EVIDENCE LIBRARY

What do you want to know?

Start with a concern or ask a question. The library contains 54 independently checked Evidence Notes and searchable text from 292 public source pages.

01

What are the main concerns?

See the strongest issues raised by the public documents.

See the main concerns02

Does this affect nearby homes?

Explore height, sunlight, noise, traffic and pedestrian safety.

Explore possible effects03

Is something I heard true?

Ask a plain-English question and see the sources behind the answer.

Check a claim04

What is still unanswered?

See important gaps that the available documents do not resolve.

See unanswered questions05

List every Evidence Note

Browse the complete flat index without asking a question.

Open the note index06

Show me the original documents

Open the development application, policies and scheme text.

Browse source documents

PLAIN-ENGLISH LOOKUP

What do you want to check?

The answer searches independently checked Evidence Notes and cleaned text from the public source documents. Every result links to the exact page.

AI summaries are rate limited. Matching evidence still appears if AI is unavailable.

START WITH THE STRONGEST POINTS

Main concerns

These concerns have the clearest support in the documents. Open one for the facts, unanswered questions and exact source pages.

Strong concern

Height, bulk and residential setting

The applicant describes a 2,743 square metre building reaching up to about 12 metres. Policy 4.5 requires the impact of height, bulk, scale and siting to be addressed.

See the evidenceStrong concern

Residential amenity and character

The planning framework requires the City to consider local amenity, nearby development and the likely effect of the proposal's height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance.

See the evidenceStrong concern

Noise evidence and operating hours

The proposed hours run from 6 am to 10 pm every day. The City requested acoustic work, but the applicant asks to provide a full assessment later.

See the evidenceModerate to strong concern

Shadow and sunlight

A07 shows a noon winter-solstice shadow. That single labelled time does not show the duration of shadow through the day or quantify added shadow for each property.

See the evidenceModerate to strong concern

Traffic, parking and pedestrian safety

The proposal adds five stated bays. The applicant relies on a theoretical bowling-capacity comparison despite describing the existing greens as infrequently used.

See the evidence

Other questions worth checking

Wind impact informationSupporting concernOpenLandscaping and screeningSupporting concernOpenExternal lightingSupporting concernOpenDay-to-day operationSupporting concernOpenWhat is and is not part of this applicationImportant clarificationOpenWhat use is actually proposed?Clarification pointOpenWhat the City must assessCore frameworkOpenMaking an effective submissionProcess guidanceOpenSustainability commitmentsClarification pointOpen

IMPORTANT EVIDENCE GAPS

What is still unclear?

The documents available to this library do not clearly resolve these questions.

NoiseWhat would nearby homes hear between 6 am and 10 pm?See what the documents showSunlightHow long would added shadow fall on each affected home, window or garden?See what the documents showTrafficWhat would actual bookings, changeovers and concurrent site uses mean for local streets?See what the documents showWindWhat wind information has been provided for a building of this height?See what the documents show
Important: Not found in these documents does not always mean that information does not exist. It means the available evidence does not establish the answer.

READY TO ACT?

Use the evidence in your own submission

Choose the concerns that affect you. Add your own observations. Keep the final letter personal.

Build my submission