It seems the original plans included a retirement facility, health care services, educational establishment and vet services - all facilities that could be useful to locals. They have now been replaced by the usual Gold Coast luxury requisites (e.g. hotel and short stay suites instead of medical suites) for making a greater profit for the developer. I don't see any affordable accommodation mentioned. Were the original facilities just sweeteners to prompt approval of this establishment on compassionate grounds (and the precursor for later amendment)? This would be properly interpreted as a substantially different development whereas the applicant ticked the 'no new change of use' box.
There is a glaring difference of appearance when large areas of gold glazing for windows and balustrades have been added to the mix, so that box should have been ticked as well so it can be properly assessed by authorities.
I object to glaring reflections being aimed in all directions (and at my home) as the sun changes position in the sky. The reflection from gold glazing is blinding. It already happens with the existing building in the morning.
With the density of accommodation, there is a problem with parking, entering and exiting the property and traffic congestion. The roads are already chockablock. How does the developer intend to mitigate traffic flow on busy roads that cannot be widened?
