Referring to: 776 Pacific Parade OTH/2025/12
Here’s what you should do before Thursday 10 April:
- Write your objection to OTH/2025/12. You are welcome to use our Objection template (Word version can be downloaded here) or PDF version as a guide to help you or use it as a template by simply adding your details. Its a word file so you can easily add your details or change as necessary.
- Next, download at least these 3 documents to support the claims in your objection (there’s more evidence linked below that you may like to add)
- Kings Counsel Advice that the amended plans constitute at least a 4-5 storey building;
- Butler Partners Report 7 April 2025
- Reel Planning Report April 2025
- Write an email: Subject: Objection to DA OTH/2025/12 for 776 Pacific Parade
- Send the email with your chosen attachments to Adam Brown, Scott Arnott and Mark Hammel (details below):
- Adam Brown Coordinator Planning Assessment (South)
- AKBROWN@goldcoast.QLD.gov.au
- City Development, City of Gold Coast
- T: 0481 461 065 F: 07 5582 8248
- PO Box 5042 Gold Coast Mail Centre Qld 9729
- cityofgoldcoast.com.au
- CC: Scott Arnott Planner GCCC, sarnott@goldcoast.qld.gov.au
- CC: Mark Hammel Chair Planning & Regulation Committee, division1@goldcoast.qld.gov.au
- GCCC Ph: 55816754
5. Check in with our Facebook page – Save Currumbin for updates and news
Other evidence you can use…
- Kings Counsel Advice that the amended plans constitute at least a 4-5 storey building;
- Butler Partners Report 7 April 2025
- Public Meeting 3 April 2025 Minutes
- Reel Planning Report April 2025
- Report on Other Change Application by Friends of Currumbin
- Submission on behalf of Resident, Caroline Janssen 65 Woodgee Street by Corporate First Lawyers to both Gail O’Neill Councillor Div. 14 and Adam Brown GCCC dated 27 March Council
- Email Submission on behalf of Save Currumbin by Corporate First Lawyers to both Gail O’Neill Councillor Div. 14 and Adam Brown GCCC dated 28 March Council
- Presentation by Save Currumbin to public meeting 3 April 2025
- Letter of Objection by Corporate First Lawyers for Save Currumbin dated 9 February 2023 (regarding MCU/2022/588 – even more relevant to the bigger development proposed by OTH2025/12)
- Report by Public Amenity Expert Nick McGowan Insight Design and Assessment Services 2019 as to the imperative to keep built forms off Currumbin Escarpment and low (12m) along Pacific Parade.
- Ecological Impact Assessment of Currumbin Escarpment by Victoria Baker 2019 relevant to this amended development application.
- Topography Map of the escarpment relative to the proposed development.
- Expert Report by Greg Ovenden MD of Reel Planning as to the reasons Council ought to have placed conditions on 776 to amalgamate 220 sqm of the rear of 778 (escarpment) into 776 by ROL 13 May 2024
- “The application material prepared by Michel Group Services is vague, however in multiple responses to applicable code responses, it reinforces their strong representations to Council that no building works are proposed and therefore no further investigations into the potential impacts of development, facilitated by the proposed reconfiguration, is required. As adjoining owners to the rear, there is a high level of concern on the part of our clients with respect to the vagueness of the application material and the intended use of the land, following its reconfiguration.” Council ignored these concerns and allowed the ROL without the requested condition of no building in accordance with the developers representation he wasn’t go to build. The developer as can be seen from OTH/2025/12 has reneged on his representations that he won’t build on that land.
- “The application material prepared by Michel Group Services is vague, however in multiple responses to applicable code responses, it reinforces their strong representations to Council that no building works are proposed and therefore no further investigations into the potential impacts of development, facilitated by the proposed reconfiguration, is required. As adjoining owners to the rear, there is a high level of concern on the part of our clients with respect to the vagueness of the application material and the intended use of the land, following its reconfiguration.” Council ignored these concerns and allowed the ROL without the requested condition of no building in accordance with the developers representation he wasn’t go to build. The developer as can be seen from OTH/2025/12 has reneged on his representations that he won’t build on that land.
- Report by Town Planner Jake Storey dated 2 February 2024 regarding MCU/2022/588 many points being apposite to the expansion of that into the bigger project OTH/2025/12.
- Note relevantly where the expert points to an anomaly as to the way Council treated John Fuglsang Developments 776 Application differently to Mr Keough’s DA two doors down at 780 Pacific Parade:
“there appears to be a significant inconsistency between Councils assessment of 780 Pacific Parade and the subject proposal at 776 Pacific Parade where the height relationship to the ridgeline behind appears to have escaped scrutiny. Councils’ further information request has not addressed the critical aspects of the development, and for those somewhat less critical issues raised by Council the applicant has again responded inadequately…. Council refused Material Change of Use Application MCU201701607 for a multiple dwelling at 780 Pacific Parade, Currumbin which achieved a maximum height of RL22.9m AHD (relative height of 18.3 metres above ground level of RL4.6m AHD at Pacific Parade) on the basis that “the development’s built form, height, density and other impacts associated with the proposed mixed use development would detract from the sense of place, natural hillscape and scenic and amenity values intended for the locality” (our emphasis).
Ultimately, an approval was negotiated through appeal for a building with, as far as we understand, an ultimate height of RL21.2m AHD which sits predominantly at or below the height of the vegetated ridge behind (Fig.1):
- Note relevantly where the expert points to an anomaly as to the way Council treated John Fuglsang Developments 776 Application differently to Mr Keough’s DA two doors down at 780 Pacific Parade:
Fig. 1 – 780 Pacific Parade – Height relationship with vegetated hillside/ridge
By comparison, the 776 Pacific Parade proposal achieves a height of RL26.269m AHD (approximation as the applicant still fails to provide heights for all elements of the building) which appears to be 21.529m above the ground level of RL4.69m at the Pacific Parade frontage (Fig. 2) – and 5 metres taller than the approved 780 Pacific Parade development. This results in a built form some 8.5 metres to 14.6m or more above the height of the vegetated ridge behind (approx. RL17.7m AHD maximum to RL11.6m AHD minimum).
Fig. 2 – 776 Pacific Parade – Height relationship with vegetated hillside/ridg
The proposal clearly compromises the natural hillscape and scenic and amenity values of Currumbin Hill, noting that Council previously considered this to be the case at 780 Pacific Parade which initially projected less than 2 metres above the height of the ridge behind, but which Council found to be unreasonably obscuring any vegetation that exists (or that could be proposed) within the rear setback zone to warrant refusal. The proposal at 776 Pacific Parade is some 5 metres taller than the final approved building at 780 Pacific Parade, and projects a minimum of 8.5 metres above the vegetated ridge behind being significantly more impacting than the refused development at 780 Pacific Parade.
Irrespective of whether the building is considered by Council to be three (3) storeys, the overall height of the building in context with the topography and landscape in this instance is entirely inconsistent with Councils previous considerations and the requirements of City Plan, in particular the Ridges and Significant Hills Overlay which seek to ensure that ‘building designs preserve the existing natural landform and complement the vegetated hillscape character’.”