concerns.

Sorry, I'm.

But it is a very quiet street. It's a residential street, and it's not suitable for a 78-place centre, place childcare facility.

Thank you, Ms. Lam. Do any of the panelists have any questions for Ms. Lam?

No. Okay, thank— oh, sorry. Yes, Mr

Brunkle. I noticed that in this immediate vicinity of the childcare centre, there aren't any footpaths. So as a resident, have you observed that most of the children, if they walk, they have to walk on the road, or do they mainly go to go to the school I'm talking about?

They walk on the road or on the grass of people's lawns.

Or do the parents mostly drive them?

I'm sure there are a lot of cars, especially on Sunnyside, when they're picking up their children, the cars park there. But do the students walking back to their houses on Keita and adjoining streets.. . They do walk on the road and also on the grass.

Another question I have in relation to the general neighbourhood. An issue that arises with this application is that it has two trees on the footpath in front of the site. No one else has trees in front of their houses.

It seems one of the issues is that the applicant wants to remove one of the trees.

That becomes an issue, and some of the residents have raised that as an issue, but no one else seems to have a tree. Is it that the residents in that area don't like trees? No

I think just that part of Tudor Circuit, those houses directly across from the proposed site don't have trees, but I have two gum trees in front of my house, and along all the houses, I can think of six or seven or eight houses down all have trees in front of their house.

Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Lam? No . Thank you very much, Ms. Lam.

I'll just go back to Mr. Aredio, and before I ask other panellists if they have any questions, do you have any response you want to make to what you've heard from Ms. Lam?

No, I think it's covered pretty much in our traffic report . I do, I want to mention, though, the roundabouts. From where Keita is up top, my advice from my traffic engineer was that that roundabout is being put in place regardless. So the pre-existing conditions of Keita are there of their own, and he wanted to make notes that the affectation for the childcare from that roundabout is actually helpful for a childcare centre in terms of congestion as well as queuing. So I think that's pretty much it from that end.

Okay. Thanks very much, Mr. Rudd. Ms. Fielding, do you have any questions for Mr. Rudd?

Not from me at the moment, thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Bratton? Yeah

I've got a couple of questions that follow on from what Graham was asking, and it's particularly in relation to the upstairs section of the development. As Graham identified, the upstairs section doesn't quite comply with the building envelope in the development control plan. And that upper level section is only used for staff and meeting rooms and those sort of purposes.

So my question is, was consideration given to reducing the size of that upstairs area and additionally the windows all seem to be located so that they look directly into the neighbours rather than looking within the development. I'd be just intrigued to know why those decisions were made.

Yes, and I can appreciate those comments. None of this was a raise with Council upon our deferral. However, we are happy to take consideration into that and further alleviate any non-compliances there are on the first level.

Okay. Well, another question is: this is a townhouse zone, and one of the issues that's been raised in the proposal is that you should be expecting more dense development, and so this development is in scale with what you would be expecting to be the future character of the area.

The street elevation has a very dominant feature surrounding, like a shroud surrounding the front entrance, which to me doesn't appear to be consistent with a townhouse, the character of a townhouse zone. So can you explain to me why the approach was taken to make the design, well, the front elevation the way that it is?

Yes, so we wanted to maintain some form of consistency with the element of a childcare. We did adopt pitched roof, upon consideration from Council's comments. Again, we did want to maintain the sensitivity of a childcare whilst keeping the residential aspect involved as well. I hate repeating myself, but we are, again, happy to work with Council and the panel to maybe alleviate that by removing that front panel and keeping the consistency of a townhouse look or even a residential aspect.

Okay, well, another question I have relates to, in the rear corner there is a cubby house. I can't find any details of what this cubby house is. The ground level of the cubby house is the same as the level, basically, of the roof of the car park,

Which is about half a metre above natural ground level. So the

Level where children stand is already half a metre above the surrounding properties, and then there's to be a cubby house, which I'm not sure whether it's got one, two, three or four levels,

Which could mean that you end up with children standing at two and a half metres above the surrounding properties. Can you give me some idea of what's actually proposed for that cubby house?

Yeah, so that's not actually an indication from the architectural standpoint. That's coming primarily from just a landscape point of view. Again, considering it's only freestanding equipment, we are happy to eliminate it. I don't, again, I can agree with you with the height of it not being sustainable. So during our deferral, should we get it, I would advise that we remove that cubby house or maybe put it in a position that's better suited.

I think that'll do me, David. Okay

Thanks, John. Okay, Mr. Aridia, I just—your main submission, and sorry, before I start , I should just, for the record, note that the panel last night received a letter from Think Planners, the planners on behalf of the applicant, who has a clash with the Land Environment Court matter and was unable to attend our meeting today, but has provided us with a written submission which seeks to address a number of the reasons for refusal, including planner management, acoustic report, outdoor space calculations, landscape plan, traffic, and the design of the centre, and has indicated, as Mr. Aridia has, that there is a willingness to provide additional information and design and other amendments to address some of the reasons for refusal.

And Mr. Aridia, you've confirmed that here for the panel, thank you, and you've also, in relation to questions asked by some of the panelists, indicated a willingness to consider further amendments to address those issues that have been raised today. I don't expect you to have been able to contemplate the changes that may have been raised today previously, but in offering now to make these amendments... There are some matters that have appeared or been raised by Council through the assessment process, so they're not new things. Is there any explanation as to if there's a willingness in front of the panel to deal, to make these amendments, why the amendments weren't made through the process, the application with Council, so that we could have the potential for a favourable recommendation before us rather than a refusal on quite a number of grounds?

Yes. So, considering we are under duress for the client, we take their considerations into play, considering it is their application. So the client did want to push for as much kids as he could. We have now taken pretty much a stand, saying that the only means for an approval is to work with Council as best we can, as well as the panel. So we've pretty much let them know that whatever the considerations that are taking place, we're happy to oblige.

Okay. And the reason, and you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but the reason for—you understand that there is an opportunity to have the decision, if it were to go against you, and that decision hasn't been made, we need to contemplate that, but if it were to go with the recommendation, you do have the opportunity to lodge a review application dealt with under 8.3 of the Act.

Would you like to comment on

Why you think it's better for you, or for the

Purposes of planning in general, to have a deferral to make these changes rather than make changes through the review process?

Yes, as mentioned before, I'd rather seek the deferral as opposed to the need to submit a 8.38 review request. The reason for that is we believe we can make these necessary adjustments within a three-week timeline and get all consultants up to date, as opposed to resubmitting the whole new application and going through the whole process again. So we believe we are at the stage where we can make those necessary adjustments, work with council and their necessary planners, and get it in within three- to four-week manner, as opposed to a whole new process undergoing. Okay,

Thank you, Ms. Lam.

I'll now call Desmond Raymond.

Thank you, panel. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. My name is Desmond Raymond. I'm a principal consultant over at Rodney Stevens Acoustics, and my team and I, we prepared the acoustic report that is before the panel this morning. Part of the preparation for the acoustic report, we looked at the plans that's been submitted. We used that for our noise model. From the noise model, you see the outcome of the calculated results at the nearest sensitive receivers who will be impacted by the operation of the childcare centre. Part of our noise model and reporting also included the measurement of the background noise levels, which was done over a seven-day period, just so that we can establish an appropriate background levels, and we conducted the noise assessment based on the Triple LAC guidelines, version 3.

I acknowledge that there are some comments made by Council's environmental health officer regarding the acoustic report. I'm happy to either go through each one of them now or— Answering the questions the panel has.

You'll have the floor, so you can deal with it as you wish.

Thank you, Mr. Ryan. I do acknowledge and agree that the acoustic report has been done with the Triple AC guidelines. Part of that is that the contributed noise level of 45 dB, where we have used a noise criteria of 46 dB. Just for point of clarification, the 46 decibels criteria that we've used, that comes from a measured background level of 36 dB, and we have— so the 45 dB criteria comes from unlimited playtimes in the outdoor play area, whereas with the 40 background plus 10 being 46 decibels, that limits the outdoor play area to up to four hours a day, two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon, and that is the reasoning for our 46 background— sorry, 46 noise criteria. Also looking at the comments from the environmental health officer regarding the cumulative impact of the car park, while the centre is operated, I will have the report and our model updated to include that, and also including the operation of the car park with arrivals prior to 7 a.m.

That is something that I need to have a look at with the plan of management that will be prepared to see what time the cars do arrive on site. That also includes parents dropping the children at the childcare centre and also staff as well. Thank you very much. I'll have open for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Raymond. Panelists, any questions? Yes, Mr. Brutton.

So can I ask, Desmond, so the consequences of trying to achieve an acceptable noise level for the operations of the centre, one is, and I just want you to confirm this, one is that children can only play outside for two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon.

Go on. Yeah

That is correct. That's using the guidelines from the Triple LAC. Right

The second one is that the windows in the indoor play areas have to remain closed.

The windows in the indoor play areas do need to remain closed while the children are in there, to attenuate noise to meet the noise criteria at the residences nearby.

Right. So that means it's for the 12 hours from early morning to evening, almost 12 hours, the windows will be closed in the indoor areas.

The windows will have to be closed. We can have a look at a system of natural ventilation or mechanical ventilation if that is your concern for that.

My issue is North Richmond, such a large and open, almost semi-rural area, to be sticking kids inside for 12 hours and having forced ventilation just doesn't seem to fit with North Richmond, but that's a judgment we have to make.

My next point is the noise barriers. The height of them is measured from the finished ground level, not the existing ground level. Is that correct?

That is correct. It is measured from the— so our calculations use the proposed elevations rather than the existing.

Okay, so where the area above the car park is raised, and as I said, up to about half a metre above natural ground level, then the acoustic wall sits above that, so it would have an overall height of 2.7 metres above existing ground level.

For that particular area, we have to look at the ground level and the acoustic barrier going on top of the retaining wall, and there will be a total of— let me just have a look at my report. It would be the total barrier height of— This is along the rear boundary. The rear boundary, 1.8 from the ground level. So not so much from the retaining wall, but that's from the ground level.

Okay, so that means it's only 1.3 metres from the play area height.

1.3 from the play area. So sorry, did you say the car park at the front of the rear?

Where the car park extends towards the rear. Okay, yes

It

Then comes to a retaining wall. Yes . Goes down to natural ground level. My question relates to where the wall is. Is the wall going to be measured above the play area or above natural ground level? Because under one scenario— It's going to be 2.7 metres high. Under another scenario, it will be a lower height, and so the noise will go over the top. I'm just trying to work out which proposal it actually is, because there's no sections in the drawings to show me.

We can have the, I believe George can have the sections done to clarify the barrier heights. In terms of the location of the barrier, we've got it on our Figure 2.2 in our report that shows the total barrier height of 1.8 along the boundary and 2.2 along the inside of the play area.

But the 2.2 is measured from the finished level of either a retaining wall or the area above the car park.

That's correct, yes.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Fielding?

Nothing from me, thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Reds?

Yes, Desmond, I wanted you to explain, if you could please, the arrangement of the acoustic panels, exactly where they're located, the height of these, their location, and the material that you're proposing to make these barriers from , and how the landscaping then fits in and around these acoustic panels. Could you explain, please?

Absolutely. Most of them I can explain. Some of the questions might direct to George in terms of landscaping. Regarding the location of the barriers, we presented that in Figure 2.2 of our report. So you have a 1.8 metre barrier which goes around the boundary, and then you have a 2.2 metre barrier which goes around the outdoor play area on the ground level. In terms of the composition for the barriers, we need the barriers to be solid, particularly the 2.2 metre barriers. Now the composition of that could be something similar to a slim wall barrier design. We can look at a double skin colorbond. As long as the barriers are solid, we can achieve noise attenuation through that. And my apologies, the other question was regarding the landscape for the barriers. I believe that's a question more for George rather than myself on how landscape would work for the barriers. Yes. Okay

Desmond, just taking that a little bit further, if I could. You said 1.8 at the boundary, is that correct? That's correct, yes. Okay. And what sort of material would that be made of, or would that just be a normal fence?

That can be a normal fence. We can even look at lapped and capped timber as well. The main barrier that is assisting with the noise emanating from the outdoor play area at the back is the 2.2 metre barrier.

Okay. And what's the distance between the 1.8 on the fence line and the 2.2 around the play area? What's the distance between that?

Sorry, Mr. Eds, I can't really answer that for you, only because with our calculations we used a discontinuous type design for it. We needed not to connect. With the distance itself, I'll direct that question to Jorita if I can.

It's one metre. So

I believe he said one metre.

Yeah, sorry,

It's one metre. One metre between the fence and the wall.

Correct, yes. Okay, and is there, do you have the idea of actually putting landscaping between or within that one metre? Yes

So there will be dense landscaping within the one metre with access fences through the acoustic. We've allowed for maintenance within there either via irrigation systems or even manual watering. So there are definitely systems put in place to allow for natural growth within those areas.

Okay. Well, this next question is probably directed to either of you or both of you. Considering trying to actually have landscaping growing between those two barriers, I just wonder, wouldn't it be critical to know the type of fence, what material it's going to be? Because there'd be a lot of shading if they were fully solid . And I just wonder what sort of plants you would actually get to grow there, or whether they would actually be good plantings or whether they'd be quite spindly until they got above the heights of the 1.8 or 2.2.

That would be a question for our landscape architect. Again, happy to review all of these concerns and put them into play once we get some form of direction from the panel.

Just a comment on the barrier, and if you are concerned about light coming through, we can have a composite barrier with solid and perspex or block glass, outdoor glass on top, just for light. Okay ,

Just for my clarification, and that's the 2.2 barrier we're talking about, and I understand that it extends vertically and then actually comes in at 45 degrees. Is that correct? That's correct, yes. And what's the sort of height of that curvature?

The curvature height, I believe, is approximately 800 mil.

So we've got 800 mil less than the 2.2.

So we're looking at about 1.4 then vertical height, and then 800 on the splay. Is that correct?

Yes, we can look into that as well, or we can look at a straight barrier. We need the height in terms to attenuate the noise levels from the outdoor play area.

Yeah

Okay. All right, thank you.

No other questions from other panelists? Okay,

Thank you. So that's the end of the presentations. Thank you everyone for your time and comments. Most appreciated. I'm going to suggest to the panel that we do have a short adjournment, or as long as it does take, just to deliberate on the issues we've heard. Panelists happy with that? Okay, thank you. In that case, I will adjourn the meeting for a closed session to deliberate. Since I can't give any indications of how long that will take to those non-panelists who are on the call, you are welcome to stay on, but you will be excluded from our deliberations

To wait for the announcement of the decision. Or you may prefer to leave the meeting, and the minutes will be available for your review when it's posted on Council's website, most likely next week. I'll leave that to those, but otherwise I will adjourn the meeting now.

We're recommencing the meeting of the Local Planning Panel in relation to item one, which is the only item, 6 Geddes Crescent, North Richmond. The panel has deliberated on this matter, and a recommendation has been formulated. The recommendation is in relation to the refusal of the application or the reasons outlined in the Council's assessment report, subject to some additions and amendments to that recommendation. The full recommendation will be available on Council's website once published. I will put that recommendation to the vote of the panel, and I'll ask individually for the panellists to confirm whether they are for or against that recommendation for refusal. Mr Brunt.

I support the recommendation for refusal. Mr Red. Yes, I support the recommendation for refusal.

Ms Fielding. I

Support the recommendation for refusal.

I also support the recommendation for refusal. So that decision of the panel is unanimous. With that being the only item, I will now close the meeting at 10:56 a.m. So thank you everyone for your participation, and thank you Council staff.