Controversial Gold Coast retirement village tower rejected by councillors despite $50,000 flood proof plan
Developers of a controversial retirement village tower project say they spent more than $50,000 planning for a one-in-2000-year flood event, only to be rejected by councillors.
Gold Coast
Don't miss out on the headlines from Gold Coast. Followed categories will be added to My News.
DEVELOPERS of a controversial retirement village tower project say they spent more than $50,000 planning for a one-in-2000-year flood event, only to be rejected by councillors.
Noble Ventures, headed by brothers Daniel and Roger Noble, have appealed the decision in the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland.
Daniel Noble said he had tried to negotiate with councillors to avoid a costly appeal.
The tower was planned for Lot 120 on Lake Orr Drive in Robina, which according to council flood-mapping is in the sixth-highest depth category.
‘THERE’S HARDLY A DEVELOPMENT WHICH CAN PROCEED UNDER NEW FLOOD RESTRICTIONS’
It’s also located just six kilometres from the noted Guragunbah flood plain.
Council officers recommended approval of the tower opposite Lake Orr, arguing the risks to residents had been mitigated despite concerns raised about the flood impact.
A majority of councillors ultimately rejected the project, with Robina-based councillor Hermann Vorster citing “intolerable risks” to the community.
Deputy Mayor Donna Gates and Councillor Peter Young supported the officers’ recommendations to approve the project.
During a full council meeting, Cr Vorster raised concerns about the need for residents to shelter in place, for a rooftop helipad and the possibility of an added strain being placed on emergency resources.
“The reality is the same report that argued for approval also stated for this to be approved the building would need to provide three days’ worth of food for all residents to shelter in place,” he said.
Mr Noble claims Noble Ventures spent upwards of $50,000 preparing for an “absurd” flood risk, presenting council with modelling for one-in-100, one-in-500, one-in-1000 and one-in-2000 year possibilities.
PROPERTY INDUSTRY FURIOUS OVER SURPRISE COUNCIL DECISION
He said it was 10 times the amount of flood modelling done on any of their other projects.
“I understand the Q20, Q50 and Q100, but when you go into Q200, Q1000 and Q2000 space, it’s like ‘what for?’,” he said.
“We actually ended up showing designs for how the piers and footings … wouldn’t end up having an impact on the water flow in a flood. I can’t think of any other building that has that. If you look at all the applications north and south of our site, I guarantee they don’t have Q2000, Q1000, Q500, Q200, Q100 modellings done.”
The 17-storey tower, to be known as Noble Life, would overlook Bond University’s Robina campus from Bermuda Street.
The 6647sq m site at the edge of Lake Orr was designed to have 121 units and 242 bedrooms, with no nursing home facilities or medical staff in the building.
Mr Noble has argued “shelter in place” was the recommended safety plan, citing the successful 2012 appeal of a Carrara tower on the same flood plain.
The Planning and Environment Court appeal quoted the Queensland evacuation guidelines for disaster management groups.
“The best option when evacuation is not necessary is sheltering in a safe and secure structure at home or with family and friends,” court documents read.
“Whilst acknowledging these concerns (about flooding), (one witness) was supportive of the subject proposal, because of the lengths to which the appellants have gone.
MORE NEWS
Gold Coast development giant Sunland Group set to make changes to its Brisbane structure
Gold Coast man accused of distributing child abuse material arrested after USA tip-off
“(These lengths) ensure that, when the access road becomes untrafficable by ordinary cars, the site acts not as an isolated island at risk from extreme flood (...) but rather as a true ‘safe haven’.”
At the full council meeting, Division 5 councillor Peter Young said he “cannot support” council’s reasons for refusal.
“I don’t think they’re defensible on the grounds of consistency or legal defensibility.
“If we look at the reasons for refusal before us, these theoretically would restrict or prevent any development on the site, which is clearly identified as being suitable for development.
“The only distinct reason for refusal here are those conditions that refer to potentially vulnerable people.
“In every other respect, any development on the site would have to be refused given these conditions of refusal.”
Council’s official reasons for rejecting Noble Ventures project at Robina:
• The development created an “intolerable risk” to potentially vulnerable residents, to emergency workers and to vehicles.
• The development didn’t meet the standard for flood access.
• The development increased the potential for property damage.
• The development, as a mixed-use centre, should be limited to two storeys and not the 17 storeys proposed.
• The development has no public connection to Varsity Central or Bond University.
• The development placed an additional burden on council resources and emergency services.
In its appeal, Noble Ventures argues:
• The development won’t compromise the performance of the waterway or impact nearby properties.
• “Comprehensive” flood modelling shows there is no impact on water height or velocity because of the development.
On whether the development is limited to two storeys instead of the proposed 17, Noble Ventures argues:
• The majority of the land is labelled with a maximum height of 54 metres on the City Plan, with only a small part of land not identified on the plan.
• The proposed height of 54 metres achieves the desired height for the precinct as written in the City Plan.
• It has an “excellent standard of appearance” which “contributes and reinforces” the character of the area, including landscaping, parklands and architecture.
On whether the development puts extra strain on emergency services, Noble Ventures argues in its appeal:
• The development has room for extra food, medical supplies and power supply equipment on site.
• The Flood Emergency Management Plan identifies all risks and proposes strategies to mitigate them.
• “Shelter in place” plans are in place, as well as a helipad to enable evacuation during a range of flood emergency situations.
Noble Ventures concludes in its appeal:
• The site has no link to Bond University or Varsity Central, but supports several transport links.
• Strong level of community and economic need for the proposed development. “It will improve the range and choice of retirement housing options in Robina and other nearby localities.”
Originally published as Controversial Gold Coast retirement village tower rejected by councillors despite $50,000 flood proof plan