PlanningAlerts

9 Comments

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

1. DA Application # MCU/2021/488
   As new residents of Vue Apartments located at 10-12 First Avenue Broadbeach, we are writing to express our deep shock and concern and to state our objection to the proposed building of a 34-story residential development at 14 First Avenue, Broadbeach – Myst.

   The DA submission claims, the proposal does not have to be in Public Notification. Searching for the DA application on the GCCC website “Development Applications in Public Notification” confirms there is no ability to lodge an objection. Appealing to you seems to be the only option.

   Our concerns regarding the proposal are as follows:
   • The block of land is small at 670m² and the proposed structure be extremely tall in relation to the block size, local area and surrounding buildings.
   • The development is at odds with local character, will cause overshadowing of adjacent roads and neighbouring properties and create a wind tunnel between buildings.
   • In addition, the relationship of the building height to the frontage width and building depth seems out of proportion, as does the building separation between Myst and the existing Vue Apartments especially on the north-west side of Vue.
   • The engineering plan claims there is no effect to Vue as apartments are East- facing but this is false as two-thirds of apartments enjoy west-facing, hinterland views. They inaccurately portray the west-facing apartments with a view to the north when it’s clear that the floor to ceiling west-facing windows align/line the living and sleeping areas of the apartments. This means the impact of this proposed building will reduce liveability, privacy, sunlight, energy efficiency and rentability of those apartments. Refer to the photographs showing the existing views and orientation of 01 apartments in relation to the proposed development.
   • The proposed structure will block 90% of sunlight and view in our north-west facing 01 apartment. Note: Most of our apartment faces west so that means our living area, bedrooms and bathroom will no longer have privacy as the proposed building plans show they will look directly in on us.
   • The plans show balconies and living areas will face Vue and jut out closer to the street further blocking Vue views, sunlight and privacy.

   What we would like to see given more consideration:
   • Conventional setbacks from property boundaries are observed, making the foot-print smaller and a reduction in height to be more intune with Vue and local building heights.
   • The building be set back further from the footpath and behind the building line of Vue apartments and increase the distance between the buildings to 12metres to enable some privacy and view for the west-facing Vue 01 apartments.
   • Lack of car parking in the surrounding area. On street parking in the locality is already problematic and the erection of this structure will worsen this.
   • The situation on the proposed structure (on the corner of two already busy thoroughfares) will increase the likelihood of accidents as vehicles come and go to the building
   • The proposed structure would significantly and negatively impact 2/3 of the residents in VUE by blocking sunlight and invading privacy. Apartments in the proposed structure would be looking directly into the windows of sleeping, living and balcony areas of Vue Residents.
   • A remedy or increase in distance to Vue Apartments so that noise generated by the air-conditioning and bathroom exhaust systems that are sited on the Western face of Vue is reduced.

   We trust that you will take our concerns into consideration and ask that we be kept informed. As you can imagine purchasing a property to live in on the basis of the views and sunlight only to find they will all go is very distressing. Included in our submission to you is a PowerPoint slide clearly illustrating the DA proposal for “Myst” 14 First Avenue and the severe impact on Vue 10-12 First Avenue.

2. Hi Simon.
   You Have written a very extensive letter to no avail.
   Firstly is everyone aware all Broadbeach from Highway to Beach is High Density, Height Unlimited.
   We live 9 Rosewood ave, we too find council in its wisdom does not notify adjoining rate paying neighbours of developments.
   10 St Kilda ave which joins our back fence is 607sqm has 24 level tower proposed.
   Simon we and may neighbours share many same concerns yours height-sun loss-shading-privacy etc etc etc.
   Oddly developers plans and pages of waffle say complete opposite.
   Simon sorry to say this proposed tower and all others will eventually go ahead.
   Developer and council will make small tweaks here and there. 15 Rosewood ave /Cnr highway ASSANA TOWER is only1235 sqm has 52 level tower council passed last week. Only tweak was adjust setback 1/2 meter (50 cms) LOL.

3. It’s becoming an outrageous joke, GCCC don’t care about the amenity of what was a beautiful suburb.
   People are losing millions of dollars and being built out by tall buildings on tiny blocks. Natural sunlight is quickly disappearing and they will probably end up with a view of a concrete wall where once there was a beautiful vista

   It’s the disgusting Mayor and the greedy GCCC.

4. It’s becoming an outrageous joke, GCCC don’t care about the amenity of what was a beautiful suburb.
   People are losing millions of dollars and being built out by tall buildings on tiny blocks. Natural sunlight is quickly disappearing and they will probably end up with a view of a concrete wall where once there was a beautiful vista

   It’s the disgusting Mayor and the greedy GCCC.

5. I totally agree with comments about poor planning in Broadbeach and Main Beach negatively impacting lifestyles and fair access to sunlight. No matter what building codes council has opened up for abuse, planning needs to be well thought out - extensive green spaces around high rise buildings requires large blocks, any approval should improve the area - not loot and run. Where are the submissions vowing to contribute to the quality of the area if new buildings are built such that existing residents look directly into another's window. I'm not against development but developers need to improve areas they are profiting from, angles to be fair to all, improved local facilities and green spaces. 2 examples of buildings approved too close to others I hope will attract class actions, easier to set proper standards before this is needed. There is a prime example of a greedy development proposal at 17 Federation Ave, Broadbeach.

6. Mr Tom Tate and sitting council members are destroying the Gold Coast for our future children. What happened to the green space around the buildings. The building to land ratio is ridiculous. Buildings built virtually on boundaries, blocking sunlight, casting shadows over 100 metres across parkland. Surrounding blocks to the Broadbeach CBD is becoming ugly and being destroyed by development greed. Council are not planing for the future. These tall buildings on small blocks, no green grass and minimal setbacks to boundaries is ridiculous. I know I won't be voting for Tom Tate of his constituents. Council should not approve applications for: 17 Federation Avenue, Broadbeach, 123 Old Burleigh Road Broadbeach, 131 Old Burleigh Road Broadbeach, 10 St Kida Avenue Broadbeach, 14 First Avenue Broadbeach ...Just to name a few that are the Council is considering

7. We are unfortunately part of the process that let us down horribly! We have a black building next to us, built boundary to boundary. The one and two bedroomed hinterland apartments look directly onto a black wall that has taken away our sunshine, our views, our energy. Shade reports are done, who ever checks if they are correct once the building is complete and the unfortunate owners of the older building are left living in constant shade. I asked that our shade report be checked, it never was - surely this should form part of the process that the developer goes through and pays for - that what they promise actually happens. We were then hit with a bill of having to make our old mechanical equipment quieter as it did not meet the new requirements and sorry you are not covered under the grandfather clause. The wind tunnel that has been caused is dreadful costing us the majority of our plants, additional wear and tear on our building and apartments - the list continues. The noise in our building has also increased and we are lucky as we at least, due to the way our building is built, about 12 meters between our building and theirs. I agree with development and believe that it is needed but it needs to be properly regulated for the good of all, not just the new developments.

8. As a relative newcomer to Broadbeach from beautiful Mosman in Sydney, I am appalled at the way developers are allowed to run riot over the amenity of the area, driven primarily by greed. Despite the sensible guidelines of the new City Plan, developers are being allowed by the GCCC to convert small house blocks into totally overdeveloped glass towers with no consideration to their adverse impact on surrounding property owners.
   At this rate the Broadbeach precinct will become wall to wall high rise towers leaving the streets as clogged wind tunnels with very little natural sunlight.
   In my view the only way this disaster in the making can be remedied is for some common sense to prevail. The GCCC must take the lead and insist that all developments must follow the guidelines of the City Plan, without deviation. This will force developers to adopt a more sensible balance between land size and scale of proposed building. After all, it is in everyone’s interest to develop Broadbeach in a way which preserves the amenity of all residents rather than just serve the selfish interests of the new arrivals.

9. I agree with the above.
   I am not directly affected with the buildings mentioned above, but will be indirectly affected.
   Everyone in these suburbs have a right to be concerned about the level of development which is going to render these beach suburbs a concrete jungle.
   this is a narrow peninsular and as such should have building heights limited to ensure the natural surrounds are not adversely affected by wind, shadow, population.
   This is not a big city.
   We do not have industry to support all the people, nor the infrastructure.
   Please please please start to see that our beauty is because we have light, and air, and space.
   Just because everyone wants to live near the beach, doesn't mean they should.
   It wont end up being a nice place to live if all the development goes ahead.

   I would like a scaled model of our suburbs with buildings pulled in and out so that we can see what the future will look like before any approvals - it has to fit, it has to not be detrimental to others who are already here.

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