PlanningAlerts

9 Comments

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

1. The design of this development has changed since the original submission. As per usual with most development applications, the changes favour the developer in terms of profit and future residents to the detriment of the residents of the existing adjoining properties who weren't asked for input. The development should remain as originally submitted. The Council should have to prove that the requested changes are neutral or beneficial to residents of existing surrounding properties before agreeing to the changes to allow a taller building than that allowed.

   A very good example is the relaxation of setbacks for the "house" being built at 462 The Esplanade, next to Siarn. The house has no setback at the front or on the northern side of the property. It has virtually shut out the view of the residents on its northern border in the house at 464 The Esplanade. No consideration was given to those residents in an existing building that abided by the correct setback. They are now penalised financially and environmentally to simply increase the profit of the developer. There has been no community benefit in the concessions given to the developer by the GCCC.

2. FINN Is a huge PROPOSED development for this site, the setbacks are minimal and their is little or no green space. However, the main issue is the extension of "The Esplanade". This should not be permitted. Currently this area is natural dunes and the natural foreshore of the beach. The developer has no right to ask for an extension of the Esplanade.

   I find it ironic that in the marketing of this project "Finn", the developer states -
   "Located on a secluded avenue along the beach".
   Currently it is a secluded avenue, due to be transformed with a proposed road and massive concrete structure that is not at all aesthetically appealing to the natural landscaping.

   Also the developer mentions in his application that the community area provides ground floor amenities, This is actually going to be the driveway on to the new road which the Developer is proposing.

   THE PHOTOS USED in the submission are actually of Frangipani, my residence -
   1 Twenty-Seventh Avenue, Palm Beach. I wish to note that
   Frangipani is no comparison to what the Developer of FINN is proposing. I am the developer of Frangipani and find this comparison a little unfair and very misleading for the council decision makers -

   1/ The pandanus palms used in the FRANGIPANI photos are more than 70 years old and are PRE-EXISTING. FINN developer wishes to remove all existing foliage. ALSO their appears to be very little space for DEEP planting.
   2/ The garage entrance to frangipani is NOT off the Esplanade, it is off 27th Avenue. Hence creating a visually serene environment for all residents. EG no headlights streaming into the apartments due to Access from the Esplanade
   3/ Frangipani, when built in 2009 complied to a 7 level, 60 % gross floor area, provided 40% of landscaping, deep planting, and also 120sqm of GRASS! With a pool, water tanks, solar heating, and solar panels. We are an environmentally friendly building built within the town plan in 2009.

   The Esplanade should remain closed to through traffic. The new Walking track on the foreshore is a confirmation that all residents find this area appealing the way it is. To change the natural environment for driveway/car access should be rejected. The developer should be required to gain access off the gold coast highway. If this is not possible then this application should be REFUSED.

3. Yet again local Palm Beach residents witness the destruction of the amenity of what they once enjoyed by living in our our piece of the Gold Coast. I totally support Domenica De Pasquale comments.
   The planning and approval process for Palm Beach has become an urban disaster and completely out of control.
   The rate payers and residents of our suburb are powerless and have had to watch helplessly while faceless un elected bureaucrats preside over and accomodate this unfolding destruction of our living environment. Stop this madness.

4. This Developer has no right asking for THE ESPLANADE to be extended to suit HIS development.
   I strongly object to this Development.
   It is OVER HEIGHT as per the City Plan Guidelines.
   It is almost TWICE THE DENSITY as per the City Plan Guidelines.
   AND IN NO WAY SHOULD OUR PROTECTED DUNES been turned into a road for a development.
   There is access to the proposed development via the Highway.
   You simply can not extend The Esplanade for a Development because the State Government are planning for the Trams to come down the Highway.

   UNACCEPTABLE AND MUST NOT BE APPROVED.

   Get rid of the Rooftop entertaining area that pushes this tower above the HEIGHT LIMIT or remove a floor.
   The developer can’t have both ... GREED. UTTER GREED.

5. This development "at any cost" agrenda is out of control either get the town plan gazetted and approved and abide by it or the GCCC should be sacked and replaced by those who will! Over 98% of DA approvals by the "Special Delegated Authority" allows for corruption and does not meet residents or ratepayers expectations. This DA is just another example of NOT following the local general public's expectations or desires for their area.

6. I strongly object to get another high rise that is drastically outside the City Plan in HEIGHT AND DENSITY.
   I also strongly object to the extension of The Esplanade to satisfy the need to plough antiquated trams down the GC Highway through Pam Beach.
   This is completely unacceptable and an outrageous suggestion.
   There is access to both these blocks via the existing driveway and as such NO EXTENSION of The Esplanade can be justified.

   Reduce the HEIGHT to adhere to the CITY PLAN.
   REMEMBER THE CITY PLAN …!!!!!
   Stop justifying these towers using the SECRET LIGHT RAIL OVERLAY that the Council don’t want the public to know about.

   Reduce the density to adhere to the CITY PLAN.
   STOP THE INFILL of our coastline…
   Disgraceful….

7. I strongly object to this development.
   The density is almost DOUBLE the density allowed.
   The height is over the 29 m height limit.
   I also strongly object to the extension of THE ESPLANADE to appease this development and to remove driveways from the Gold Coast Highway to allow for the planned Light Rail. A Light Rail That is outdated and overcosted. A tram system no one wants and no one will use.

   The destruction of Palm Beach with these inappropriate towers is abhorrent.
   Follow the CITY PLAN....

8. There is rear lane access to this property. Absolutely no need for an extension of the road along the esplanade. What will happen when the next developer comes along? Do they get an extension to the road due to precedent?

9. I strongly object to get another high rise that is drastically outside the City Plan in HEIGHT AND DENSITY.
   I also strongly object to the extension of The Esplanade to satisfy a developers plan that doesnt fit within the city guidelines.
   There is access to both these blocks via the existing driveway and an EXTENSION of The Esplanade is not justified.
   This development is OVER HEIGHT as per the City Plan Guidelines.
   It is almost TWICE THE DENSITY as per the City Plan Guidelines.
   The PROTECTED SAND DUNES are being turned into a road for a development. Reduce the HEIGHT to adhere to the CITY PLAN.
   Stop justifying these towers using the LIGHT RAIL OVERLAY
   STOP developments that are not within the code and are not with in the lifestyle of Palm Beach

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