Recent comments on applications from Gold Coast City Council, QLD

  1. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 107 Jefferson Lane, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Karen Rowles commented

    I strongly OBJECT to this Development. The Setbacks do not comply with the City Plan Guidelines. The recommended height of 16m is being ignored. It is completely out of character with the area.
    The Open / Green Space is not enough and doesn’t comply with the City Plan Guidelines.

  2. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 107 Jefferson Lane, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Kevin Kunst commented

    We completely object to this development as it fails to adhere to councils own guidelines and is another example of a greedy and inconsiderate council which will destroy the character of Palm Be@ch that we all love

  3. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 107 Jefferson Lane, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Karen Rowles commented

    I strongly OBJECT to this Development. The Setbacks do not comply with the City Plan Guidelines. The recommended height of 16m is being ignored. It is completely out of character with the area.
    The Open / Green Space is not enough and doesn’t comply with the City Plan Guidelines.

  4. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 107 Jefferson Lane, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Oliver Adam commented

    Help STOP this development.
    To make your VOICE HEARD and FORMALLY OBJECT, you must make a ‘SUBMISSION’ with the GCCC.
    Posting your comments on this website does not count.
    Rally the support of your friends, family and colleagues who DO NOT WANT this high-rise.
    Help others make their ‘SUBMISSION’ with the GCCC.
    We need as many INDIVIDUAL formal ‘SUBMISSIONS’ made with the GCCC as possible.
    The more formal ‘SUBMISSIONS’, the better.
    General information about having your say made FORMAL with the GCCC is at: https://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/planning-and-building/have-your-say-on-a-development-application-22173.html
    You can lodge your ‘SUBMISSION’ in a number of ways with the GCCC.
    (1) Write a letter, and email to mail@goldcoast.qld.gov.au.
    (2) Use a GCCC form, and email to mail@goldcoast.qld.gov.au.
    (3) Submit online.
    Form for option (2) is at: https://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/documents/fa/have-your-say-development-application.pdf
    Link for option (3) is at: https://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/contact-planning/development-application-feedback.aspx
    Don’t forget to reference MCU/2020/293.
    Contact Oliver.Reece.Adam@outlook.com if you’d like to chat.

  5. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 107 Jefferson Lane, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    PHILIP LE COUILLIARD commented

    Ridiculous over use of site, no set backs, too high.

  6. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 107 Jefferson Lane, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Troy Jones commented

    This development should not be approved. It is clearly in breach of the new GCCC town plan, which only allows for a height of 16 metres (approx 4 storeys - not NINE!) on the eastern side of Jefferson Lane.

    There will be extreme shadows cast on the beach - affecting local residents and visitors.

    The landscape of beautiful Palm Beach is being ruined by these huge buildings.

    Jefferson Lane is already choked by traffic and is becoming a danger to pedestrians and those cycling. This will only create more traffic and more danger.

    Please do not approve this monstrosity - otherwise it will make a farce of the community consultation process that was undertaken for the new town plan.

  7. In Southport QLD on “Combined Application Code...” at 30 Yacht Street, Southport QLD 4215:

    Valerie Shooter commented

    What is this? + Non-Standard VXO
    To a normal ratepayer, this is obfuscation.
    Combined Application Minor Civil Works, Associated Building Works (2 Connections) + Non-Standard VXO

    Why isn't the GCCC using the type of notice boards that were mandatory years ago - the ones with clearly written applications detailing what the developer/builder/whatever wanted to do, as well as the address of where to put in complaints?

    This approach is non-transparent and does not engender confidence in the way the GCCC conducts business.

  8. In Currumbin QLD on “Operational Works...” at Lot 234 Thrower Drive, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    L.Ray commented

    The footprint of this building is too large. Especially as vegetation and hBitT for the wildlife in this area needs to be protected and encouraged forever. Areas like this need to retained as much as possible And treasured to keep our suburbs as they are and why we moved here in the first place, and paid dearly for to have this privilege.

  9. In Bilinga QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 99 Golden Four Drive, Bilinga QLD 4225:

    Karen Coates commented

    I own and live in a property in Archer St, one block south of this application. My concerns related to the current intersection directly facing the application, entrance to the Gold Coast Airport.

    This intersection is currently of concern. There is existing congestion at this traffic-light intersection (entrance to Gold Coast Airport) and its short service road. Traffic flow down Golden Four Drive (Golden FD) in both directions is gridlocked at various times as cars wait on a red light to enter the Gold Coast Highway (GC highway) during the day, making exit off the highway to turn onto Golden FD, in either direction, dangerous and delayed. This is in part due to a lack of turn lanes on Golden FD into the service Rd and its traffic lights. Cars cue in the one lane both north and south on Golden FD to turn into the traffic light area. This dominos into reduced opportunity to turn from GC highway onto Golden FD on green lights.
    Traffic has also backlogged onto the GC Highway at times from the service entrance. Buses regularly turn off Golden FD at this intersection and can reduce vision and block the intersection completely at times due to change of traffic light to red and their inability to cross the intersection. This reduces both vision and opportunity to turn from the GC Highway onto Golden Four Drive in both directions.
    My concerns are:
    1. The safety for motorists around this congestion
    2. The added car numbers as a result of the completed application if this existing problem is exacerbated by an increase in traffic due to the development.
    3. The increased traffic burden on the safety of pedestrians, including students, crossing from beachside access the GCH and University with the current road situation. Cars can backlog across the existing Pedestrian crossing at times.
    4. The increased traffic resulting from the opening of the new Rydges complex at the Airport. Given that two existing car rentals are within 100 metres of this application, increased traffic flow on this intersection is inevitable.
    5. There is currently lower volume of flow into and out of the GC Airport during the current Covid crisis. The problems listed above have not abated on Golden FD.
    Many thanks for your consideration of the concerns listed above.
    Karen Coates

  10. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 107 Jefferson Lane, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Lorelle Holmes commented

    I have no doubt the Gold Coast City Council will approve this application - most Palm Beach residents and concerned ratepayers have nothing but contempt for this council. They continue to march ahead with approving plans for high rise buildings in areas which should remain low rise - it's a money grab as we all know as they can't surely think these high rise boxes look attractive and enhance the look of Palm Beach.

  11. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 107 Jefferson Lane, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Catherine Brown commented

    This application cannot seriously be approved. Jefferson Lane is already choked by new developments on the western side. Any development here will create many more cars and with the surf club so close it will be a major safety concern for children. There is already not enough parking at the surf club and as most new developments only provide parking for one car per unit, guess where the extra cars will be parked! It will also cast afternoon shade where the flags are often located, that should never happen to a surf club. If the GCCC want to be taken seriously then they need to stop high rises on the beach front NOW and not allow these applications to sneak in before the change later in the year. This is not what is in the best interest of Palm Beach.

  12. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 107 Jefferson Lane, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Steve Matthews commented

    The Council should not approve this application as the beachfront of Palm Beach should not be further impacted any further by high rise buildings like this. The community has voiced their concerns over the amount of development and impact to the beach front community. This 9 storey unit development will impact the beach foreshore that is enjoyed by so many every day and will cast shadows and change the nice beach community aesthetic that has been enjoyed and appreciated by locals and tourists alike. With the other developments between Gold Coast Highway and Jefferson Lane the developers have been using the access to their buildings from Jefferson to allow them to claim the prestige address and now it is already too busy and this building will further impact the access and safe enjoyment of locals like myself who use the road daily to park near the surf club and enjoy our public beach space. It is bad enough that council is allowing buildings of 9 storeys be developed on the Western side of Jefferson, however the eastern side and beach front should only be for housing and villa development with a limit to the four story height already in place. The high tides with swell that occur every year will be a huge risk to large developments like this on the beach front. It should not be approved as 9 storey buildings do not belong on the beach front in Palm Beach or Mermaid Beach.

  13. In Robina QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 34-38 Glenferrie Drive, Robina QLD 4226:

    Erin Burrows commented

    This is a poor design for the aesthetic of this small area. 20 townhouses is far in excess to the size of the site. 10 would be acceptable with retained vegetation and pocket of trees. If council approves this design, there is seriously something wrong with the development approval process. In addition, the road is not suitable to equip vehicles for 20 dwellings, including visitor parking. We walk along this boardwalk everyday, and the vegetation and park like atmosphere is a welcome attraction for the lake, including bird and wildlife. To remove that completely, and replace with such an obtrusive design in its current form is inappropriate and unbecoming for the area. Please consider the incorporation of existing vegetation, reduce the number of dwellings to at least half, and help retain the appeal of this area.

  14. In Currumbin QLD on “Generally in Accordance...” at 18 Hooper Drive, Currumbin QLD 4223:

    Marie Penna commented

    This 15M high development of 4 x 3 storey+ units being approx 2.5M from our eastern fence is excessive for the site, traversing almost entire length of this narrow frontage block. We will lose all sea breezes & importantly, light, because of it's height & density. Our living areas face this aspect which will then look at a massively long & high wall broken only by windows, so losing all privacy as well. The Terrace at the top of each of these units is the perfect place for loud, alcoholic parties which have increased exponentially in this neighbourhood in recent years.

  15. In Currumbin QLD on “Operational Works Private...” at 28 Hooper Drive, Currumbin QLD 4223:

    GREGORY JOHN & MARIE PATRICIA PENNA commented

    This 15M high development of 4 x 3 storey+ units being approx 2.5M from our eastern fence is excessive for block size. We will lose all sea breezes & importantly, light, because of it's height & density. Our living areas face this aspect which will then look at a massively long & high wall broken only by windows so losing all privacy as well.

  16. In Palm Beach QLD on “Operational Works Minor...” at 1328 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Jordan Pregelj commented

    The future park is not shown on plan. The existing property boundary is not marked on plan. Existing property boundary is missing on sections along 19th Avenue and on Section 6. Why is there a wide path in the first section of 19th Avenue? Given today's requirement for social distancing, why haven't the paths been designed to be wider allowing people to pass each other safely without being forced onto grass, verge or into traffic. the plan and sections are meaningless as no context has been provided to other proposed elements, building entries and landscape features and planting plans. The proposed works should be referred back and relevant details shown prior to approval.

  17. In Palm Beach QLD on “ePathway” at 1267 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Debra commented

    It is so disappointing when our city plan is abused and objections are ignored. We are constantly seeing DA approved that do not offer anything back to the community of Palm Beach. The latest approvals including 1109 Gold Coast Highway and certainly 1267 Gold Coast Highway are just making our beachside community into yet another Broadbeach or Surfers. Unattractive!
    I strongly object to this application on the following points:
    1. 10sqm vs 33sqm per bedroom!
    2. Height exceeding 29m going to 43m!
    3. Boundary setbacks do not provide any greenery regardless of what the architect has written it is not suitable for the location and this building only belongs in a city.
    4. Limited parking - an ongoing issue and one council won't have a solution when what limited parking on the highway currently available is removed for the unwanted light rail.
    With already over 120 objections noted on the application surely it's GCCC as guardian and custodian or our beautiful locations to ensure they are improved upon not destroyed. Please reduce the height and extend boundaries.

  18. In Palm Beach QLD on “ePathway” at 1267 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Catherine Modini commented

    I object to this application for the following reasons:
    1. This 14-storey development is twice the density limits for the area.
    2. This application has total disregard to the city plan of one bedroom per 33 sqm NOT one bedroom per 10 sqm along with a 90% site coverage which is also well outside council regulations.
    3. The density of this development is far too high and the setbacks are too small.

  19. In Palm Beach QLD on “ePathway” at 1267 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Isaias Fritsch commented

    This 14-storey is 3 times over the density limits for the area. It shouldn’t have been approved. The councillors who voted positive have shown a complete disregard to the city plan and zone limits. The reference buildings you mention were approved many years ago and were subject to the limits and city plan of that time. These have now been changed for a reason and should be obeyed. This whole building has been controversial and I’ve seen countless posts and hundreds of comments of shocked residents. Do you truly believe this decision goes in favour of the community? The community expects councillors to represent them to do the right thing which is to adhere to the defined city plan. There is no point for buyers to look at the city plan when making a decision where to live if these are to be broken 3x above limits.

  20. In Palm Beach QLD on “ePathway” at 1267 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Samantha Ladd commented

    Why do we have a city plan if developers are continually allowed to get away with breaking the rules. GCCC has the responsibility to look after the rate payers and not bow to what they want. None of the people developers or GCCC Councillors live in Palm Beach.

    Council is loving collecting the extra fees and the developers who would have costed their projects on half the bedrooms that they are then allowed. More profits for them. Why are we constantly going ignoring the 1 bedroom per 33 sqm on the city plan and then allowing up to 1 bedroom per 10 sqm and then 90 % site coverage. There is seriously something wrong here. Why can the GCCC see this.

    I object to this Application

  21. In Palm Beach QLD on “ePathway” at 1267 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Sharee Fiume commented

    14 storeys is 50% over council regulations. The extenuating conditions have NOT been met. So this is illegal. Every other OLDER building in Palm Beach over 9 storeys high has extensive garden/grounds/pool area surrounding them. 85% site coverage and 1bed per 11m2 is also well outside council regulations.

    This new building, IF it goes ahead, will add considerably to the already congested GC Hwy.

  22. In Palm Beach QLD on “ePathway” at 1267 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Karen Rowles commented

    To Approve a 14 Level HIGH DENSITY HIGH RISE IN A 7 LEVEL ZONE IS OUTRAGEOUS AND TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.
    You must reject this Approval and STICK TO THE CITY PLAN GUIDELINES.
    THE 50% EXCESSIVE HEIGHT RELAXATION SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE CITY PLAN GUIDELINES. It gives no certainty to Ratepayers and Residents.
    Mayor Tom Tate said the GCCC would maintain the unique character of Palm Beach.
    Yet with every high density high rise approved, the character of the area is destroyed.
    The density of this development is too high.
    The setbacks are too small.
    No deep planting for large trees. Disgraceful planning from a disgraceful Council that puts Developer and money before the Ratepayers.
    I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APROVAL.

  23. In Palm Beach QLD on “ePathway” at 1267 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Rate Payer commented

    The brown paper bags must have been flowing to get this one over the line.

  24. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1121 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Karen Rowles commented

    Finally.. A sensible development... I’m in shock ...

  25. In Southport QLD on “Southport Priority...” at 24 Queen Street, Southport QLD 4215:

    Valerie Shooter commented

    I gather this has something to do with the footpath but what is it exactly?
    I have a few more questions about this development:
    How many storeys will this building have? I was told 15 a month or so back. Has this changed and if so when? If this is so, were residents advised of it in advance and given the right of objection or has it slipped through unannounced under delegated authority?
    What procedures do you have in place to eliminate the possibility of accidents to the kindergarten next door as the arm of the crane is long enough to overhang the building and the children playing in their playground? This kindergarten has been there at least 50 years so it is not a newcomer. The apartment tower is the newcomer and must fit into the profile of an established, historical, garden, residential area.
    How will you overcome the problem of winter sun being blocked from the kindergarten?
    A while back there was an advertising sign on the site fence stating a nightclub in the building. This is completely unacceptable in a residential neighborhood especially with a kindergarten right next door.

  26. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1121 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Jennifer commented

    Good on all concerned
    A building that fits and adds to the Palm Beach aesthetic.

  27. In Southport QLD on “On Hold Material Change of...” at 30 Kerr Avenue, Southport QLD 4215:

    Jennifer Bailey commented

    Chirn Park has managed to retain charm and character with most of the new developments. Can GCCC please consider supporting the village nature of this area. We are not Broadbeach or Surfers Paradise but a small niche community in amongst everything else. Please don’t support cookie cutter development - require developers to offer up plans that are empathetic and enhance the quality and liveability of our suburbs.

  28. In Southport QLD on “On Hold Material Change of...” at 30 Kerr Avenue, Southport QLD 4215:

    Aaron Blomeley commented

    Chirn Park has always been known as a boutique part of Southport, with older residences adding to the aesthetic feel of the area. Newer residences along Fisher Ave and Kerr Avenue have added to the character of the area and it is hard to imagine how the erection of four dwellings on the site where one two-story building has stood since 1963 can possible enhance the beauty of the area.

    Yes, a new development will happen on #30 Kerr Ave but please let it be in keeping with the build and character of the area. Let it retain its charm.

  29. In Broadbeach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 120 Old Burleigh Road, Broadbeach QLD 4218:

    B W commented

    The proposed is to high for the location and size of the block, should be reduced to 3 stories maximum as the zoning previously used to be!
    The shadow diagrams on pages 97-99 do not show the full impact throughout the entire year. What about residents that are going to be living in darkness for a good portion of the year if this goes ahead.
    The beach is going to be cast with more shadow from early afternoon and spoil the social environment permanently.

  30. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1388 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Steve Ross commented

    I agree with what Alan mentioned above. By looking at the DA Approval of 4 Twenty Second Avenue, the application of 1388 Gold Coast Highway is much more sophisticated, elegant and low impact. I believe the proposed development at 1388 GC Highway it is going to give the area and the street better appeals. The landscaping plan proposed by the developer of 1388 GC HWY is also going to give that section of the Gold Coast Highway a lift.

    The density proposed at 1388 is much less than what was approved for 4 Twenty Second Avenue. Given that all other requirements are met, I believe the council should grant approval to 1388 GC HWY.

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