The case of Heidelberg Business Park Pty Ltd & Ors v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2025] QPEC 14 concerned an appeal by submitters (Submitters) to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (Court) against the decision of the Council of the City of Gold Coast (Council) to approve an "other change" to a previously approved development permit for multiple dwellings at 107 Jefferson Lane, Palm Beach.  

Construction of the building was well advanced when the "other change" application was made. The contentious changes include the alteration of the external architectural elements of the building and an increase in height from 9 storeys and 29 metres to 11 storeys and 36.8 metres. This triggered a change in the level of assessment from code assessable to impact assessable, attracting 980 submissions (at [2]). 

The Court held that the proposed development, as changed, complies with all of the provisions in section 3.3.2.1(9) (building height uplift provisions) of the Gold Coast City Plan 2016 (version 9) (City Plan) and therefore a greater height allowance is permitted. The change application was approved with conditions. 

The Submitters contended that there is noncompliance with subsections (a), (b), (d) and (f) of the building height uplift provisions, which permit a greater height allowance, provided that all of the stated eight outcomes are satisfied. The relevant provisions in dispute are as follows: 

"(9) Increases in building height up to a maximum of 50% above the Building height overlay map may occur in limited circumstances in urban neighbourhoods where all the following outcomes are satisfied: 

… 

(a) reinforced local identity and sense of place; 

(b) well managed interface with, relationship to and impact on nearby development, including the reasonable amenity expectations of nearby residents; 

… 

(d) an excellent standard of appearance of the built form and street edge; 

(f) protection for important elements of local character or scenic amenity, including views from popular public outlooks to the city’s significant natural features…" 

The Submitters argued that the noncompliance with these provisions is established because the built form of the proposed development "…does not have an excellent standard of appearance" and "…will present as overbearing to Jefferson Lane and the adjoining neighbour to the south" (at [6]). 

The Court considered whether the built form and street edge achieves an "excellent standard of appearance". It was held that the interpretation of this phrase is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, requiring an evaluative judgement. It was deemed to be something that has "superior merit, is remarkably good, or of an especially high standard" (at [50]).  

The expert for the Submitters was critical of the design elements, particularly the cladding and slab edges which were said to contribute to the bulk and visual prominence of the building. The Court however found that the structure is modern and visually interesting due to its proportion, shape, curvilinear elements, the use of recessed concrete slabs and high quality materials (at [53]). Importantly, the two added levels the subject of the change application are recessed from the tower below, which is considered to create a visually pleasing attractive top to the overall structure (at [55]).  

The Court also considered the interface between the building and street edge. The Submitters contended that the proposal falls short of excellence due to the overbearing presence of the built form to Jefferson Lane (at [68]). Following a review of the photomontages, it was considered that the combined elements of the design work together to create an excellent standard of appearance (at [66]). 

Overall, the Court was satisfied that the change application complies with subsection (d) of the building height uplift provisions. 

The term "overbearing" was considered to refer to the "…visual relationship between built form and a potential receptor". The Court was satisfied that Jefferson Lane is subject to a period of transition towards a medium density/medium rise locality, causing a mix of housing types, setbacks, material and built form of varying age and condition (see [76] to [77]).  

The Submitters relied on three assumptions to argue that the built form would be overbearing the street. Firstly, that Jefferson Lane is an important local character element. Secondly, that Jefferson Lane is a visually sensitive locality due to the number of people who gather at the park, beach and surf club and, finally, that the western side of the land should be treated differently to the eastern side (at [83]). 

The Court did not consider Jefferson Lane to have any status as an "important character element" within the Planning Scheme. Whilst there is some merit in considering the visual sensitivity of the local area, it was determined that this does not override the adopted planning controls which promote medium density development along Jefferson Lane. Finally, the expert for the Submitters put forward that there is building height gradation from the west to east of Jefferson Lane. This was rejected by the Court because the planning designation on either side is the same (at [84]). 

It was held that the proposed development will not present as overbearing to Jefferson Lane.  

The visual relationship between the proposed development and the neighbour adjacent to the south was also addressed. The allegation here again turned on whether the building causes excessive visual dominance. The land to the south is improved with a two storey dwelling (at [91]). 

The Submitters contended that various design elements on the ground floor contribute to the overbearing presentation of the building. This includes an acoustic screen adjacent to the level 1 pool, and the lobby wall which were argued to be visually solid and close to the boundary (at [98]).  

Overall, the Court considered that the interface creates an acceptable solution to the acceptable outcomes for setbacks and is visually softened by the proposed landscaping which could be conditioned as part of the approval (at [99]). 

Overall, it was held that the change application demonstrates compliance with subsections (a), (b), (d) and (f) of the building height uplift provisions, as well as the other subsections which were not of focus to the dispute. The change application was approved with development conditions to be included as required by the reasons for judgment (at [132]).