Excessive Housing Density (Overdevelopment of a Medium-Density Site)
Summary: The proposed residential density significantly exceeds the planned residential density, allowing high-density outcomes on medium density zoned land. This is a drastic intensification that conflicts with the City Plan's intended scale for this area.
-
City Plan Density Controls: The site's zoning (Medium density residential – RD6 designation) stipulates a maximum density of 1 bedroom per 33 m² of site area. In high-density zones like RD8 (typical in Surfers Paradise with unlimited height), the rate is 1 bedroom per 13 m².
-
Proposed Density: The developer proposes 140 bedrooms on 1,230m². This calculates to 1 bedroom per 8.8 m² pre road resumption, equivalent to almost four times the planned density. Greater density than envisaged for the highest residential density zones in the city. A review of past approvals in Palm Beach shows density rates have rapidly worsened over the past 5 years, as developers seek to obtain greater yield from development sites.
-
Planning Implications: This level of overdevelopment is inconsistent with the intent of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code, which is meant to provide a transition between low-intensity areas and high-intensity centres. Developments proposing excessive density are also generally non compliant with City Plan assessment criteria for height, site cover and setbacks. This impacts neighbouring amenity, and places greater than planned demands on roads, on street parking, water, sewerage and stormwater networks, and social and community facilities.
The proposal failed numerous assessment benchmarks of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code, so assessment is being made against higher level Overall Outcomes (OOs) of the code. It fails the following Overall Outcomes also:
OO(2)(a)(i) confirms the purpose of the zone is to include a range of medium density residential uses. The proposed 1 bedroom/8.8m² is almost 4 times the planned RD6 density of 1 bedroom per 33m², and higher even than the planned Palm Beach Centre Zone density, where high densities are expected. The density proposed is almost identical to that of the centre zoned “Sea” building on the corner of Seventh Avenue and Cypress Tce, and worse than nearby neighbourhood zoned “East”, which was approved at 1 bedroom/11.67m² after planning officers noted the neighbourhood centre zone afforded additional density above that of surrounding lots.
OO(2)(b)(iii) requires officers to consider the capacity of available infrastructure to support the development, including water, sewer, transport and social and community facilities, including. At the time of writing
- The State Assessment Referral Authority (SARA) have raised concerns regarding vehicle congestion and the efficient operation of the intersection at 25th Avenue which are not yet resolved.
- The applicant’s engineering reports note deficiencies in the local water network.
- A capacity assessment of council social and community facilities, such as sporting fields, parks and community centres has not been requested. The applicant is relying on proximity to facilities.
*OO(2)(c)(i) urban neighbourhoods that vary from pockets of detached housing on smaller lots to medium or higher intensity places containing medium rise buildings. This is not a medium rise building. By City Plan Definition, it is a high-rise building.
Conclusion: Granting Centre Zone density on land zoned for medium density conflicts with the Medium Density Residential Zone Code purpose and Overall Outcomes. Approval of developments with worsening density ratios has created an undesirable development pattern, which now sees residents facing living densities in excess of those planned for Surfers Paradise in medium density, non-centre zoned sites.
Planning officers must demonstrate there is sufficient capacity in all facets of local government infrastructure before approving density above that shown on the residential density overlay. Approving excessive density without properly assessing infrastructure capacity can result in infrastructure upgrades being required in an unplanned, disorderly and uneconomic sequence, at the expense of all ratepayers. The applicant has not demonstrated that infrastructure is sufficient to meet service standards.