1214 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221

Material Change of Use Code Assessment Multiple Dwellings (58 Units)

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 2 months ago. It was received by them 7 days earlier.

(Source: Gold Coast City Council, reference MCU/2020/542)

12 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Tamara Johansen commented

    The application for a redevelopment of 1214 - 1220 Gold Coast Highway in its current state grossly undermines our City Plan.

    To request an approval for a development that is 2.7 times the density permitted in our City Plan (1 bedroom / 18.4sqm vs 1 bedroom/50m2) is extremely ambitious, or should I say, arrogant.

    The application then cheekily requests a 65% site coverage, when the City Plan only allows for 50%. To approve an application at 65% would create a hugely bulky form on this site to the detriment of neighbouring properties and existing residents.

    The setbacks do not meet the Acceptable Outcomes outlined in our City Plan.

    The bare minimum number of car parking allocation has not been met.

    The application in its current state does not meet several of the Acceptable Outcomes listed in our City Plan. The building design needs to be reconfigured to allow for deep soil planting, adequate setbacks and reduced site coverage to the acceptable level (50%). The number of bedrooms needs to be reduced in order to meet the 1 bedroom / 50m2 as permitted in our City Plan.

    To approve this would further erode the trust the Palm Beach community has in our Gold Coast City Council Planning Committee. Please draw a line in the sand and stop approving developments that don't meet the Acceptable Outcomes in our City Plan.

  2. Sophia Tyrrell commented

    The application in its current state does not meet several of the Acceptable Outcomes listed in our City Plan. The building design needs to be reconfigured to allow for deep soil planting, adequate setbacks and reduced site coverage to the acceptable level (50%). The number of bedrooms needs to be reduced in order to meet the 1 bedroom / 50m2 as permitted in our City Plan.

    To approve this would further erode the trust the Palm Beach community has in our Gold Coast City Council Planning Committee. Please draw a line in the sand and stop approving developments that don't meet the Acceptable Outcomes in our City Plan.

  3. sean genders commented

    What is wrong with our council? Is it corruption or just narrow vision.

    This planning application should be unacceptable prior to this stage. It should be instantly rejected at application stage.

    In its current state it does not meet several of the Acceptable Outcomes listed in our City Plan. The building design needs to be reconfigured to allow for deep soil planting, adequate setbacks and reduced site coverage to the acceptable level (50%). The number of bedrooms needs to be reduced in order to meet the 1 bedroom / 50m2 as permitted in our City Plan.

    Why have a city plan if you are going to constantly ignore it?

    To approve this would further erode the minute trust the Palm Beach community has in our Gold Coast City Council Planning Committee. Please stop approving these idiotic developments that don't meet the Acceptable Outcomes in our City Plan nor have any consideration for the community or the environment

    Wake up to the future GCCC

  4. Samantha Ladd commented

    This development does not fit in with our City Plan.

    It is 2.7 times over the density allowed for this site allows 32 bedrooms and they are seeking 89.

    Site covers is 67% versus 50% allocated for this site on the City Plan

    The allocation of only 66 resident carparks and 7 visitor carparks for 58 apartments is not adequate. There is a considerable issue currently with side streets in Palm Beach which are unable to cope with the current number cars parking on the street. This development will only increase the demand for parking spaces.

    I urge the council to not allow this application in its current state.

    This development application also does not meet the acceptable outcome outlined in the City Plan. Please we have a City Plan which we all are comfortable with. Why is it that no development applications are within these guide lines

  5. Patrick Comerford commented

    All the objections posted raise valid concerns regarding the corrupted planning process that has seen Palm Beach residents views and wishes totally trashed time and time again. Sorry to say this is what you get when you vote for a Mayor and councillors whose aims are to ingratiate themselves with developers and so permit the wholesale disregard of planning rules and guidelines that only the rest of us have to abide by.

  6. Domenica De Pasquale commented

    This development should Not be approved by our Gold Coast City Council as it is not within the current town plan. Every objection written on this application is a relevant reason as to why this development is not required in Palm Beach.
    Our council has a duty of care to approve developments which are good town planning and which are applicable to the current regulations of our town planning.
    Developments which are way over density are impacting all Palm Beach residents quality of life. We do not have the infrastructure to tolerate such ignorance to development guidelines.

    I plead with the Gold Coast City council to stop the overdevelopment now. We do not want Palm Beach ruined with a concrete jungle which will be the slums of tomorrow.

    We want more green space with every development. Not minimal setbacks which disregard the need for privacy, light, fresh air and Sunshine.

  7. Chad Smith commented

    Another disgrace. Where is everybody going to park. There already aren’t enough car spaces for the building then once the light rail comes through there will be even less. Who approves these things is selfish only thinking of the dollars not the locals.

  8. Greg Mathers commented

    As the nearest neighbour to this proposed development I have quite a few concerns. My partner and I are about to commence a knock down rebuild with GJ Gardner. Our property at 3 tenth Avenue runs the entire length of the proposed development. I'm aware this building proposition is not inline with our standard building codes which we have had to adhere to. Our new house and forever home is being built to engineers specifications as the neighbouring properties are currently. The foundations are engineered taking this into account. I'm concerned that sheet piling and the draining of the water table will have adverse affects on this as has been previously voiced and proved from previous developments on the Gold Coast. Parking, please have another look. The camera detection devices you put up were conveniently placed during the quietest times possible and removed just as quick. Our quality of life looks to be diminished if you consider a 50% decrease in sunshine to our property. Not to mention the proposed 14 westerly facing units that removes all privacy. I would ask that through this process we are consulted, compensated and considered with all options being discussable.

  9. Greg Mathers commented

    As the nearest neighbour to this proposed development I have quite a few concerns. My partner and I are about to commence a knock down rebuild with GJ Gardner. Our property at 3 tenth Avenue runs the entire length of the proposed development. I'm aware this building proposition is not inline with our standard building codes which we have had to adhere to. Our new house and forever home is being built to engineers specifications as the neighbouring properties are currently. The foundations are engineered taking this into account. I'm concerned that sheet piling and the draining of the water table will have adverse affects on this as has been previously voiced and proved from previous developments on the Gold Coast. Parking, please have another look. The camera detection devices you put up were conveniently placed during the quietest times possible and removed just as quick. Our quality of life looks to be diminished if you consider a 50% decrease in sunshine to our property. Not to mention the proposed 14 westerly facing units that removes all privacy. I would ask that through this process we are consulted, compensated and considered with all options being discussable.

  10. Patrick Comerford commented

    This DA represents yet another assault on the amenity and reasonable expectations that residents adjacent to this proposal and else where in Palm Beach have a entitlement to expect from GCCC.
    The site is simply too small for such a development.
    This particular DA is the thin end of the wedge. We have already seen a proposal that was permitted at another location, despite not meeting the planning requirements being used by the proponant to justify another DA which likewise did not comply. "You did it for them so why not us".
    This is the modus operandi of Developers to bend the planning department to their will. If planners refuse to play along you can be sure legal threats follow to circumvent council and community concerns.
    This DA must be rejected.

  11. Sean hammond commented

    This is the worst thing for our community. These money grabs are disgusting! no more high rises!

  12. Troy N commented

    It is exciting to see the number of Developments that have been approved in Palm Beach that are outside the GCCC City Plan, which does beg the question, why have a plan for an area if it is only to be overridden at every application? The Urban Designers highlight in their plans the number of over height limit developments that GCC Councillors have approved, with no fewer than 9 have been highlighted in their Plans.

    9 height exempted buildings - because we have a housing shortage? Apparently we do, but not in 1 and 2 Bedroom units. We have an oversupply of this stock, sold mainly to investors who end up losing money when they sell. Known as the worst type of property investment in Australia with Gold Coast fighting for first place as the worst place in Australia to lose money on a unit investments.

    Do we need another 58 of these units? Economics would say no. Property Managers are saying rental demand is for 3+ bedroom stock for families, not for 1 and 2 bedroom tiny under sized units.

    The Urban Designers don’t demonstrate need in their very exhaustive 98 page Plan, no accommodation need or economic need. The same could be said for the other 9 towers that have gone up this year and the others that are on the way.

    The Designers themselves seem to be a bit confused how this behemoth of a structure fits, “ The site is bounded to the north by a 3 storey residential apartment building and a 2 storey residential dwelling to the west.” “ This residential apartment project offers a coastal architecture that respects its context”. It’s a nine story building beside a 2 and 3 story building, built over 67% of the site with insufficient car parking for residents let alone visitors. This proposal could not be more out of context than say Magnolia on 19th Avenue. Really!

    The GCCC website is not loading the Confirmation Notice and Information request, so I can’t see what’s in that document. That aside, it is interesting the application has got to this point. It would be good to see how the decision tree for this process works, a lot of residents don’t understand how we’ve got to where we are.

    Fortunately the Developer hasn’t paid the appropriate State Government fee of $3,370. Are they going to be able to complete a 9 Story Building? And do we really need them to?

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

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

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

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

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

Back PlanningAlerts