17 Illawong Street, Surfers Paradise QLD 4217

Material Change of Use Code Assessment Mutliple Dwelling and Short-Term Accommodation (x277)

External link Read more information

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

(Source: Gold Coast City Council, reference MCU/2022/541)


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

  1. John Large commented

    Please consider increased traffic flow on and through Chevron island to surfers Paradise beach front. The bridge’s can’t cope with flow through traffic, let alone the ever increasing residence ability to come and go.

  2. Jocylyn commented

    Agree with the comment. And the State Government has NOT APPROVED Item 7 of the amendments submitted to them in December 2021. This means Chevron Island will remain HX which means unlimited height. Also plse someone correct me if I am wrong, by applying for short-term rentals in a residential development, this means not as much off street parking is required.

  3. Maria Chard commented

    Please this must be complete overdevelopment of the site, 2 towers one of 31 storeys and the other 36 storeys all on one site! Neighbouring highrise approvals have been around 17 stories or thereabouts, these two proposed towers will completely overshadow and tower above everything else nearby. The Island infrastructure cannot cope with this overdevelopment. The flooding risks are also a very real worry if all of these towers are allowed to be built.

  4. Stephanie Lewis commented

    Any trained planner could come and visit chevron island and see it is not the place for such big buildings. The traffic is already way too busy coming on and off the island and all these approvals is going to make it a lot worse. There is no solution to fix the traffic issues so these towers plus many others proposed for the island should be reconsidered. Unfortunately the council puts money about all else including current residents. They are going to ruin chevron island

  5. Jennifer Lee Lewes commented

    This proposal cannot be approved for many reasons - council is aware that traffic was at saturation in 2019 yet continued to approve high rise buildings; the shadowing of these buildings will cause immense problems (no light will cause mould and mildew issues) for many surrounding homes. Surely residents have a “right to light” with sunshine in their homes; on-street parking is not viable now, leave alone looking to the future with these monoliths. Sanity has to prevail and further development of this proportion has to stop.

  6. Lisa commented

    There is only one solution as the council seem to be deaf and that is just to make sure you don’t vote them back in.


  7. Carey Parsons commented

    This development and one’s like it will only add to extra street parking (as seen following completion of much smaller developments like The Stanhill and The Catalina on Chevron Island) as well as add to the traffic congestion (and we don’t want a highway through Chevron Island to cope with it as this would destroy the village feel, and no one wants to eat at a cafe or restaurant directly on a highway).Development is important, however, buildings need to be restricted to a more reasonable level like 10 storeys or less. Building multiple developments of this scale on the island is madness and bad town planning.

  8. Greg Hardy commented

    You couldn’t make this up - why can’t Council see the obvious:
    Chevron Island does not have the infrastructure for the population density resulting from high rise development, streets are now choked with residential parking, Thomas Drive rivals the M1 in traffic volume and delays, the bridges either end of the Island are choke points and clearly not designed for the volume of traffic they now carry, emergency services including law enforcement cannot respond to incidents in a timely manner - the low life petty criminals know this so crime will continue to increase.
    Not to mention life style - the amenity of residents that once enjoyed a quiet, calm lifestyle on the island is rapidly being eroded, has Council bothered to find out what long term rate paying residents want? - certainly not more high rise.

  9. Sheila Durrington commented

    The present traffic issue will only become worse with such overkill of more huge hi rise developments. We came to the Island to enjoy the village and community feel. Despite the expenditure on the Isle of Capri bridge it has failed to divert through traffic on Chevron. We are totally against this development purely on the basis that no council planning on traffic matters has been provided.

  10. Morag Ray commented

    I bought on Chevron because it was nothing like the Gold Coast strip, I wasn’t planning to retire in a goldfish bowl. I recently retired from Nursing/Midwifery in Sydney after 40 yrs in order to look after my disabled brother and planned to kick back and start enjoying some piece and quit, the concept seems to be evaporating before my eyes. It’s not fare that these planned developments are going to ruin the island forever, there will be no going back!

  11. KJ Phillips commented

    Emergency vehicle access must be risked assessed in the context of peak traffic volume accessing Chevron Island and used in the consideration of the application. To not conduct a risk assessment would be negligent by thr council.

  12. Stephen Slattery commented

    Can the council please provide an overall plan of recently completed high rises and approved high rises on chevron island which show the shadowing impact to existing properties especially the shadow impact of afternoon sunlight to the west and northern boundaries of properties across the entire island.I would assume that the town planners would have such a holisitic plan when they are approving developments , and NOT just looking at each application as a singular entitiy.I would be interested to see how such a plan stacks up to the queensland development code and BCA requirements.

  13. Stephanie Lewis commented

    Any trained planner could come and visit chevron island and see it is not the place for such big buildings. The traffic is already way too busy coming on and off the island and all these approvals is going to make it a lot worse. There is no solution to fix the traffic issues so these towers plus many others proposed for the island should be reconsidered. Unfortunately the council puts money about all else including current residents. They are going to ruin chevron island

  14. Maria Chard commented

    The Isle of Capri is also considered to be part of Surfers Paradise and is in just as close proximity to the light rail as Chevron island. It already has the road, bridges, school, shopping centre and better infrastructure in place than Chevron, why is this not being considered to build high rises on instead?

  15. Ron Iddles commented

    Agree with all the prior comments - there is a huge risk that the overdevelopment may strain the island. If you thought that was a concerning example of overdevelopment, you should see what they're planning at 45 Darrambal Street, Chevron Island - a hideous 18-storey tower on a small block of just 506m2... If approved, I suppose every block of land on the island can be considered a development site for a big tower...

  16. Brett Laws commented

    The council really needs to re-evaluate what they are approving on Chevron Island.
    These huge towers will ruin Chevron Island.
    The height limit should be reduced back to 8 with a relaxation to 10, which it was 20 years ago! The height is changing back to 33 metres but many developers will get things approved prior to this being implemented. The reason it hasn't been implemented is the State Government has taken over final approval for zoning or density changes made by local council. They state government received the proposed changes towards the end of 2021 why haven't those changes been ratified?
    These towers will cast HUGE shadows, further worsen the already tardy traffic situation - how do ambulances pick up sick people? I understand the need for higher density living especially in this day and age - however I just cant see what has, and is being approved, to be productive for this little island. I have sold property on Chevron island and surrounds for over 25 years and the residents have never been approached for their views.

  17. Wendy Leach commented

    I bought on the Island 14 years ago and it was a max. 9 storey rule.
    We are a village and I really hope it is not destroyed by money making high rises, I welcome high rises but please let’s do what our taxes are supposed to do and make our area a better place with good planning and look after our environment and the people that live here.

  18. Mark Longmire commented

    Any island residents know it can take five minutes to cross Thomas drive during the day unless you use the crossing.
    With the buildings currently already broken ground it will be twice as bad.
    Currently I believe there is consideration for a six storey limit on chevron, the fact that this is even currently been looked at should be enough to raise concerns of approval for two high rise towers of this size.
    Although this is code assessable it should be seriously considered a large negative for the island , does not fit the theme of the island and its residence.

  19. Treana Cossey commented

    This development is completely wrong for Chevron Island due to its size and the impact it will have on traffic on and off the island. I know the council encourages residents to ride bikes/catch the tram but that is not practical for those having to drive to work - so the traffic will increase once again. Where is the logic behind this and why are residents concerns being ignored. Why does Isle of Capri not have high rises approved when they are considered Surfers Paradise too, when they have a new, wider bridge than Chevron and more infrastructure. The traffic problem on and off Isle of Capri is nowhere near as bad as Chevron. It just doesn't make sense and shame on the council planners if this is approved. The traffic on and off Chevron was officially recognised as being at saturation point several years ago and there is paperwork with the State Government to once again limit the height of buildings but this is conveniently being delayed. Furthermore, I know of a family who had their child's street parking permit rejected - even though they needed two. There is only so much street parking in the vicinity of this proposed development. Can the council please address all of these points as this is not sustainable.

  20. Paul Cahir commented

    Chevron Island is primarily medium density residential. Thomas Street runs through the centre of the island connecting Surfers Paradise with Bundall and beyond. Traffic is already extremely heavy continuously and particularly during morning and afternoon peak hours. Local residents already experience serious inconvenience with traffic, parking and shopping access. This will be compounded should this, and similar applications be granted approval.
    The size, scale and density of this proposed development will dwarf all neighbouring properties, and impact the amenity, privacy overshadowing and overlooking of local residences. The size and scope of this development is out of character with the area, and would create serious impact on the environment of local wildlife and birds. Existing trees and on the subject site, and neighbouring properties will be impacted and destroyed by this development.
    The cumulative impact of this and other proposed development applications for Chevron Island will destroy the established life-style of residents.
    Basement carpark will seriously impact the groundwater on Chevron Island. This application, combined with other proposed and already approved applications will detrimentally affect the stability of groundwater and the interaction with Nerang River and nearby canals.
    Long-term Chevron Island residents have tolerated considerable change over recent years, with the older one, two and 3 storey residences and unit blocks replaced with high-density developments. It is now at saturation point, and some balance and common-sense applied. Residents have been unaware of the size and scope of these applications due to the hasty approval process and bureaucratic detail required. Developers have pushed the boundaries with over-develop of residential blocks and have infuriated residents.
    This development is NOT in keeping with neighbourhood character.
    Height and visual bulk of this development would dwarf all properties in the vicinity.
    Gold Coast Council should encourage a harmonious and compatible approach to infilling by minimizing the impacts of shadowing and maximizing light to adjacent properties and the public realm.
    Any development of this site should be designed to minimize impact on neighbouring buildings and public space by ensuring adequate privacy and sunlight to neighbouring properties. The modulated and articulated form of this building design fails to avoid sheer and unarticulated walls, and does not offset the bulk impacts of the building, to its neighbours.
    Setbacks must be respected on both front, rear and side boundaries. There should be NO creep age.
    This is an excessive over-development for this site. The bulk and mass of this design would be visually dominant for this site and Chevron Island.
    Car parking on Chevron Island is already in high demand, and this proposed development will increase demand for car parking. There is clearly insufficient on-site car parking included in this design.
    Council is requested to refuse this application as it does not harmoniously blend into the local character of this area, and does not include adequate car parking for multiple vehicles for each property within the property boundary.
    This development will in no way address the shortage of affordable accommodation on the Gold Coast. These proposed properties will be targeted at the high end of the property market.
    Please say NO to this application!

  21. Xavier commented

    I’m in full agreement to demolishing the ghetto that chevron island has become. If chevron becomes the next main beach than great for us. I only ask that developers buy the surrounding homes to the ones they want so there is more green space and space for visitor parking. I’m also for more townhouses being built to replace the ghettos too.

  22. Christian Bassos commented

    Strongly oppose this development because it does not adhere to the City Plan and grossly exceeds the allowable density limits. It is not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood and would unduly affect the livable amenity of nearby residents due to its over-bearing and dominant size and shape.
    The proposed development breaches the City Plan and therefore should not be approved.

  23. Stephen Chetcuti commented

    The traffic on/off the island is already at gridlock… what is being planned to ease the situation. The comment to walk/use public transport is juvenile & insulting to those of us who require a vehicle to make a living! Parking will also be a major issue - where are ALL these extra cars going to be parked ? Please use common sense & foresight to these issues.

  24. Claire Azz commented

    Very upsetting to hear that two towers next to each other, of over 30 storeys high are being planned!?! Not only will
    these giants over-shadow the small buildings around it, make our quiet street noisy, and bring on extra unwanted traffic....but with all the extra people living in these buildings, this will cause even lengthier traffic delays trying to get on & off the island (not to mention the health & safety risk of delays to Police/Ambulance), and affect people parking in the streets.
    I chose to buy on Chevron Island, particularly for the Low Rise nature of the buildings, and the lovely Village feel....but with all these huge buildings being built - it is very sad & disappointing indeed for Chevron residents. ☹ We now have to book weeks in advance to dine at a cafe/restaurant - whereas before we could stroll in, it is taking me twice as long to get off the island (often making me late for work/appointments), and it will lose its quaint appeal & just look/feel like Surfers Paradise with a bunch of huge monster buildings. We all wish that someone had continued to design buildings like the smaller, architecturally pleasing, lower rise buildings that can be seen around the streets of Chevron, and left the Skyscrapers to Southport, Surfers and Broadbeach, etc.

  25. Jude Rabarts commented

    I was shocked to hear the proposal for two towers, each over 30 storeys, has been submitted for approval in Dalpura Street. Chevron Island already has a major problem with traffic congestion, especially during peak times, yet this does not even seem to be a consideration. There is insufficient infrastructure to support the new buildings that are already under construction, let alone adding two more to the mix. There needs to be a height restriction reintroduced in order for the island to remain liveable- residents are already struggling to be able to manoeuvre their way around the streets in there current state with detours and road closures. I am asking that the Council please do not allow this to happen !

  26. Ves Cetcuti commented

    Just wondering… with all these objections on the planned towers - what actually happens here on? Is the issue simply going be ignored and the towers still go through council as approved ? Are developers in control here?
    Is anything going to change or is it a case of nothing will be done unless it’s brought to media attention ? Can someone please advise what will eventuate ?

  27. Paul Cahir commented

    Councillors are requested to reject the application, and instruct the developer to come back with a more acceptable medium density development proposal that complies with ALL aspects of the code and does not seek exemptions for tower separation and complies with ALL setback requirements. Absolutely NO easing of the rules simply to allow a greedy developer to maximise profit! Think of existing residents before profit by faceless, non-resident developer!
    Page 62
    The subject site is afforded an RD6 (1 bed per 33m2) designation under the Residential Density Overlay Map. The proposed development includes a total of 678 bedrooms and a residential density of 1 bedroom per 4.47m2.
    Despite exceeding the bedroom density nominated on the Residential Density Overlay Map, the proposal is considered to achieve compliance with the ‘density test’ provided under Overall Outcomes OO(2)(b) of the High Density Residential Zone,
    This does not make sense! 1 bed per 33m2, 1 bedroom per 4.47m2 is better. Please explain.

    Page 60
    The proposed development is consistent with and reinforces this character, promoting a high-rise residential outcome and unique architectural form that is appropriately setback from the property boundaries and surrounding developments.
    Chevron Island is unable to sustain high density developments of this scale. This is not transitional development; it is blatant over-development.

    Page 62
    The proposed development is consistent with and reinforces this character, promoting a high-rise residential outcome and unique architectural form that is appropriately setback from the property boundaries and surrounding developments.
    Clearly this is not the case.

    Page 63
    The submitted Traffic and Car Parking Assessment demonstrates that the local road network will not be unduly impacted as a result of the proposed residential density. The Traffic and Car Parking Assessment has looked at the key intersections surrounding the site and demonstrated very marginal increases in operational performance, with the network to continue operating within an acceptable threshold.
    Traffic through Chevron Island is already at maximum capacity. It is difficult for vehicles to safely enter or cross Thomas Drive, and high risk for pedestrians to cross this busy road – elderly and children at already at high risk.
    Car parking is saturation. The island cannot absorb more cars!

    The towers are proposed to be separated from one another by 12m and do not achieve compliance with AO5.2 up to Level 31 where the height of the northern tower terminates, refer to Figure 40 below.
    There must be NO relaxation or exemption from compliance with tower separation. This development MUST be required to comply with AO5.2!

    Page 66
    The development has been assessed against the provisions of all relevant Codes of the Planning Scheme with minor non-compliances being identified with respect to:
     Setbacks (High Density Residential Zone Code);
     Site cover (High Density Residential Zone Code);
     Density (High Density Residential Zone Code); and
     Building Separation (High-rise Accommodation Code).
    This proposal is unacceptable in its current form. There must be NO lessening of compliance to setbacks. The privacy and private amenity of current residents of neighbouring properties MUST be respected, and with front, rear and side setbacks strictly enforced! Street setbacks are to protect the amenity of the local community, and streetscape character.

    Page 52
    The eastern tower setbacks for the northern tower range between 4.3m and 5.4m and for the southern tower 3.9m and 5.7m. These setbacks do not achieve compliance with AO1 above the sixth storey.
    The design MUST be altered to comply with ALL setback rules to protect the amenity of existing neighbouring residences, and the amenity of future residents of this new development!

    Page 98
    Wind effects.
    Wind will accelerate between the two towers with impact on neighbouring properties with increased wind speed, wind noise will be constant even in light wind, and will disturb the peace and amenity of nearby properties and the local area.
    The new residential tower at 272 Hedges Avenue, Broadbeach is a clear example how the planners and architects and developers got I wrong! There is constant wind noise caused by the exterior cladding and balcony design and orientation. During days of strong wind the noise is unbearable to local community. Do not allow this outcome to be repeated at this monstrous development on Chevron Island.

    Page 98
    No acceptable outcome provided.
    No acceptable outcome provided.

  28. Sally McLeod commented

    The intersection on Burra and Dalpura has already been made dangerous by extra traffic and poor visibility with the development of Allure project. There is an accident here once every couple of weeks. Once Allure is completed the intersection will be even more dangerous and risk lives. Adding two more towers of this size to the same intersection is ludicrous. Shadowing will be another major issue to surrounding residents. Residents will already be stuck behind Chevron One Tower and Tapestry projects blocking all views to Surfers Paradise from the northern side of the Island. Traffic on and off the Island and through Thomas Drive is already chaotic every day. Street parking will be another nightmare with inadequate parking for the two towers. Short term rentals will turn it into a party place not suitable for a residential area.

  29. John M Quinn commented

    Dear Sir or Ms, It is my understanding that the traffic situation on Chevron Island is close to saturation. Adding the vehicles belonging to residents of the proposed large properties will surely exacerbate the situation to near intolerable levels. The blocking of views and the shadows cast by the proposed high rise blocks will also be detrimental to the current residents lives and well being. I oppose the building of these towers and fully support Mr Paul Cahir's comments as listed above.

  30. Amy Hancock commented

    This development is way too big for Chevron Island. It will cast a shadow over the whole island, increase the already gridlocked traffic to a stand still. Please do not approve this application, there is only one bridge on and one bridge off Chevron Island.

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

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