PlanningAlerts

40 Comments

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

1. 1151 GC Hwy is a 413 sqm block with a 10m frontage with a proposed a 6 storey development!
   We object to this development as we did for 1109 GC Hwy as these high rise buildings on small lots do not add any appeal to our beachside suburb. It is alarming that precedents will be set for these small lot developments and our suburb just becomes high density living. The Palm Beach community will be nothing more than concrete, car and rubbish bin strips with shadowed wind tunnels. Just like the cities we've wanted to escape.
   In addition, visitor car parking is always limited, setbacks are pushed to boundaries that will make our neighbourhoods no longer the friendly suburb we are known for.
   GCCC needs to do more to stop the over development and listen to the community.

2. This application does not meet any of the City Plans criteria.
   Is it well over the allowed site coverage being allowed 50% this development is 79.9%.

   The design is for 0% set backs for the southern. northern and Gold Coast Hwy. it allows for 4% set back at the rear (Jefferson lane ) which will be the entry access to carpark and car stacker.
   There is no communal open space

   Density is 1 bedroom per 27.5 m2 and the town plan asks for 1 bedroom per 33m2

   This property sits on a 412m2 site and is oversized. This will impact greatly on surrounding residents. There is no allowance for green space or planting to soften the building.

   Jefferson Lane is exactly what it is called a lane and with other developments that have been approved and already built it can not and will not cope with added traffic.

   The fact that this development needs an ugly stacker shows that it is over sized for the block.

   Please can we start approving developments that are not just concrete jungles and lets stick to the city plan which was put in place for a reason. To protect the ascetics of Palm Beach and look after the lifestyle of its residents for years to come.

3. As a born and bred Gold Coaster, I am acutely aware of the growing demand and impact of population growth and high-density development throughout the city. I submit the following points of objection:-

   1. The building envelope is too large for a 412m2 property and exceeds the criteria in respect of:-
   o Setbacks
   o Density; and
   o Site coverage
   The town planning report notes some ‘relatively minor alternative outcomes have been proposed’ to the development’s assessment, however these are neither minor nor justified, and the cumulative impact of these make the development inappropriate for the site.

   2. There is restricted and unsafe access – the required road frontage of the proposed development is 50% less than required, and merely moves the concern of vehicular access from the Gold Coast Highway to Jefferson Lane. Jefferson Lane is the sole vehicle access for many beachfront properties, and already poses a daily safety risk given the narrow single lane in one direction, with shared access for passenger cars, commercial vehicles, pedestrians, pets, cyclists and neighborhood kids. These risks will only be heightened and traffic congestion caused from another multi-unit property, particularly if its residents/guests are queueing along Jefferson Lane, for access to their car stacker.

   3. There is inadequate parking – provision has been made for a partial basement with only 10 resident carparks and 1 visitor carpark, when there are 5 x 3bedroom apartments being proposed. The resident car parking is proposed via a car stacking system, which will contribute to access concerns. There is already a shortage of street parking within Palm Beach generally, particularly beachside of the highway and there is no street parking along Jefferson Lane. Furthermore, the proposed development is listed as being for permanent and short-term accommodation, which supports a need for a greater number of parking spaces.

   4. The proposed development is not balanced between built form and green areas and there is no communal open space (and balcony space should not be considered an appropriate alternative). Palm Beach is already neighboring an existing priority koala area, yet we continue to see vegetation clearing and inadequate consideration of landscaping or regeneration in new development applications. The landscaping in the application appears to be proposed only to overcome other objections or concerns with the development (i.e soften the bulk of the form or for privacy), not out of any genuine desire to incorporate landscaping or green areas. The enhancement of Palm Beach ‘by subtropical design and landscaping’ is listed as a desired environmental outcome for Palm Beach, yet development applications are submitted with only a bare minimum of landscaping.

   5. The potential environmental concerns are not addressed in the application - there is added impact to the sand, water quality and ocean life of the beach environment, and adverse impacts to air quality and drainage. There is additional concern from anticipated increases in ocean tides, which poses a risk to the entire Palm Beach community.

   6. The proposed development will unduly impact the amenity enjoyed by surrounding properties. Specifically, there is an invasion of privacy for neighbours, given the proposed size and scale of the development, contrary to the suggestion in the application of ‘quality passive surveillance of Jefferson Lane and improve the relationship between the public and private realm’. The ‘relatively minimal’ shading referenced in the application is farcical; surrounding residents and general members of the public who walk along the coastline will be shaded by a 20m tall building and those impacts should not be overlooked.

   Though there is strong demand for real estate in Palm Beach, there are ample other properties that have already sought approvals or are under construction. All such properties have had various relaxations granted, which is a concerning precedent for subsequent applications, and the deleterious cumulative effect can already be seen throughout the Palm Beach community. Many such applications are seeking a material change of use on a small lot to oversized multi-unit buildings, all which will ultimately glut the town.

   We sought to raise our kids in a coastal beach town - to teach them important values about contributing to their community, respecting the environment, loving one another and appreciating the peace and beauty of their surroundings. Now we find ourselves, with each new development application questioning how shortsightedness and greed risks destroying it all. The proposed development is at a form, scale and intensity that is inappropriate, inconsistent with the City Plan and will not benefit Palm Beach.

4. To whom it may concern,

   I wish to raise the following concerns in relation to the proposed development at 1151 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach.

   1. The proposed building is too large for a 412m2 property and exceeds the criteria in respect of:-
   o Setbacks (0m on three sides)
   o Density (1 bedroom / 27.5m vs city plan 1 bedroom / 30m2) and
   o Site coverage (79% vs city plan 50%)
   The town planning report notes some ‘relatively minor alternative outcomes have been proposed’ to the development’s assessment, however these are neither minor nor justified, and the cumulative impact of these make the development inappropriate for the site.

   2. There is restricted and unsafe access – the required road frontage of the proposed development is 50% less than required, and merely moves the concern of vehicular access from the Gold Coast Highway to Jefferson Lane. Jefferson Lane is the sole vehicle access for many beachfront properties, and already poses a daily safety risk given the narrow single lane in one direction, with shared access for passenger cars, commercial vehicles, pedestrians, pets, cyclists and neighborhood kids. These risks will only be heightened and traffic congestion caused from another multi-unit property, particularly if its residents/guests are queueing along Jefferson Lane, for access to their car stacker.

   3. There is inadequate parking – provision has been made for a partial basement with only 10 resident carparks and 1 visitor carpark, when there are 5 x 3bedroom apartments being proposed. The resident car parking is proposed via a car stacking system, which will contribute to access concerns.

   4. The proposed development is not balanced between built form and green areas and there is no communal open space (and balcony space should not be considered an appropriate alternative). Palm Beach is already neighboring an existing priority koala area, yet we continue to see vegetation clearing and inadequate consideration of landscaping or regeneration in new development applications. The landscaping in the application appears to be proposed only to overcome other objections or concerns with the development (i.e soften the bulk of the form or for privacy), not out of any genuine desire to incorporate landscaping or green areas. The enhancement of Palm Beach ‘by subtropical design and landscaping’ is listed as a desired environmental outcome for Palm Beach, yet development applications are submitted with only a bare minimum of landscaping.

   5. The proposed development will unduly impact the amenity enjoyed by surrounding properties. Specifically, there is an invasion of privacy for neighbours, given the proposed size and scale of the development, and lack of setbacks, contrary to the suggestion in the application of ‘quality passive surveillance of Jefferson Lane and improve the relationship between the public and private realm’. The ‘relatively minimal’ shading referenced in the application is farcical; surrounding residents and general members of the public who walk along the coastline will be shaded by a 20m tall building and those impacts should not be overlooked.

   Though there is strong demand for real estate in Palm Beach, there are ample other properties that have already sought approvals or are under construction. All such properties have had various relaxations granted, which is a concerning precedent for subsequent applications, and the deleterious cumulative effect can already be seen throughout the Palm Beach community. Many such applications are seeking a material change of use on a small lot to oversized, unsightly, multi-unit buildings, all which will ultimately glut the town.

   Let’s make some positive steps in the right direction by sticking to the city planning acceptable outcomes for Palm Beach for this and all future applications.

5. I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.
   I have read the Information Request submitted by Supervising Town Planner (South) Adam Brown. Mr Brown clearly states that “the current application does not sufficiently demonstrate that a 6 Storey, 23m high building can be suitably designed for the subject site with regard to positive amenity and character outcomes.”
   Council Officers also state the current proposal “results in a development that is excessive in scale and intensity for the subject site.”
   The Podium style car parking level “results in an intense and bulky form.”
   It is unacceptable to have 3 boundaries with Zero Setbacks. This is drastically outside the city plan guidelines.
   1 visitor car space is not within the city plan guidelines.
   10 Car Stackers and a turntable is just impractical. Especially if visitors are expected to use the car stackers due to the fact only one visitor car park is planned.
   The Waste Management plans are not compliant with the city plan guidelines.
   The Developer has neglected to take into account future Road Widening planned for Jefferson Lane. Therefore the building must be setback by a minimum of another 1.5m on the eastern boundary. Even with this extra 1.5m the building’s balconies are in front and intrusive to the property that adjoins the southern boundary.
   The Officers recommend that side setbacks are to be significantly increased to 3m for both northern and southern boundaries.
   Council Officers even recommend that 2 levels are to be removed from the DA.
   The below items do not comply with the city plan guidelines:
   Density
   Setbacks
   Communal Open Space
   Visitor Parking

   The shadow effect on the adjoining southern boundary would be devastating to the occupants of this property. They would loose most of their sunlight for most of everyday for most of the year. Completely unacceptable.

   There are so many things that are drastically wrong with this DA, I find myself actually in shock that a Developer would have the gall to submit such plans that are so far outside of the city plan guidelines.
   PLEASE REFUSE THIS APPLICATION

6. This application is against the city plan in so many ways. The block is way too small for an apartment block. These kinds of developments have no place in our city. Reject this plan as an unacceptable development!

7. This application does not meet any of the City Plans criteria.
   Is it well over the allowed site coverage being allowed 50% this development is 79.9%.

   The design is for 0% set backs for the southern. northern and Gold Coast Hwy. it allows for 4% set back at the rear (Jefferson lane ) which will be the entry access to carpark and car stacker.
   There is no communal open space

   Density is 1 bedroom per 27.5 m2 and the town plan asks for 1 bedroom per 33m2

   This property sits on a 412m2 site and is oversized. This will impact greatly on surrounding residents. There is no allowance for green space or planting to soften the building.

   Jefferson Lane is exactly what it is called a lane and with other developments that have been approved and already built it can not and will not cope with added traffic.

   The fact that this development needs an ugly stacker shows that it is over sized for the block.

   Please can we start approving developments that are not just concrete jungles and lets stick to the city plan which was put in place for a reason. To protect the ascetics of Palm Beach and look after the lifestyle of its residents for years to come.

8. This development is another that goes completely against the Council’s own Town Plan. It is very disappointing that soon we will have a concrete jungle that causes shadows onto our iconic beaches. There is alright problems with visitor parks and this will only add to it. Similar to Burleigh Heads but the setback for one of its developments is 1.5m. This development is right onto the footpath. Like all developments no one is listening to the people who actually live in the areas. We see everyday the problems associated with over development. I’m sure we know why the Council doesn’t care what we think or want. We are the ones who pay our rates and water but get completely ignored.

9. This development appears to go against the Council’s Town Plan. There is already problems with visitor parking and this will only add to it. This development is right onto the footpath and seems to contradict several development guidelines. Over development will ruin the ambience of this beautiful GC suburb.

10. 1. The building envelope is too large for a 412m2 property and exceeds the criteria in respect of:-
    o Setbacks
    o Density; and
    o Site coverage
    The town planning report notes some ‘relatively minor alternative outcomes have been proposed’ to the development’s assessment, however these are neither minor nor justified, and the cumulative impact of these make the development inappropriate for the site.

    2. There is restricted and unsafe access – the required road frontage of the proposed development is 50% less than required, and merely moves the concern of vehicular access from the Gold Coast Highway to Jefferson Lane. Jefferson Lane is the sole vehicle access for many beachfront properties, and already poses a daily safety risk given the narrow single lane in one direction, with shared access for passenger cars, commercial vehicles, pedestrians, pets, cyclists and neighborhood kids. These risks will only be heightened and traffic congestion caused from another multi-unit property, particularly if its residents/guests are queueing along Jefferson Lane, for access to their car stacker.

    3. There is inadequate parking – provision has been made for a partial basement with only 10 resident carparks and 1 visitor carpark, when there are 5 x 3bedroom apartments being proposed. The resident car parking is proposed via a car stacking system, which will contribute to access concerns. There is already a shortage of street parking within Palm Beach generally, particularly beachside of the highway and there is no street parking along Jefferson Lane. Furthermore, the proposed development is listed as being for permanent and short-term accommodation, which supports a need for a greater number of parking spaces.

    4. The proposed development is not balanced between built form and green areas and there is no communal open space (and balcony space should not be considered an appropriate alternative). Palm Beach is already neighboring an existing priority koala area, yet we continue to see vegetation clearing and inadequate consideration of landscaping or regeneration in new development applications. The landscaping in the application appears to be proposed only to overcome other objections or concerns with the development (i.e soften the bulk of the form or for privacy), not out of any genuine desire to incorporate landscaping or green areas. The enhancement of Palm Beach ‘by subtropical design and landscaping’ is listed as a desired environmental outcome for Palm Beach, yet development applications are submitted with only a bare minimum of landscaping.

    5. The potential environmental concerns are not addressed in the application - there is added impact to the sand, water quality and ocean life of the beach environment, and adverse impacts to air quality and drainage. There is additional concern from anticipated increases in ocean tides, which poses a risk to the entire Palm Beach community.

    6. The proposed development will unduly impact the amenity enjoyed by surrounding properties. Specifically, there is an invasion of privacy for neighbours, given the proposed size and scale of the development, contrary to the suggestion in the application of ‘quality passive surveillance of Jefferson Lane and improve the relationship between the public and private realm’. The ‘relatively minimal’ shading referenced in the application is farcical; surrounding residents and general members of the public who walk along the coastline will be shaded by a 20m tall building and those impacts should not be overlooked.

    Though there is strong demand for real estate in Palm Beach, there are ample other properties that have already sought approvals or are under construction. All such properties have had various relaxations granted, which is a concerning precedent for subsequent applications, and the deleterious cumulative effect can already be seen throughout the Palm Beach community. Many such applications are seeking a material change of use on a small lot to oversized multi-unit buildings, all which will ultimately glut the town.

11. We don’t want Palm Beach destroyed and turned into a characterless concrete jungle similar to the areas in the Northern GC. Limited green space and set backs are destroying the beauty of the area. The block size for this development is an absolute joke!! We want a clear vision and plan for Palm Beach that Is followed by council and developers. One that benefits residents and tourists. If things keep going the way they are we will be looking at ways to “fix” Palm Beach like they currently are with Surfers.

12. 
    1. The building envelope is too large for a 412m2 property and exceeds the criteria in respect of:-
    o Setbacks
    o Density; and
    o Site coverage
    The town planning report notes some ‘relatively minor alternative outcomes have been proposed’ to the development’s assessment, however these are neither minor nor justified, and the cumulative impact of these make the development inappropriate for the site.

    2. There is restricted and unsafe access – the required road frontage of the proposed development is 50% less than required, and merely moves the concern of vehicular access from the Gold Coast Highway to Jefferson Lane. Jefferson Lane is the sole vehicle access for many beachfront properties, and already poses a daily safety risk given the narrow single lane in one direction, with shared access for passenger cars, commercial vehicles, pedestrians, pets, cyclists and neighborhood kids. These risks will only be heightened and traffic congestion caused from another multi-unit property, particularly if its residents/guests are queueing along Jefferson Lane, for access to their car stacker.

    3. There is inadequate parking – provision has been made for a partial basement with only 10 resident carparks and 1 visitor carpark, when there are 5 x 3bedroom apartments being proposed. The resident car parking is proposed via a car stacking system, which will contribute to access concerns. There is already a shortage of street parking within Palm Beach generally, particularly beachside of the highway and there is no street parking along Jefferson Lane. Furthermore, the proposed development is listed as being for permanent and short-term accommodation, which supports a need for a greater number of parking spaces.

    4. The proposed development is not balanced between built form and green areas and there is no communal open space (and balcony space should not be considered an appropriate alternative). Palm Beach is already neighboring an existing priority koala area, yet we continue to see vegetation clearing and inadequate consideration of landscaping or regeneration in new development applications. The landscaping in the application appears to be proposed only to overcome other objections or concerns with the development (i.e soften the bulk of the form or for privacy), not out of any genuine desire to incorporate landscaping or green areas. The enhancement of Palm Beach ‘by subtropical design and landscaping’ is listed as a desired environmental outcome for Palm Beach, yet development applications are submitted with only a bare minimum of landscaping.

    5. The potential environmental concerns are not addressed in the application - there is added impact to the sand, water quality and ocean life of the beach environment, and adverse impacts to air quality and drainage. There is additional concern from anticipated increases in ocean tides, which poses a risk to the entire Palm Beach community.

    6. The proposed development will unduly impact the amenity enjoyed by surrounding properties. Specifically, there is an invasion of privacy for neighbours, given the proposed size and scale of the development, contrary to the suggestion in the application of ‘quality passive surveillance of Jefferson Lane and improve the relationship between the public and private realm’. The ‘relatively minimal’ shading referenced in the application is farcical; surrounding residents and general members of the public who walk along the coastline will be shaded by a 20m tall building and those impacts should not be overlooked.

    Though there is strong demand for real estate in Palm Beach, there are ample other properties that have already sought approvals or are under construction. All such properties have had various relaxations granted, which is a concerning precedent for subsequent applications, and the deleterious cumulative effect can already be seen throughout the Palm Beach community. Many such applications are seeking a material change of use on a small lot to oversized multi-unit buildings, all which will ultimately glut the town.

13. I object to this development as again like so many others it does not comply with the local plans & is simply about council appeasing developers!

14. I am seeing ridiculous number of developments overtake Palm Beach.
    These develioments are too large for the parcel of land, and being developed in inappropriate areas.

    I object to this development as again like so many others it does not comply with the local plans and it seems that the council focus is on appeasing developers!

15. This should not be approved. So many of these new builds are outside of the guidelines and it is ruining the family village lifestyle of such a beautiful area. You wouldn’t see the council in Bondi in Sydney Or Noosa making these approvals and ruining the coastline. I very strong lying object to these over developments. Lifestyle is far more important than dollars and local families and tourists come to the area to enjoy the beaches and will have no sun on them and nowhere to park! Disgraceful planning by people who obviously don’t live in the area.

16. The number of high rise developments overtaking Palm Beach is astounding and does not support the lifestyle and environment of the area.
    These huge developments are too large for the parcel of land, and being developed in inappropriate areas and impacting on this surrounding properties; they block out the sun and the flow of air.

    Palm Beach used to be known for its beauty and beaches and village lifestyle- this has been replaced by Councils greed in approving projects that go against its own town planning and those of their constituents.

    Please take the time to look out your windows at the disgrace that is ‘Surfers Paradise’ - no longer paradise- but a mini LA- including its seediness.

    Please take the time to get in your cars - or catch the bus- to see what you have allowed Palm Beach to become .
    Please don’t destroy it further

17. I strongly oppose this proposed development as it it is well outside the Gold Coast City Local Plans and guidelines in regards to setbacks, density and site coverage.

    Palm Beach is becoming an ugly concrete high rise jungle rather the quaint stylish beaching suburb it could be if developers incorporated quality rather than quantity.

18. I strongly oppose this development as it is outside the council guidelines in relation to set back side, coverage and density. I struggle to understand why such flexibility of the town plan exists. This disempowers all residents who wish to maintain the integrity of the suburb.

19. I 100% approve of this development and others to come after this one. In fact I think it should be allowed to be built as high as the tallest buildings nearby. Actually even taller.

    There needs to be more of identifying procedure for opposition to approvals for example actual queensland residents and local residents who own their home in the area and ratepayers. As an actual queensland resident and ratepayer myself I approve of this development. All the ones opposing must be from the places that are just nearby and not nessearily actual home owners. I dont think any approvals should be accepted from renters.

    Also many comments here have very obvious copy and paste answers. I am a real person, home owner and a ratepayer.

20. The City of Gold Coast has published and approved City Plans.
    There are strict rules for room sizes, setbacks from boundaries, the size of the footprint as a percentage of the land size and height.
    Without any election or approval by the resident ratepayers the Council have created special amendments to these rules for a corridor either side of the Gold Coast Highway in anticipation of the proposed Light Rail track being extended from Broadbeach to the Gold Coast Airport.
    There is considerable objection the the development at 1151 Gold Coast Highway which is a typical suburban block of land backing onto a narrow laneway.
    This proposal does not meet any of the City Plan criteria so I object to its approval.
    There have been too many buildings approved by Council already with special dispensation to exceed the City Plan rules.
    There is increasing discussion about the Light Rail extension known as 3A or now being called 4 apparently, from Burleigh Heads to The Gold Coast Airport. If the ratepayers manage to persuade Council and the Government (who must somehow find the funding when it is the worst economic climate since the Second World War) to change the route to join the Heavy Rail at Varsity Lakes, what happens to these building approvals which should be contingent on the Light Rail corridor?

21. I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DA.
    This Application is drastically outside the City Plan Guidelines for Density, Setbacks, Visitor Parking, Waste Management and Open Communal Space.
    The idea of squeezing a 6 Level High Rise on 413m2 is utterly ridiculous.
    I draw your attention to the INFORMATION REQUEST written by ADAM BROWN, Supervising Planner South. There are many, many issues addressed in the IR that must be amended before this DA can be Approved.
    If you approve this application, the cumulative effect on Jefferson Lane is unacceptable.
    This tiny lane can not deal with the traffic now. All these high density high rises are creating a cumulative effect on this coastal community. The area can not sustain the amount and density of these developments.
    YOU MUST REJECT THIS APPLICATION UNLESS ALL RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE IR ARE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED.

22. I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION.
    This Development is proposed to adjoin the entire length of my northern boundary.
    Our courtyard will NOT HAVE ANY SUNLIGHT for most of the day, everyday of the year.
    The Density is OUTSIDE the City Plan Guidelines.
    The Setbacks are drastically OUTSIDE the City Plan Guidelines. As there are NO SETBACKS on 3 Boundaries.
    The Waste Management is ineffective and OUTSIDE the City Plan Guidelines.
    The Visitor Car Space is OUTSIDE the City Plan Guidelines as only 1 is planned.
    And you have to do a 4 point turn and reverse out of this car space to leave the property. This is also OUTSIDE the City Plan Guidelines.
    Visitors CAN NOT be expected to use a Car Stacker. There are 10 Car Stackers and a turntable planned. No “regular” car spaces are planned, except the 1 visitor space.
    The Developer has NOT taken into account the future ROAD WIDENING planned for Jefferson Lane. Therefore the building must be SETBACK another 1.5m minimum from the Eastern boundary.
    THE INFORMATION REQUEST by Adam Brown, Supervising Planner South has MANY MANY RECOMMENDATIONS that MUST be adhered to, before this Development could be approved. The IR evens states that 2 LEVELS SHOULD BE REMOVED.
    THE IR states that the Development is INTENSE AND BULKY.
    This DA is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS AND IF APPROVED WILL DESTROY THE AMENITY OF THE AREA.
    The CUMULATIVE EFFECT of this high rise and others in the immediate area will destroy the character and amenity of this area.
    WE DEMAND ALL RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE IR MUST BE ADDRESSED AND IMPLEMENTED IN ORDER FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT TO BE APPROVED.

23. I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION.
    This Development is proposed to adjoin the entire length of my northern boundary.
    Our courtyard will NOT HAVE ANY SUNLIGHT for most of the day, everyday of the year.
    The Density is OUTSIDE the City Plan Guidelines.
    The Setbacks are drastically OUTSIDE the City Plan Guidelines. As there are NO SETBACKS on 3 Boundaries.
    The Waste Management is ineffective and OUTSIDE the City Plan Guidelines.
    The Visitor Car Space is OUTSIDE the City Plan Guidelines as only 1 is planned.
    And you have to do a 4 point turn and reverse out of this car space to leave the property. This is also OUTSIDE the City Plan Guidelines.
    Visitors CAN NOT be expected to use a Car Stacker. There are 10 Car Stackers and a turntable planned. No “regular” car spaces are planned, except the 1 visitor space.
    The Developer has NOT taken into account the future ROAD WIDENING planned for Jefferson Lane. Therefore the building must be SETBACK another 1.5m minimum from the Eastern boundary.
    THE INFORMATION REQUEST by Adam Brown, Supervising Planner South has MANY MANY RECOMMENDATIONS that MUST be adhered to, before this Development could be approved. The IR evens states that “IT IS CONSIDERED A REDUCTION OF 2 STOREYS MAY BE APPROPRIATE.”
    THE IR states that the Development is INTENSE AND BULKY.
    This DA is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS AND IF APPROVED WILL DESTROY THE AMENITY OF THE AREA.
    The CUMULATIVE EFFECT of this high rise and others in the immediate area will destroy the character and amenity of this area.
    WE DEMAND ALL RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE IR MUST BE ADDRESSED AND IMPLEMENTED IN ORDER FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT TO BE APPROVED.

    On the application: 1151 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221 (MCU/2020/376)

24. I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DA.
    This Application is drastically outside the City Plan Guidelines for Density, Setbacks, Visitor Parking, Waste Management and Open Communal Space.
    The idea of putting a 6 Level High Rise on 413m2 is monstrous
    I draw your attention to the INFORMATION REQUEST written by ADAM BROWN, Supervising Planner South. There are many, many issues addressed in the IR that must be amended before this DA can be Approved.
    If you approve this application, the cumulative effect on Jefferson Lane is unacceptable.
    This tiny lane can not deal with the traffic now. All these high density high rises are creating a cumulative effect on this coastal community. The area can not sustain the amount and density of these developments.
    YOU MUST REJECT THIS APPLICATION UNLESS ALL RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE IR ARE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED.

25. Will traffic overload in the lane Jeffreson lane and will take from Surrounding community parking which is already very minimal and hard to find

26. This development of excessive intense accommodation has got to stop. This proposal lacks anything to do with the evident site limitations. We Object to the height of the proposed building, the lack of green space and the impact on the neighbourhood. That being high building creating wind tunnels, incessant demand for non existent parking and lack of variety in building design. There are enough ugly high rises creating a jigsaw of clutter in Palm Beach adding to the clutter of cars in this neighbourhood. There is no room for more cars.
    NO MORE high rise buildingsThanks.
    Council needs to take into consideration that as a beachside suburb ,we the ratepayers, do not want a slum of high rises along the beach edge or east of the highway taking away the wide-open feel of Palm Beach.

27. The Developer has responded to the Councils Information Request, and has tried to compare this DA to the DA for 1109 Gold Coast Highway... which is 8 Levels on 460m2.
    I feel the Developer is clutching at straws and has no right to compare to 2 DAs.
    1109 already has 1 High Rise on the adjoining northern boundary, and there are 2 more High Rises planned for the 2 Double Blocks that adjoin the southern boundary. [1107 & 1105 and 1103 &1101]
    That’s 4 high rises in a row. [Which in my opinion is disgraceful and out of character for the area]

    The Developers of 1151 Gold Coast Highway tried to BUY the 2 properties to the North.
    [164 Jefferson and 166 Jefferson]
    They were unsuccessful.
    The owners of the 2 homes refused to sell. There have been no DAs submitted for these 2 properties to the North.
    Therefore 1151 is not part of a “collection” of high rises.
    The properties to the North will remain homes, for the time being. [Thank Goodness]
    This DA must be refused unless 2 levels are removed and the building is pushed back on the Jefferson Lane boundary for the future road widening of 1.5m.

28. The Developer has responded to the Councils Information Request, and has tried to compare this DA to the DA for 1109 Gold Coast Highway... which is 8 Levels on 460m2.
    I feel the Developer is clutching at straws and has no right to compare to 2 DAs.
    1109 already has 1 High Rise on the adjoining northern boundary, and there are 2 more High Rises planned for the 2 Double Blocks that adjoin the southern boundary. [1107 & 1105 and 1103 &1101]
    That’s 4 high rises in a row. [Which in my opinion is disgraceful and out of character for the area]

    The Developers of 1151 Gold Coast Highway tried to BUY the 2 properties to the North.
    [164 Jefferson and 166 Jefferson]
    They were unsuccessful.
    The owners of the 2 homes refused to sell. There have been no DAs submitted for these 2 properties to the North.
    Therefore 1151 is not part of a “collection” of high rises.
    The properties to the North will remain homes, for the time being. [Thank Goodness]
    This DA must be refused unless 2 levels are removed and the building is pushed back on the Jefferson Lane boundary for the future road .

29. Dear sir/ madam re DA (reference MCU/2020/376) As per the previous multiple justifiable objections re height, density , traffic, setbacks, site coverage , car parks. What more reason do you need to reject this and any other abomination that does not meet public expectations or desires. You as a council are making decisions outside city planning guidelines and against the wishes of those who reside here and are thus destroying the Gold Coast's livability for profit and corrupt greed!

30. MCU/2020/376 This development should not be allowed on such a small block Minimal landscaping /setbacks/not enough car parks /density/traffic To many hi rise being built on small blocks incorporating car stackers but not enough on site parking which is causing real issues in the surrounding streets This building cannot possibly be approved in its current design and needs to be amended

31. I have commented previously but have since reviewed the additional information and commentary in the Information Request and Response to Information Request and felt compelled to comment further.

    Gold Coast City Council have rightly identified that the Developer’s Response to the Information Request is incomplete and does not adequately address the concerns raised with the Development Application, most particularly:-
    1. the scale and intensity of the design is incompatible and is seeking multiple relaxations:
    The proposed design of a 6 storey, 23m high building is simply too big for a small single 412m2 block of land, in an already congested neighbourhood. The Developer’s argument that the visual dominance of the building is reduced as it “visually presents only as 5 storeys” is absurd.
    2. the proposed use is inconsistent with the intent for the area as expressed in the planning scheme, and does not enhance the overall streetscape or neighbourhood character:-
    The size and material of the built form is bulky, oppressive and invasive and landscaping is at a bare minimum.
    3. the proposed development poorly addresses the street and poorly interfaces with adjoining properties, causing traffic and parking issues, drainage concerns and posing multiple safety risks.

    The Zone Planning Group response (on behalf of the Developer) uses lazy references to other Council approvals that have been granted, but those should not inform this proposed development – as the size, aspect, neighbours, and uses already being enjoyed are different. Even if comparable in features, the cumulative impact of all such developments on the neighbourhood and impacts on amenity need to be considered. Similarly, the fact that Council has permitted some relaxation in a setback for single residences does not mean it is an expected feature of “the streetscape character of the area” as suggested or that it ought to be continued with future developments.

    In relation to traffic impact, the reference to a desktop study having been done of available public carparks on neighbouring streets on 3 separate days is farcical. I urge council officers to drive along the Gold Coast Highway and Jefferson Lane one Saturday mid-morning to observe the traffic congestion and the lack of available parking spaces in this area. This is before adding the traffic volume of new residents and holidaymakers in other developments that are yet to be constructed in the close vicinity (including Monroe, Cabana, Hemingway, Village) and those finished construction but not yet fully occupied (Magnoli, Acqua, Pacific, Sea, ONE, Siarn, 77 Jefferson and The Jefferson). This also doesn’t reflect anticipated traffic impact of the proposed light rail.

    I am a Palm Beach resident. I am not adverse to progression, however I have genuine concerns that development applications such as this one are both unnecessary and entirely contrary to the wants and needs of the broader community. They represent a greedy and shortsighted vision for Palm Beach, rather than a sustainable contribution to a growing, vibrant Gold Coast along precious coastline.

32. I strongly object to this application. The application is not within the City Plan Guidelines. The guidelines that you as a council are required to uphold. My objection to this application is based on the following 'BREACHES" of the City Plan Guidelines by the developer:

    Height
    Density
    Setbacks
    Site coverage
    Car parking lots
    Open/communal space

    This building is out of character of the area and also affects livability and amenities of surrounding properties. The Planning Department have an obligation in their role to enforce The City Plan Guildlines. Therefore this application should be rejected.

33. The impact of relaxing boundary setback standards would cause significant and unreasonable adversity to adjacent neighbours - materially in relation to residential amenity and financially with regard to future potential development yield, and therefore value, of the adjoining properties. This application should be refused for these reasons alone, and to avoid setting and/or consolidating precedents that further erode the efficacy of the City Plan

34. MCU/2020/376 This development should not be allowed on such a small block.

    With a newly proposed building of 54 Units (9 Stories) currently sitting with Council to be located opposite this development on the Corner of Tenth Avenue and Gold Coast Highway, this leaves our streets with next to no parking in this already busy built up area. Residents are already struggling to find parking with the growth in the area and Weekend parking already filters through to all of the side streets and this is whilst we still have parking on the Gold Coast Highway.

    Having developments staring at each other and fellow home owners being left in the shadows of all of these new developments all go against the City Planning guidlines.

    And the proposed light rail has impacted Palm Beach even before it's built by allowing all of these monstrosities to be built along the Gold Coast Highway.

    We all understand that progression will happen but lets stick to the original Town Planning Guidelines.

35. This development is ridiculously out of step with both the community expectations and city plan.

    🚫6 Levels on 412m2 is outrageous and is out of character for the area.
    🚫Setbacks (Zero Setbacks on 3 sides) -
    🚫Waste Management
    🚫Visitor Car Spaces
    🚫Open/Communal Space
    🚫No Deep Planting
    🚫Bulky and Intense Design
    🚫Too High for a Small Block

36. This development is ridiculously out of step with both the community expectations and city plan.

    🚫6 Levels on 412m2 is outrageous and is out of character for the area.
    🚫Setbacks (Zero Setbacks on 3 sides) -
    🚫Waste Management
    🚫Visitor Car Spaces
    🚫Open/Communal Space
    🚫No Deep Planting
    🚫Bulky and Intense Design
    🚫Too High for a Small BlocK

37. I object to this application because it is excessive in scale and density for the subject site. Its height is also excessive given the proximity and angle of adjoining properties, some of which would lose most of their sunlight. These points have already been made by council officers experienced in town planning who clearly don’t support this development either and, given their experience, should carry extra weight.

    Near-by residents have a right to the continued amenity of their homes and access to sunshine and appropriate space. Through no fault of their own, this is now threatened which is both unfair but also at odds with many aspects of the City Plan.

    Parking is likely to be an additional issue in an area already struggling to deal with limited spaces. This is likely to impact residents of the block itself given that a car stacker system is proposed and these have been found to be unreliable, too small for certain cars and a significant drain on electricity. Insufficient parking for visitors is likely to impact on adjoining dwellings by adding further competition for street level parking.

    It should be possible to design an apartment block that complies with setbacks, height, density etc that takes into consideration the surrounding area and near-by residents. It should also be compliant with the City Plan. Because it does none of these things, it should be rejected.

38. This application does not meet any of the City Planning Criteria’s
    Is it well over the allowed site coverage being allowed 50% this development is 79.9%.

    The design is for 0% set backs for the southern. northern and Gold Coast Hwy. it allows for 4% set back at the rear (Jefferson lane ) which will be the entry access to carpark and car stacker.
    There is no communal open space

    Density is 1 bedroom per 27.5 m2 and the town plan asks for 1 bedroom per 33m2

39. I object to this application on a 412 m2 block when it fails to meet the City plan guidelines - The size, bulk and site coverage of this building on a block of such small meterage without question will impact heavily on open space amenity, contribute to additional strain on current infrastructure, impact heavily on availability of parking, cast shadows and contribute to loss of privacy for surrounding residents and character for the area. With the continual disregard for the City plan guidelines , here again is a fine example where poor planning is directly contributing to the making of tomorrows ghetto alley for not only Palm Beach but neighbouring coastal communitites. Smarter sensible planning today for tomorrows future generations to enjoy must be a priority over developer profits. If it does not meet city plan, then rejected it in the interest of a better city to live in and uphold your responsibility to community to ensure all interests are considered.

40. It simple! If it’s outside of the city guidelines for planing and development, then it shouldn’t be allowed!!

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