https://www.facebook.com/103864547897132/

Wayne Purcell for Better Planning Gold Coast

Home
Australia
Gold Coast, QLD
Wayne Purcell for Better Planning Gold Coast

This page is dedicated to raising and discussing planning and other issues of relevance to the GC I have been a Gold Coaster since 2005.
(1)

I have worked in environmental management and tourism. My work has ensured infrastructure and development projects take into consideration local environmental and social issues. Recently, I have been looking after my two young children while completing my Masters in Development Practice. I enjoy the outdoor lifestyle of the Gold Coast; cycling with the kids, kayaking our waterways and hiking our N

ational Parks. I believe government exists to serve and provide for its residents. People should be able to live, work and play locally for a great lifestyle. My aim is for page visitors to engage with the issues and, in doing so, potentially bring about some positive change to the Gold Coast. I look forward to hearing from you.

15/04/2026

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.

24/03/2026

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

16/03/2026

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.

01/03/2026

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.

24/02/2026

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

15/02/2026

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

13/02/2026

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.

11/11/2025

Much has been said about the closure of the Esplanade. And honestly, both sides have a point -

- More space for people is great
- But it’s caused traffic headaches
________________________________________
𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐒𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐞

Surfers Paradise has one of the highest population densities in Australia — especially when you factor in hotel guests and AirBnB visitors. It’s comparable to Sydney or Melbourne CBDs.

Yet, beyond the beach, there’s barely any open space for people to gather, relax, or connect.
________________________________________
𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜’𝐬 𝐚 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬

Surfers is hemmed in — you can only enter from the north or south via the GC Highway, or try your luck through Chevron Island. In central Surfers, the Esplanade was one of just three southbound routes.

Closing it forces traffic to merge with Remembrance Dr and Thomas Dr traffic. It’s a pinch point. And we all know how well that works.

Light Rail only brings in so many people, and there are just three bus routes through Surfers — two of which shadow the tram and run infrequently.
________________________________________
𝐈𝐬 𝐈𝐭 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐈𝐭?

Surfers needs more open space. And yes, Council’s Esplanade closure tries to deliver that.

But it’s come at the cost of connectivity.

If Surfers wants to attract locals — not just tourists — it needs better transport links and more places for people to enjoy once they arrive.
________________________________________
𝐀 𝐁𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐈𝐝𝐞𝐚?

Three years ago, I suggested Council buy the Forum Arcade and turn it into a town square. It’s 5,200m² — slightly larger than the Esplanade section that’s now closed.

It’s central, linking Surfers Paradise Blvd and Orchid Ave. The cost would be similar (or less) than yet another Cavill Ave revamp. Council have shown in recent time they're more than capable of buying up property

Crucially, it adds open space without removing traffic routes.

The Gold Coast Bulletin picked up the idea at the time. I don’t believe the Forum Arcade has changed hands — so maybe it’s still worth pursuing.
________________________________________
𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐚 𝐑𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤

I hope the QLD Government’s review (after shelving GCLR4) looks at this holistically.

Surfers needs better public transport links with its western neighbours — Bundall, Benowa, Ashmore, Broadbeach Waters, and southern Southport. That means buses and green bridges, not just trams.
________________________________________
𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭

Does the Esplanade need to be closed off to create better public spaces?

I don’t think so.

It’s already pedestrian-friendly — a 30km/h speed limit with wide footpaths accommodating pedestrians and bike riders (except when the markets are on!). Most of Council’s temporary upgrades have been off the road, not on!

In my view, money would be better spent creating new open spaces — like a town square

13/09/2025

There's been quite the assortment of reactions to the decision to not proceed with Stage 4 of Light Rail.

"Short-sighted" "neglected" "dumb" are some of the words being used. Another one is "political".

Proponents seemingly have a deeply-held view that light rail is the only way to deliver better public transport. Thus, the only way the decision to not proceed is that it's a political one.

In doing so, it suggests, along with the other words being used, the decision is wrong.

However, it's worthwhile checking out what the State Development Department concluded as part of their review (link to their report in the comments). 3 main themes are present -

𝐁𝐈𝐀𝐒

Council has held an intrinsic bias towards light rail. TMR, in preparing the Preliminary Evaluation, continued this bias, affecting their consideration of alternatives. This then flowed through to community consultation, resulting in only light rail being presented to residents.

Other options have not been adequately considered. That is definitely something for proponents to reflect on.

𝐃𝐄𝐋𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘

The review noted Stage 4 is the longest and most complex stage with approvals and regulatory processes potentially impacting timeframes. The Preliminary Evaluation, however, was based on construction starting in Jun 2026 and taking only 4.5 years.

The review considers this "optimistic".

Also highlighted is -

- the demand for skilled workers in construction and engineering is outpacing supply, creating bottlenecks in project delivery

- the priority to deliver other infrastructure in the lead-up to Brisbane 2032

The review concludes delivery of another significant public transport construction project is not deliverable in the short-term.

(It's also something Council has identified as this was cited as a reason for not proceeding with a new office building in Southport)

𝐂𝐎𝐒𝐓

The cost of Stage 3 has doubled since the Business Case was prepared for it ($750 million v $1.55 billion currently). Cost over-runs has become the norm, with no projects in TMR's Infrastructure Program under budget ($6.7 billion over).

It's been suggested the $9.85 billion figure was plucked from thin air and is "gold-plated". It's actually an extrapolation of the figure provided by the Preliminary Evaluation and the previous State Government by considering a more realistic timeframe of construction commencement and duration, and the resultant cost increases.

My question for those who still want light rail is - at what cost would you change your mind (noting the previous 3 stages have only cost $2.1 billion)?

I might be being naive, but taking all that into consideration, the decision not to proceed seems fiscally responsible and a reflection of where things are currently at.

The response from Council, Councillors, the State Opposition and business "leaders", however, maybe that's "political" (or, maybe even "rabid"?)!

23/08/2025

Good morning northern Gold Coasters!

What a great day to head down to the beach (in comparison to many others recently at least!). But, for anyone considering taking Cr Hammel's advice^ of using LR to get there, there's a few reasons why that's not the best idea -

𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐄𝐃

Despite the voiceover on the train telling people to switch to LR at Helensvale, it's actually 21min quicker to get off at Nerang and catch the #745 bus to Broadbeach. For Surfers, it's also quicker (catching the #740). The further south you go, the more sense it makes to take the train and then a connecting bus

𝐓𝐈𝐌𝐄

Only 5% of people that get on LR at Helensvale go all the way to Broadbeach~. That's because it's a 45min trip. What should be known to anyone involved in transport planning and decision-making is that people, over history, have shown a tendency to only want to travel 30min (known as Marchetti's constant*)

𝐂𝐀𝐏𝐀𝐂𝐈𝐓𝐘

The daily congestion issues on the M1 highlights what happens if you try and funnel everyone onto a single part of the transport system. Dealing with thousands of people coming down to the coast means spreading them out, using all the train stations and switching to buses to get to various parts of the coast, not all jumping on LR at Helensvale. LR will not cope with demand if it's all we have

If we're looking to do right by northern Gold Coasters when it comes to public transport, we need more train services and better interconnecting bus services. The idea Stage 4 is for all the GC is one of the most ridiculous things that continues to get trotted out.

Our obsession with LR needs to stop if we are to have a proper, city-wide public transport system that can help address growing congestion issues

~ Analysis of Origin-Destination Ticketing Data Jul 2019

27/07/2025

"If that's the trajectory of this city, we can't rely on a bus" - CEO of GC Airport

The trajectory being projected growth in passenger numbers for the airport - 6.2 million/yr to 13 million

I really don't understand this continual putting down of buses.

Because buses can easily deal with this predicted demand for public transport to / from the airport

Putting aside for a moment whether the growth predictions are accurate^ (GCAL have drastically overestimated growth previously), here are the numbers -

13 million annual passengers works out to be around 650k passengers in January (the busiest month). That's 21k/day.

Even allowing for the increase in PT patronage predicted by the airport in their Masterplan (16%), that works out to be 3,360 PT passengers. Spreading across 12hrs (a conservative estimate), that's only 280/hr. A double-decker bus (50 seats) can cover that with a frequency of 1 every 10min

It should be noted that Melbourne Airport has had >30 million passengers pass through its terminals in a year. Their SkyBus service carries >2.2 million passengers. There is no rail link, although it's apparently finally on its way, at a cost >$13 billion!

^As for those growth projections for GC Airport, the Feds think it will only be 10.2 million by 2044, not 13 million.

Let's hope the review currently being undertaken by the State Government is done properly and isn't just vibes put on paper. That's already been done to death by the media.

17/07/2025

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭

"If you lead, they will follow."
"Actions speak louder than words."
"If you want something done, do it yourself"

All well-worn phrases to describe where we're at with Southport.

For years, Council and the State Government have said Southport is the Gold Coast's “CBD.” Although, suggestions Southport has never been, isn't or shouldn't be, the CBD belies history, its location and how urban renewal / infill development occurs -

- Southport was the city's original heart:
- The main township for decades
- Home to Council chambers and the first hospital
- Terminus of the railway line from Brisbane

But it’s been undermined by previous government decisions:

- Ripping up the railway line
- Moving Council to Bundall
- Focusing on Robina
- Relocating the hospital near Griffith Uni (a very worthwhile move, but not ideal for downtown Southport at the time)

Despite this, Southport remains:

- The area with 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐚𝐬𝐭
- Central and highly accessible
- Rich in space and potential

There are 𝟖𝐡𝐚 𝐨𝐟 𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐃𝐀 alone—enough for 𝟏𝟐,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐝𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 (based on typical apartment sizing and 30-storey density). This is the kind of strategic, urban infill opportunities cities around the world dream of (Brisbane is struggling to find space for Olympic infrastructure)

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞

If Council and the State Government truly want a showcase CBD, in my opinion, they must lead by example:

𝐁𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 & 𝐂𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐞

- Return Council chambers to Southport
- Establish satellite offices for State and Federal public servants
- Introduce Supreme and Family Courts
- Facilitate a recreational / tourist marina at Howard's Landing

𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 & 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲

- Frequent, direct, and simple bus routes from surrounding suburbs
- Introduce ferry services to Labrador, Runaway Bay, Paradise Point & South Stradbroke
- Build iconic active transport bridges connecting to Broadwater Parklands

𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐦 & 𝐔𝐫𝐛𝐚𝐧 𝐑𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐥

- Develop town squares at Woodroffe Park, Mal Burke or Athol Paterson car parks
- Crack down on land banking (higher rates on vacant, reinvest in public infrastructure)
- Green boulevards on Scarborough and Nind Streets

Like a teenager brimming with potential, Southport needs leaders who believe in it—who invest time, resources, and energy to help it thrive.

Council and the State Government need to be those leaders and lead by doing

Is there anything else you think is needed in Southport?

Address

Gold Coast, QLD

Website

facebook.com

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Wayne Purcell for Better Planning Gold Coast posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Wayne Purcell for Better Planning Gold Coast:

Shortcuts

Featured

KitKen CARES
Mudgeeraba 4213

Want your practice to be the top-listed Clinic in Gold Coast?

Better Planning for a Better Gold Coast

This page is dedicated to raising and discussing planning and other issues of relevance to the Gold Coast.

I have been a Gold Coaster since 2005. I have worked in environmental management and tourism. My work has ensured infrastructure and development projects take into consideration local environmental and social issues.

Recently, I have been looking after my two young children while completing my Masters in Development Practice. I enjoy the outdoor lifestyle of the Gold Coast; cycling with the kids, kayaking our waterways and hiking our National Parks.

I believe local governments exist to serve and provide for its residents. People should be able to live, work and play locally for a great lifestyle.