All recent comments on applications from Gold Coast City Council, QLD

Is this a mature native tree? If so, I object to its removal. Too many character trees in this neighbourhood are being cut down. In a rapidly warming climate and in the historic garden Cable Station precinct , we should be preserving what is left of our trees. If people want to come into this area to live, they must respect our cherished environment and not destroy it.

We need to have something where the community can put in their opinion on this project. i believe this proposed project will be bad for our neighbourhood

Nice house great to see they are keeping it

Dear GCCC - please consider this application carefully as there are a number of very concerned Chevron Island residents who are witnessing the degradation of their amenity and lifestyle due to the over-commercialisation of their neighbourhood, among other issues such as overly dense developments but this is not the issue here. Apparently Gold Coasters are experiencing a housing crisis so please seriously consider refusing this application.

Dear GCCC - I believe this property has been operating as short-term rental accommodation for some months/years, so I am expecting this request will be approved given this is a request to formalise the arrangement. However, would you please seriously consider rejecting this application. There is slow but concerning trend of commercialisation of areas of Chevron Island, especially the riverfront properties, which are not zoned as commercial.

INVITATION: Coffee Catch-up this Monday (Public Holiday), 10:30am @ Madison's Cafe

After posting my email, I had several Broadbeach residents reach out with an interest in hearing about our recent experience with a high-rise development being built on an adjoining block.
I need to stress I am not qualified to provide any advice however, I am happy to share our experience and learnings in the hope that it may assist you in avoiding some of the potholes we fell in due to naivety and inexperience.
I am having coffee @ Madison's this Monday, if anyone is interested in coming along and sharing their own experience, knowledge and information in the hope it may help others. No need to RSVP, just turn up (I will be the one with the big ring binder full of paper).
Madison's Cafe, this Monday 7th October @ 10:30am.
Nicole

The application seems to be about removing trees or vegetation on the western and southern boundaries of the properties for proposed development. According to the map on the GCCC website, the mature Moreton Bay Fig trees along the Bauer St frontage will not be affected. I would object strongly if anything is planned to destroy these trees - one of which has a protection levy (or whatever you call it) on it to keep it for posterity. It is a neighbourhood icon as for decades, it and the smaller Moreton Bay Fig tree have been giving much pleasure to all of us living here. The neighbours will be incensed if anything happens to these trees - especially as this development has been controversially foisted on us in a gazetted non-high rise, residential zone that is not part of the PDA.

Hi Nicola I am also interested in your recent learnings, I’m in a small self managed complex in the heart of Gotham City aka Chelsea Avenue Broadbeach
Can I email you?
Many thanks
Helen

To Nicole Moore
Thank you for your offer to share your recent Iearnings.
If you would leave your contact details with the Boulevard Towers reception by calling 5538 8555, they can then pass them on to me so that I can initiate contact directly with you.
Regards
Peter Goldsmith

As a unit owner in an adjoining building to this proposal, it is very concerning that the GCCC, due to its City Plan, can show such little concern for the owners/ratepayers in nearby buildings to the point where they make a ruling that no-one needs to be notified of these development applications.
How this new amendment to an already approved plan can be classed as "minor" beggars belief when it is a completely new facade, increases the height, the number of levels and number of units, shows new floor plans and includes reduced building setbacks. There is no provision for privacy screening even though the "new" balcony on the "minor application" takes up the full width of the eastern side of the building and completely overlooks the western side bedrooms and bathrooms of a neighbouring building. This should be classed as a new application.
Our privacy and ability to enjoy our apartment will be severely comprised if this new proposed amendment to an approved plan goes ahead in its present form. We must have privacy screening. Our building will not be the only one affected either.

Massive objection from me. This tree is the much loved native Moreton Bay Fig which is a neighbourhood icon, and has a preservation listing. It is also an integral part of a property that is supposed to be in a non-PDA zone of Southport - the established historical 1901 Cable Station precinct. This property should never have been allowed to be developed into bulky high rise. It is completely unacceptable and the neighbours are incensed that an underhand appeal to the state government has allowed the development-mad local council to deprive our neighbourhood of its character and set a precedent for more destruction of character and liveability. The GCCC has amended the previously carefully-written town plan so that we, the residents, cannot have any meaningful input into what we want preserved for our neighbourhood. This is not democracy. It is blatant pandering to greedy developers.
This development will do nothing for people who, though no fault of their own, cannot afford established housing. Advertising on the fencing of this property states "luxury accommodation". Was this little detail conveyed to the minister when his help was sought to change the zone classification or was it kept secret - to be unleashed once the zoning was changed?

Paul Goldsmith, I have had a look through the applications for 118 Old Burleigh Road and, as is the case with the majority of proposals, it is Code Assessable not Impact Assessable. A convenient way for council to avoid public objection as it only has to meet the requirements of the City Plan.
I would be happy to have a chat with any Body Corporates/ Owners to share my recent learnings after going through a similar situation with a high-rise development on our neighbouring block. I was fortunate to have received some guidance from the Body Corporate of an apartment block in Burleigh, but it would have been advantageous knowing what lay ahead prior to work commencing. There are certain points and agreements which should be negotiated with the builder BEFORE they start as we found it more challenging getting things rectified and compensated after the fact. I believe the builders/developers count on the naivety of 'the little guys next door' to get away with things they know they will need to do and take advantage of the adjoining properties not knowing their rights.

This development epitomises the inconsiderate decisions of GCCC. This building, and others like it, will be regretted by all of Broadbeach in the future as it kills all that is wonderful in the area. I’m certainly not against development but this is destroying what was once wonderful.

I thank the Gold Coast City Council for responding to my previous comment by notifying me that the minor change application documents had been posted on their website.
Far from the proposal being a minor change, the previously approved design has been substantially changed to the extent that it is virtually unrecognisable from its previous incarnation.
This includes completely changing the building’s facade; increasing the height, number of levels and the number of units; reducing building setbacks; enlarging and repositioning their swimming pools closer to our common boundary; and most importantly, instead of adding additional privacy screening to a small balcony that directly impacts on our adjacent building, the balcony has been extended along the full width of the building with no privacy screening at all.

I hope that the Council in reviewing this proposal, considers the amenity of its existing residents and rate payers as being more important than the wishes of a developer.

Agreed, the 2016 city plan is very poor in allowing minimal setbacks, inappropriate bulk and height, adding no value to the neighbourhood or considering the future of the Golden Goose. A group called Community Alliance are very balanced in their reasonable requests for a better, forward thinking city plan, not anti development - just calling for smarter development. We all need to push for smart development and a better city plan to enhance the Gold Coast, not destroy it. Edits and plays between Council and state government over the past year have just delayed improvements. Over a year of to and fro while many poor development approvals get passed. Medium density provides more affordable housing and some towers are stunning if planned well with set backs, facilities etc

I agree, the stress caused to neighbors is disturbing. Neighbours were constantly threatened by workers when told not to enter their property during construction. Resulted in abusive language and graffiti painted onto the home. Elderly couple couldn’t cope so sold their home and moved . Council did not support the couple . Now we have fence to fence developers.

Absolutely agree Nicole. The setback regulations are way too soft for the size of these developments. And the council seems more concerned with appeasing the developers than creating developments that are harmonious to the neighbours and neighbourhoods. They approve buildings with minimal parking and recreational areas which which then puts enormous pressure on public spaces. A very short term view.

Sadly the only height restrictions for Broadbeach are dictated by aviation. There are two blocks in Chelsea Ave (I think they are number 14 and 22), both blocks are 607m and are scheduled to have 25 storey buildings. The issue with this size building on such a small block is they need to go right to boundary (and in some cases encrouch neighbouring properties) to put down the necessary foundations for such a large construction. We have just experienced this in Surf Pde where the builders knocked down the boundary fence and were 1.8m over boundary on to our property for over 12 months (not to mention the damage done to our property during construction).
While buildings of this size may meet the City Plan being offset at the various heights above ground, it is the intrusion to adjoining properties necessary to complete such a large build on such a small block.

Honestly, is this what GCCC envisaged when they allowed high rise development in Broadbeach? 12 stories on a 607m2 block with a 15 metre frontage. Surely there should be a minimum high rise development size.
If all 607m2 blocks were developed like this in Broadbeach would look like a Manhattan Slum.
As the precedent has already been set with a court challenged approval for 17 stories on this block I guess there is no hope of stopping this one. Hopefully GCCC are tightening their Plot : Height development laws so ridiculous developments like this one don't continue.

Heights and plot ratios have become a joke in Broadbeach, such a shame as GCCC ruin this beautiful suburb.

No documents are available on the GCCC website to show what the proposed "minor" change is.
As an owner of a unit in the adjacent Boulevard Towers building, I hope it is to add privacy screening on the eastern side of the proposed 118 Burleigh Rd development.

I agree, lower the height limits and reduce the building to land ratio. There are too many buildings that overshadow lower buildings in Broadbeach .

I support the lower height proposal.The block is narrow and the new proposal would be more suitable for the site

I find it extremely difficult to obtain any information about the tree works application from available links on the GCCC website. It seems like deliberate obfuscation to deter objection or any feedback. What exactly does the applicant want to do? We are not getting proper information from the GCCC - the people who ratepayers are paying to protect us and our environmental heritage.

As far as I can see there is a tree proposed to be removed at the western Chester Terrace end of this development but there is nothing that appears on the plans we can access that is related to 18 Bauer Street - the subject of this application.

I hope this developer is not proposing to remove either of the mature, native Moreton Bay Fig trees (the one on the corner of Bauer St and Chester Terrace with the $100,000 preservation notice), or the one on the verge of the road adjacent to 18 Bauer Street.

This development already flouts the town plan because it is not in the Southport PDA and will change the designated garden precinct in which we live. We are sick of seeing monetary grabs for our Gold Coast environment that set precedents. Like me, this established neighbourhood rejects any insidious attempt to remove existing character trees. If developers have already infiltrated this area, the least they can do is respect the wishes of the residents and preserve the character vegetation. Enough is enough and our magnificent native trees are our legacy to future generations as well as our protection against a rapidly warming climate. It is not a legacy that developers, investors and money launderers are at liberty to squander.