The proposal adds five stated bays. The applicant relies on a theoretical bowling-capacity comparison despite describing the existing greens as infrequently used.
Applicant's claimEN-0012
Proposed hours are 6 am to 10 pm every day
The planning report states proposed operating hours of 6:00 am to 10:00 pm every day.
What this does not prove: These are proposed hours, not an existing approval or a prediction that noise limits will be exceeded.
Open this evidence noteApplicant's claimEN-0013
The plans state a net increase of five parking bays
The applicant states that parking across the site would rise from 146 bays to 151 bays, a net increase of five.
What this does not prove: A separate annotation on A05 shows 10 bays deleted and 17 added in one part of the plan, described as 7 new bays. The drawing's overall parking summary states a net increase of 5. This note does not establish whether 151 bays would meet peak demand across concurrent uses.
Open this evidence noteShown in documentsEN-0014
The planning report describes the two outdoor greens as infrequently used
The planning report describes the two outdoor astroturf bowling greens as infrequently used.
What this does not prove: No measured recent-use data is provided with this description.
Open this evidence noteApplicant's claimEN-0015
The traffic case uses theoretical bowling capacity
The applicant compares a fixed padel playing capacity of 30 people plus one staff member with a theoretical bowling capacity of 96 to 112 people and says a traffic impact assessment is not required.
What this does not prove: The comparison does not by itself show actual recent traffic, booking changeovers, concurrent activities or parking spillover.
Open this evidence noteApplicant's claimEN-0019
The proposal contains nine padel courts
The applicant describes three singles courts and six doubles courts. Three doubles courts are intended for the highest level of certification.
What this does not prove: This is the proposed court mix. It does not establish actual attendance or booking patterns.
Open this evidence noteApplicant's claimEN-0021
The site has one vehicle entrance and users would be directed away from residential streets
The applicant says the site has one vehicle entrance from Jones Street. Online booking information would tell users not to use Adriatic Lane or Carpentier Drive.
What this does not prove: The documents do not show how this direction would be monitored or enforced.
Open this evidence noteApplicant's claimEN-0026
The extra parking relies on work coordinated with a separate application
The applicant says the extra bays would come from reconfiguring parking south of an office extension proposed under a separate application.
What this does not prove: This note does not establish the status of the separate application or whether both parking layouts can be delivered as shown.
Open this evidence noteApplicant's claimEN-0027
The proposal states 151 car bays and four new bicycle spaces
The applicant states that the site would provide 151 car bays, including five ACROD bays, and four new bicycle spaces.
What this does not prove: This records the proposed quantities. It does not determine whether the overall supply or locations are adequate.
Open this evidence noteApplicant's claimEN-0028
The applicant expects one staff member in ordinary operation
The planning report says the facility would ordinarily operate with one staff member.
What this does not prove: The report does not establish staffing during competitions, events or other peak periods.
Open this evidence noteShown in documentsEN-0029
Policy 4.5 aims to protect amenity and respect surrounding scale
Policy 4.5 aims to avoid adverse effects on surrounding amenity, encourage development sympathetic to nearby scale and bulk, protect transport efficiency and integrate development with the community.
What this does not prove: Policy objectives guide assessment. This note does not decide whether the proposal meets them.
Open this evidence noteShown in documentsEN-0031
Policy 4.5 says new uses must not harm nearby amenity
Policy 4.5 says new uses must not cause detrimental effects on surrounding lots through traffic, parking, noise, dust, vibration, odour and similar impacts.
What this does not prove: The policy states the test. This note does not predict the proposal's actual impacts.
Open this evidence noteShown in documentsEN-0033
The Private Institution Design Guidelines point to a transport statement requirement
The Private Institution Design Guidelines say development applications must include a Brief or Full Transport Statement when required by the City's Parking Policy.
What this does not prove: The supplied Review Set does not include the complete Parking Policy analysis needed to decide which statement, if any, was required here.
Open this evidence noteShown in documentsEN-0034
Policy 4.5 requires emergency and service access to be demonstrated
Policy 4.5 requires enough access and manoeuvring space for emergency and service vehicles to be demonstrated.
What this does not prove: This note records the policy requirement. It does not assess vehicle swept paths or compliance.
Open this evidence noteShown in documentsEN-0037
The Scheme tells the City to consider traffic flow and safety
Local Planning Scheme No. 3 tells the City to consider generated traffic, road capacity, traffic flow and safety, as well as pedestrian and cyclist access.
What this does not prove: This records assessment matters. It does not establish that the proposal will create an unsafe condition.
Open this evidence noteShown in documentsEN-0040
The Scheme lists height, noise, access, landscaping and hours as condition topics
The Scheme allows conditions about building height and design, use and noise, access and parking, landscaping, lighting and operating hours.
What this does not prove: Conditions cannot necessarily cure every problem. The Scheme notes that a condition should not change the nature of the application.
Open this evidence noteShown in documentsEN-0047
Drawing A05 marks its future parking plan as outside this application
Drawing A05 is titled Future Parking Plan and marked not part of the development application.
What this does not prove: The drawing is included in the package, but its future works should not be described as approved or proposed under DA26/1308 without clarification.
Open this evidence note