I don't think that's what it means. On the original plan, the back of the terrace was designated for food outlets.
It now says they are retaining the terrace instead of resurfacing.
I'm no expert but I'm not sure that some have misunderstood the intent of the ammendment.
For a start it says the changes are non material.
The change is to reduce the amount of area being resurfaced. That doesn't necessarily mean reducing the capacity.
To Dunk's point. I'd quite like JM to explain.