Wayne Purcell for Better Planning Gold Coast

There’s been a lot of noise recently about air taxis on the Gold Coast, especially the headline‑grabber -

“𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐞 𝐀𝐢𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐔𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐁𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤”

It sounds fantastic (for those affording Uber Blacks), but the reality is far less straightforward.

Getting an air taxi into Brisbane Airport means crossing the busiest controlled airspace in Qld. Slotting slow‑climbing eVTOL aircraft into parallel runway operations is, in my view, highly unlikely. The more realistic scenario is landing outside the airport precinct and finishing the journey by road.

As for the “$900 total” price tag, I don’t think that’s where it will land once real operating costs are factored in.

But none of this means air taxis don’t have potential.

In fact, you may have seen Cr Glenn Tozer raise the idea of 𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐒𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐤.

It's not a bad one!

Springbrook is exactly the kind of route where air taxis can work - short distance, no controlled airspace, high tourism value, over difficult to construct terrain. When you compare the two options, the differences are striking.

𝐀𝐢𝐫 𝐓𝐚𝐱𝐢 (𝐞𝐕𝐓𝐎𝐋)

● Very low environmental impact — no towers, no clearing, no national park footprint
● Can take off from Surfers, Broadbeach or Southport
● Small capital cost (around $𝟏𝟎-$𝟐𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 for vertiports)
● Low political and environmental risk
● Ticket price around $𝟏𝟓𝟎-$𝟑𝟎𝟎 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧
● Door‑to‑door time around 𝟐𝟎-𝟑𝟎𝐦𝐢𝐧

𝐂𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐲

● High environmental impact - towers, clearing, permanent structures
● Base station would be far inland (Mudgeeraba), requiring ground transport first
● Large capital cost ($𝟒𝟎𝟎-$𝟔𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧+)
● High political and approval risk
● Ticket price around $𝟏𝟎𝟎-𝟏𝟓𝟎 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧, but with an added $𝟏𝟎-$𝟓𝟎 to get to the base
● Door‑to‑door time 𝟒𝟓-𝟕𝟓𝐦𝐢𝐧

Air taxis deliver most of the tourism benefit of a cableway at a fraction of the cost, with almost none of the environmental or political risk.

Of course, air taxis aren't actually operating in the world at the moment so there's still a long way to go. But, a cableway's a long way off as well (it's not getting built before the 2032 Olympics).

If Council is serious about “de‑risking” options for hinterland access and bringing air taxis to the GC, then this is an idea worth serious consideration.

It also potentially enables access to, not just Springbrook, but Binna Burra and O'Reilly's as well

There’s been a lot of conjecture about whether the Miami Arts Depot (MAD) is really a creative industries precinct, or more a major residential development wrapped in creative‑industry branding.

There’s also been some back‑and‑forth about how tall the buildings would need to be.

Now that the EOI documents have been released, we can get a clearer picture.

Based on the information contained in the EOI documents released by Council to tender participants, the 4‑hectare site is proposed to accommodate:

● 6,000 m² of “MADSCAPE” creative industries space
● 3,500 m² of retail
● A public plaza (size not specified)
● 𝟖𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎𝐦𝟐 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥, accommodating approx 780 dwellings

That’s over 13 times more residential than creative‑industry space.

𝐒𝐨 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝟖𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐦² 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤?

The EOI diagrams show a 3,250 m² ground‑floor footprint for the mixed‑use buildings (retail at ground level, residential above).

In real‑world built form, residential towers typically sit at 70–85% of the podium footprint once you account for setbacks, articulation and tower separation.
Using those standard planning assumptions, the residential floorplates would be in the range of 2,300–2,600 m².

When you divide 80,000 m² of residential GFA across those floorplates, you end up with buildings in the order of 𝟐𝟖–𝟑𝟒 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐲𝐬, plus podium levels.

Yet the diagrams released publicly show buildings of around 12 storeys. So either:

● the diagrams are purely illustrative,
● or the yield assumptions in the EOI don’t match the built form shown,
● or something in the numbers needs clarification.

And for those interested in the 𝐁𝐮𝐫𝐥𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐁𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐆𝐲𝐦𝐧𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬:

The EOI confirms that both facilities are proposed to be demolished as part of the redevelopment.

New artists impressions have dropped on what a 𝐌𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐢 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐭 (MAD) could look like.

There one pretty important question, though, that hasn't been answered along the way - 𝐖𝐡𝐲?

MAD (on the site of the Council depot) is supposed to become a mixed-use creative industries precinct that strengthens the Gold Coast’s cultural and economic landscape while delivering new residential, retail, and commercial spaces.

It sounds very familiar, though!

Back in 2015, Council launched their new Masterplan for the Gold Coast Cultural Precinct (now known as HOTA). It was to become a -

● "Cultural Centre of Gravity": clustering arts, culture and creative industries
● An economic driver: complemented by entertainment, retail and hospitality to attract investment

It was even embedded into the City Plan -

● "The Gold Coast Cultural Precinct is the focal point of the city’s cultural and creative activities"
● "Bundall and Gold Coast Cultural Precinct ... fosters creativity and innovation in art, design, lifestyle and performance industries"

Council also has quite a few office buildings across the road that could be repurposed for creative industries employment.

After all, the City Plan also says Council was to establish Southport as the Gold Coast's CBD and there's been long-term plans for Council to move there.

There's also plenty of privately-owned land and buildings in the Bundall area that could provide important studio space.

This is what does my head in - government and the community spending countless hours putting together masterplans, schemes, agreements etc only for it to be ignored.

Can anyone explain why we're going with MAD (and the subsequent flow-on effects with depot relocations) all of a sudden when we already have BAD?

The Mayor is calling on the State to build a wildlife overpass over the GC Hwy at Burleigh.

OK, but the data shows there are many other places on the Gold Coast where koala vehicle strikes happen more often.

According to Council’s own 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲‑𝗩𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗠𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺 (𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟮), the Gold Coast Highway at Burleigh is 𝟭𝟰𝘁𝗵 on the hotspot list.

There are 𝟳 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱𝘀 and 𝟲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱𝘀 with higher koala strike numbers.

If we’re serious about reducing koala deaths, the logical starting point is the 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗲𝘀𝘁‑𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, not the mid‑ranked ones.

Does this mean the Mayor will commit to fully fund the $𝟭𝟯𝗠 𝗠𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺 in this year’s budget, and advocating for measures on the higher‑ranking State‑controlled roads, including 𝗕𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗮𝗵, one of the city’s most significant hotspots?

After all, this program was paid for out of the 𝗞𝗼𝗮𝗹𝗮 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗟𝗲𝘃𝘆. It should lead to on‑the‑ground action, not sit on a shelf.

Koalas need evidence‑based action, not politics.

For people already worried about losing Carey Park, the latest whispers should have everyone paying attention.

According to the Gold Coast Bulletin, Council is now considering the sell‑off* of public land in Southport and Surfers Paradise to plug the Arena funding shortfall. The sites being floated as “surplus” are almost certainly -

- Mal Burke Car Park (Southport)
- Athol Paterson Car Park (Southport)
- Cypress Avenue or Bruce Bishop Car Park (Surfers Paradise)

Some will say, “It’s just a car park.”

But that’s not the full story.

These sites were never meant to be disposable

Under Council’s Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP), millions of dollars were allocated to turn Mal Burke and Athol Paterson into 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗸𝘀 - public spaces that keeps density humane, attractive, and economically productive. Athol Paterson has also been the long‑flagged site for a future 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴

These are not leftover scraps of land. They are strategic assets in the heart of the city. Public investment in these areas would drive private investment around them.

Here’s what most people probably missed -

Both planned civic parks 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗟𝗚𝗜𝗣 𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, a consultation that quietly went through last month. The changes are buried in spreadsheets, but the effect is clear -

- the civic parks are gone
- the LGIP no longer protects these sites
- their removal makes them far easier to sell

This is planning being reshaped to fit a financial problem.

The bigger mistake - treating the financial bottom line as the only line.

Selling strategic public land to avoid a rate rise today creates much larger long‑term costs, the loss of -

- future civic parks
- future public buildings
- the very assets needed to support high‑density living

The contradiction is staggering

The Arena is being promoted as a catalyst for Southport’s revitalisation. Yet the trade‑offs being floated would strip Southport of the very assets that make revitalisation possible.

This isn’t “robbing Peter to pay Paul”.

It’s robbing Peter to rob Peter again!

In the rush to claim “no cost to ratepayers”, meaning no rate rise and no new debt, we may end up with ratepayers paying the biggest price



* it may just be a "lease" according to the Mayor

As we head into budget season, we’re already hearing the Mayor claim he’s kept rate increases "below CPI". If only that was the case!

𝗔 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗖𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸 - 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟵 𝘃𝘀 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱

I took a look at my own rates notice - a pretty average house, almost bang on the median value for the GC. Over the last 6yrs -

- Total Bill Increase: 34%
- Brisbane CPI Increase: 29.7%

That’s already well above CPI. But it gets worse. If you strip out State Government charges, the Council-controlled portion of the bill has actually jumped 36.6%.

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗼 𝗶𝘁?

While the headline grabber and what the Mayor likes to point to is the "General Rate" (which has only gone up by 24.4% unless you've been hit with the "view tax"), other "Service Charges" get added and increased:

- City Transport fees are up 79%
- Waste Management fees are up 55%
- New charges for recycling and disaster response since 2019

In total, these other charges have gone up 62.3%

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲-𝟮𝟳?

Don't hold your breath for a "low" increase. Council’s own forward estimates show they already factored in a $114 million revenue jump for next year.

Even after you account for new houses being built, it leaves the rest of us facing an estimated 5.1% "real" increase.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 $𝟭.𝟳 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗹𝗲

Why the squeeze? Council has a spending problem. Over the last 6 years, spending has increased by 54.8%. To keep up, they're planning to increase debt by $1.7 Billion over the next decade.

The interest alone on that debt is forecast to triple in that time, reaching $122 million a year by 2035. That’s $122M of your rates going to bank interest instead of fixing roads or parks.

Council is in a pickle. The "Below CPI" line is designed to suggest everything is hunky dory.

It doesn't match reality, though, either in terms of what we're being told to pay or Council's level of fiscal responsibility.

Most people have probably seen the image of the proposed 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗧𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 in Surfers Paradise.

Many have pointed out the site in question, 3 Trickett, St is not on the beach — The Esplanade sits between it and the sand. It's fair then to think the beach club and beachfront imagery it just marketing spin.

But, maybe it's not.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝘀𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 (𝟮𝗥𝗣𝟭𝟬𝟰𝟵𝟬𝟮)

It isn’t a road reserve. Council owns the land outright. It was purchased in 1968 after the houses that once stood there fell into the ocean during the 1967 erosion events. The A‑line seawall now runs through the middle of the block. On the landward side, the zoning allows development.

𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝗮𝗱𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴

• According to Saturday’s Gold Coast Bulletin, discussions about bringing a Trump Tower to the Coast began around July last year.

• In August, Council commenced a “trial” closure of The Esplanade to traffic. That trial continues, with a decision on making it permanent due in April.

• While the trial area doesn’t include the frontage of the proposed Trump Tower site, a permanently closed Esplanade would inevitably strengthen any future argument to close additional sections.

These two issues may be completely unrelated. But even if they aren't, 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻:

Has there been any internal thinking about incorporating 2RP104902 into a future development outcome for 3 Trickett St?

Why was the Mayor present at the signing of the “deal”?

Was it simply a PR moment, or does it signal a deeper level of involvement?

Before we go too far down this rabbit hole, it would be helpful for Council to clarify these points.

Because freehold or not, zoning or not, after almost 60 years as a public thoroughfare, most people would reasonably expect this land to remain public space.

Council is currently asking the community to comment on a proposal to relocate the Miami Council Depot to 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐌𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐲 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐤. This would convert pretty much the entire park from public open space into a site used solely for Council operations — including vehicle and materials storage, a wash‑down bay, and office space.

It’s a big change.

Frank Murray Park is zoned 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐒𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐞. Under the City Plan, uses in this zone must "𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝". This proposal would eliminate recreation entirely. The park would become a 100% operational depot.

While it’s unclear what land‑use definition this proposal falls under, the closest fit appears to be a 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐭. Under the planning scheme, that type of use is generally expected to be located on 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 — not in a neighbourhood park.

And then there’s the location.

Frank Murray Park directly adjoins 𝐀𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐞 𝐊𝐢𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝐌𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐧. The planning scheme is designed to keep activities like transport depots at least𝟓𝟎 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 such as childcare centres because of noise, odour and operational impacts. Yet here, Council is proposing to put one right next door.

If a private company proposed this, it’s hard to imagine Council approving it.

𝐒𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠?

It appears that when Council decided to convert the existing Miami Depot site into a 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐮𝐛, they had not yet worked out where the existing users would go. This includes 𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐆𝐲𝐦𝐧𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐂𝐥𝐮𝐛, 𝐁𝐮𝐫𝐥𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐌𝐞𝐧’𝐬 𝐒𝐡𝐞𝐝, and potentially 𝐁𝐮𝐫𝐥𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐁𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬. Council’s own FAQ confirms they still don’t have answers.

It’s a mix‑up — and handing over Frank Murray Park to become a depot is not an appropriate solution.

𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐤 for Council to dip into when other decisions create pressure.

𝐀 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. It is an operational, industrial‑intensity use. If Council wants to place a depot on land that is not zoned for that purpose, the burden of justification is extremely high.

It’s fair for the community to ask:

• why the creative industries hub planning didn’t include a clear plan (and costings) for relocating existing tenants
• why a park is being treated as an acceptable location for a depot
• what protections exist to ensure other parks and open spaces aren’t similarly repurposed

If you live in Miami, Mermaid Waters, Burleigh, or use Frank Murray Park, this is the moment to read the proposal and make a submission.



Credit: park image from Google (credit MS (Nagmum)), depot image from Moreton Bay Regional Council

When the Mayor recently announced he was going to run again in 2028 on a platform based around delivering Stage 4 of Light Rail (GCLR4), I sighed. It's depressing and frustrating for many reasons. I don't understand what the Mayor is thinking because he knows -

𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠: GCLR4 isn’t a council‑led project. The State and Federal Governments control 89% of the funding, approvals, and delivery

𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬: There's no way construction of GCLR4 will start over the next term of office. There is a massive log of projects in the lead-up to 2032. All projects need to be finished by then lest we look a mess for the Olympics

𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧’𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐦𝐬: Gold Coast council elections are typically contests between a well‑known incumbent and lesser‑known challengers — not single‑issue referendums on multi‑billion‑dollar infrastructure. If the Mayor wins, it wouldn't be a proxy for wanting GCLR4

The Mayor, and an election, focusing on GCLR4 means -

𝐎𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬: It pushes aside the issues council does control - neighbourhood planning, development, broader transport issues, parks, playgrounds, waste management, libraries etc

𝐋𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲: It's one of my biggest bugbears. Blurring the lines creates confusion and unrealistic expectations. A healthier civic conversation starts with acknowledging what council can deliver — and what it can’t

𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐞: We've been hearing about GCLR4 for years. The ongoing debate now generates more frustration than clarity. The community doesn't need another campaigning on this as part of an election, particularly when it won't bring GCLR4 to fruition

𝐀 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐬: Ideas are great (I have them myself!). But, they're only good if they're grounded in reality and delivery occurs. How many have we had over the years filling up the news cycle?

The election is still 2yrs away. Let's hope we see other pressing issues raised and debated in the lead-up.



Image credit: Gold Coast Bulletin

News in today's Bulletin has outlined how a 1.7ha site in the Gold Coast Health & Knowledge Precinct will become 𝟏𝟎𝟎 "𝐥𝐮𝐱𝐮𝐫𝐲" 𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬

For those wanting to see housing delivered, it sounds good. But, I want to rewind 3yrs to highlight how disappointing this is -

• 𝐉𝐮𝐧𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟑: The Member for Bonney, then in Opposition, called for this state‑owned land to be used for student housing, health‑worker housing, or both (https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/housing-crisis-fix-develop-vacant-government-land-on-prime-gold-coast-site/news-story/52ccd7f3558d90050d7daa2ce5e83a0a)

• 𝐎𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟑: The previous State government sought proposals for build‑to‑rent and student accommodation

• 𝐅𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒: EDQ entered into commercial negotiations with a Preferred Proponent to purchase the site, however, the deal fell through

• 𝐀𝐮𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒: The previous State Government announced 878 new homes for frontline health workers and students — a public‑led project with a deliberate mix of studios to three‑bedroom units (https://www.facebook.com/share/1EXMjLfuqi/)

• 𝐌𝐚𝐲 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓: The new State Government put the land back on the market. The sales campaign promoted it as a rare private development opportunity, with no requirement to deliver frontline‑worker or student housing (https://www.raywhitespecialprojects.com/properties/sold-commercial/qld/southport-4215/land-development/2961524)

• 𝐉𝐮𝐧𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓: I wrote to the new Housing Minister seeking clarity on why the 878‑unit commitment had disappeared, raising concerns about land‑banking and the loss of well‑located housing supply

• 𝐉𝐮𝐥𝐲 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓: The Deputy Premier replied and confirmed EDQ was selling the land. Specific housing outcomes weren't mentioned

• 𝐎𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓: The land was sold

• 𝐅𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓: It's announced a private developer will deliver 100 "luxury" townhouses, presumably when it makes the most financial sense to do so (https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/developer-azura-snaps-up-last-major-site-in-gold-coast-health-precinct/news-story/d8c0c0d72b330d874369fad5cf0e16f7)

At a time when we’re told the Gold Coast must find room for 1 million people, deliver more homes in well‑located places, build near transport, and support essential‑worker housing, replacing 878 frontline‑worker/student homes with 100 luxury townhouses doesn't match

The land is sold and the opportunity is lost. For what, about $10million?

The 2023 GCB article also highlighted how the GC had been short-changed on public spending on housing by $360 million. That's around about how much it would have cost to deliver the 878 unit development.

In my opinion, the Member for Bonney had the right idea back in 2023 - public land, public need, public outcomes, especially in a precinct as strategically important as this one.

It's a shame it hasn't been realised in Government.