PlanningAlerts

45 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. My husband and I own timeshare at Mariner Shores next to this proposed building and the shading from this development will impact greatly on the resort with the swimming pool, mini golf and bocce all reduced to living in the shadows from this monolith. Natural light will be reduced to this area and the roof top barbecue area will also be much more darker and shadowed. Please show some commonsense and consideration for the timeshare owners who wish to enjoy these ammenities and not have them reduced to dark shadowy areas lacking in natural light

2. Yet another totally inappropriate development, heigh, size and density - for The Esplanade, a small street that is becoming overcrowded with new developments and choking under the pressure.

3. This is yet another example of a totally inappropriate development application for The Esplanade.
   Over scale and too high, inconsistent with the city plan - yet still they apply. Why ? Because council is likely to approve it.
   Council doesn’t care about its residents. It doesn’t want to enforce its own plan. It doesn’t care about its constituents. It’s all about development and making money.
   Who cares about quality of life. Who cares about mental health and well being.
   The only motivating factor for council is more development and more revenue.
   Let’s vote them out and let’s challenge their decisions. It is very clear they are not being made in the public interest - they are being made for improper purposes.
   Let’s all complain to the CCC and ask for these developments to be the subject of a corruption investigation.

4. This development does not support the local plan. This would overshadow the nearby buildings including Mariner Shores, the North Burleigh Surf Club and the beach. This will also block the view that Burleigh Surf tenants currently have of Surfers Paradise. The impact would be significant on the surrounding buildings and businesses, less people will attend the surf club and the beach when shaded and the holiday makers will go elsewhere or sell their investment if they do not maintain the space, view and light they invested in. The Esplanade cannot support more traffic and the area will be too congested. The proposed overcrowding of The Esplanade will ruin the beauty and community feel of Burleigh Heads which is what the local plan means to protect.

5. Give Pauline a call
   Paulines usually listen to the people.

   Division 12 - Cr Pauline Young
   Cr Pauline Young
   Divisional boundary reviews

   Please visit our Council divisions page for details of the new divisional boundaries that came into effect with the March 2020 elections.
   Contact details

   Phone: 07 5581 6382
   Fax: 07 5581 7640
   Mobile: 0475 677 181
   Email: division12@goldcoast.qld.gov.au

   Postal address

   City of Gold Coast
   PO Box 5042
   GCMC QLD 9726 Australia

   Office location

   Burleigh Heads Customer Service Centre
   Corner Park Avenue and Ocean Street, Burleigh Heads

   Councillor Young can be contacted by phone. Please contact the office for an appointment at a mutually convenient time.

6. Technically, this proposal is over height, over density and not in agreement with the town plan. It shouldn't even get a look in as it doesn't "enhance our lifestyle", as the GCCC claims is their remit. Another huge block of flats will add to the ruination that is falling upon Burleigh. And why are they allowed to get away with insufficient parking provisions?

7. John & Denise Blake
   What happened with building restrictions that didn't allow buildings to be more than 10 stories on the front of esplanade this building will shadow the North Burleigh Beach.
   Will create a traffic issue with that many people living in those units entering the esplanade.
   Will create parking issues on Esplanade as most families have 2 cars and complexes only allow parking for 1 vehicle.
   This tall building will look totally out of place on the front of Esplanade as next door at Mariner Shores is set back near highway.

8. I object to this submission based on the grounds that this application is too high for what is set in the City Plan. It will cause shadows over the road, beach and reduce natural light around the smaller neighbouring unit blocks impacting on the quality of living for all in the area. There is not enough parking available for the number of units proposed and traffic along The Esplanade will become congested. It is not set back far enough and the footprint of the building is also outside of city plan guidelines. It does not fit within the character of North Burleigh / Miami and will ruin the landscape of the area, and does not enhance our lifestyle in any way. There is already an over supply of units along the beachside throughout the Gold Coast that are going empty and therefore this building at it's huge size is not warranted. I urge the planning committee and councillors to deny the application and stay within the guidelines of the city plan and instead allow for a well considered, sustainable building that will enhance, protect and beautify the area instead. Thank you.

9. We respectfully request that the Council of the City of Gold Coast only approve Development Applications in Division 12 that fully comply with the City of Gold Coast City Plan.

   We respectfully request that the Devine Burleigh Heads Pty Ltd Development Applications not be approved by Council of the City of Gold Coast because this Development Application does not provide an acceptable outcome and it doesn’t comply with the City of Gold Coast City Plan. This request applies to the following Development Applications listed on GCC website, PD online for:
   • Application Number: MCU/2019/538
   • Approvals sought: Development permit for making a Material Change of Use for Multiple dwellings (47 units) and Short-term accommodation (8 units). Noting updated Architectural Plans were submitted in May 2020 proposing to increase the number of floors from 21 to 23.
   • Street Address: 264 The Esplanade, Miami QLD 4220
   • Real Property Description: Lot 27 on B16710

   The Architectural Plans associated with Development Application for Material Change of Use at 264 The Esplanade, Miama does not comply with the acceptable development requirements of the Council of the City of Gold Coast City Plan. The Architectural Plans for Alba, 264 The Esplanade, Miami in Council Division 12 does not comply with The City of Gold Coast City Plan with respect to:
   • Part 9 – Development Code, Part 9.4.4 General Development Provisions Code
   • Part 6 – Zones, High Density Residential Zone Code for Division 12, 264 The Esplanade, Miami
   • City Plan Building Height Overlay Map 20

   Specifically, the proposed Alba Development Application does not meet the acceptable development requirements with respect to the following provisions of the City Plan (Part 9, Part 6, Building Height Overlay Map):
   • The Development Application does not meet the acceptable development required outcomes under the code with respect to site cover, height and setback
   • The Development Application does not meet the acceptable development requirements under setback and height envelope
   • The Development Application does not meet the criteria with respect to contribution to neighbourhood character & amenity
   • the shadow impacts of the proposed Development Application does not meet the shadow provisions and will result in a loss of visual amenity
   • The Development Application does not comply with purpose and overall outcomes of the High Density Residential Zone Code, with respect to Design and Amenity (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii)
   • The Development Application does not comply with the requirements relating to housing needs, design & amenity and community benefits

   Specific examples of how the proposed Alba Development Application for 264 The Esplanade Miami does not comply with the City Plan are:
   • The Alba Architectural Plans states that the height of the proposed building is 79.5m above the existing ground level. Under City Plan Building Height Overlay Map 20 for Division 12, 264 The Esplanade, the permitted height is only 53m.
   • The updated Alba Architectural Plans state that the development will be 23 Levels. The project plans do not comply with the City Plan and exceeds the height envelope, setback and site cover outcomes.
   • According to the High Density Residential Code, Performance Outcomes, the Alba Development Application Plans do not meet the acceptable outcomes of:
   o Site cover should not exceed 30% above 53m in height
   o Site cover should not exceed 40% between 32m and 53m in height
   o Site cover should not exceed 50% up to 32m in height,
   • With respect the Design & Amenity provisions , the Alba proposed Development Application adversely and unreasonably impacts adjoining residential amenity, particularly with respect to Marina Shores Resort, Burleigh Surf Apartments, Outrigger Resort and other neighbouring properties.
   • With respect to Amenity Protection (9.4.4 General Development Provision Code, Amenity Protection) the proposed Alba Development Application does not meet the requirement to “not prevent loss of amenities and threats to health and safety having regard to noise, traffic, visual amenity, wind effects, privacy”. This proposed Alba Development Application creates loss of amenities to the neighbours and the local community.
   • With respect to the Shadow Provisions (9.4.4 General Development Provision Code, Shadow Impacts) this proposed Alba Development Application for a building that is 23 storey, 79.5m high above existing ground level, does not comply with the City Plan. The location of the shadow from the proposed Alba development will adversely impact other neighbouring sites and building. The shadow will adversely impact the ocean beach, broadwater foreshore and beachside public open spaces. The shadow will adversely impact non-residential areas external to the site.

10. Hi Catherine, I truly wish you all the luck in the world but we had the same type of issues on The Esplanade Burleigh Heads. There were so many things that didn’t comply with the GCCC Town Plan it was amazing. What was even worse was that we did everything possible including lots of $$$ but still it was approved and is being built as we speak. I feel for you and others close by.

11. This planning application is ridiculous
    It's obvious that the Gold Coast City Council can be bought. If you've got the dollars you can build what ever you want. When we purchased our unit on the Esplanade we were advised that no buildings would be approved over 15 floors to prevent beach shadowing ect. Now its just a money grabbing free for all. The people (residents) have no voice.

12. I also object, this dwelling is not in keeping with the area. Nor is this road capable of carrying all the extra traffic these continued high rise buildings bring.
    No they won't use the light rail, no one uses the buses now!

13. I object to this development being approved. It is outside of the city plan. If buildings like this are approved, then it sets a precedent for a future free for all. With current guidelines, if they get approved, they can build it 50% higher with no need to apply for approval. Next thing you know all our beaches will be in shadow! Stop this ridiculous overdevelopment to attract tourists that the poor ratepayers of the Gold Coast end up paying for by way of taxes and a light rail running through our beautiful beachside suburbs to service them!

14. I have read the proposed minor changes to this development submitted 5/3/21. Whilst reducing the size to 66.6 metres, the development still does not meet heights set in the City Plan.
    I object to the revised plan on the following bases:
    * It is too high for what is set in the City Plan
    * Restricting natural light on surrounding smaller neighbouring unit blocks. It have visited the shadow diagrams which confirm shadowing which will impact not only the adjoining unit blocks & pools (including the Burleigh Surf pool) but also the beachfront & North Burleigh SLSC commercial premises
    * Traffic congestion. The Esplanade is already a very busy thoroughfare & having spent the past 25 years here (both as a holidaymaker & in recent years as an owner) I have seen the congestion on The Esplanade increase dramatically to the point that it has become very dangerous to attempt to cross to the beachside (even at the crossings). Endeavouring to cross with kids, or in my case grandkids, will become even more dangerous with the additional road users associated with this proposed development
    * The setback. I have viewed the revised plans & note that the setback from The Esplanade itself for such a tall building, is problematic & impedes views of Miami Hill from adjoining unit complexes. It needs to be further setback. The footprint of the building is also outside of city plan guidelines.
    * Character. The building does not fit within the character of North Burleigh / Miami and will ruin the landscape of the area. There is no visual benefit in having a 21 storey building constructed in North Burleigh.
    * Oversupply of units & accommodation in the area.
    * There does not appear to be any tangible benefit to the community for a development of this size, other than a monetary benefit for the developer & additional rates received by the GCCC.

    I urge the Senior Planner (Alex Glassington), the planning committee and councillors to deny the approval of the revised application in its current form & consider a smaller, more appropriate development with less impact on the adjoining unit complexes.
    I am not anti-development but would support a smaller development that remains within the guidelines of the city plan & in harmony with its surroundings.

15. Attn. Mr Alex Glassington, Senior Planner/Responsible Officer
    Further to my previous comments above, I also wanted to separately make comment on the ridiculous numerics utilised by the developer’s project consultants in their letter 5/3/21, associated with the minor changes to the ALBA development.

    They state that:
    “Public notification has been undertaken for the development proposal and there was a total of 275 properly made submissions received, 93% of which were pro-forma submissions from owners in the Mariner Shores building adjoining the site. The Applicant wishes to note there are 3,285 owners in Mariner Shores and the submissions received from those owners represent only 7.76% of the total ownership. Therefore, these objections do not constitute a consensus among the Mariner Shores owners”.

    It should be noted that Marina Shores is a time share development with owners not specifically owning a unit, & most not living in the area or spending more than 2 weeks per year in the complex. The majority would not even be aware that there is a proposed development.
    To suggest that 3030 (92.24%) of the Marina Shores time share owners are aware or support the development (because an objection hasn’t been received) is ludicrous. I would suggest if all of the 3285 time share “owners” were made aware of the proposed development or indeed spent more that 2 weeks per year in a unit in the complex, they would similarly lodge objections. The time share owners are pseudo holiday makers rather than formal individual unit owners.
    So to use the Mariner Shores objection statistics to bolster support for this development is a nonsense.

16. Well said Annette and Dean Reynolds.
    Once again the GCCC and its Town Plan have decided to make decisions that are completely against what they have said in their own documents.
    There’s no benefit to anyone except the developers and the rate machine.
    I’m unsure if they have ever been to Miami/North Burleigh or Burleigh Heads. This is at least the fourth construction that is completely different to their Town Plan. The impact on this area will be horrendous for those that live, work and play in this very small expanse of land. The traffic on the Esplanade is already over capacity. Add all of these devices and our small piece of paradise will be destroyed. It’s time the GCCC adhered to their own rules.

17. We respectfully request that the City of Gold Coast Council please consult directly with the North Burleigh Surf Life Saving Club regarding the potential public safety issue posed by the Alba development. The site of the Alba development (proposed for 264 The Esplanade, Miami) is directly behind Surf Life Saving Lifeguard Tower 20 on the North Burleigh Beach. Given the height and construction material proposed, we are concerned that the Alba Development may adversely impact the ability of beach goers to see the Lifeguard Tower, especially when the morning sun is shining. This potential impact on beach safety is particularly important given that there is a thriving Nippers community that gathers on the beach most weekend with hundreds of children engaging in surf lifesaving activities.
    
    We believe that the potential Public Safety Risk posed by this Alba Development needs to be urgently investigated and addressed by the Council. We request that the Council please do not approve this proposed Alba Development to proceed in its current format, to ensure the beach safety of the North Burleigh community.
    
    In the past week, Catherine has written to and spoken with the CEO of the property owner of 264 The Esplanade, Australian Post-Tel Institute (Queensland) Limited to express her concerns about the proposed Alba Development. The CEO has indicated to Catherine that they and their Developer (Devine Burleigh Heads Pty Ltd) have not engaged directly with the owners of neighbouring properties regarding their proposed Alba Development. In Catherine's discussion with the CEO, she indicated to Catherine that their primary focus was to maximise the return/value of the site for their members. When Catherine advised her that many neighbours were unaware of the proposed Alba development, she indicated to Catherine that this was not her concern and that it is up to the property owners to make their own enquiries about proposed developments. In our view, this response is not in line with acceptable corporate behaviour. It does not fit with appropriate Corporate Responsibility and Community Engagement values and responsibilities.
    
    We respectfully request that the City of Gold Coast ensure that there is appropriate community engagement and consideration regarding this proposed Alba development, given the local demographic and the potential wide-ranging implications of this proposed development on the North Burleigh Beach community.
    
    Thanks and kind regard,

    Catherine & Peter

18. Please don’t approve the Alba Development Application to build a 21 storey building on The Esplanade near the North Burleigh SLSC.

    There has been no building over 10 storeys constructed on the North Burleigh Beachfront of Miami near the Surf Club for over thirty years.

    There is so much development down the South End of Burleigh. Please retain and protect this special part of North Burleigh Beachfront for future generations.

19. I don’t understand why rules can be changed to suit developers. At first I heard it was going to 15 stories, then 22 now I understand they want it to be 24. This is just not good enough, what exactly are the rules. Please don’t approve this development.

20. Joy, unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be any rules anymore. The Town Plan appears to be a joke as it’s circumvented so many times that it’s no longer relevant.

21. The town plan is a joke any applicant can get a 50% uplift approved even if they don’t meet the criteria. The whole thing is a joke just to raise high density to justify the light rail.

22. As a very frequent visitor to this area , I am very concerned of the impact of a 24 story high building being built as expressed, I am very aware that this area has been past for a 15 story project which is acceptable, so please understand the residents objecting to such a height . it is such a pleasurable place to come and relax and enjoy So many people come here for their weekends enjoyment of our beautiful beaches and areas .
    it would be an absolute shame to spoil what we have . as the parking is quite inadequate as it is now so council please show a little piece of consideration for your ratepayers.

23. Attn. Mr Alex Glassington, Senior Planner/Responsible Officer

    According to the city planning of the Gold Coast the maximum height of this building on 264 The Esplanade Miami 4220 should be only 15 floors high , so no building should be above this height, myself and my neighbours are very concerned that the proposal of this building which is to be 24 floors high. Which we strongly object to as it will deeply impact the living quality we have now and enjoy so much.

24. Cliff even where how heights are measured has changed

25. The town plan is a joke any applicant can get a 50% uplift approved even if they don’t meet the criteria. The whole thing is a joke just to raise high density to justify the light rail.

26. Bill Bourke, I completely agree with you. It’s just a pity that the GCCC doesn’t abide by their own rules and decisions. As many have said we aren’t against developments but they should be made to adhere to The Councils own Plan. When is the next election!!!!!

27. Attn. Mr Alex Glassington, Senior Planner/Responsible Officer

    I refer to the proposed ALBA development on the site 264 The Esplanade, MIAMI Qld (Application Ref. MCU/2019/538).
    As has been stated in numerous objections against the proposed development:
    The Development Application does not meet the acceptable development required outcomes under the code with respect to site cover, height and setback.

    Due to proposed height of 66.6 metres, & a proposed 21 storeys (being above the coded height of 53 metres/15 storeys) shadowing becomes a major issue, not only for adjoining properties, but also for the Northern end of North Burleigh Beach, as well as the North Burleigh Surf Life Saving Club.
    My objection to the development is based on the height & lack of setback causing this resultant shadowing.

    I note that Urbis (the Development & Planning Consultants) in their letter to GCCC of 5/3/21 provided Shadow Diagrams of the proposed 66.6 metre (21 storey) development.
    I’m sure these diagrams have been prepared by learned people using computer programs to estimate the shadowing in various seasons & times.
    I would suggest, however, that they haven’t ventured onto the sands of North Burleigh Beach to determine whether these computer simulations & estimates of the shadowing are in fact realistic.
    Who checks these? What if they are incorrect after the development has been built?

    So I thought it appropriate to view the shadowing of existing North Burleigh apartments manually, first hand, in order to ascertain how accurate the shadowing outlined in the consultant’s diagrams are for the proposed development.
    I spent time over the past 2 Saturdays (15th & 22nd May 2021 - both being sunny days in late Autumn) walking & assessing similar sized buildings in respect to shadowing. This was done at 3:00 pm & obviously being in May, falling into Autumn.
    My observations were as follows:
    3:00 pm - 3:15 pm both 15/5/21 & 22/5/21
    * “North Beach” - Cnr The Esplanade & Kratzmann Ave - 7 storeys
    Minimal shadowing impact on neighbours or beach
    * “Burleigh Surf” - 228 The Esplanade - 30 storeys
    Major impact with shadowing across the beach to the waterline
    * “Mediterranean” - 220 The Esplanade - 10 storeys
    Minimal shadowing impact
    * “Indigo Blue” - 186 The Esplanade - 19 storeys
    Major impact with shadowing across the beach nearly to the waterline
    * Cashelmara - 170 The Esplanade - 17 storeys
    Major impact with shadowing on the beach (half-way to the waterline)
    * Burleigh Esplanade - 144 The Esplanade - 25 storeys
    Major impact with shadowing across the beach, beyond the waterline

    Albeit observations, they indicate far greater shadowing than shown in the shadow diagrams provided to Council with the Developer’s amended DA.
    Based on my observations & other buildings of similar size, I believe the proposed development with the present DA of 21 storeys will significantly shadow neighbouring buildings as well as the beach, in mid-afternoon, particularly during Autumn & Winter, destroying the visual amenity of residents & holidaymakers.
    However, should the ALBA development be within the City Plan for the area, of 15 stories (53 metres) & with required setback, the beach shadowing & impact on neighbouring residential & commercial buildings would be significantly minimised.

    I ask that the current DA be rejected at the building’s current height of 66.6 metres (21 storeys).

    I challenge the Assessor of this DA (Mr Glassington) to view North Burleigh Beach first hand (rather than relying on computer generated supporting information provided by the developer’s consultants) to determine the accuracy of these shadow diagrams.
    It will also allow the Assessor to view the visual impact & the shadowing impact of developments above the height code from mid to North Burleigh.

28. We respectfully request that the Council of the City of Gold Coast only approve Development Applications in Division 12 that fully comply with the City of Gold Coast City Plan.
    
    We respectfully request that the Devine Burleigh Heads Pty Ltd Development Applications not be approved by Council of the City of Gold Coast because this Development Application does not provide an acceptable outcome and it doesn’t comply with the City of Gold Coast City Plan. This request applies to the following Development Applications listed on GCC website, PD online for:
    • Application Number: MCU/2019/538
    • Approvals sought: Development permit for making a Material Change of Use for Multiple dwellings (47 units) and Short-term accommodation (8 units). Noting updated Architectural Plans were submitted in May 2020 proposing to increase the number of floors from 21 to 23.
    • Street Address: 264 The Esplanade, Miami QLD 4220
    • Real Property Description: Lot 27 on B16710
    
    We respectfully request that Minor Change to a Development Application for a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use for Multiple Dwelling at 264 The Esplanade, Miami (Council Ref: MCU/2019/538) letter by Urbis Pty Ltd dated 05/03/2021 and the associated updated architectural plans and renders not be approved by Council of the City of Gold Coast because this Development Application still does not provide an acceptable outcome and it doesn’t comply with the City of Gold Coast City Plan. This request applies to the following Development Applications listed on GCC website, PD online for:
    • Application Number: MCU/2019/538
    • Street Address: 264 The Esplanade, Miami QLD 4220
    • Real Property Description: Lot 27 on B16710

    The Architectural Plans associated with Development Application for Material Change of Use at 264 The Esplanade, Miami does not comply with the acceptable development requirements of the Council of the City of Gold Coast City Plan. The Architectural Plans for Alba, 264 The Esplanade, Miami in Council Division 12 does not comply with The City of Gold Coast City Plan with respect to:
    • Part 9 – Development Code, Part 9.4.4 General Development Provisions Code
    • Part 6 – Zones, High Density Residential Zone Code for Division 12, 264 The Esplanade, Miami
    • City Plan Building Height Overlay Map 20
    
    Specifically, the proposed Alba Development Application does not meet the acceptable development requirements with respect to the following provisions of the City Plan (Part 9, Part 6, Building Height Overlay Map):
    • The Development Application does not meet the acceptable development required outcomes under the code with respect to site cover, height and setback
    • The Development Application does not meet the acceptable development requirements under setback and height envelope
    • The Development Application does not meet the criteria with respect to contribution to neighbourhood character & amenity
    • the shadow impacts of the proposed Development Application does not meet the shadow provisions and will result in a loss of visual amenity
    • The Development Application does not comply with purpose and overall outcomes of the High Density Residential Zone Code, with respect to Design and Amenity (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii)
    • The Development Application does not comply with the requirements relating to housing needs, design & amenity and community benefits
    
    Specific examples of how the proposed Alba Development Application for 264 The Esplanade Miami does not comply with the City Plan are:
    • The Alba Architectural Plans states that the height of the proposed building is 66.6m above the existing ground level. Under City Plan Building Height Overlay Map 20 for Division 12, 264 The Esplanade, the permitted height is only 53m.
    • The updated Alba Architectural Plans state that the development will be 21 Levels. The project plans do not comply with the City Plan and exceeds the height envelope, setback and site cover outcomes.
    • According to the High Density Residential Code, Performance Outcomes, the Alba Development Application Plans do not meet the acceptable outcomes of:
    o Site cover should not exceed 30% above 53m in height
    o Site cover should not exceed 40% between 32m and 53m in height
    o Site cover should not exceed 50% up to 32m in height,
    • With respect the Design & Amenity provisions , the Alba proposed Development Application adversely and unreasonably impacts adjoining residential amenity, particularly with respect to Marina Shores Resort, Burleigh Surf Apartments, Outrigger Resort and other neighbouring properties.
    • With respect to Amenity Protection (9.4.4 General Development Provision Code, Amenity Protection) the proposed Alba Development Application does not meet the requirement to “not prevent loss of amenities and threats to health and safety having regard to noise, traffic, visual amenity, wind effects, privacy”. This proposed Alba Development Application creates loss of amenities to the neighbours and the local community.
    • With respect to the Shadow Provisions (9.4.4 General Development Provision Code, Shadow Impacts) this proposed Alba Development Application for a building that is 21 storey, 66.6m high above existing ground level, does not comply with the City Plan. The location of the shadow from the proposed Alba development will adversely impact other neighbouring sites and building. The shadow will adversely impact the ocean beach, broadwater foreshore and beachside public open spaces. The shadow will adversely impact non-residential areas external to the site. We request that the Council of City of Gold Coast independently assess the Shadow Impacts of the proposed Alba Development. The proposed shadow representation illustrated in the Devine Burleigh Heads and Ibis submissions appear to be inconsistent with reality based on the actual shadow impact of other buildings on The Esplanade.

29. My view of the ocean is going to be blocked.
    The sun shine in the morning is going to be blocked.
    The fresh air from the ocean is going to be blocked.

    I'm living in THE OUTRIGGER and I'm considering suing the GCCC for damages and decrees in the value of my property.

30. I am a resident of Burleigh and strongly object to this MCU in its present form at 264 The Esplanade. It does not comply with the City Plan.

31. Attn. Mr Alex Glassington, Senior Planner/Responsible Officer

    I refer to the proposed ALBA development on the site 264 The Esplanade, MIAMI Qld (Application Ref. MCU/2019/538).

    I object to the proposed development, given the Development Application does not meet the acceptable development required outcomes under the code with respect to site cover, height and setback.

    I fail to understand how the Gold Coast City Council can even consider a development that does not comply with the City Plan in relation to height, site cover, setback & amenity provisions.

    Additionally, I further object to the 40% uplift in height (from the City Plan provisions of 15 storeys to 21 storeys) sought by the developer.
    There are not greater tangible benefits or improved amenity for neither the township, the nearby residents or The Esplanade itself by increasing the height above the City Plan provisions of 15 storeys.
    In fact, it detracts from the amenity of the area.

    There is only one beneficiary here, the developer’s return & profit on the project!
    Considering this relatively small allotment, which doesn’t allow much scope for the site beyond a narrow, tall building - the higher the building, the better return for the developer.

    I find it ludicrous that the the GCCC (& the Assessor) would even consider an application that is blatantly outside the City Plan, together with a 40% uplift in the number of storeys (beyond the height provision of the City Plan), when there are no tangible benefits to anyone beyond the developer.

    I am interested in learning why the GCCC would even consider this when it is plainly evident via the numerous objections, that this development outside of the City Plan, is not supported, nor provides anything to the township, the neighbourhood nor the Esplanade residents.

    I object to this development in its current form, particularly in relation to height & setback.

    I’m happy to receive a response outlining why the GCCC is considering a development outside of the City Plan that provides nothing in additional amenity to the township or existing residents.

32. The Chief Executive Officer
    City of Gold Coast
    City Development Branch
    PO Box 5042
    GCMC QLD 9729
    email: mail@goldcoast.qld.gov.au

    Attn: Mr Hoagy Moscrop-Allison

    Dear Sir
    In light of the tragic Champlain Towers building collapse in Miami, Florida as at 24/06/2021, I urge you to please carefully consider when approving large-scale building projects near existing old buildings, such as Burleigh Surf Apartments, 238 The Esplanade, Miami Gold Coast, which is 31 storeys high and more than 30 years old.
    The cause(s) of the 13 storey Miami Florida building collapse is still under investigation. However, one of the contributing factors is likely due to vibrations and cracking of the 40 year old Champlain Towers building caused by the construction of the nearby 18 storey tower block, Eighty Seven Park between 2016 and 2019. It was reported that Champlain Towers South residents raised concerns with City of Miami Beach Officials about the movement and shaking of the building during the construction of the adjacent Eighty Seven Park Tower which may have generated some ground movement or micro seismic events potentially leading to structural damage of Champlain Towers.
    I respectfully request that the Devine Burleigh Heads Pty Ltd Development Applications not be approved by Council of the City of Gold Coast. This request applies to the following Development Applications listed on GCC website, PD online for:
    • Application Number: MCU/2019/538
    • Approvals sought: Development permit for making a Material Change of Use for
    Multiple dwellings 21 storey.
    • Street Address: 264 The Esplanade, Miami QLD 4220
    • Real Property Description: Lot 27 on B16710
    I respectfully ask the City of Gold Coast to not approve Alba Tower (21 storey) proposed new high rise development at 264 The Esplanade, on beachfront of Miami, Gold Coast given the concerning similarities between the development on the Miami Florida Beachfront and the proposed development on the Miami Gold Coast beachfront at Burleigh Heads. Many of the buildings around the proposed Alba Tower site are 30 – 40 years old. Please carefully review the investigation and findings from Champlain Tower collapse tragedy and review the potential structural impact of the new large-scale Alba Tower project on the existing nearby buildings, particularly Marina Shores, Burleigh Surf and Miami Ice. Please give particular consideration to the potential adverse impact of the proposed Alba Tower high rise construction on the surrounding high rise buildings as inadequate engineering consideration on a new high rise building approval process can result in catastrophic consequences on the nearby buildings.
    I am expressing my concerns to you as the Owners of Apartment 18E Burleigh Surf, 238 The Esplanade Miami and as a Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer of more than 30 years.
    Thanks

    Peter Chern
    CP (Geology), CP (Geotech), RPEQ
    Owners of Apartment 18E Burleigh Surf, 238 The Esplanade Miami
    Mailing Address: PO Box 56 Camp Hill QLD 4152
    Ph: 0488 545 550
    Email: peter.chern@bigpond.com

33. I,couldn’t agree more. I live in a building that is around 40 years old and have a construction site next door. At time during this build our whole building has actually vibrated. After seeing Florida I am very concerned about what this could mean for our building. The GCCC is allowing a number of developments that are against the town plan and beside old buildings. It is understandable that development will occur but let’s keep them at reasonable heights and have measures in place so that we don’t ever see another disaster similar to Florida.

34. Attn. Mr Alex Glassington, Senior Planner/Responsible Officer

    I refer to the proposed ALBA development on the site 264 The Esplanade, MIAMI Qld (Application Ref. MCU/2019/538).

    I note that the developer has submitted a “minor change to the application” dated 16/7/21.

    Despite the minor change to the application which reduces the height of the development to 60.4 metres (from ground level) and the number of storeys to 19 (from 21 storeys), the development does not comply with the City of Gold Coast City Plan.

    I object to the proposed development, given the Development Application does not meet the acceptable development required outcomes under the code with respect to site cover, height and setback.

    I fail to understand how the Gold Coast City Council can even consider a development that does not comply with the City Plan in relation to height, site cover, setback & amenity provisions.

    Additionally, I further object to the uplift in height (from the City Plan provisions of 15 storeys to 19 storeys) sought by the developer.
    There are not greater tangible benefits or improved amenity for neither the township, the nearby residents or The Esplanade itself by increasing the height above the City Plan provisions of 15 storeys.
    In fact, it detracts from the amenity of the area.

    I have had a read of the developer’s ‘minor change to the application’ dated 16/7/21 (submitted via Urbis - The Development & Planning Consultants). I note in the submission 16/7/21 under the section “City Plan Compliance” the consultants comment “Therefore, the proposal contributes to a MORE ACCEPTABLE level of achievement of the objectives of the City Plan”.
    Hence, by their own admission it is not currently acceptable & this reduction to 19 storeys doesn’t make it acceptable nor compliant under the objectives of the City Plan.
    So why is the GCCC considering an application that continues to be outside of the objectives of the City Plan in the first instance & why isn’t the developer amending the application to fully meet the objectives of the City Plan.

    It would appear that each submission is an ambit claim with the intention of hoping to secure an approval to a development that doesn’t comply (each one closer to compliance than the previous submission).

    There is only one beneficiary here, the developer’s return & profit on the project!
    Considering this relatively small allotment, which doesn’t allow much scope for the site beyond a narrow, tall building - the higher the building, the better return for the developer.

    I find it a blatant waste of ratepayers money (I am a GCCC ratepayer) that the GCCC (& the Assessor) would continue to assess & even consider an application that is blatantly outside the City Plan, together with the request for an uplift in the number of storeys (beyond the height provision of the City Plan), when there are no tangible benefits to anyone beyond the developer.

    I am interested in learning why the GCCC would even consider this when it is plainly evident via the numerous objections, that this development outside of the City Plan, is not supported, nor provides anything to the township, the neighbourhood nor the Esplanade residents.

    I urge the Senior Planner (Mr Alex Glassington), the Planning Committee & Councillors to deny the approval of the revised Development Application in its current form & consider a smaller, more appropriate development with less impact on both the adjoining unit complexes & the North Burleigh community.

    I am not anti-development but would support a smaller development that remains within the guidelines of the City Plan & in harmony with its surroundings.

    Annette Reynolds

35. Mr Hoagy Moscrop-Allison
    The Chief Executive Officer
    &
    Mr Alex Glassington
    The Senior Planner/Responsible Officer
    City of Gold Coast
    City Development Branch
    PO Box 5042
    GCMC QLD 9729
    email: mail@goldcoast.qld.gov.au

    Attn: Mr Hoagy Moscrop-Allison and Mr Alex Glassington
    
    Dear Sirs

    hope you are well and your week is going well.

    Further to our previous correspondence to you dated 28/05/2021 and 25/03/2021, we respectfully request that the Council of the City of Gold Coast only approve Development Applications in Division 12 that fully comply with the City of Gold Coast City Plan.

    We respectfully request that the Devine Burleigh Heads Pty Ltd Development Applications not be approved by Council of the City of Gold Coast because this Development Application does not provide an acceptable outcome and it doesn’t comply with the City of Gold Coast City Plan. This request applies to the following Development Applications listed on GCC website, PD online for:
    • Application Number: MCU/2019/538
    • Approvals sought: Development permit for making a Material Change of Use for Multiple dwellings (35 Apartments) and Short-term accommodation submitting in December 2019 including 24 levels and 42 units. Noting the first Minor Change to a Development Application with updated Architectural Plans were submitted in March 2021 proposing to reducing number of floors from 24 to 21 and reducing the number of apartments from 42 to 35.
    • Approvals sought: Noting the second Minor Change to a Development Application for a Development permit for a material change of use for multiple dwelling at 264 The Esplanade, Miami (Council REF:MCU/2019/538). Noting updated Architectural Plans were submitted as at 16/07/2021 proposing to decrease the number of floors from 21 to 19 and reducing the number of apartments from 35 to 31.
    • Street Address: 264 The Esplanade, Miami QLD 4220
    • Real Property Description: Lot 27 on B16710

    We respectfully request that Minor Change to a Development Application for a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use for Multiple Dwelling at 264 The Esplanade, Miami (Council Ref: MCU/2019/538) letters by Urbis Pty Ltd dated 16/07/2021 and 05/03/2021 and the associated updated architectural plans and renders not be approved by Council of the City of Gold Coast because this Development Application still does not provide an acceptable outcome and it doesn’t comply with the City of Gold Coast City Plan. This request applies to the following Development Applications listed on GCC website, PD online for:
    • Application Number: MCU/2019/538
    • Street Address: 264 The Esplanade, Miami QLD 4220
    • Real Property Description: Lot 27 on B16710

    The Architectural Plans associated with Development Application for Material Change of Use at 264 The Esplanade, Miami does not comply with the acceptable development requirements of the Council of the City of Gold Coast City Plan. The Architectural Plans for Alba, 264 The Esplanade, Miami in Council Division 12 does not comply with The City of Gold Coast City Plan with respect to:
    • Part 9 – Development Code, Part 9.4.4 General Development Provisions Code
    • Part 6 – Zones, High Density Residential Zone Code for Division 12, 264 The Esplanade, Miami
    • City Plan Building Height Overlay Map 20
    
    Specifically, the proposed Alba Development Application does not meet the acceptable development requirements with respect to the following provisions of the City Plan (Part 9, Part 6, Building Height Overlay Map):
    • The Development Application does not meet the acceptable development required outcomes under the code with respect to site cover, height and setback
    • The Development Application does not meet the acceptable development requirements under setback and height envelope
    • The Development Application does not meet the criteria with respect to contribution to neighbourhood character & amenity
    the shadow impacts of the proposed Development Application does not meet the shadow provisions and will result in a loss of visual amenity
    • The Development Application does not comply with purpose and overall outcomes of the High Density Residential Zone Code, with respect to Design and Amenity (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii)
    • The Development Application does not comply with the requirements relating to housing needs, design & amenity and community benefits
    
    Specific examples of how the proposed Alba Development Application for 264 The Esplanade Miami does not comply with the City Plan are:
    • The Alba Architectural Plans states that the height of the proposed building is 60.4m above the existing ground level. Under City Plan Building Height Overlay Map 20 for Division 12, 264 The Esplanade, the permitted height is only 53m.
    • The updated Alba Architectural Plans state that the development will be 19 Levels. The project plans do not comply with the City Plan and exceeds the height envelope, setback and site cover outcomes.
    • According to the High Density Residential Code, Performance Outcomes, the Alba Development Application Plans do not meet the acceptable outcomes of:
    • Site cover should not exceed 30% above 53m in height
    • Site cover should not exceed 40% between 32m and 53m in height
    • Site cover should not exceed 50% up to 32m in height,
    • With respect the Design & Amenity provisions , the Alba proposed Development Application adversely and unreasonably impacts adjoining residential amenity, particularly with respect to Marina Shores Resort, Burleigh Surf Apartments, Outrigger Resort and other neighbouring properties.
    • With respect to Amenity Protection (9.4.4 General Development Provision Code, Amenity Protection) the proposed Alba Development Application does not meet the requirement to “not prevent loss of amenities and threats to health and safety having regard to noise, traffic, visual amenity, wind effects, privacy”. This proposed Alba Development Application creates loss of amenities to the neighbours and the local community.
    • With respect to the Shadow Provisions (9.4.4 General Development Provision Code, Shadow Impacts) this proposed Alba Development Application for a building that is 19 storey, 60.4m high above existing ground level, does not comply with the City Plan. The location of the shadow from the proposed Alba development will adversely impact other neighbouring sites and building. The shadow will adversely impact the ocean beach, broadwater foreshore and beachside public open spaces. The shadow will adversely impact non-residential areas external to the site. We request that the Council of City of Gold Coast independently assess the Shadow Impacts of the proposed Alba Development. The proposed shadow representation illustrated in the Devine Burleigh Heads and Ibis submissions appear to be inconsistent with reality based on the actual shadow impact of other buildings on The Esplanade.
    
    Thanks and kind regards
    Catherine Hartley and Peter Chern
    Owners of Apartment 18E Burleigh Surf, 238 The Esplanade Miami

36. Mr Hoagy Moscrop-Allison
    The Chief Executive Officer
    &
    Mr Alex Glassington
    The Senior Planner/Responsible Officer
    City of Gold Coast
    City Development Branch
    PO Box 5042
    GCMC QLD 9729
    email: mail@goldcoast.qld.gov.au

    Attn: Mr Hoagy Moscrop-Allison and Mr Alex Glassington
    I object to the proposed Alba development, This request applies to the following Development Applications listed on GCC website, PD online for:
    • Application Number: MCU/2019/538 given the Development Application does not meet the acceptable development required outcomes under the code with respect to site cover, height and setback. The Alba Architectural Plans states that the height of the proposed building is 60.4m above the existing ground level. Under City Plan Building Height Overlay Map 20 for Division 12, 264 The Esplanade, the permitted height is only 53m.
    • The updated Alba Architectural Plans state that the development will be 19 Levels. The project plans do not comply with the City Plan and exceeds the height envelope, setback and site cover outcomes.
    The location of the shadow from the proposed Alba development will adversely impact other neighboring sites and building as well as the residential housing area West of the GC Hwy and our Park Land/non-residential areas, Surf Club, external to the site.
    Considering the substantial amount of objections to the height, shadowing and set back of the proposed Alba Development I would like either Mr Hoagy Moscrop-Allison or Mr Alex Glassington to give us the rate payers an explanation for why GCCC are even considering any building project being developed along The Esplanade above 53m /15 floors. I would think that the GCCC would have a duty of care to follow and uphold there own City Plan. I would respectfully ask you to strongly consider reassessing the proposed Height and set back of Alba and all future developments along the Esplanade. Queensland tourism revolves around our beautiful sunny beaches, as does the Queensland residents lifestyle, don't ruin it by creating beaches that are coved by shadows.
    The Developers make their money and run, sure Council make money from the rates but that is minimal compared to destroying the Gold Coast tourist market and our way of life. The public voted you in, they can vote you out.
    Brian Lewis
    24E Burleigh Surf

37. Mr Hoagy Moscrop-Allison
    The Chief Executive Officer
    &
    Mr Alex Glassington
    The Senior Planner/Responsible Officer
    City of Gold Coast
    City Development Branch
    PO Box 5042
    GCMC QLD 9729
    email: mail@goldcoast.qld.gov.au

    Attn: Mr Hoagy Moscrop-Allison and Mr Alex Glassington
    I object to the proposed Alba development, This request applies to the following Development Applications listed on GCC website, PD online for:
    • Application Number: MCU/2019/538 given the Development Application does not meet the acceptable development required outcomes under the code with respect to site cover, height and setback. The Alba Architectural Plans states that the height of the proposed building is 60.4m above the existing ground level. Under City Plan Building Height Overlay Map 20 for Division 12, 264 The Esplanade, the permitted height is only 53m.
    • The updated Alba Architectural Plans state that the development will be 19 Levels. The project plans do not comply with the City Plan and exceeds the height envelope, setback and site cover outcomes.
    The location of the shadow from the proposed Alba development will adversely impact other neighboring sites and building as well as the residential housing area West of the GC Hwy and our Park Land/non-residential areas, Surf Club, external to the site.
    Considering the substantial amount of objections to the height, shadowing and set back of the proposed Alba Development I would like either Mr Hoagy Moscrop-Allison or Mr Alex Glassington to give us the rate payers an explanation for why GCCC are even considering any building project being developed along The Esplanade above 53m /15 floors. I would think that the GCCC would have a duty of care to follow and uphold there own City Plan. I would respectfully ask you to strongly consider reassessing the proposed Height and set back of Alba and all future developments along the Esplanade. Queensland tourism revolves around our beautiful sunny beaches, as does the Queensland residents lifestyle, don't ruin it by creating beaches that are coved by shadows.
    The Developers make their money and run, sure Council make money from the rates but that is minimal compared to destroying the Gold Coast tourist market and our way of life. The public voted you in, they can vote you out.
    Brian Lewis
    24E Burleigh Surf

38. Mr Hoagy Moscrop-Allison
    The Chief Executive Officer
    &
    Mr Alex Glassington
    The Senior Planner/Responsible Officer
    City of Gold Coast
    City Development Branch
    PO Box 5042
    GCMC QLD 9729
    email: mail@goldcoast.qld.gov.au

    Attn: Mr Hoagy Moscrop-Allison and Mr Alex Glassington
    
    Dear Sirs,

    Following on from my previous email to you, dated 11/07/2021, regarding the Alba development application at 264 The Esplanade, Miami, I am writing to express my further concern in relation to the proposed three-level underground car parking construction associated with this proposed Alba development.

    In light of the tragic Champlain Towers building collapse in Miami, Florida as at 24/06/2021 resulting in a death toll of 98 people, I urge you to please carefully consider when approving large-scale building projects near existing old buildings, such as Burleigh Surf Apartments, 238 The Esplanade, Miami Gold Coast, which is 31 storeys high, more than 30 years old and consists of 101 units.

    I am concerned that digging the three-level deep underground parking associated with the Alba Development may drain the groundwater of the surrounding areas. I am concerned that this may, in turn, adversely impact the integrity of the foundation of the nearby multi-story buildings (including Burleigh Surf, Marina Shores and Miami Ice etc) as the pore water pressure supporting (or buttressing) the foundation of the existing multi-story buildings may be reduced. Losing the foundation water acting as a stabilising force may result in catastrophic effect on the structural integrity of the neighbouring multi-story buildings to the proposed Alba Tower. The void created by draining of groundwater associated with the Alba Tower may potentially cause the neighbouring multi-story buildings to cave in and collapse into the sink hole as demonstrated by the failure of Miami Florida building as reported in BBC News (Source: BBC News 01/07/2021 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57651025)

    Some experts who have viewed the footage believe that the initial collapse was at the base of the building, around the pool area in front of the south-facing central section.
    Reports say one resident, Cassie Stratton, was on the phone to her husband in the moments before the collapse looking out of the window. She told him: "Honey, the pool is caving in."

    I respectfully request that the Devine Burleigh Heads Pty Ltd Development Applications not be approved by Council of the City of Gold Coast. This request applies to the following Development Applications listed on GCC website, PD online for:
    • Application Number: MCU/2019/538
    • Approvals sought: Development permit for making a Material Change of Use for
    Multiple dwellings 19 storey above ground and 3 storey below ground.
    • Street Address: 264 The Esplanade, Miami QLD 4220
    • Real Property Description: Lot 27 on B16710
    I respectfully ask the City of Gold Coast to not approve Alba Tower (19 storey above ground and 3 storey below ground) proposed new high rise development at 264 The Esplanade, on beachfront of Miami, Gold Coast given the concerning similarities between the development on the Miami Florida Beachfront and the proposed development on the Miami Gold Coast beachfront at Burleigh Heads. Many of the buildings around the proposed Alba Tower site are 30 – 40 years old. Please carefully review the investigation and findings from Champlain Tower collapse tragedy and review the potential structural impact of the new large-scale Alba Tower project on the existing nearby multi-storey buildings, particularly Marina Shores, Burleigh Surf and Miami Ice. Please give particular consideration to the potential adverse impact of the proposed Alba Tower high rise construction on the surrounding high rise buildings as inadequate engineering consideration on a new high rise building approval process can result in catastrophic consequences on the nearby buildings.

    I am expressing my concerns to you as the Owners of Apartment 18E Burleigh Surf, 238 The Esplanade Miami and as a Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer of more than 30 years.

    Thanks,
    
    Peter Chern
    CP (Geology), CP (Geotech), RPEQ
    Owners of Apartment 18E Burleigh Surf, 238 The Esplanade Miami

39. Mr Hoagy Moscrop-Allison
    The Chief Executive Officer
    &
    Mr Alex Glassington
    The Senior Planner/Responsible Officer
    City of Gold Coast
    City Development Branch
    PO Box 5042
    GCMC QLD 9729
    email: mail@goldcoast.qld.gov.au
    Attn: Mr Hoagy Moscrop-Allison and Mr Alex Glassington
    I ALSO object to the proposed Alba development,
    This request applies to the following Development Applications listed on GCC website, PD online for:
    • Approvals sought: Development permit for making a Material Change of Use for
    Multiple dwellings 19 storey above ground and 3 storey below ground.
    • Street Address: 264 The Esplanade, Miami QLD 4220
    • Real Property Description: Lot 27 on B16710
    • Application Number: MCU/2019/538 given the Development Application does not meet the acceptable development required outcomes under the code with respect to site cover, height setback and underground car park.
    The comments and facts that Peter Chern has made defiantly highlights the major issues involved if Council allows this development to go ahead as proposed at
    19 levels plus 3 level underground car park.
    This Alba Development has to affect all surrounding buildings. How deep are they proposing to go? Also, looking ahead, if Council allows this development it sets a precedent to allow not only the 3 blocks next to and between 6th and 7th Ave. but the total Esplanade precinct to also request to do developments of the same size. This would be unsafe and potentially a disaster for the Esplanade Miami / Burleigh beach area. Please stick to the Councils Plan and DENY APPROVAL only allow 15 levels with a more reasonable depth and size car parking. I don't personally know Peter Chern however he is obviously a very educated and experienced person. I'm a mere mortal and can also see the problems with this development. I respectfully request that Council read and take note of all Peter Chern's correspondence's, research and deny this developers request. STICK TO COUNCILS PLAN.
    Is the Sandbar development having depth and stabilization issues?.
    Judy Morgan
    24E Burleigh Surf

40. Attn. Mr Alex Glassington, Senior Planner/Responsible Officer

    I refer to the proposed ALBA development on the site 264 The Esplanade, MIAMI Qld (Application Ref. MCU/2019/538).

    I note that the developer has submitted a “minor change to the application” dated 16/7/21.

    Despite the minor change to the application which reduces the height of the development to 60.4 metres (from ground level) and the number of storeys to 19 (from 21 storeys), the development does not comply with the City of Gold Coast City Plan.

    I object to the proposed development, given the Development Application does not meet the acceptable development required outcomes under the code with respect to site cover, height and setback.

    Additionally, I further object to the uplift in height (from the City Plan provisions of 15 storeys to 19 storeys) sought by the developer.
    There are not greater tangible benefits or improved amenity for neither the township, the nearby residents or The Esplanade itself by increasing the height above the City Plan provisions of 15 storeys.
    In fact, it detracts from the amenity of the area.

    Despite the minor changes (submission to GCCC dated 16/7/21 & headed “Minor Changes to Application”), the application remains blatantly outside the City Plan & should not be approved in its present form.

    The development does not comply with the City Plan in relation to height, site cover, setback & amenity provisions.

    As indicated above, this development does not provide any tangible benefits to the either the community nor does it add to the amenity of North Burleigh/Miami itself.

    I urge the Senior Planner (Mr Alex Glassington), the Planning Committee & Councillors to deny the approval of the revised Development Application in its current form & consider a smaller, more appropriate development with less impact on both the adjoining unit complexes & the North Burleigh/Miami community.

    I would consider supporting a smaller development that remains within the guidelines of the City Plan & in harmony with its surroundings.

    Dean Reynolds

41. Mr Alex Glassington Senior Planner GCCC &
    Mr Hoagy Moscrop-Allison Chief Executive Officer

    I refer to the proposed ALBA development on the site 264 The Esplanade, MIAMI Qld (Application Ref. MCU/2019/538).

    I note that the developer has recently submitted a Landscape Plan for this development for consideration.

    So, it would appear that GCCC are considering the Development Application in its present form despite the objections regards this proposed monolithic development.
    I object to the over-development of this relatively small block of land purely for the developers capital gain with no tangible benefit to the North Burleigh/Miami community.
    This proposed over-sized monolith remains outside of the GCCC City Plan on the following bases:
    * Height (19 storeys against 15 storeys as in the City Plan)
    * The lack of setback, substantially impacting both the streetscape & neighbouring properties
    * No tangible benefits or improved amenities for neither the township, community or nearby residents
    * Shadowing impact on neighbours has not been considered in detail
    * Overall impact on the neighbourhood infrastructure in respect to traffic flow & overall services.

    Why is the GCCC always weighted toward the developer without considering the impact on the local community and neighbourhood?

    I note this request has also “opened the floodgates” with another Development Application before GCCC next door to this proposal (at 266 The Esplanade Miami), where another 18 storey monolith on a similar sized block is being proposed.

    It would appear the GCCC City Plan means nothing!
    Why bother having a City Plan & policies & regulations if they are not going to be followed or adopted?

42. Dear Annette, I couldn’t agree with you more. The whole length of The Esplanade is becoming over populated by so many high rise apartments that do not follow any rules set out in the Town Plan. At my last count there is 8 new developments all outside the rules. As you say why have these rules if they are going to be ignored every time a developer puts in a submission. This is a very small strip of land that is going from bad to worse thanks to the GCCC.

43. I refer to the development on the site 264 The Esplanade, MIAMI Qld (Application Ref. No. MCU/2019/538).

    Thank you Gold Coast City Council on your decision to approve the monolith at 264 The Esplanade, MIAMI.

    This approval is despite this development being well outside the GC City Plan on so many bases - height, setbacks, site cover, size of the parcel of land for the development & shadowing.
    The numerous objections were valid & appear to have been overlooked.
    The Statement of Reasons provided by GCCC appears pure rhetoric, in an attempt to justify a decision (to the advantage of the developer) that is not in the interests of the community and its residents & ratepayers.

    It would appear that the developer, together with their Council Contributions/Infrastructure Charges (in this case an amount of $828,490 as advised in the Council’s Infrastructure Charge Notice) rank higher in GCCC’s eyes than any concerns of the community and residents.

    It will no doubt open the floodgates & set precedents for future developments in the area (266 The Esplanade, Miami for example).
    Well done!

44. Judy lewis
    I agree completely with Deans comments. Rate payers have NO say, over 400 objections.
    Council does what it likes ignoring their own Planning Regulations. To me this decision says to all Developers THROW MONEY AT COUNCIL AND YOU 'LL GET WHAT YOU WANT.
    Shame on you GGCC.
    15 levels should be Maximum height NO EXCEPTIONS

45. I completely agree. We have buildings all along The Esplanade from Burleigh Heads to Miami and Palm Beach that are completely flaunting the rules that the GCCC themselves made but now completely ignore. It doesn’t matter how many objections there are or how much people pay lawyers and other experts the GCCC and developers always win.
    They’re looking into the Queensland Government so when is someone going to look at this Council. They are wrecking a beautiful part of the Gold Coast.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Gold Coast City Council. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment