Should the new gym in Brunswick Heads be allowed to increase its capacity, despite not having completed parking arrangements at its busy Tweed Street location?
This is the question facing councillors at this week’s planning meeting.
Last year, councillors granted approval to Voglet Pty Ltd for a boutique gym and cafe at a 38 Tweed Street – a central spot where parking is in high demand.
In granting this approval, councillors took the somewhat unusual step of giving the owners of the business permission to begin operating the gym and cafe prior to implementing the new parking arrangements that had been agreed upon as part of the development.
The parking arrangements included the creation of 29 parking spaces on nearby Fingal Street.
Permission to operate prior to the introduction of the parking arrangements was conditional upon the gym’s operation being limited to 20 patrons at any given time.
Removal of patron limit
The owners are now requesting the removal of this 20-patron limit so that the business can operate at full capacity.
In documents accompanying the application, they state that the current restriction on patronage significantly impacts the gym’s financial viability.
‘Operating at 50 per cent capacity reduces the potential earnings by half, rendering the business unable to cover essential expenses, including staff wages, rent, and loan repayments,’ planners hired by the owners state in the documents.
‘Unfortunately, this would result in the gym being financially unsustainable until the completion of the carpark’.
‘The owner of the building is committed to completing the required roadworks.
‘We trust that Council understands the importance of this adjustment to ensure the survival of a community-oriented facility, particularly given the substantial investments already made to comply with Council requirements.’
However, Council staff and a number of those living near the gym do not feel that removing the 20-patron cap is the best thing for the local community.
Owner yet to submit relevant paperwork
In their report on the matter, staff said that the owner was yet to submit the relevant paperwork in relation to the parking works it has promised to undertake.
The Council planner who completed the report in relation to the development, Jordan Vickers, said,‘…the applicant has not in shown in good faith their commitment to meet the consent requirements, given the peculiarity of the soft opening arrangements granted by Council in the first place.’
A community objection letter submitted in relation to the modification application further states that surrounding residents have experienced adverse noise, parking, and traffic impacts since approval of this consent, despite the limited operation.
‘We object to the modification regarding the operation of the gym, because we are already experiencing noise and parking and traffic issues,’ said the objector, whose name has been withheld in accordance with Council policy.
‘Cars are constantly parked illegally in Slessor Lane, deliveries are blocking the lane, cars are blocking the footpath, the increased traffic in Slessor Lane is causing issues with drivers going in both directions with no way of passing, residents cannot access the lane safely on foot or by car with increased traffic (and it is not local residents speeding up and down the lane looking for a parking spot)’.
Staff say that there have also been other complaints made to Council in relation to the traffic and parking situation in and around the development since its opening.
Staff recommend refusal
They have recommended that the application be refused, arguing that allowing the development to operate without proper parking will have adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbourhood and the built environment.
They further argue that the full-scale operation of the business without sufficient parking is not in the public interest, and will create an undesirable precedent.
‘The lack of compliant parking provided for the development does not provide a good planning outcome … and, in particular, the orderly and economic development of land and promoting good design and amenity of the built environment,’ Mr Vickers said.
‘It should be noted that conditions of consent are imposed to control and regulate the operation of an approved development.’
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
