Excessive Height and Failure to Meet Uplift Criteria
Summary: The proposal seeks the maximum possible 50% height increase above the City Plan’s 29m limit for this site.
The proposed development delivers a high density high-rise building. This conflicts with the intent for this location to accommodate growth in medium density, medium rise developments, and creates unnecessary additional adverse impacts for local residents.
City Plan Height Limits:
The Building Height Overlay Map (BHOM) establishes a desired building height of 29 metres for this site.
High-rise building height is defined in the City Plan as — A building exceeding 32 metres above ground level.
Medium rise building height — A building exceeding 9 to 32 metres above ground level (intent for 3 to 8 storeys).
An uplift to 43.5 metres therefore cannot be considered a medium rise form, as it exceeds the City Plan's own height classification.
The City Plan Strategic Framework (City Shape and Urban Transformation, Section 3.2.2), confirms a deliberate and distinct contrast in built form will reinforce community identity, create a sense of place and reflect the city's different places and spaces. The city's high-rise coastal spine is not intended to be a continuous, homogeneous ribbon running through every coastal suburb. Some suburbs were intentionally planned to provide breaks to the high-rise form, and Palm Beach is one such break. Buildings exceeding 32 metres were not planned for Palm Beach, except within the designated Centre Zone.
The Palm Beach Centre Zone is shown in City Plan (Schedule 2 - Mapping) as extending along the Gold Coast Highway between Fourth and Eighth Avenues, on the western side of the Gold Coast Highway. Higher intensity development is expected to occur in the Centre Zone than in the Medium density residential zone, where this development is proposed. The location of this site, on the corner of the Gold Coast Highway and Twenty Fifth Avenue, is not in or near the Palm Beach Centre Zone.
The Planning and Environment Court in Bell Co Pty Ltd & Ors v Gold Coast City Council [2022] confirmed that building height in excess of that stated on the overlay map limit should not be "anticipated".
Failure to Meet Height Uplift Criteria (Specific Outcome 3.3.2.1(9)):
Heights above the Building Height Overlay Map (BHOM) desired height of 29 metre are permitted in "limited circumstances" (City Plan 3.3.2.1(9)), and even then all criteria (a – i) must be satisfied before council can grant the height uplift. This proposal does not satisfy all criteria:
(a) The development is not located within The Spit Master Plan height sensitive area, as identified on the Building Height overlay map; The site is not within The Spit Master Plan area.
This criterion is met.
(b) Reinforced Local Identity & Sense of Place: The planned or future desired character in the city plan will be achieved by delivering development that adheres to the zone code, desired density, and desired height benchmarks in the city plan. This is a high density, high-rise tower proposed for a medium density, medium rise zone and is therefore contrary to the planned character.
While planning officers contest that their recent approvals of other high-rise developments in Palm Beach have created a new, higher intensity, "emerging character", few of these approved high-rise towers have been constructed. An on-paper approval does not change the local character. Until developers construct the towers, an approval decision demonstrates only an emerging culture within the planning department to grant approval for buildings of excessive height. As the Court noted in Bell Co v GCCC [2022], adverse character and amenity impacts are not rendered acceptable because the built form proposed is compatible in its height, bulk and scale with other nearby buildings.
The amalgamation of two lots creates a substantial building with average tower floorplates of 680m², creating bulk which overwhelms the street. For previous assessments of developments at this height in Palm Beach, the planning department obtained a series of photomontages to properly assess the visual impact of the additional height. None were requested by the assessing officer in this instance.
This criterion is not met.
(c) Well-Managed Interface with, relationship to and impact on nearby development, including the reasonable amenity expectations of nearby residents: The proposal fails to adequately protect neighbouring amenity to the north.
The tower is set back just 3.34 metres to the boundary of the neighbouring block to the north. Most tower levels contain three balconies, leading to multiple residences overlooking the neighbour's private open space and pool. The issue of rubbish and cigarette butts blowing off balconies into neighbouring gardens is worsened by inadequate building setbacks from boundaries. No attempt has been made to mitigate privacy and amenity impacts by stepping back any level between level 2-11 from the northern boundary.
This criterion is not met.
(d) Varied, Ordered and Interesting Local Skyline: The skyline is varied in proximity to the site, ranging from single and double storey homes, older low-medium rise apartment blocks and newer 8-9 storey medium rise developments along the Gold Coast Highway.
Only 4 40 developments above 40 metres have been constructed north of Palm Beach's Centre Zone. Nineteenth Avenue Apartments on the Beach fronts the Gold Coast Highway and is 18 storeys. Approved under an old planning scheme, it will remain an outlier in the skyline as the height cannot be replicated under the current scheme outside the centre zone. Hemingway (14 storeys, on cnr Gold Coast HIghway and Seventeenth Avenue), Magnoli (11-13 storeys, on cnr Gold Coast Highway and Nineteenth Avenue) and Kloud (12 storeys, Gold Coast Highway near Tenth Avenue) exceed 40 metres. Most newer tower developments requesting a height uplift have applied for a modest 2-3 metres in height, adhering to the planned medium rise building form.
The assessment report for Hemingway states "the established and envisaged development is to comprise of a gradual tapering down from high-rise slender towers at the nodal points to medium rise development in-between the two nodal points. The nodal points referred to by the officer were the major intersections on the Gold Coast Highway with Nineteenth Avenue and with Palm Beach Avenue. Twenty Fifth Avenue is some distance from both nodal points.
The low number of constructed high-rise towers remain as anomalies in the skyline. Further applications are currently with council which seek to exploit the uplift provisions to maximum effect close to this site (e.g., MCU/2024/387, OTH/2025/23). Council is in danger of creating an unintended cluster of high-rises away from the centre zone and away from the key transport intersection nodes, contrary to the planning officer comments on the envisaged skyline, and creating a disordered skyline.
Variation to the skyline can alternatively be achieved by using innovative roof forms. The development proposal does not incorporate any innovative roof form.
This criterion is not met.
(e) Excellent Standard of Appearance of Built Form and Street Edge:
Whether the building achieves architectural excellence is a matter of personal opinion, however we note that two substantial solid concrete blades dominate the western elevation, restricting casual surveillance of the public realm towards the Gold Coast Highway. It is unclear from the architectural package if the blades will be undulating, or whether an unsophisticated flat white painted expanse of concrete will be delivered.
The applicant states that the building bulk will be mitigated by a deep central recess to the east and west elevations, and the development will be perceived as 2 tall individual slender forms. The eastern recess is largely obscured from the public realm to the east of the site by the Siarn development. The western recess is around 1.5 metres wide. Whilst it will be noticeable if standing directly opposite, it will become imperceptible as you move beyond the site, and the two “halves” of the building will appear as one. Photomontages should be provided from several locations on the Highway and The Esplanade to confirm the recess is successful at mitigating the perception of bulk.
A future road widening setback extends around 2.8 metres along the entire Gold Coast Highway frontage. This land may be resumed by the State Government. Development should not encroach into this setback. It is here that the applicant has chosen to locate almost all of the landscaping and part of the pool deck. It is unconscionable for council to approve this arrangement in full knowledge that the landscaping is temporary.
The entire street frontage to Twenty Fifth Avenue is dominated by hardstand surfaces and service cabinets, leaving minimal opportunity for meaningful landscaping. Some services could be accommodated further inside the site adjacent to the driveway, by reconfiguring or reducing the above ground parking, however the overdevelopment of the site has resulted in the parking provision barely meeting the Acceptable Outcome benchmark.
The landscaping proposal to Twenty Fifth Avenue relies almost entirely on council planting street trees in the nature strip, instead of trees being accommodated on site. Council will condition a footpath along the Twenty Fifth Avenue frontage. The applicant has not demonstrated there is sufficient room for trees substantial enough to soften the visual impact of 14 storeys in addition to the footpath. Neither have they offered certainty that the power lines which currently conflict with existing trees on that nature strip can be relocated.
The balance between built form and landscaping, and the interface with both road frontages is vastly inferior to other developments granted the uplift and continues to “lower the bar” to prevent developers from tripping over it. To provide the level of streetscape amenity envisaged by the City Plan and associated City Policies additional deep planting areas must be provided on both street frontages within the site itself, and adequate landscaping must be provided to ensure the Gold Coast Highway retains deep planting areas after any land is resumed.
This criterion is not met.
(f) Housing Choice and Affordability: The proposed development provides 64 2-bedroom, 2-bathroom apartments with some variation in floorplan and size, and 4 3-bedroom 3.5 bathroom apartments. It should be noted that the existing constructed buildings above 40m e.g.,Magnoli, Hemingway, and Sea (Seventh Ave, centre zone tower) each provided a generous mix of different unit configurations (ranging from 1 to 4-bedroom floor plans) and LaBelle 1293 Gold Coast Highway (under construction) a range of 2-4-bed floor plans to support this criterion. Recent approvals suggest a reduced emphasis from Council on ensuring developments include a mix of dwelling types and price points, despite the considerable financial value of the height advantages being granted to applicants.
Affordability is described in the City Plan as comprising the initial and ongoing costs of housing including transport and maintenance. The applicant relies on a statement to the effect that there is market demand for the units, rather than explaining how the development complies with this affordability requirement.
Recent interpretations placed on this criterion by developers is that a simple increase in the number of dwellings beyond that currently approved for the site will assist in housing affordability more generally. This renders the benchmark entirely superfluous and impossible to fail, since if building additional storeys it is difficult not to provide more dwellings.
The proposal far exceeds the dwelling supply increase anticipated in the City Plan for this location. A fully compliant development would make a very significant contribution to dwelling supply, with fewer adverse impacts on nearby residents, and less community hostility.
The intent of this criterion is not met.
(g) Protection of Local Character and Scenic Amenity: Local character studies refer to the Ridges of Burleigh and Currumbin which “bookend” the suburb, and the inland mountain ranges to the west as being integral to the local character and identity. A 43.5 metre building interrupts views to these from any number of popular public outlooks and places of scenic amenity. Whilst one development creates a momentary interruption to the visual connection to the ridgelines, the cumulative impact of high-rise towers will gradually erode the connection residents have to these places.
This criterion is not met.
(h) Deliberate and distinct built form contrast in locations where building heights change abruptly on the Building height overlay map: There is no abrupt change in the mapped building heights in proximity to this site. Council officers have previously stated the tallest buildings are expected in the centre zone, tall buildings may be expected at key transport intersections or nodes, but heights should taper downwards as you move away from these nodes. This development will create a distinct contrast in built form which is unplanned at this location. Cumulatively, there are multiple proposals currently before council, all seeking maximum use of the uplift provisions close to this site. If approved, these will create an unplanned massing of high rise developments.
This criterion is not met.
(i) Safe Operation of Gold Coast Airport and Aeronautical Facilities: The building height does not affect the safe operation of the Gold Coast Airport.
This criterion is met.
Conclusion: The proposal fails to satisfy all the required uplift criteria (a) through (i), and offers no community benefit to justify the 50% height increase. It poses adverse impacts on local character and resident amenity and undermines the City's established planning framework. Council should refuse the application.