154 Jefferson Lane, Palm Beach QLD 4221

Material Change of Use Code Assessment Multiple Dwellings x20

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/2022/602)

8 Comments

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

  1. Karen Rowles commented

    I’ve looked at the plans for this development. They are drastically outside the city plan. The design is extremely ugly, especially on the Jefferson Lane side of the tower.
    Jefferson Lane can not sustain the traffic caused by the many many towers that are planned for the laneway. The design is bulky and intense.
    I will be objecting when GCCC submissions are opened.

  2. Concerned resident commented

    I am writing, as a Palm Beach resident, to object to the Development Application reference MCU/2022/602 relating to multiple dwellings proposed for 152-154 Jefferson Lane, Palm Beach (“proposed development”) on the following basis:

    1. The scale and intensity of the 10 storey building (20 apartments) design is incompatible and seeking multiple relaxations including
    o residential density (at 1/14.45m2 – when its zoning requires 1/33m2)
    o boundary setbacks
    o site coverage (at 58%).
    2. The proposed development does not enhance the overall streetscape or neighbourhood character – the size and material of the built form is dominant, bulky, oppressive and invasive.
    3. The proposed development poorly addresses the street and poorly interfaces with adjoining properties, causing traffic, parking, localised wind, shading and acoustic issues.
    4. Though car parking provision has been made, the design includes hold lines and a ramp management system where vehicle access comes from Jefferson Lane, which is already a heavily congested single lane road.
    5. The proposed development does not provide for adequate private open space.
    6. The purported ‘landscaping’ makes no effort to actually balance the built form and connect with the surrounding environment.
    7. The proposed development is in a known erosion prone area – and the developer’s response is to simply rely on the existing development on the eastern side of Jefferson Lane to provide a ‘considerable buffer’.

    The proposed development is at a form, scale and intensity that is not in keeping with the intended outcomes of the Centre Zone Code, the applicable elements of the City Plan Strategic Framework and the amenity expectations for Palm Beach residents.

    The amount of similar development applications along the southern end of the Gold Coast, and the speed in which Gold Coast City Council is approving them will continue to have a deleterious cumulative effect, which is already evident in Palm Beach.

  3. Alex Yates commented

    We don’t need any more high-rises on Jefferson lane. It’s getting too busy and these take away the charm of the neighbourhood that drew people here in the first place. Please stop building them right near the beach. They create wind tunnels, darkness in daylight, traffic jams, dwarf neighbouring properties and make their solar panels redundant. Please stop ruining the charm of Palm beach.

  4. PAJ commented

    Hello
    I’m all for development. But there are infrastructure improvements needed for increased amount of people in Palm Beach. One strong point is please make an ocean walk way through the beach side for pedestrians and bicyclists to reduce congestion on Jefferson.

    Also create clearly marked bike lanes on main streets through out palm beach. GC highway and Townsend need redone footpaths and a two way lane for bikes to go down.

    I’m all for progress and more development but they infrastructure needs to be present before we keep adding more and more people to the area. The highway will help but this seems far away. Please look into ocean pathway. New and improved sidewalks for pedestrians. And increase bike paths which are not sharing the road with a car (that’s frustrating for bicyclists & drivers).

  5. Pete Whelan commented

    I am writing as a resident who lives next to the proposed development at 152-154 Jefferson Lane, Palm Beach. I strongly object to the Development Application reference MCU/2022/602 regarding the proposed multiple dwelling on the following basis:

    1. The proposed 10 storey building with 20 apartments is in extremely close proximity to my residence, The close proximity of this proposed development to my residence will not only greatly impact my familys quality of life during the building phase, but also result in a permanent loss of privacy for my family, including the bedrooms, kitchen, and backyard.

    2. The building site footprint footprint will be just a few feet away from the property. This close proximity means that my family's quality of life will be heavily impacted, even with the windows closed, by excessive noise and dirt/dust from the building site, as well as the potential exposure to asbestos.

    3. I am particularly concerned that while digging the foundations, the stress placed on my residence will cause structural damage to what is an old property.

    3. The proposed development does not enhance the overall streetscape or neighbourhood character –the building ic not in character with its surrounds, is invasive and causes loss of privacy to multiple residences including my own.

    4. The proposed development will greatly increase traffic in the area, posing a danger to children who regularly play in the lane.

    The proposed development does not align with the intended outcomes of the Centre Zone Code, the City Plan Strategic Framework. The risk of structural damage to my residence is also a major concern that needs to be addressed before any construction can proceed.

  6. Palm Beach resident commented

    Dear Pete,

    You’re right to be concerned. I live in a unit which obeyed the planning regulations for 4m setback. The units being built either side of us at Palm Beach were given relaxations on the 4m setback meaning they are both “forward” of our block and will block part of our view. Council is knowingly penalising developments that obeyed the planning regulations. Why? The Council doesn’t give any logical reason for doing this. Note that the developer makes more profit by having larger units.

    The construction company building the units on our north side is not concerned with the impact on the residents in our units. It made a terrible error when pouring concrete on one occasion. The pour wasn’t constrained and the excess concrete had to be jackhammered out. Not for 5 hours, not for 5 days but it went on for 5 WEEKS from 6:30 am until they finished in the afternoon, 6 days a week. Sunday was the only day there was no jackhammering. The building company’s attitude was we had to put up with it. No apology from the builder or Council. There have been more mistakes with concreting pours requiring more jackhammering but lasting only 1 or 2 days rather than weeks. Council won’t do anything unless they work out of the regulated hours. On a few occasions, it started at 5:50am in the morning instead of 6:30. When I asked who in the Council gave it the permission to do so, there was no reply, but the company now starts at 6:28 (not 6:30) in the morning.

    Using a large jackhammering earth mover is very noisy as are other building processes but there is no effective noise limit on the builder.
    I haven’t mentioned the concrete “splats” on windy days, the dirty windows, the effect of the de-watering, road blockages, the crane loads at the front and side of your property, etc.

    The issues with the builder on our south side have not been as serious and, whilst preferring a smaller development (developer, not builder), we’ve had a good relationship with that building company.

    I hope that if the development does proceed, and given this Council’s record under Tom Tate, it will, that the builder will be like the one our south side.

  7. David Wheeler commented

    What happened to the 16m / 17 metre high limit promised 2 years ago?
    Lets build the ocean way, get pedestrians and bikes off Jefferson, and build smaller more sustainable structures

  8. Kevin Kunst commented

    We all know that just about everything about this building is outside the town plan. The council uses the term relaxation to approve plans outside the town plan. This is only causing chaos and the council does not appear to care. Imagine if the traffic laws could use ‘relaxation ‘ of speed limits and other road rules in the same way that the council does. Wouldn’t that also cause chaos. Rules are there for a reason. Stick to the rules. I live in a block of units not far from this proposed development which was built in accordance with the town plan. This proposed building should do the same. Stop bowing to greedy developers.

    Kevin Kunst

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