PlanningAlerts

13 Comments

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

1. Another oversized development.

2. The congestion in this street with parking is already atrocious! Where the hell are they going to house all these cars for 45 units in this already congested street?

   Tarni Ave- directly opposite to this proposed development is pretty much a one way road at the moment- think about what this development is going to do!

   These oversized developments do not belong down this far, they should only allowed to approve these developments on the Gold Coast Highway

3. Vastly outside the city plan with bedrooms per sq allowed.

   Shadowing over existing residences and noise from units.

   Carparking is a major problem in palm peach just with residential housing let alone a vastly oversized apartment building and less than half the car parking that SHOULD be required.

   Palm Beach can not cope with this enormous influx of residences. The streets and public amenities are already crowded.

   I also believe that one-bedroom apartments are not what the public wants to purchase as homes. Finance is very hard to gain. This is also not creating affordable housing as the excuse that has often been used.

   These developers do not live in Palm Beach and only consider what will pay them huge benefits if approved.

   This is not a highway development and should not be approved with the height and density they are seeking.

4. Has the planner taken into consideration the zero setback ramp to the underground car park that is going to give the home to the western side 79 cars driving in and out at least twice a day? The ramps sit adjacent to existing bedrooms, where will the carbon monoxide go? Perhaps the acoustic wall needs to be of a height considerate to the existing environment and surrounding homes? Perhaps the down ramp could be more aligned to run under the center of the building instead of zero setback against the neighbors fence?

5. This development does not fit within the town plan on twenty-eighth ave. Already the parking and traffic in the small suburban street is overcrowded and impossible. The enormous size of this development does not fit in this location with not enough car parks and shadows encroaching on the neighbours. The set backs are way to small for such a huge concrete jungle. No green space, where are the trees and gardens associated with the lower gold coast area. Where will the children play - On the road?

   Palm Beach has been decimated with over development. If it is not in the town plan it should not be allowed. The existing residents are suffering enormously due to this over development of our suburb.

6. To the Gold Coast Planning Committee,

   This application in it's current state should not be approved for the following reasons:

   DENSITY - does not comply
   The zoned density for this site is 1 bedroom / 50m2. The developers have requested 1 per /13m2. The plans need to be re-submitted with 1 bedroom / 50m2 as per the City Plan.

   SITE COVERAGE & SETBACKS - does not comply
   In order to protect the amenity and liveability of existing residents, guidelines around site coverage and set backs are so important to be upheld. By allowing excessive site coverage and less set backs you create more shadowing, less privacy, and an overall poor outcome for the neighbourhood. Site coverage should be 50%, not 56% as requested. Setbacks should be at least 5.5m on all sides as per the Acceptable Outcomes in our City Plan, the application has requested 2.5m at the Southern side and only 3m on the Northern side.

   This application does not fit with the area or achieve acceptable status for many of the important acceptable outcomes in our City Plan and is therefore unacceptable for our neighbourhood.

7. To the Gold Coast Planning committee

   I am concerned that this planned development does not adhere to the city plan rules and regulations in relation to the density and site coverage.

   The residents of Twenty Eight Ave and the surrounding streets will be negatively impacted by the size and density of this proposed development.

8. As a direct neighbour this development is of concern.
   1. This proposed development does not comply with the city plan of 1 bedroom/ sq meter
   2. Does not comply with City guidelines around setbacks - as a direct neighbour this will affect our privacy and shade our property more than the city guideline allows.
   3. Site coverage should be as per city guidelines.

   While not opposed to development in the area - I am strongly opposed to a development proposal not within City Plans and regulations.

9. Another completely unnecessary and inappropriate DA for an out of community character building designed to cause further hardship and loss of amenity which residents are entitled to expect.
   The on street parking nightmare will continue to worsen significantly also the shadow this overbearing structure imposes on a large number of adjoining properties both summer and winter will have also a significant impact.
   Another cruel hoax being perpetrated on local residents by an out of touch council and planning department that refuses to listen to residents objections.

10. The current proposed development application should NOT be approved for the following reasons:

    DENSITY – DOES NOT COMPLY
    The Density exceeds that prescribed within the Medium Density residential zone code.
    The code states that 1 bed/50m2. The proposed development is for 1 bed/13.4m2. This is 3.7 times the density.
    This development should not be approved unless it complies with the zone code.

    SITE COVERAGE – DOES NOT COMPLY
    The site cover prescribed within the Medium Density residential zone code outline a performance outcome which “contributes to neighbourhood character and amenity; promotes slender bulk form; promotes an open, attractive and distinct skyline; and facilitates small, fast moving shadows.”
    The proposed site coverage exceeds that prescribed within the Medium Density residential zone code.
    The code states a maximum site coverage of 50% up to 8 storeys and 40% from 9-15 storeys.
    The proposed development is for 55.9%.
    The proposed site coverage would facilitate a large, slow moving shadow which would encroach on the western and southern neighbours, resulting in a drastic change to their outdoor liveability.
    This development should not be approved unless it complies with the zone code.

    SETBACKS – DOES NOT COMPLY
    The setbacks prescribed within the Medium Density residential zone code outline a performance outcome which “assist in the protection of adjacent amenity; allow for access around the building; contribute to the streetscape character”
    The code states a setback of 2m up to 7.5m and an additional 0.5m for every 3 m over 7.5m. Based on the proposed development heigh of 29m this would equate to a 6m setback. The proposed development is for 3m on the northern side and 2.5 at the southern side. This does not comply.
    Although setbacks are based on buildings, it should be noted that there is currently a 0% setback for the basement driveway along the western fence. With 73 residential carparks this equates to 146 vehicles driving directly adjacent to the western property bedrooms (my personal bedroom). This is an astronomical increase to noise not to mention a potential severe detriment to health caused by car fumes.

    TRANSPORT – DOES NOT COMPLY
    The development proposal represents a density that far exceeds the density outlined within the Medium Density residential zone code.
    The surrounding local road network does NOT have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development traffic. This street is already extremely congested. There are an additional two other current developments with the street (COM/2021/64 and MCU/2020/4) – this combined with MCU/2021/116 will place extreme transport congestion. How will this be address?
    This development should not be approved unless it complies with the zone code.

    I strongly object to the current proposed development.

11. We live in this street and already find it hard to get a park. This already over-congested street does not need 45 new units. Also, think of their friends that will visit? Where will they park too? I agree with everyone below in the comments! This street is not the place for a huge development like this, especially on this street!

12. I am one of the owners of a duplex behind this proposed development on Twenty Seventh Avenue. The application has requested 2.5m setback at the Southern side, this does not comply with City guidelines around setbacks, this will have a huge negative impacted on our property and surrounding properties due to the size and density of this proposed development, it will not only affect our privacy but due to the enormity of the structure it will create an all day shadowing over our property and other southern side properties. Setbacks should be at least 5.5m on all sides.
    By the size and density of this proposed development, not only will the residents of Twenty Eighth Avenue be negatively effected (as per previous comments) but it will also have a negative impact on residents of Twenty Seventh Avenue.
    I strongly object to the proposed development.

13. The current proposed development application should NOT be approved for the following reasons:

    DENSITY – DOES NOT COMPLY
    The Density exceeds that prescribed within the Medium Density residential zone code.
    The code states that 1 bed/50m2. The proposed development is for 1 bed/13.4m2. This is 3.7 times the density.
    This development should not be approved unless it complies with the zone code.

    SITE COVERAGE – DOES NOT COMPLY
    The site cover prescribed within the Medium Density residential zone code outline a performance outcome which “contributes to neighbourhood character and amenity; promotes slender bulk form; promotes an open, attractive and distinct skyline; and facilitates small, fast moving shadows.”
    The proposed site coverage exceeds that prescribed within the Medium Density residential zone code.
    The code states a maximum site coverage of 50% up to 8 storeys and 40% from 9-15 storeys.
    The proposed development is for 55.9%.
    The proposed site coverage would facilitate a large, slow moving shadow which would encroach on the western and southern neighbours, resulting in a drastic change to their outdoor liveability.

    SETBACKS – DOES NOT COMPLY
    The setbacks prescribed within the Medium Density residential zone code outline a performance outcome which “assist in the protection of adjacent amenity; allow for access around the building; contribute to the streetscape character”
    The code states a setback of 2m up to 7.5m and an additional 0.5m for every 3 m over 7.5m. Based on the proposed development heigh of 29m this would equate to a 6m setback. The proposed development is for 3m on the northern side and 2.5 at the southern side. This does not comply.
    Although setbacks are based on buildings, it should be noted that there is currently a 0% setback for the basement driveway along the western fence. With 73 residential carparks this equates to 146 vehicles driving directly adjacent to the western property bedrooms. This is an astronomical increase to noise for the adjoining resident.

    TRANSPORT – DOES NOT COMPLY
    The development proposal represents a density that far exceeds the density outlined within the Medium Density residential zone code.
    The surrounding local road network does NOT have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development traffic. This street is already extremely congested. There are an additional two other current developments with the street (COM/2021/64 and MCU/2020/4) – this combined with MCU/2021/116 will place extreme transport congestion in this and surrounding streets.

    As a resident in an adjoining street, I strongly object to the current proposed development. It is not suitable for this area and does not comply with the City Plan.

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