Cumulative Effect Creating an High-Rise Cluster
Summary: The cumulative effect of applications currently undergoing assessment must be considered. A number of applications are currently being assessed for individual lots across the block spanning Twenty Third - Twenty Fifth Avenue and east to The Esplanade. Assessed piecemeal, we risk waking up with a whole city block of 43.5 m towers – a scenario not envisioned in the medium density medium rise zone.
6.2.2.2(2)(b)(v) of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code, requires housing to be of a form, scale and intensity appropriate to its locality. This includes consideration of accumulated impacts creating undesirable local development patterns, undermining intended building form and height patterns. The following applications are currently under consideration by council:
- OTH/2025/23 - 440-442 The Esplanade Palm Beach
- MCU/2024/387 - 436–438 The Esplanade/1395 Gold Coast Highway Palm Beach
- Additionally, lots at 444–448 The Esplanade have been amalgamated with a developer reportedly planning a further high-rise.
The City Plan’s High-Rise Accommodation Design Code, which applies to buildings exceeding 32 m in height, recommends tower separation distances of 25 metres. Both it, and the Strategic Framework at 3.8.3.1(1) and 3.3.2.1(9)(b) require developments to respect local character, provide adequate separation between tall buildings, and maintain visual permeability to the sky and coast .
Precedent Effect: Once one 50% uplift is approved, it becomes significantly harder to refuse the next on planning grounds, because developers cite the first approval as indicative of a new character. Undesirable development patterns emerge. To maintain the intended character, excessive relaxations should be refused. Otherwise, exception after exception becomes the rule. In Palm Beach, the “limited circumstances” for height uplift are already being stretched by recent approvals; granting another will cement a precedent for others to follow.
Conclusion: Council must consider the cumulative effect of multiple high-rises in this one small area, which is neither centre-zoned, nor a key transit intersection. Approving this application would not only cause its own impacts but create a cascade of similar developments, collectively destroying the area’s character and amenity. This outcome squarely conflicts with City Plan objectives for local identity and coastal skyline management. The proposal should be refused to prevent an unintended high-rise cluster from forming outside the centre zone.