25 Mawarra Street, Surfers Paradise QLD 4217

It was already a very large development with 105 units, I don't believe it is fair to the area to increase by another 28 units. The traffic is already going to be a problem with all the new developments on the island. There needs to be more consideration of the existing residents.

I object to this increase in size. A dramatic increase in height, more units and a decrease in visitor parking. The application doesn’t compare apples with apples. Mawarra Street has 7 proposed or approved high rises and there will be not enough on street parking for this huge number of apartments.

Looks great. Can’t wait to see it built.

I object to the size increase. What public benefit will this increase in density, bulk and height bring to the existing residents of Chevron Island; I can't think of any. The density has been increased and the setbacks have been decreased and are not compliant. One bed/4.52m2 is not compliant with the RD6 (1 bed/33m2) designation. Put more simply the site is afforded a residential density of 45 bedrooms and the developers are seeking to build 335 bedrooms. What existing Chevron Island residents can look forward to is more shadowing, more cars, more noise, more people. Chevron Island has around 20 high rise developments in the pipeline and existing residents' amenity is already being impacted. Please do not approve this change.

25 Mawarra St is on the corner of Mawarra and Dalpura Sts. At the Burra St crossroad of Dalpura St sits the 95 unit Allure construction site. Not to mention 30 Mawarra St and 8 Mawarra St developments. Chevron Island has a 3 hour parking limit. How and where are these additional vehicles going to park? How will people be able to get on and off the island? Considering Thomas Drive was at saturation point over 2 years ago, Council should not have approved the current developments, so definitely should not approve increasing unit capacity.

It doesn't take a planning professional to clearly see this is not feasible. Increasing the amount of units for this development is going to increase the need for resident street parking along Mawarra, Dalpura and also around the corner on Purli street which will already be impacted from the additional resident parking from Allure. Considering residents can apply for parking permits, these will quickly take up ALL street parking, leaving no parking for visitors. I note that even with the increase of 28 units, the visitor parking for this development has now decreased - which does not make sense and is not feasible or fair. This should be a red flag for council. There are 7 developments approved for this area and there will be a significant impact, and the result will be insufficient parking for existing and new residents, a problem which cannot be fixed after the fact. The aged care facility will need parking for residents, staff and visitors, some which will required street parking and this is right across the road from this newly proposed building. The council has a responsibility to look at the facts, and make sound planning decisions based on these facts and not put their head in the sand and keep approving massive developments when it's clear the parking and infrastructure will not cope. It would be disappointing if professional planners approve this increase, when all it would take is for one of them to stand in the street and see for themselves the limited parking available and the amount of high density developments being approved on Mawarra and surrounding streets. Instead of relying on street parking, as an absolute minimum solution, why can't the developers create another floor of parking - and why can't the council enforce such decisions instead of pretending there won't be a problem? Its easy for the developers and the council to build and approve such developments then walk away ignoring the impact left for existing and new residents. I strongly oppose this application for an increase of 28 units as being a very poor planning decision for the local area. 105 was already a huge development and a further 28 units should not be approved.