The revised rendering shows a very different image that the one here:
For the foregoing reasons, the Review Panel has concluded that the Hearing Panel committed errors in the Decision sufficient to warrant a re-hearing of the appeals. Consequently, it orders that the Motion for Review is allowed and that a re-hearing be scheduled.
If that’s what is being thought of as a “nice towerl (the one at the top of page ) then city is doomed to be ugly. That colour scheme is awful and looks like something from the 70s designed by a child. The other small previous design fit better here. Unless it was and that child is now an adult? With to much moneyLike the one in the main project database at the top of the page?
An interesting foible about this site and the adjoining laneway is the ownership. This piece at the back, where pavement colour changes and the cars are parked, isn't actually part of the public lane and isn't part of this assembly. It was owned by a gentleman in the 19th century who had no children and thus no one to pass it down to. It would seem that the ownership / easement issues that @Jonny5 describes above are at least in part to deal with this.
View attachment 401307