Traffic Capacity and Safety Concerns at the Gold Coast Highway Connection
Summary:
The additional traffic generated from this development can only exit via the intersection at Twenty Fifth Avenue and the Gold Coast Highway. In its review of the applicant’s Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA), the State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) noted that “modelling indicates that the surrounding road network is already experiencing high levels of congestion.”
According to SARA, to manage the forecast traffic increases, the developer proposed restricting right-turn movements from both the eastern and western legs of the Twenty Fifth Avenue and Gold Coast Highway intersection. SARA did not accept this solution, stating that such restrictions “would affect all properties located along Twenty Fifth Avenue and The Esplanade” and would likely shift traffic impacts to adjacent intersections to the north and south, including the turning pockets relied on for U-turns. SARA further noted that right-turn restrictions would not prevent vehicles from crossing the intersection and therefore would not address the underlying delays.
SARA specifically required the developer to “provide alternative mitigation measures to address the connection at the intersection of Twenty Fifth Avenue and the Gold Coast Highway.” This included considering an upgrade of the intersection to a signalised configuration and demonstrating that the existing right-turn lane has sufficient capacity to accommodate future traffic volumes.
SARA also advised that insufficient information had been provided to demonstrate compliance with PO25 to PO27 of State Code 1 of the SDAP, which relate to safety, efficiency and functional performance of state-controlled roads.
In their response to SARA dated 5 November 2025, the developer advised that they had updated their TIA modelling and concluded that the intersection will “operate well within acceptable performance limits.” Despite SARA’s explicit request for alternative mitigation measures, the developer stated that “mitigation measures are not required.”
The developer also does not appear to have addressed SARA’s requirement to provide information demonstrating compliance with PO25 to PO27 of State Code 1.
Conclusion:
SARA has highlighted that “the surrounding road network is already experiencing high levels of congestion” and requested that the developer provide mitigation measures and additional information. The developer has not addressed these core requirements, nor have they provided the information necessary for Council or SARA to properly assess the traffic and safety impacts of the proposed development.
Importantly, City Plan 3.8.8.1(3)(c) requires that where a development generates the need for an unplanned upgrade to the state-controlled road network, the developer must fund the full cost of that upgrade. Because the only access for this development is via an already congested intersection, and because SARA has indicated that upgrades or alternative mitigation measures may be required, the developer’s refusal to provide mitigation or consider upgrade options is inconsistent with the obligations set out in the City Plan.
Accordingly, approval should not proceed until the developer provides the required mitigation options, demonstrates compliance with State Code 1, and clearly identifies and commits to funding any necessary intersection upgrades in accordance with City Plan 3.8.8.1(3)(c).