112 The Esplanade, Burleigh Heads QLD 4220

Material Change of Use Code Assessment Multiple Dwellings x33

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 30 days ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: Gold Coast City Council, reference MCU/2019/443)

11 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Andrew Cox commented

    I am an owner in an adjacent property to this development [Key Largo Apartments]. I have serious concerns with this development for the following reasons.
    1. Insufficient parking for the number of rooms, should be at least 2 per apartment + Visitors. This is a significant failure of planning rules that is causing significant parking issues already
    2. Significant reduction is separation between towers, there is already a funneling effect from the existing building which affect our property, creating a narrower gap and an effective wall will significantly increase the issue.
    3. A height increase above the regulations
    4. Having a large number of occupants and a single direction access will cause disruption to the traffic flow on the esplanade while people wait to get into their carpark.
    5. Noise and the impact on Holiday Rental business operated at our property during the construction

  2. Bruce Barbour commented

    I am writing in relation to my concerns about the above mentioned Development Application. I hope my concerns and those of other residents in our community will be given proper weight and consideration during Council’s approval process.

    I am an owner of a unit in the adjacent apartments, Element, at 106 The Esplanade. My apartment is in the Western Building which sits to the rear of the proposed development.

    I refer to the City Plan ( the Plan ) and its provisions. Importantly, the Plan aims to set out an optimal and desirable balancing of community and residents interests with those of future developments. It is clear from the Plan, that density of residential developments is a significant concern and for this reason, clear limits and standards are set. These limits should be consistently applied in the interests of the community to all new developments to ensure the continuing amenity of residential communities is not lost due to over-scale developments.

    The density and scale of the proposed development is significantly in excess of what is permitted in the Plan. In fact, the proposed density of 1 bedroom per 10.2 sqm is 3 times the density that is permitted by the plan.

    Although the proposed height of the development is closer to Plan guidelines , this does not take away from the problems with the scale and density of the development.

    The development as currently submitted will have a devastating effect on this small area of our community. A virtual wall of buildings will exist along this part of The Esplanade . The Esplanade is an important street within the community and for the Gold Coast. It is the link for many to a beautiful stretch of beach and the street is enhanced by the fact that it has not been permitted to be built out like other areas on the Coast. People live here , invest here and are attracted to this location for the very reason that it is not over-developed. To date, there is in place a pleasant and mixed streetscape and level of density that is largely consistent with the Plan.

    The reasons cited by the developer in the application to support departing from the limits set in the plan and in support of this grossly over-scale development are spurious and bunkum. None are persuasive and they can easily be disputed and argued against. In particular, they include reference to 2 other buildings which Council has approved with similar excessive density issues - Boardwalk and Sandbar. The important and obvious distinction with those buildings is that they are both on the Gold Coast Highway and NOT The Esplanade. As expected , these two buildings now offer convenient precedents for developers and are seemingly now used to justify over-development creep. This must not be allowed to happen along The Esplanade.

    If approved , this building will have a significant detrimental impact on our properties. In my building , important view corridors will be reduced or lost given the scale of the building and how far it is set back on the block. It will create wind tunnels from the beach that will considerably exacerbate already existing problems. Our sense of sky and light will be eroded. We will be subject to significant shadowing of our building and the recreational areas and pool area of Element will be overshadowed to an unsatisfactory degree. These impacts will not only lead to an unacceptable loss of amenity for our property but also inevitably and unfairly to a reduction in our property values. These impacts will also be felt by Southern Cross Apartments and the eastern building in Element as well as other neighbouring properties. The street will be far busier with 33 new 3 bed apartments and associated cars . The number of car spaces in the building is insufficient given that the apartments will likely be marketed at a price point to attract wealthier buyers who will have multiple vehicles. Access and exit to the building with one lane and traffic light will lead to congestion on the street as cars wait to go in and out.

    I appreciate Council has a very challenging and unenviable role when considering development applications. However, the interests of its existing community members must be regarded as paramount to the money-making motivations of developers. There is no community need for this development . There is no social need or higher purpose. Let’s be clear , it is about making money for a developer.

    There is very good reason for the limitations placed in the City Plan. They are designed to ensure the ongoing amenity of residential areas for residents and visitors and to support the well being and good health of the community through permitting only reasonably scaled and appropriate developments. The proposed development is clearly over-scale for the site and the area. It is inconsistent with the Plan. Council should not approve it in its current form and should ensure adherence to the City Plan in this important location.

    To approve the proposed development would, in my view, be an abrogation of Council’s responsibility to the Community and a breach of the community’s trust and faith in Council. It would send a clear message - that developers interests are put first and that the City Plan is an irrelevant document. It will create a terrible precedent for the future of The Esplanade and for the residents of Burleigh Heads and the Gold Coast.

  3. Sue McCrossin commented

    Dear Ms Salat,

    I am writing concern a current application for building on 112 The Esplanade Burleigh Heads.
    I have several concerns regarding this - most significantly the density.

    This development is 3 times the density proscribed in the city plan at 1 bedroom to 10.2sq metres.
    This sets a shocking precedent for developments along the Esplanade. I realise that other developments in the area have been approved at this (and worse), which should never have been approved. Also these buildings are along the Gold Coast Highway. The Esplanade is too small a street - already overcrowded, to warrant such density. The increased traffic on and off The Esplanade will be intolerable. At 1.8 car parks per unit, there will be more permanent parking on the street, thus limiting parking for day visitors even further

    Whilst the building meets height requirements, the scale of it is far too big for a relatively small block.

    Additionally, the increased size of the footprint, over what is currently in place, means that our building’s recreational area will be constantly in shade. This building was designed around what was in place next door at the time - we now lose sun and the back building loses views which will immediately devalue their properties.

    I realise that development is inevitable but all we ask is that developments adhere to the plan and consider local amenity. The Esplanade is already choked, it does not need another building at such density. It is not all about cramming as many people as possible in!!

    regards

  4. Ronelle Kearney commented

    GCCC - Attention: Geraldine Salat
    I have been advised that you are the Council Representative responsible for consideration of a DA for the property situated at 112 The Esplanade, Burleigh Heads. I am an Owner of an apartment on the 11th level of the West Tower of Element and along with many others wish to bring to your attention the grave concerns we have regarding re-development of this site.

    Just 2 years ago I bought my property at considerable cost believing that our immediate surrounding area would remain unchanged. I have lived my entire life on the Gold Coast and my concerns are for the impact that this development will have on the building where I carefully chose to retire. I was of the belief that the Town Plan is set out with a desirable balance between community interests and those of the local residents. The density of residential development in Burleigh Heads is of significant concern now and I question a loss of standards where local residents are concerned.

    The Esplanade in Burleigh Heads is currently one of the most desirable and attractive places on the Gold Coast because of the way it has been developed to date, with due care having been given to not being over developed. We don’t want to be another Broadbeach or Surfers Paradise and locals have always fought to maintain the village feel of Burleigh Heads.

    Along with so many other people I am extremely concerned for the over development of this beautiful stretch of beach and the affect it will have on our immediate homes.

    Furthermore my understanding is what seems to becoming a trend these days is that there also has not been sufficient car parking allocated and so this must impact on the current horrific parking problem along The Esplanade. Where will this all end?

    Naturally there are grave concerns for the affect to surrounding buildings during demolition, earthworks and construction while re-developing this site, which is currently in good condition as it stands. There are numerous more suitable sites along the Esplanade in Burleigh Heads with much older buildings that are obviously more appropriate for such a re-development.

    My views which I have paid for in the purchase price along with the sense of sky, horizon and openness will be sadly depleted. This must impact current surrounding property values and cause even further congestion along The Esplanade. Surely existing Burleigh Heads residents should be given proper consideration over purely money making Developers whose own quality of life will not be impacted upon.

    I strongly believe our Council should take responsibility and reject development of this property in its proposed form and instead should adhere to the Town Plan of this locality. We as Burleigh Heads residents should be able to trust the integrity of our Gold Coast City Council to ensure Developers and money making do not come first and foremost.

    I would appreciate your acknowledging receipt of this letter.

    Yours sincerely
    Ronelle Kearney
    0427 339 220

  5. Angela O'Neill commented

    Hi Geraldine,
    I am the owner of an apartment in Key Largo Holiday apartments and have very real concerns re this proposed development.
    * It is my understanding that Burleigh has a height restriction of 14 stories
    * The wind tunnel effect of this high rise would significantly impact on Key Largo
    * major shading of many of our apartments would occur
    * Parking is already a real concern in this neighbourhood and unless there is 2 car parking for every apartment this problem is only going to get worse.

  6. Mark Chellew commented

    We live in The Element,106 The esplanade,Burleigh Heads
    We have numerous objections to this development
    1.It exceeds the maximum height restrictions and also appears to choose a very favourable natural ground level to facilitate a additional level
    2.The density of the building is higher than surrounding buildings and outside the acceptable norms
    3.The increased proposed density of the building may lead to possible cracking problems in surrounding buildings during construction due to the proximity issues
    4.Significant privacy concerns will exist.The development application incorrectly indicate privacy shutters on fig 11.These are not privacy shutters but optional adjustable louvers to block wind on high wind days.They were not installed by the owners for privacy reasons
    5.Some of the artist impressions appear to show the building set back further than what is proposed ( compared to neighbouring buildings),thereby creating a more favourable optical impression

  7. trevor barnes commented

    My wife and I purchased in the Element building west, which will now be behind this proposed massive structure, virtually annulling our view and creating an even worse wind tunnel effect than what we experience now.
    When we were looking to buy in Burleigh, we spent a lot of time researching the neighbourhood. With Element we looked hard at the surrounding buildings, noting their age and condition and the possibility of demolition and rebuild. Aspect is a building no older than Element so didn't even come into calculations. We also inspected the apartment in the evening to see if any of our neighbours would be looking in on us. As the balconies of all of these buildings face forward ,this was not a problem.
    If the plans submitted to council that we have seen are approved, our privacy in our apartment, swimming pool and grounds will be severely threatened. The sheer size of the proposed structure is surely well outside the councils city plan. The number of bedrooms to car parking spaces is alarming at best and the extra traffic streaming on the the Esplanade would make life tougher than it already is. Are you aware that the only way to go north on the gold coast highway from the Burleigh Hotel, and all existing buildings on the Esplanade, is to travel along the Esplanade to opposite North Burleigh Surf Club! You can of course go down south to the traffic lights and do a U-Turn but those lights are already congested at most times and having multiple vehicles doing a U-turn would only cause further havoc, hence no body does that. Saturdays and Sundays have the Esplanade at a standstill as visitors look for a miracle park to appear and locals get frustrated just trying to drive down the road. Add all the cars coming from these monsters of buildings and and then throw in the trams, GRIDLOCK!
    We don't object to the aspect site being modified as long as it conforms with what is understood to be the height and size limits on the Esplanade, not the ones for the Gold Coast highway. Surely the neighbouring properties must be considered in deciding any applications. There must be space between buildings and green space for suitable grass and landscaped ares.
    Our property would most likely lose significant value with the new structure blocking view, creating a wind storm and cause us to live in a fishbowl.
    The greed motivating the developers must be recognised by council when they apply to turn an eight apartment building into the monstrosity that this plan is.It is far from fair to existing ratepayers.

    TREVOR AND FAYE BARNES
    ELEMENT BUILDING

  8. Mike Renison commented

    As a resident of Burleigh Heads, I object to this proposed development because it is outside of the the Planning Guidelines. This proposal is inappropriate for this iconic beach environment.
    The local residents fought hard to prevent unnecessary multiple daily overhead flights damaging the ambience of this beautiful area and are similarly outraged that City Planning Guidelines are openly flouted to downgrade the beach environment. There are vast areas of SE Queensland available for large buildings.
    Keep the beaches desirable, stop inappropriate over development.

  9. Margaret Rowles commented

    Being a resident of Burleigh heads for many years and having lived on the esplanade I feel there are far too many high rise developments taking place. So many on 1st Avenue. Goodwin terrace and white horses to name a few. Keep Burleigh with a village feel. Don't go the way of MELB with ghettos of small units with no parking.

  10. Graham Wand commented

    I object to this proposed development because it is OUTSIDE OF THE PLANNING GUIDELINES. This proposal is inappropriate for this iconic, though threatened, beach environment.
    As a 33 year local resident I am outraged that City Planning Guidelines are openly flouted to downgrade the beach environment. The vast majority of local residents have similar views, despite what GCCC would like us to believe.
    Keep the beaches desirable, stop inappropriate over development, and you might not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

  11. Gordon Galt commented

    The proposed development at 112 The Esplanade is demonstrably and self-admittedly outside of planning guidelines in a number of areas. Of most concern to me are bedroom density, site cover, setbacks, and construction issues.
    The bedroom density is three times worse than the standard. Justification is simply that Boardwalk and Sandbar were allowed so this should be as well. But neither of those are on the Esplanade. There were mitigating factors for those developments that don't exist here even slightly, especially in the case of Boardwalk where the site is very large so that the building bulk was not architecturally apparent from the Esplanade or beach park. Commentary to try to get around this compliance failure is self serving and subjective, using words like "attractive" rather than being objective. If the proposal did attempt to get closer to compliance, eg by being for example 1.5 times worse than the standard then the number of bedrooms - and apartments - would be much less.
    The guideline for site cover is also significantly transgressed. The building is supposed to become less bulky as it increases in height. Absolutely no attempt has been made to achieve this. As a result the building bulk will be imposing itself on the Esplanade view, will significantly block views by existing dwellings to the west and will create a wind tunnel effect. The building does not "positively contribute to the skyline". The building front balconies have no softening characteristics and the effect does not improve with height. They are basically stark concrete platforms. They do present as overly dense and bulky. If the building was redesigned to lessen bulk as height increased it would comply with the site cover requirement and come much closer to the density standard at the same time. The developer has effectively proposed that having a site cover standard is a pointless waste of time which is not to be taken seriously.
    The proximity of the proposed building to the building both north and south will create potentially significant construction damage as has been recently apparent at places like Palm Beach. The rule is supposed to be 25m but this building will be only 8m away from the southern building. The developer should be subjected to a complete engineering review of construction methodology, then constant supervision during construction plus provide indemnities against damage to the north and south buildings backed by cash backed bank guarantees that last for at least 7 years.
    The Element East tower has not - as is stated - effectively turned its back on 112 The Esplanade. The north side of Element East has bedrooms, living rooms, dining rooms, TV rooms and bathrooms. All have lookouts to the north. The closeness of 112 proposal will clearly have an effect on all these spaces.
    The south setback is insufficient as well. The proposed development is using open space created by the Element apartments to achieve its own ends rather than to restrict itself within its own footprint.
    The proposed development needs to be redesigned to materially comply with the standards laid now. These standards have been made for good reasons and shouldn't be flagrantly exceeded. The developers knew what the standards were when they did this design and knew that it was not complying. It is likely they have a more acceptable design ready just as they did when they first approached council with their predevelopment proposal for an even larger building.
    If and when a more compliant proposal is made and approved the building work needs to be undertaken and supervised in a way that protects and indemnifies the assets of existing owners in adjacent buildings.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts