Brown & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor; Morton & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2026] QPEC 29

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Brown & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor; Morton & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2026] QPEC 29 PARTIES: STEWART BROWN AND PAUL RIMINGTON (Appellants) v COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLD COAST (Respondent) and ANJOS DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 633 938 137) (Co-respondent) FILE NO: 1799/25 PARTIES: DIANE JOAN MORTON AND JENNIFER SYLVIA CHATTERTON (Appellants) v COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLD COAST (Respondent) and ANJOS DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 633 938 137) (Co-respondent) FILE NO: 1794/25 ORIGINATING COURT: Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 23 July 2026 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 20 – 24 April 2026 JUDGE: Kefford DCJ ORDER: I order: (a) by 4 pm on 6 August 2026, the Council is to file and serve a document identifying the conditions that it -- 1 of 71 -- 2 contends should be imposed in accordance with my reasons for judgment; (b) by midday on 11 August 2026, the Appellants and Co- respondent are to file a document identifying any conditions that they dispute; and (c) the appeal be listed on the applications list on 13 August 2026 for final judgment or, if necessary, for allocation of a hearing date shortly thereafter with respect to any dispute. CATCHWORDS: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – where the Co-respondent seeks approval of a development permit for a material change of use for a multiple dwelling – where the Respondent approved the development application subject to conditions – where the Appellants commenced two appeals against the Council’s decision which were heard together – where the appeal focuses on a building height uplift provision – whether the proposed development complies with s 3.3.2.1(9) of City Plan – whether the proposed development meets the necessary outcomes to allow for the departure from the quantitative building height standard – whether the proposed development reinforces local identity and sense of place – whether the proposed development achieves a well- managed interface – whether the proposed development contributes to an ordered and interesting skyline – whether the proposed development achieves an excellent standard of appearance of the built form – whether the proposed development contributes to protection for important elements of local character – whether the proposed development should be approved in the exercise of the discretion LEGISLATION: Planning Act 2016 (Qld) ss 43, 45, 59, 60 Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) ss 43, 45, 46, 47 Planning Regulation 2017 (Qld) s 31 CASES: Abeleda & Anor v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2020] QCA 257; [2021] QPELR 1003, applied Archer & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Ors [2022] QPEC 59; [2024] QPELR 387, approved Ashvan Investments Unit Trust v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2019] QPEC 16; [2019] QPELR 793, approved Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2026] QCA 136, considered Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Cielo Property Group Pty Ltd [2025] QPEC 18, approved -- 2 of 71 -- 3 Bell Co Pty Ltd & Ors v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2022] QPEC 32; [2023] QPELR 1160, approved Brisbane City Council v YQ Property Pty Ltd [2020] QCA 253; [2021] QPELR 987, applied Chiodo Corporation Operations Pty Ltd v Douglas Shire Council [2024] QCA 153; [2025] QPELR 633, applied Council of the City of Gold Coast v DVB Projects [2023] QCA 213; [2024] QPELR 827, applied Heidelberg Business Park Pty Ltd & Ors v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2025] QPEC 14, approved Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705, cited Main Beach Progress Association Incorporated & Ors v Gold Coast City Council & Anor [2008] QPEC 37; (2008) 164 LGERA 233, cited McEnearney v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2024] QCA 246; [2026] QPELR 658, applied Murphy v Moreton Bay Regional Council & Anor; Australian National Homes Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council & Anor [2019] QPEC 46; [2020] QPELR 328, approved North Harbour Holdings Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council & Anor [2024] QPEC 21; [2025] QPELR 1198, approved Sullivan & Ors v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2025] QPEC 20, cited Sullivan v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2026] QCA 105, cited The Body Corporate for 62 Pacific Community Titles Scheme 45586 & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor; Sexton v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2025] QPEC 13, approved Tricare (Bayview) Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2022] QPEC 31; [2023] QPELR 1073 Trinity Park Investments Pty Ltd v Cairns Regional Council & Ors; Dexus Funds Management Limited v Fabcot Pty Ltd & Ors [2021] QCA 95; [2022] QPELR 309, applied WBQH Developments Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council & Anor [2010] QCA 126, distinguished WBQH Developments Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [2009] QPEC 54; (2009) 167 LGERA 194, approved -- 3 of 71 -- 4 Wilhelm v Logan City Council & Ors [2020] QCA 273; [2021] QPELR 1321, applied COUNSEL: E Morzone KC and D Whitehouse for the Appellants S Hedge for the Respondent M Batty KC and K Buckley for the Co-respondent SOLICITORS: Turks Legal for the Appellants HopgoodGanim Lawyers for the Respondent MacDonnells Law for the Co-respondent TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5 What is the applicable framework for the decision? ............................................................ 6 What is the nature of the evidence before me?..................................................................... 8 What are the issues in dispute?........................................................................................... 11 What do the relevant assessment benchmarks with respect to height require? .................. 12 What are the characteristics of the subject land and the immediate locality in which it sits? ............................................................................................................................................ 14 What is the relevant planning context for the subject land and immediate surrounds? . 15 What does the proposed development entail? .................................................................... 16 What design features of the proposed development inform its built form appearance? 17 What are the landscape design features of the proposed development? ........................ 20 Is there compliance with the outcome in s 3.3.2.1(9)(b) regarding a reinforced local identity and sense of place? ................................................................................................ 21 What is the relevant local area? ...................................................................................... 23 What are the integers that inform the existing local identity and sense of place?.......... 26 What is the Appellants’ case about the local character? ............................................ 26 What does the evidence demonstrate about the existing local identity and sense of place? .......................................................................................................................... 32 What informs the planned local identity and sense of place? ........................................ 37 How do the extant development approvals influence the local identity and sense of place? .............................................................................................................................. 43 Does the proposed development contribute to a reinforced local identity and sense of place? .............................................................................................................................. 44 Does the evidence of the Appellants’ experts demonstrate non-compliance? ........... 44 Are the Appellants’ submissions about non-compliance persuasive?........................ 47 What does the evidence demonstrate? ........................................................................ 49 Conclusion regarding reinforced local identity and sense of place ............................ 50 Is there compliance with s 3.3.2.1(9)(c) regarding a well-managed interface? ................. 50 -- 4 of 71 -- 5 What are the general considerations that inform the approach to this assessment benchmark? .................................................................................................................... 51 Will the proposed development be visually dominant and overbearing? ...................... 54 Conclusion regarding well-managed interface ........................................................... 61 Is there compliance with the outcome in s 3.3.2.1(9)(d) regarding a varied, ordered and interesting local skyline? .................................................................................................... 61 Is there compliance with the outcome in s 3.3.2.1(9)(e) regarding an excellent standard of appearance of the built form and street edge? .................................................................... 65 Is there compliance with the outcome in s 3.3.2.1(9)(g) regarding protection for important elements of local character? ............................................................................................... 69 Should the proposed development be approved in the exercise of the planning discretion? ............................................................................................................................................ 70 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 71 Introduction [1] At the southern end of the Gold Coast, between Tugun and Kirra, is the coastal suburb of Bilinga. Within Bilinga, wedged between the Gold Coast Highway and the beach, is a narrow band of land containing urban development that is planned for change. It is bounded by Mills Street in the north and Musgrave Road in the south. As opportunities arise, developers are demolishing tired old dwelling houses and low- rise multiple dwellings and replacing them with medium and high-rise residential buildings. [2] To date, developers have largely capitalised on opportunities towards the southern extent of the narrow coastal band of urban development at Bilinga. The Co- respondent, Anjos Developments Pty Ltd, wants to take up such an opportunity on land at the northern end, at 162 Pacific Parade (“the subject land”). It is presently improved by a tired old two-storey multiple dwelling of no notable architectural merit and that is of a height, bulk, scale and density that is far less than that encouraged by Gold Coast City Plan 2016 (“City Plan”). [3] Anjos Developments Pty Ltd seeks to re-develop the subject land for a 10-storey residential apartment building (“the proposed development”). To that end, it made a development application to the Respondent, the Council of the City of Gold Coast (“the Council”), seeking a development permit for a material change of use for a multiple dwelling (“the development application”). [4] The development application was impact assessable and required public notification. The public notification attracted 48 properly made submissions, 39 of which opposed approval of the development application and nine of which supported approval. Those that opposed approval included submissions by each of Stewart Brown, Paul Rimington, Diane Morton and Jennifer Chatterton (collectively, “the Appellants”). Mr Brown and Mr Rimington reside in a development at 2 Graham Street, which adjoins the subject land and is known as Pacific Place. Mrs Morton and -- 5 of 71 -- 6 Mrs Chatterton own property at 156 Pacific Parade and three surrounding blocks of land. [5] The Council approved the development application subject to conditions. [6] The Appellants commenced these two appeals against the Council’s decision. The appeals raise the same key issues for consideration and were heard together. The issues focus on a building height uplift provision found in the specific outcome in s 3.3.2.1(9) of City Plan. [7] The building height uplift provision permits flexibility to depart from the quantitative building height standard in City Plan provided that eight outcomes are achieved. The Appellants contend that the proposed development does not meet five of the outcomes. The Appellants’ case calls for consideration of issues related to the local identity and sense of place, interface management, the skyline, the standard of appearance of the built form, and important elements of local character. [8] Anjos Developments Pty Ltd and the Council join issue with the reasons for refusal advanced by the Appellants. [9] Anjos Developments Pty Ltd bears the onus of establishing that the proposed material change of use should be approved: s 45 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld). What is the applicable framework for the decision? [10] Under s 43 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016, subject to s 46, the appeal proceeds by way of hearing anew. The Court has a broad discretion in determining the appeal. It is to be exercised judicially and subject to the limitations in the relevant statutes. The statutory framework in the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 and the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) provides relevant guidance in that respect. [11] The Court must assess the development application under s 45(5) of the Planning Act 2016 as if it were the assessment manager: Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 s 46(2). The Court’s decision is governed by s 47 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 and informed by ss 59(3) and 60 of the Planning Act 2016. [12] Sections 45(5)(a)(i) and (7) of the Planning Act 2016 mandate assessment against the assessment benchmarks in a categorising instrument that was in effect when the development application was properly made. Version 11 of Gold Coast City Plan 2016 (“City Plan”) is such a categorising instrument: s 43 of the Planning Act 2016. The correct approach to the construction of planning schemes was recently confirmed in Chiodo Corporation Operations Pty Ltd v Douglas Shire Council [2024] QCA 153; [2025] QPELR 633 at 653—5 [82]–[93]. [13] Weight can be given to amendments to City Plan: s 46(2) of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 and s 45(8) of the Planning Act 2016. The parties agree that there are no relevant amendments to be considered in this case. -- 6 of 71 -- 7 [14] Pursuant to s 45(5)(b) of the Planning Act 2016 and ss 31(1)(f) and (g) and (2) of the Planning Regulation 2017 (Qld), the assessment must also be carried out having regard to, amongst other things and to the extent that they are relevant: (a) any development approval for, and any lawful use of, the premises and adjoining premises; and (b) the common material for the development application. [15] The assessment and decision-making process is to be approached consistent with the Court of Appeal decisions of Brisbane City Council v YQ Property Pty Ltd [2020] QCA 253; [2021] QPELR 987; Abeleda & Anor v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2020] QCA 257; [2021] QPELR 1003; Wilhelm v Logan City Council & Ors [2020] QCA 273; [2021] QPELR 1321; and Trinity Park Investments Pty Ltd v Cairns Regional Council & Ors; Dexus Funds Management Limited v Fabcot Pty Ltd & Ors [2021] QCA 95; [2022] QPELR 309. [16] Collectively, those cases confirm the approach articulated in Ashvan Investments Unit Trust v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2019] QPEC 16; [2019] QPELR 793 at 803-13 [35]-[86]. That approach is also consistent with that described in Murphy v Moreton Bay Regional Council & Anor; Australian National Homes Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council & Anor [2019] QPEC 46; [2020] QPELR 328 at 333-7 [12]–[22]. [17] As is explained in those authorities: (a) the ultimate decision called for when making an impact assessment is a broad, evaluative judgment that admits of flexibility to approve an application in the face of non-compliance with a planning scheme; (b) the exercise of the discretion under s 60(3) of the Planning Act 2016 is subject to three requirements, including that it be based upon the assessment carried out under s 45 of the Planning Act 2016; and (c) the Planning Act 2016 does not alter the characterisation of a planning scheme as a document that reflects the public interest. [18] In determining issues of compliance with assessment benchmarks, the Court is entitled to make its own assessment of all the evidence. It is not obliged to act on the opinions proffered by the experts: Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705. The Court should make its own assessment and form its own conclusions based on the available evidence. In some instances, the determination of the issues may call for value-laden judgments about which reasonable minds may differ. One example is where the issue relates to visual amenity and character impacts. In those instances, findings may be based on the Court’s own assessment of evidence such as photos, plans, elevations, sections, landscape design plans, visual representations, and photomontages: Council of the City of Gold Coast v DVB Projects [2023] QCA 213; [2024] QPELR 827. [19] With that framework in mind, I now turn to identify the nature of the evidence before me. -- 7 of 71 -- 8 What is the nature of the evidence before me? [20] To assist me to determine this appeal, I have the benefit of evidence that includes, amongst other things: (a) the plans that form part of the changed development application, including: (i) images depicting the design inspiration; (ii) a development summary with details that include the density, site cover at ground level, details of the unit area and configuration, and the number of car parks; (iii) a site analysis; (iv) a built form analysis, including shadow impact analysis; (v) dimensioned plans for each level that detail information such as: (A) the layout of the units; (B) the location of walls, glazing, sliding doors, and balcony areas; (C) setbacks; and (D) site cover; (vi) perspectives detailing the colours and materials used on each façade; (vii) perspective views of each façade and perspectives depicting the view from locations such as the street and adjoining premises; (viii) architectural drawings including floor plans, the roof plan, elevations for each façade, sections through the building and details about the design of the boundary interfaces; and (ix) details of the relationship with the adjacent approved building to the southeast; (b) the landscape plans that form part of the changed development application, which record: (i) the design inspiration; (ii) relevant aspects of site context annotated on aerial photography; (iii) details of the landscape design for the ground floor, level 1, levels 2-7, level 8 and level 9; (iv) details of the planting character to be adopted on the front elevation at the street edge; (v) the proposed landscape for sections through the subject land that demonstrate the interface with adjoining premises; (vi) details of the planting palette and soil profile; (c) several Certificates of the Chief Executive Officer of the Council provided under s 251 of the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld), which attach development approvals for many multi-storey buildings in the local area. The -- 8 of 71 -- 9 development approvals include detailed layout plans, elevations, sections and some visual representations of those developments; (d) many photographs of existing development and views of the surrounding locality, including photographs: (i) of each premises with frontage to Pacific Parade between Musgrave Street and Mills Street; (ii) looking south along Lang Street, Archer Street, Johnston Street, Cahill Street, Graham Street, George Street and Mills Street; (iii) of each premises with frontage to Golden Four Drive between Mills Street and Musgrave Street; (iv) looking north along Mills Street, George Street, Graham Street, Cahill Street, Johnston Street, Archer Street and Lang Street; (v) of each premises with frontage to Lang Street, Archer Street, Johnston Street, Cahill Street, Graham Street, George Street and Mills Street; (e) photomontages prepared by Mr Zac Petersen, who is a landscape designer and arborist with expertise in architectural visualisations; and (f) 3D modelling of shadow impact prepared by Mr Darren Greenway, who is an architect with expertise in such modelling. [21] At the commencement of the hearing, the parties arranged a site inspection of the local area. My observations on the site inspection do not form part of the evidence. That said, the site inspection enhanced my appreciation of the photographic evidence and my understanding of the plans relating to approved and constructed developments. [22] The accuracy of the evidence identified in paragraphs [20](a) to [20](f) above was not challenged, and I accept it. [23] I also had the benefit of expert opinion evidence from: (a) Mr Leslie Curtis, Mr Peter Richards and Mr Malcolm Middleton, the architects retained by Anjos Developments Pty Ltd, the Council and the Appellants respectively; (b) Mr Nathan Powell, Dr Nicholas McGowan and Mr Dean Butcher, the visual amenity and landscape experts retained by Anjos Developments Pty Ltd, the Council and the Appellants respectively; and (c) Mr Chris Buckley, Mr Leo Mewing and Mr Shane Adamson, the town planners retained by Anjos Developments Pty Ltd, the Council and the Appellants respectively. [24] At the outset I note that, to the extent that there is a divergence of opinions between the experts, I generally prefer the evidence of Mr Curtis, Mr Richards, Dr McGowan, Mr Powell, Mr Buckley and Mr Mewing to that of Mr Butcher, Mr Middleton and Mr Adamson. That is because their evidence more closely aligns with the views I formed having regard to the evidence referred to in paragraphs [20](a) to [20](f) above. Also, unlike that of Mr Butcher, Mr Middleton and Mr Adamson, their -- 9 of 71 -- 10 evidence gives appropriate weight to the dramatic built form changes in this area that are promoted by City Plan. They suitably recognise that, during the period of transition from existing to planned character, there will be an extent of discord in the built form outcomes, particularly if one focuses only on metrics, such as height, and ignores design considerations. [25] The experts’ reports contain many photographs of the area. The evidence of the experts, including their oral testimony, assisted me to analyse the evidence identified in paragraphs [20](a) to [20](f) above. Relevantly: (a) the evidence of Mr Curtis and Mr Richards helped me understand: (i) the architectural character of the existing built form in the local area; (ii) the architectural design devices used in the proposed development and their impact on the building’s appearance; (iii) the shadow analysis; (b) I was assisted in my analysis of the local identity and sense of place by Dr McGowan’s: (i) aerial photographs and comprehensive compilation of photographs of the existing built form in the local area, and of sites that are ripe for development; (ii) map depicting the location of buildings above six storeys in the local area that he annotated with key details of each building, including an image of the building (or elevations of unconstructed buildings) and an indication of its height; (iii) collation of elevations of approved but unconstructed buildings; (c) the evidence of Dr McGowan and Mr Powell: (i) assisted my comprehension of: (A) the relationship between proximity and visual dominance and prominence; (B) the relationship between roof form, shadow and appearance of modulation; (C) available view angles from adjoining developments; and (ii) clarified the nature and extent of landscaping that can be supported in the proposed containerised planter boxes; and (d) the evidence of Mr Buckley and Mr Mewing assisted by identifying: (i) key provisions of City Plan that inform the planning intention for the area and how they affect reasonable expectations in relation to the evolving pattern of development in the local area; and (ii) the key aspects of the development approvals that will inform the future character of the local area. -- 10 of 71 -- 11 [26] For reasons I will explain in more detail later, the evidence of Mr Butcher, Mr Middleton and Mr Adamson, the experts retained by the Appellants, was less helpful. [27] I also have properly made submissions that form part of the common material, some of which provide photographs and describe attributes that the authors say inform the local area’s character. I have read each of them while undertaking my assessment. Those averse to approval express concern about, amongst other things, building height, sub-standard appearance, setbacks, building bulk and dominance, loss of privacy, interruption of breezes, shadow impact, inadequate landscaping, inappropriate impact on streetscape, lack of contribution to an ordered skyline, lack of protection to important elements of local character, adverse impact on traffic and public car parking, strain on infrastructure, absence of housing affordability, impacts from noise and vibration during construction, and adverse impact on property values. There are also submissions that support the proposed development on the basis that, amongst other things, it has a premium design, an excellent standard of appearance, generous landscaping, positively contributes to the streetscape and surrounding area, and provides a surplus of on-site car parking. [28] Aspects of the submissions that express views about the proposed development must be approached with caution. The submissions relate to an iteration of the development application that has since been changed. They were also made without the benefit of the photomontages and information about the approved developments in the area. In addition, they address many matters that are not relevant to the issues in dispute. [29] Nevertheless, I was assisted by the photographs of the area provided in the submissions and the statements from the residents. Collectively, they provide helpful evidence about how the residents of the area perceive the potential impact of the proposed development. Some of the submitters consider the height of the proposed development to be out of character given the heights of existing buildings nearby. Having regard to the limited number of tall buildings that exist in Pacific Parade near the subject land, I can appreciate the views expressed by the residents in terms of the difference between the proposed development and the existing built form. [30] I have considered all the evidence to which I refer above in my determination of the disputed issues. What are the issues in dispute? [31] The issues in dispute have evolved over the course of preparation for hearing, including by reason of minor changes made to the development application. [32] On the final day, at the commencement of oral submissions, the Appellants abandoned several allegations. The abandonment saved the resources of the Court that would otherwise be unnecessarily wasted addressing allegations that are of no moment. However, Anjos Developments Pty Ltd and the Council had already been put to the expense and inconvenience of preparing their final written submissions on those issues. [33] Although late, the decision to abandon the allegations was appropriate. The evidence adduced by Anjos Developments Pty Ltd with respect to the abandoned allegations is -- 11 of 71 -- 12 comprehensive. On my review of all the evidence, including that tendered by Anjos Developments Pty Ltd and the Council prior to the abandonment of the allegations, it is more than sufficient for Anjos Developments Pty Ltd to discharge its onus on those abandoned allegations. [34] Anjos Developments Pty Ltd and the Council concede non-compliance with the overall outcome in s 6.2.2.2(2)(d)(i) and performance outcome PO3 of the Medium density residential zone code. [35] The Appellants acknowledge that the non-compliance with the overall outcome 6.2.2.2(2)(d)(i) and performance outcome PO3 of the Medium density residential zone code must be considered having regard to City Plan as a whole, including the higher order provisions in the Strategic framework that specifically deal with building heights in the urban neighbourhood. I agree: see Tricare (Bayview) Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2022] QPEC 31; [2023] QPELR 1073 at 1096—1101 [86]—[116]; Bell Co Pty Ltd & Ors v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2022] QPEC 32, [2023] QPELR 1160 at 1167—8 [31]—[36] and 1169—73 [45]— [62]; Archer & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Ors [2022] QPEC 59; [2024] QPELR 387 at 446—9 [285]—[295], 450—2 [299]—[302] and [305]—[309], 469—74 [392]—[414]. [36] With respect to the higher order provisions, the Appellants allege non-compliance with the specific outcomes in ss 3.3.2.1(9)(b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of the Strategic framework. They say each non-compliance, of itself, is determinative. That said, the Appellants concede that the proposed development should be approved if Anjos Developments Pty Ltd demonstrates compliance with those assessment benchmarks. [37] Anjos Developments Pty Ltd and the Council otherwise join issue with the allegations of non-compliance with the specific outcomes in ss 3.3.2.1(9)(b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of City Plan. What do the relevant assessment benchmarks with respect to height require? [38] Assessment benchmarks against which development in the Gold Coast local government area is to be assessed are set out in City Plan. [39] City Plan uses 23 zones to organise the local government area in a way that facilitates the location of the preferred or acceptable land uses. The subject land is included in the Medium density residential zone. Relevant assessment benchmarks are included in the Medium density residential zone code, the purpose of which is: “… to provide for a range and mix of dwelling types including Dwelling houses and Multiple dwellings supported by Community uses and small-scale services and facilities that cater for local residents.” [40] That purpose is to be achieved through the overall outcomes, which include, relevantly: “(d) Built form (excluding Dwelling houses on small lots) – (i) has a building height that does not exceed that indicated on the Building height overlay map;” -- 12 of 71 -- 13 [41] Performance outcome PO3 of the Medium density residential zone code is one of the performance outcomes that achieve the overall outcomes. Relevantly, it states: “PO3 Building height and structure height does not exceed that shown on the Building height overlay map.” [42] The Building height overlay map includes the subject land within an area designated for a height of 23 metres. [43] The height of the proposed development is 31.8 metres. As such, the proposed development does not comply with the overall outcome in s 6.2.2.2(2)(d)(i) and performance outcome PO3 of the Medium density residential zone code. [44] Before considering the significance of those non-compliances, it is necessary to assess the proposed development against the specific outcome in s 3.3.2.1(9) of the Strategic framework in City Plan. It states: “(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) the development is not located within The Spit Master Plan heigh sensitive area, as identified on the Building height overlay map; (b) a reinforced local identity and sense of place; (c) a well managed interface with, relationship to and impact on nearby development, including the reasonable amenity expectations of nearby residents; (d) a varied, ordered and interesting local skyline; (e) an excellent standard of appearance of the built form and street edge; (f) housing choice and affordability; (g) protection for important elements of local character or scenic amenity, including views from popular public outlooks to the city’s significant natural features; (h) deliberate and distinct built form contrast in locations where building heights change abruptly on the Building height overlay map; and (i) the safe, secure and efficient functioning of the Gold Coast Airport or other aeronautical facilities. Note: Where the Building height overlay map shows both storeys and metres, the lesser of the two shall apply, and any fraction which results from the calculations shall be rounded down to the nearest floor or partial floor.” -- 13 of 71 -- 14 [45] This provision, and other assessment benchmarks in City Plan about building height, have been addressed by this Court on numerous occasions. This Court has considered the context of the assessment benchmarks and the degree of importance that City Plan attaches to them. To the extent relevant to this case, I adopt the analysis in Tricare (Bayview) Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2022] QPEC 31; [2023] QPELR 1073 at 1096—1101 [86]—[116]; Bell Co Pty Ltd & Ors v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2022] QPEC 32, [2023] QPELR 1160 at 1167—8 [31]— [36] and 1169—73 [45]—[62]; Archer & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Ors [2022] QPEC 59; [2024] QPELR 387 at 446—9 [285]—[295], 450—2 [299]— [302] and [305]—[309], 469—74 [392]—[414]. None of the parties challenge the relevant analysis of City Plan in those cases. I am cognisant that some aspects of the analysis of City Plan is inconsistent with the recent Court of Appeal decision in Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2026] QCA 136. Those parts of the cases are not relevant to the issues here and I have not relied on them. [46] In this case, the Appellants submit that there is non-compliance with five of the nine outcomes, namely the specific outcomes in ss 3.3.2.1(9)(b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of City Plan. [47] The determination of each issue calls for value-laden judgments about which reasonable minds may differ. My factual findings in these reasons are not solely attributable to the evidence of one or more of the experts. To a significant extent, they are informed by my own assessment of the unchallenged evidence identified in paragraphs [20](a) to [20](f) above. [48] Before addressing my findings about what the evidence demonstrates, it assists to first identify, in broad terms: (a) the characteristics of the subject land and the immediate locality in which it sits; and (b) the details of the proposed development. What are the characteristics of the subject land and the immediate locality in which it sits? [49] The subject land is comprised of Lots 0 to 5 on BUP2204. It is rectangular in shape. It has a frontage of approximately 15 metres to Pacific Parade, a depth of approximately 50 metres, and an area of 759 square metres. [50] The topography of the subject land is generally level, with a gentle fall from 6.2 metres Australian Height Datum adjacent Pacific Parade to 4.75 metres Australian Height Datum at the rear. [51] Currently, the subject land is improved by a two-storey brick multiple dwelling, comprising five units. The building does not exhibit any notable architectural merit. There is a carport along the rear boundary and a driveway traverses the length of the northwestern boundary. The subject land has extensive areas of hardstand and a dearth of landscaping. [52] To the northwest, west and southwest, there is a large L-shaped parcel of land that wraps around the subject land. It has a street address of 143 – 149 Golden Four Drive -- 14 of 71 -- 15 and 2 Graham Street, Bilinga and is bounded by Pacific Parade, Graham Street and Golden Four Drive. The parcel is improved by a three-storey residential development known as Pacific Place, which contains 51 units across three buildings. The main orientation of the apartments is to Graham Street and Golden Four Drive, not the subject land. The rooftop of Pacific Place has no common areas or utility spaces. The pool and communal facilities are located internal to Pacific Place and oriented towards Golden Four Drive. [53] The subject land is immediately adjoined to the southeast by a vacant lot at 160 Pacific Parade, which has been approved for: (a) a three-storey house with a height of 9.5 metres towards the Pacific Parade frontage; and, behind the house, (b) a six-storey multiple dwelling comprising four units with a height of 21.5 metres. [54] Further to the southeast along Pacific Parade are: (a) a two-storey house at 158 Pacific Parade; (b) a small, two-storey apartment building that is adjoined by a lot containing a pool and gardens at 152 – 156 Pacific Parade; and (c) an undeveloped lot at 150 Pacific Parade. [55] On the opposite side of Pacific Parade are Tugun Esplanade, Joe Doniger Park and North Kirra Beach. Directly opposite the subject land, there is an area of carparking adjacent to a boardwalk that extends from Tugun Esplanade to a viewing deck that steps down to the beach. What is the relevant planning context for the subject land and immediate surrounds? [56] The subject land is in Bilinga. It forms that part of the coastal strip that lies at the southern end of the Gold Coast between Tugun to the northwest and Coolangatta to the southeast. The subject land sits within a narrow, elongated band of urban development that is wedged between Pacific Parade to the east, Golden Four Drive to the west and Musgrave Street to the southeast. [57] The narrow, elongated band of urban development surrounding the subject land is comprised of seven predominantly residential blocks, which are mapped as: (a) part of the “Urban area” on Strategic framework map 1 – Urban areas; (b) part of the “Urban neighbourhoods” on Strategic framework map 2 – Settlement patterns; (c) part of the “Coastal tourism/urban strip” and near the “Investigation for future light rail”, “State and major road network” and “Specialist centre – airport” on Strategic framework map 5 – Focus areas for economic activity; (d) near “High frequency public transport routes”, “Coastal pedestrian and cycle network” “Investigation for future light rail”, “Investigation for heavy -- 15 of 71 -- 16 railway”, “State and major road network” and “Specialist centre – Airport” on Strategic framework map 6 – Integrated transport; (e) part of the “Consolidation area” on Strategic framework map 9 – Consolidation and expansion areas; (f) part of the Medium density residential zone in City Plan, apart from a small area at the corner of Lang Street and Golden Four Drive that is in the Neighbourhood centre zone; (g) within an area designated on City Plan’s Building height overlay map as 23 metres, but which may reasonably be anticipated to be developed with buildings up to 34.5 metres in height if there is compliance with s 3.3.2.1(9) of City Plan; and (h) within an area designated on City Plan’s Residential density overlay map as “RD6 – up to 300 bedrooms per net hectare (1 bed/33m2)”. [58] The area designated for a building height of 23 metres on City Plan’s building height overlay map terminates in the north at Mills Street. Between Mills Street and Musgrave Street are six short cross streets that connect Golden Four Drive and Pacific Parade. They are George, Graham, Cahill, Johnstone, Archer and Lang Streets. What does the proposed development entail? [59] The proposed development involves a new use of the subject land for a multi-storey building containing nine apartments, each with three bedrooms. The proposed development is ten storeys above ground level and has two basement levels. It is 34.5 metres in height. [60] The plan of the development responds to the shape of the subject land. Its floor plans are configured to create three interconnected functional zones, comprising: (a) towards the Pacific Parade frontage, a zone that includes open plan living and dining spaces adjoined by a balcony that extends across the northeast end of the floor plate; (b) through the middle, a zone that includes: (i) a kitchen area that extends along the northwest side of the floor plate to optimise solar access; (ii) a corridor along the centreline of the floor plate; and (iii) service areas such as stairwell, lift and lobby along the southeast of the floor plate; and (c) towards the rear of the proposed building, a zone that accommodates the bedrooms. [61] The apartments will be served by ten bicycle spaces and 20 carparks, including three visitor carparks, all of which are located across the two basement levels. The basement will be accessed via a double vehicle crossover from Pacific Parade. The driveway ramp to the basement is along the northwestern boundary. Communal pedestrian access is proposed from Pacific Parade along the southeastern boundary. -- 16 of 71 -- 17 What design features of the proposed development inform its built form appearance? [62] The proposed development has a slender and elongated form. It is approximately 42 metres long and 12 metres wide at ground with an eight-metre-wide tower and has a height to width ratio of approximately 4:1. [63] One of the narrow facades of the building faces towards Pacific Parade, Tugun Esplanade, the foreshore and the beach. The other addresses one of the buildings that comprises Pacific Place. The longer facades address the vacant lot (and its approved development) to the southwest at 160 Pacific Parade and another of the buildings that that comprises Pacific Place at 2 Graham Street to the northwest. [64] According to the dimensions on the plans, the building is set back approximately: (a) 4.1 metres from the boundary with Pacific Parade (adopting a measurement to the outermost projection of the balcony edge); (b) 1.5 metres from the side boundaries at ground floor and level one and at least three metres from the side boundaries of on levels two to nine; and (c) three metres from the rear boundary. [65] The site cover of the proposed development varies across the different levels. At ground level, the site cover is 66.78 per cent. This reduces to 64.31 per cent at level one, and further reduces to 44.23 per cent at levels two to seven, 43.52 per cent at level eight and 38.12 per cent at level nine. [66] The building is comprised of: (a) a ground floor that contains: (i) an entrance lobby; (ii) approximately 269 square metres of communal open space in the form of outdoor dining terrace, pool and sauna; (iii) a driveway under croft; (b) full-floor apartments on each of levels one to nine containing living and dining rooms that are oriented towards Pacific Parade and coastal views, with balcony spaces of about: (i) 47 square metres on level one; (ii) 30 square metres on levels two to seven; (iii) 16 square metres on level eight; and (iv) 18 square metres on level nine. [67] The proposed development employs a traditional tripartite compositional strategy comprised of a legible building base, middle and top. It also adopts a contemporary -- 17 of 71 -- 18 design that includes features that modulate the longer facades to effectively diminishing the appearance of bulk. It uses a combination of: (a) white linear brick with white mortar, timber-look aluminium batten screens, off-form concrete columns in white and natural, and containerised planting at the ground floor; (b) a projecting floorplate on level one with containerised planting around the full perimeter containing lush tropical rainforest style understorey planting mixed with cascading plant species to the edge, which creates a cap to the podium base on which the slender tower sits; (c) a concave recessive form to the full width cantilevered balconies at levels two to nine on the Pacific Parade elevation; (d) a uniform design at levels two to seven, which includes: (i) a concave balcony behind which sits floor to ceiling height glazed stacker doors; (ii) projecting floorplate edges; (iii) two small recesses that divide the long facades into three visually distinctive components, comprising: (A) towards the Pacific Parade frontage, solid textured painted concrete finish edges to the balconies that continue along the side elevations to provide horizontal spandrels between the glazing on each level, which are adjoined by a solid wall comprised of vertical small fluted natural concrete panels terminating at a curved corner; (B) in the central component, vertical timber-look aluminium batten screens and glazing; (C) in the rear component, vertical small fluted natural concrete panels and vertically stacked windows, with the last stack of windows curving around the corner to the rear façade; (iv) projecting floorplate edges at the rear of the building with curved corners and vertical blade screens; (e) at levels eight and nine, a legible change to the design compared to that of the lower floors that includes: (i) containerised planting with cascading plants at the front of the concave balcony on level eight; (ii) a glazed balustrade to the balcony that is setback from the edge of the floorplate and extends around the two sides of the balcony on level nine; (iii) timber-look soffits to the underside of the cantilevered balcony floorplates; (iv) stepping in the floorplate that divides the long facades into three components by adopting a projecting central component; (v) a combination of glazing and large fluted white concrete panels; and -- 18 of 71 -- 19 (vi) a concave alignment of the projecting floorplates on the rear façade; (f) a projecting roof that, on the Pacific Parade elevation, mirrors the concave appearance of the balconies below; (g) a grey and white colour palette; (h) grey tinted and opaque glazing, with opaque glazing limited to those areas where its use is required to address potential privacy and overlooking impacts; and (i) semi-frameless clear balustrading to balconies. [68] The visual presentation of the combination of design features is well-explained by Mr Curtis. His explanation accords with my own assessment. [69] As is explained by Mr Curtis, the tower component of the proposed development’s northeast and southwest facades present with a width of approximately eight metres. The northeast façade will be visible to receptors along Pacific Parade, Tugan Esplanade and the beach. At the ground floor, it is characterised by its greater width and a fragmented appearance of complementary elements. The visual impact of the driveway is mitigated with containerised landscaping and the interface is softened by the timber-look blade fence. [70] I agree with Mr Curtis that the differences in the design of levels eight and nine result in a legible change to the appearance of the built form on the northeast façade. Those levels, together with the projecting roof, appear as a discrete and consolidated element that crowns the built form and terminates its height. One of the elements that reinforces that visual effect is the addition of timber-look soffits to the underside of the projecting roof and the projecting floorplates at levels eight and nine. [71] The southwest façade is at the rear of the building. Like the northeast façade, the ground floor is characterised by greater width and a fragmented appearance. It features extensive landscaping. I agree with Mr Curtis that levels one to seven are characterised by the projecting floor plates at each level and the vertical blade screens that extend across the façade on each level. The curvature of the glass walls at the corners of the façade soften the edge of the built form to complement the curved corners of the floorplates and the projecting side wall alignments. At levels eight and nine, the projecting floorplates return to concave alignments with the vertical screens removed, which provides a legible change to the built form. [72] As is explained by Mr Curtis, the northwest façade is divided into three main sections, separated by recessed glazed areas that create a sense of rhythm and variation along its length. At each end, solid fluted walls and vertically stacked windows frame the composition, while curved corners soften transitions between sections. The central section projects slightly and features vertical battens layered over glazing. This adds texture and shading and reinforces the horizontal expression of the individual storeys. A projecting level eight floorplate runs across the façade, introducing landscaping and visually breaking the proposed development’s height. It also marks the end of the lower-level recesses. Above this, levels eight and nine adopt a more uniform design with alternating solid panels and full-height glazing, distinguished by different finishes. -- 19 of 71 -- 20 [73] According to Mr Curtis, the boundary wall and landscaping at ground level partly conceals the southeast façade. Upper-level planting and a projecting level one floorplate visually define a podium base for the tower. Landscaping elements, including cascading greenery, enhance this base and integrate with the setback areas. Planter boxes and batten screens add greenery and screen functional elements like the fire escape. Levels eight and nine feature the service core with distinct fluted panels. Overall, the façade maintains a consistent design approach with clear top, middle, and base distinctions, along with the same lateral modulation seen on the opposite side façade. [74] In combination, the design features create a building that has a refined, slender appearance. The cascading plants and timber-look elements add richness and a layered effect. What are the landscape design features of the proposed development? [75] Key landscaping features include: (a) containerised landscaping on the projecting level one floorplate that caps the appearance of the ground floor level and visually reinforces it as a podium that provides a base to the slender tower above; (b) landscaping provided at levels one and eight, which reinforces the transition between each part; and (c) deep planting along the rear boundary and setback landscaping within the rear setback that is complemented by containerised landscaping on the projecting level one floorplate. [76] These key features are supplemented by finer-grain landscape design features that incorporate necessary built-form components, such as pedestrian access, fire sprinkler booster valve cabinet and driveway, in a thoughtful design. [77] The landscape design for the Pacific Parade frontage incorporates a pedestrian access path that extends along half the length of the southeastern boundary. The remaining length of the southeastern boundary accommodates large screening shrubs in a raised planter. [78] Along the Pacific Parade frontage, adjacent the path, is an integrated fire sprinkler booster valve cabinet that faces the footpath. This type of infrastructure is essential for multi-storey development and is generally required to be located on the street edge. The proposed development incorporates this essential infrastructure at a logical location and pays careful attention to its visual treatment. The roof to the cabinet incorporates containerised planting that are to contain a lush tropical rainforest style understorey planting mix with cascading plant species. The front of the cabinet is to be finished with vertical timber-look aluminium battens. The sides are to be finished with white linear brick with white mortar. [79] The front boundary also accommodates a paved, 6.5-metre-wide driveway that allows for two-way traffic. The crossover is two metres from the northwestern boundary. As the driveway it extends into the subject land, it diverts closer to the boundary and beneath an under croft. The structure above the under croft is supported by a row of -- 20 of 71 -- 21 columns within a landscaped strip. Climbing species are proposed adjacent the columns and screening elements. [80] The driveway is flanked by containerised planter boxes that are to include a feature tree, feature palms, a large feature shrub, tropical screening shrubs, lush rainforest style understorey planting mix, and a lush rainforest under croft planting mix with climbing species to the columns. [81] Further into the subject land, on the southeastern side, is the outdoor dining terrace. It is screened from the street by white linear brick with white mortar, vertical timber- look aluminium batten screens, and landscaping in containerised planter boxes. [82] Towards the rear of the subject land, there is a lap pool. It runs parallel to the northwestern boundary side boundary. It is setback from the boundary behind a raised planter box and glass acoustic barrier. [83] Across the entire rear boundary of the subject land is about 21 square metres of in- ground planting, which is proposed to comprise palms. An acoustic fence separates an outdoor shower area from the inground planting. [84] The building itself also accommodates containerised planters that feature lush tropical rainforest style understorey planting mix with cascading plant species to the edges of the building. The containerised planters are located: (a) around the entire perimeter of the building on level one; (b) in a recess on the southeastern side of the building on levels two to seven and nine; and (c) across the front of the balcony and along about a third of the side elevations towards the Pacific Parade frontage on level eight. Conclusion regarding the design features [85] Overall, my review of the landscape plans and the architectural elevations and sections reveals that the proposed development adopts a visual pleasing combination of materials, finishes and lush screen planting. It features contextually appropriate landscaping that: (a) achieves a well-managed interface with nearby development; (b) provides an excellent standard of appearance at its street edge; and (c) reinforces transitions between each architectural component of the building. Is there compliance with the outcome in s 3.3.2.1(9)(b) regarding a reinforced local identity and sense of place? [86] The Appellants allege that the proposed development does not comply with the specific outcome in s 3.3.2.1(9)(b) of City Plan. That outcome is expressed as “a reinforced local identity and sense of place”. [87] The terms “local identity” and “sense of place” are not defined in the Planning Act 2016, the Planning Regulation 2017, sch 1 of City Plan, the Acts Interpretation Act 1954. As such, they should be given their ordinary meaning: see s 1.2.1 of City Plan. -- 21 of 71 -- 22 [88] The terms have been considered in many judgments of this Court, including cases that consider the character of Bilinga such as: (a) The Body Corporate for 62 Pacific Community Titles Scheme 45586 & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor; Sexton v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2025] QPEC 13 at [14]-[41]; (b) Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Cielo Property Group Pty Ltd [2025] QPEC 18 at [31]-[53]1; and (c) Sullivan & Ors v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2025] QPEC 20 at [3]-[5]. [89] Several general principles can be distilled from the cases that inform an assessment of character, the local identity and sense of place. Relevantly: (a) the local identity and sense of place is a question of fact that may be informed by: (i) natural elements; (ii) existing built form, whether it was approved under existing planning controls or earlier ones; (iii) an objective reading of the adopted planning controls to ascertain whether the existing character is intended to remain unaltered or, like here, intended to change over time; and (iv) extant development approvals granted in the relevant area by an assessment manager that have not yet acted upon: Archer & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Ors [2022] QPEC 59; [2024] QPELR 387, 450—2 [299]—[309]; North Harbour Holdings Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council & Anor [2024] QPEC 21; [2025] QPELR 1198 at 1249—50 [237]—[240]; S&S No. 4 Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Ors [2024] QPEC 42; [2026] QPELR 90, 107-8, [93]— [94]; McEnearney v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2024] QCA 246; [2026] QPELR 658 at 671 [45]; Heidelberg Business Park Pty Ltd & Ors v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2025] QPEC 14 at [105] and [106]; Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Cielo Property Group Pty Ltd [2025] QPEC 18 at [100]; (b) impressions of the character of an area, local identity and sense of place are generally informed by the experience moving through the area, rather than only by reference to elements visible from a single, static location; (c) the local character of an area should be interpreted broadly, not by reference to a narrow inquiry. Without good reason, the Court should not adopt an overly restrictive approach or confine consideration to a narrow radius around the site: WBQH Developments Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [2009] QPEC 54; (2009) 167 LGERA 194 at 200 [25]—[27]; Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v 1 Although this decision of Her Honour Judge Prskalo has been overturned recently by the Court of Appeal, it was only overturned with respect to the approach to s 3.3.2.1(9)(f) of City Plan, which is not in issue in this case. I have not placed any reliance on the built form the subject of the decision in my assessment for this case. -- 22 of 71 -- 23 Council of the City of Gold Coast & Cielo Property Group Pty Ltd [2025] QPEC 18 at [112]; (d) care must be taken to ensure that characteristics of an immediate locality are not glossed over by the use of a broad descriptor applying to a broader study area: Bell Co Pty Ltd & Ors v City of Gold Coast & Anor [2022] QPEC 32; [2023] QPELR 1160 at 1177 [84] and [85]; (e) although the height of built form can be a defining characteristic, it is not the only relevant matter as the architectural design can also make an important contribution to identity: Archer & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Ors [2022] QPEC 59; [2024] QPELR 387, 450—2 [302] and [305]; The Body Corporate for 62 Pacific Community Titles Scheme 45586 & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor; Sexton v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2025] QPEC 13 at [33]; (f) the requirement to “reinforce” represents a stronger standard than a requirement that merely seeks to promote or retain or not detract from a local sense of identity and place: Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Cielo Property Group Pty Ltd [2025] QPEC 18 at [95]; and, ultimately, (g) whether there is compliance with s 3.3.2.1(9)(b) of City Plan is a matter about which reasonable minds may differ: S&S No. 4 Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Ors [2024] QPEC 42; [2026] QPELR 90, 106 [84]. [90] With those general considerations in mind, I now turn to consider whether the proposed development complies with s 3.3.2.1(9)(b) of City Plan. In determining that issue, it assists to answer five factual questions, namely: 1. What is the relevant local area? 2. What are the integers that inform the existing local identity and sense of place? 3. What informs the planned local identity and sense of place? 4. How do the extant development approvals influence the local identity and sense of place? 5. Does the proposed development contribute to a reinforced local identity and sense of place? What is the relevant local area? [91] As is explained by Mr Buckley, context is a critical town planning input into any assessment of a development application. Part of the relevant context is provided by the planning scheme. Context, in a planning assessment, also relates to physical, environmental and locational matters relevant to a site. The physical setting of land, the nature of development both existing and approved, road patterns, vegetation, topography, history, and the reasonable expectations of those living and investing in an area are important inputs into any assessment. [92] I agree with Mr Buckley that the degree to which any one input may be more important than another, or the weight that one consideration may carry, will vary depending on the circumstances that pertain in the locality. Cumulatively, they will -- 23 of 71 -- 24 create an understanding of an area and set the context within which an assessment should proceed. [93] According to Mr Buckley, understanding the context gives meaning to the content of a planning scheme. He says that this is particularly evident in the uplift provisions of City Plan given five of the nine criteria have a contextual relationship or dimension. I agree. [94] The criterion in s 3.3.2.1(9)(b) of City Plan calls for an assessment of the local identity and sense of place. This begs the question: what is the local area that should be considered for that assessment? [95] Mr Buckley opines that a prominent contextual observation about Bilinga is the shape of the strip between the Gold Coast Highway and the beach and, consequently, the development within it. I agree. [96] As I have already mentioned, the subject land sits within a narrow, elongated band of urban development that is wedged between Pacific Parade to the east, Golden Four Drive to the west, Musgrave Street to the southeast and Mills Street to the north. The area is designated in City Plan as having a planned height of 23 metres, subject to achieving a 50 per cent uplift under s 3.3.2.1(9) of City Plan. [97] Pacific Parade is a wide esplanade road that runs parallel to the coast. The eastern side of Pacific Parade contains no residential development. [98] To the west, Golden Four Drive runs parallel to the Gold Coast Highway, beyond which lies the Gold Coast airport. Golden Four Drive functions as a service road, providing bus stops and extensive on-street parking. [99] Musgrave Street is a wide road that is divided by a median strip. It crosses from Coolangatta Road and curves around the southern end of the area that has a designated height of 23 metres. The area south of Musgrave Street has a different character, with residential buildings of greater height, bulk and scale. This is likely informed by the difference in its planned character. The area south of Musgrave Street is designated on City Plan’s building height overlay map as having a planned height of 29 metres, subject to achieving a 50 per cent increase under s 3.3.2.1(9) of City Plan. Development to the south of Musgrave Street also includes a greater extent of commercial development than that in the area to the north. [100] Mills Street is a short cross-street that runs between Pacific Parade and Golden Four Drive. [101] Between Mills Street and Musgrave Street are six short cross streets that connect Golden Four Drive and Pacific Parade. They are George, Graham, Cahill, Johnstone, Archer, and Lang Streets. The cross streets provide important perpendicular entry points to the parkland and foreshore. [102] According to Mr Buckley, the area bounded by Pacific Parade, Golden Four, Musgrave Street and Mills Street reads as one planning precinct or sector given it is a narrow, flat strip of land with many intersecting streets that break the area up into smaller blocks. Throughout the area there is a smattering of approvals for taller -- 24 of 71 -- 25 buildings, which approvals occur on both the long parallel streets of Pacific Parade and Golden Four Drive. [103] Dr McGowan expresses a similar opinion. He says that the area between Pacific Parade, Golden Four, Musgrave Street and Mills Street is an appropriate local area within which the proposed development will be seen and experienced. In that regard, he explains that the area is defined by: (a) the Gold Coast Highway to the southwest, which provide a clear edge that separates the local area from the airport and adjacent land uses to the west of the highway that have a distinctly different character; (b) Musgrave Street to the south, which is some distance from the subject land but still provides a legible edge to the area and marks a discernible change in character; (c) the coastal edge to the northeast, which includes Joe Doniger Park, the dunes and the beach; and (d) Mills Street to the northwest, which is one of the lateral roads through the local area that coincides with a change in the Building height overlay mapping. [104] The Appellants do not dispute this but contend that there are localised variations that require consideration. In their assessments, Mr Middleton and Mr Butcher consider a local area that does not extend as far south as Musgrave Street. They also discount development on Golden Four Drive but include an area north of Mills Street. For the reasons I will explain below, I do not find their evidence persuasive. [105] I accept the evidence of Mr Buckley and Dr McGowan about the relevant local area. They provide a cogent explanation for its definition that accords with my own assessment. [106] I am cognisant that the area to the north of Mills Street is also in the Medium density residential zone and is also mapped on City Plan’s Residential density overlay map as “RD6 – up to 300 bedrooms per net hectare (1 bed/33m2). However, the marked difference in planned height is a factor that provides a compelling basis to focus on development south of Mills Street. It provides a strong indication that the area south of Mills Street is part of a different planning unit than the area to its north. [107] To the extent that the height demarcation shown on City Plan’s maps is not readily perceivable from the existing built form near Mills Street, it is reasonable to assume that the change in character will be perceptible in the future as the area south of Mills Street is redeveloped. [108] Within the local area, I am cognisant that that there are local variations that inform the built form character. For example, north of Graham Street, the band of urban development narrows from 100 metres to 60 metres. As such, the lots within the two residential blocks between Graham Street and Mills Street have a more compressed depth than those located further south. This influences the form of development on those lots and their contribution to the character of the area. These local variations are relevant to an assessment of the proposed development. They are not of such significance as to warrant focusing exclusively on a more confined area as suggested by Mr Butcher, Mr Middleton and Mr Adamson. -- 25 of 71 -- 26 [109] In my view, regardless of whether one considers the local area to be defined by a longer or shorter part of the coastal strip, the overall impression of the existing character of the local area is the same. It is informed by the aggregation of the individual features and traits of the existing development, the infrastructure and the natural environment context in which that built form sits. What are the integers that inform the existing local identity and sense of place? [110] As I have mentioned, the existing local identity and sense of place are informed by the natural environment and the existing built form. What is the Appellants’ case about the local character? [111] With respect to the local character, the Appellants’ Part A Submissions say: “The Appellants’ case is that the local area is characterised by: (a) the North Kirra Beach foreshore and Joe Doniger Park alongside Pacific Parade; (b) the bulk, scale and building height of the majority of development fronting Pacific Parade being generally in keeping with or less than the height of the Norfolk Pines that align the open space area opposite; (c) the presence of some older low-rise building forms that are likely to be redeveloped in the short to medium term; (d) a number of existing low and medium rise developments, in particular towards the northern end of Bilinga; (e) the change in height limit towards the south of Musgrave Street to 29m and north of Mills Street to 15m and 3 storeys under the Building Height Overlay; (f) the majority of new development that exceeds the expected 23m height requirement being towards the southern end of the locality closer to the change in height limit to 29m; (g) a number of newer developments which have been developed at or less than the 23m; (h) a clear distinction between the character of Golden Four Drive and Pacific Parade because of the nature of the built form presenting to Golden Four Drive and the nature of that roadway, with buildings being directly opposite and facing towards a highly trafficked major highway and towards the airport. (i) Pacific Parade having a high level of visual amenity and a much more relaxed residential setting than Golden Four Drive; and (j) the majority of new development in Golden Four Drive substantially exceeding the 23m building height overlay being generally over large allotments with a more generous land width -- 26 of 71 -- 27 and more regular and usable shape suited for increased bulk and scale of development.” (footnotes omitted) [112] I accept that each of these integers inform the local identity and sense of place. [113] In the Appellants’ Part B Submissions, the Appellants address seven of these integers in greater detail. [114] The first is the beach, foreshore, park and Norfolk pines. The Appellants submit: “Each of Dr McGowan and Mr Powell acknowledge that the beach, foreshore and Joe Doniger Park Park (sic) (including the Norfolk Pine trees) are the most important features defining the character, identity and sense of place of this area. The clear focus, identity and amenity of Pacific Parade are derived from its immediate adjacency to these natural and open space elements. The eastern side of Pacific Parade is characterised by a long row of tall mature Norfolk Pine trees lining a wide grassed esplanade that accommodates pedestrian and cycle paths. People who use and move through the space along Pacific Parade closely perceive and interact with both the natural and built form elements. This environment imbue (sic) a coastal character creating what Mr Mewing described broadly as one of “a beachside feeling” with a “residential and relaxed atmosphere”.” (emphasis added, footnotes omitted) [115] I reject the Appellants’ submission that the beach, foreshore and Joe Doniger Park, including the Norfolk pine trees, are the most important features defining the character, identity and sense of place of this area. [116] In support of their submission, the Appellants refer to evidence given by Dr McGowan and Mr Powell. The submission incorrectly characterises the evidence. [117] The evidence identified by the Appellants’ submission is: (a) Exhibit 13 p 9 [30], wherein Dr McGowan says: “The beach and foreshore park (including the Norfolk Pine trees in the park) are important landscape features that define the structure, character and amenity of the area. These features imbue a coastal character. These spaces are, along with the Surf Club, focal points for activity in the locality.” (b) Exhibit 7 p 19 paragraph 29, wherein Mr Powell says: “Aside from Kirra Hill, I consider the important elements of local character or scenic amenity to be the coastal interface (foreshore and foredunes) and the adjacent linear foreshore parkland (including the Norfolk Pines). Again, these align with the broader natural and greenspace elements identified by -- 27 of 71 -- 28 Mr Buckley in his separate report. In my opinion, the Proposed Development will protect those elements.” (formatting reflects the original) [118] Although I accept the evidence of Dr McGowan and Mr Powell, it is clear from these passages that neither expert acknowledge the natural elements to be the most important features defining the character, identity and sense of place of this area. To the contrary, when that was put to Dr McGowan during cross-examination, it was expressly rejected by him: see Transcript of Proceedings, Stewart Brown and Paul Rimington v Council of the City of Gold Coast and Anjos Developments Pty Ltd; Diane Morton and Jennifer Chatterton v Council of the City of Gold Coast and Anjos Developments Pty Ltd (Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, 1799/25; 1794/25, Kefford DCJ, 22 April 2026) 58—9. [119] In any event, the submission does not accord with my own assessment of the available evidence, such as the photographs. [120] The second integer that the Appellants emphasise is the distinct, lower intensity built form in that part of the local area that is north of Cahill Street and south of Mills Street. That part of the local area presently contains predominantly low-to-medium rise residential development that typically ranges from one to four storeys in height, with some development up to seven storeys. The Appellants submit that, unlike other parts of the local area, the existing built form character is relatively cohesive. In that respect, the Appellants note that Mr Middleton described the setting as “low-key” and “low-rise” and as offering a “languid low-key beach interface” that is highly valued by the community. [121] I do not accept the evidence of Mr Middleton about the built form character of the area. In his written statements of evidence, Mr Middleton made no attempt to identify the area to which he attributes the descriptions. As such, he did not provide me with sufficient information to evaluate the veracity of their foundation. During cross- examination, Mr Middleton was given multiple opportunities to rectify this defect with his evidence. His oral evidence was evasive and confusing. He often gave answers that were directly contradicted by him moments later. Overall, Mr Middleton’s evidence on this issue was incomprehensible and I reject it. [122] Third, the Appellants note that, while a 23-metre height overlay applies up to Mills Street, this part of the locality is immediately adjacent to the area north of Mills Street where the planning intent reduces the height limit to three-storeys and 15 metres. The Appellants do not clarify the relevance of this to the local character. As I have explained above, I consider this to be a matter that justifies considering a local area defined by reference to the area south of Mills Street. [123] Fourth, the Appellants emphasise the spatial qualities of the public realm. North of about Cahill Street, the spatial qualities of the public realm change. The Pacific Parade carriageway narrows to between eight metres and eight and a half metres compared to its width of nine and a half metres further south. It also takes on a more northeasterly alignment. According to Mr Butcher, this provides a sense of separation between the areas south and north of Cahill Street and limits the visibility of higher intensity built form located to the south. Mr Butcher, and the Appellants, also consider it significant that Joe Doniger Park narrows significantly in this section -- 28 of 71 -- 29 of the local area. Mr Butcher records that from kerb edge to the fence line adjoining the dunes of North Kirra Beach, the park ranges between six and 18 metres in width. He says this is a “more compact public realm area” compared to most of the park south of Cahill Street, where the width exceeds 18 metres. Mr Butcher considers this significant as it places buildings closer to the waterline. Mr Butcher says that the openness of Joe Doniger Park and the presence of formal beach entry points, such as the one opposite the subject land, results in the built form in this setting having a high degree of visual exposure to the public realm. [124] I accept that the spatial qualities of the public realm change and that, consequently, there are nuances within the local area. I am not inclined to place the same significance on the slight variations in width of the coastal dune park and the distance to the waterline as Mr Butcher. As history shows, even recent history following Cyclone Alfred, these natural coastal features can be subject to abrupt change by reason of significant weather events, even to the extent of substantially eroding coastal parks and the sand beneath coastal paths causing them to collapse. [125] The fifth matter of significance, according to the Appellants, is that the existing development along Pacific Parade between Mills Street and Musgrave Street consists of mixed residential heights that predominantly range from three to eight storeys. The Appellants submit that, relevant to character, of the more than 70 allotments along the length of Pacific Parade comprising the local area, only eight buildings are more than the 23-metre height limit. They submit that those eight buildings fall into two categories. [126] The first category is a group of buildings that the Appellants characterise as “high rise or nearly high rise in height”. They are the built and approved developments at: (a) 134 Pacific Parade, which is known as “Porta Pacifique”; (b) 2-4 Pacific Parade; (c) 66 Pacific Parade; and (d) 90-92 Pacific Parade. [127] Porta Pacifique is 11 storeys and approximately 31 metres high. It has the benefit of a development approval that pre-dates the existing planning scheme and height uplift provisions. It is located south of the subject land, on the corner of Pacific Parade and Cahill Street. It sits on a large, 2,064-square-metre corner allotment with very generous setbacks, is oriented obliquely to the street, and is surrounded by generous private open space. The built form is surrounded by a tennis court, pool area and landscaping, including mature trees. These combined features result in the development being well spaced and well setback from surrounding development. The facades present in a way that no adjoining residence experiences the full façade within a short distance. [128] According to the Appellants, Porta Pacifique provides a poor comparison for the proposed development given the size of the allotment, generous setbacks and oblique orientation. [129] I have little difficulty accepting that the design of the proposed development is informed by different circumstances, including with respect to the size of the subject -- 29 of 71 -- 30 land. That is unsurprising. Every development is unique. The acceptability of the proposed development is be judged based on the facts and circumstances that pertain to it. City Plan does not call for replication of development on sites with similar characteristics. It calls for consideration of the local identity and sense of place. The exercise does not involve a consideration of height alone. Porta Pacifique, and its contribution to the area by reason of its height, viewed in the context of its site characteristics and design, is relevant to the assessment called for by City Plan. [130] The land at 2-4 Pacific Parade has the benefit of an approval for a multiple dwelling that is 11 storeys and 34.4 metres high. It is at the far southern end of the local area, at the convergence of Pacific Parade and Musgrave Street. The site has an area of 4,736 square metres and three street frontages. It is bordered by Musgrave Steet, which is a busy road leading into Coolangatta from the Gold Coast Highway. On the other side of the intersection from that site, the building height limit is 29 metres on the Building height overlay map. The building is proposed to comprise short-term accommodation, multiple dwellings and a food and drink outlet. [131] The Appellants submit that, just as the character of the northern part of the locality is influenced by the neighbouring 15 metre height limit, the character of this part of the local area is influenced by the neighbouring 29 metre height limit. [132] I am not persuaded that the character of the southern and northern parts of the local area are influenced by the mapping on the Building height overlay map of the adjoining areas. I accept the evidence of Mr Buckley that the differences in height in the local area is a factor of time. To similar effect, during cross-examination Mr Adamson accepted that the differences in the existing character are most likely informed by the extent to which opportunities for redevelopment have arisen. They do not reflect a considered planning policy or influence from nearby mapping in City Plan. [133] The land at 66 Pacific Parade was recently approved for residential development with a height of 34.2 metres on a corner site with an area of 1,009 square metres. The site has an approximately 20-metre-wide frontage to Pacific Parade and an approximately 50-metre-wide frontage to Archer Street. The site was the subject of my decision in The Body Corporate for 62 Pacific Community Titles Scheme 45586 & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor; Sexton v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2025] QPEC 13. The new approval is not due to take effect until the expiry of the last submitter appeal period: s 71(2) Planning Act 2016. [134] The corner site provides the recently approved development with space and separation from surrounding development. The development sits on land surrounded by several buildings that are greater than six storeys in height. According to the Appellants, the recent approval appears to address the reasons I refused the previous development. It has included greater visual and physical recessing at the top levels. [135] The land at 90-92 Pacific Parade has been approved for a residential development with a height of 10 storeys and 31 metres. The site has an area of 1,012 square metres. The approval was the subject of Her Honour Judge Prskalo KC’s decision in Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Cielo Property Group Pty Ltd [2025] QPEC 18. Since the hearing of this trial concluded, that decision has been set aside by the Court of Appeal and remitted to be decided in accordance with the decision in Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast -- 30 of 71 -- 31 [2026] QCA 136. The aspects of Her Honour Judge Prskalo KC’s decision on which I rely are not disturbed by the decision of the Court of Appeal. [136] The approval of 133 Golden Four Drive was the subject of His Honour Judge Everson’s decision in Sullivan & Ors v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2025] QPEC 20. Since the hearing of this trial concluded, the Court of Appeal has given leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal: Sullivan v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2026] QCA 105. [137] I have placed no weight on the approvals at 90-92 Pacific Parade and 133 Golden Four Drive in my assessment as they make no material difference to my assessment of the proposed development’s compliance with s 3.3.2.1(9) of City Plan. I am content to exclude them from my assessment of local character. [138] The second group of buildings in excess of the 23-metre height limit identified by the Appellants comprise four buildings in the southern half of the local area that, whilst higher than 23 metres, are no higher than 27.6 metres. They are buildings at: (a) 6-8 Pacific Parade; (b) 46-48 Pacific Parade, which is known as “Kirra Wave”; (c) 106 Pacific Parade, which is known as “Pikos Bilinga”; and (d) 114 Pacific Parade, which is known as “Oceanair”. [139] The development at 6-8 Pacific Parade adjoins the sizeable, approved development at 2 Pacific Parade. It is at the southern end of the local area, near Musgrave Street. The Appellants submit that “it is close to the change in building height under the BHOM to 29m”. It is 27.3-metres-high and exceeds the height limit by 4.3 metres. [140] Kirra Wave at 46-48 Pacific Parade has a height of eight storeys and 24.7 metres. It exceeds the height limit by 1.7 metres. It has a high degree of articulation and two street frontages. [141] Pikos Bilinga at 106 Pacific Parade has a height of eight storeys and between 26.3 and 27.58 metres. It is on a corner allotment. It exceeds the building height by up to 4.58 metres. It has visually recessive colours at the upper levels. [142] Oceanair at 114 Pacific Parade is 8 storeys and 26.3 metres high. It exceeds the height limit by three metres and has contracted upper levels. [143] The sixth matter that the Appellants rely on is the difference in character between Pacific Parade and Golden Four Drive. According to the Appellants, Pacific Parade is a high-amenity residential esplanade adjacent to the dominant beach and foreshore. In contrast, Golden Four Drive is associated with the Gold Coast Highway and presents more as a transport orientated corridor facing the airport. This is reinforced by the presence of elements such as bus stops and access points to the Gold Coast Highway. There are also several small-scale commercial uses along Golden Four Drive. The commercial uses are not highly visible or prominent, but they differ from the uses along Pacific Parade, which are all residential uses apart from the Surf Life Saving Club on the foreshore side of Pacific Parade. -- 31 of 71 -- 32 [144] According to the Appellants, while taller buildings exist on Golden Four Drive, they do not appear out of character because they sit in the background and do not visually impact the parkland or foreshore as prominent foreground structures. [145] Finally, the Appellants submit that other notable features of tall buildings that contribute to the local identity and sense of place include: (a) the recessing of their upper levels, such as by visible stepping, setbacks or the use of recessive colours to reduce their bulk and scale; (b) their location generally on larger corner parcels or parcels with two street frontages, particularly for those of high-rise height or nearly high-rise height; and (c) their location on lots with frontages wider than 15 metres. [146] Other than the limited aspects of the submissions that I reject above, I do not cavil with the accuracy of the Appellants submissions about the characteristics of the local area. They are all relevant integers that, in their collective effect, inform the local identity and sense of place. I have considered them in determining the character of the local area and the local identity and sense of place. What does the evidence demonstrate about the existing local identity and sense of place? [147] In terms of the natural environment, to the east of Pacific Parade is the open space of the North Kirra Beach foreshore, including Tugun Esplanade, Joe Doniger Park and the ocean. The open space adjacent Pacific Parade is lined by a row of mature Norfolk pines in a grassed esplanade with a walking and cycle path adjoining coastal dunes and a wide, sandy beach. The Norfolk pines create a vertical edge along Pacific Parade. These are established features of the local foreshore character. [148] In my view, the natural environment is an important element that informs the character, identity and sense of place of the local area. It is a significant source of high amenity enjoyed by those who use the space, move through it and observe it from their residences in the local area. Its presence has also influenced the existing built form in the locality. The existing development on Pacific Parade adopts a design that seeks to take advantage of the amenity provided by the natural features. I will return to the design attributes of the existing built form shortly. [149] According to Dr McGowan, the local area has a legible structure and development pattern that is largely defined by a clear road and lot pattern. Relevantly, the lot pattern is informed by: (a) the continuous armatures of Pacific Parade and Golden Four Drive, which are visually reinforced by the adjacent foreshore parkland and the adjacent Gold Coast Highway respectively; and (b) the shorter cross streets, which are less busy and create a relatively regular ladder pattern between the main armatures. [150] Dr McGowan opines that there is a notable difference in the visual qualities and amenity of Pacific Parade and Golden Four Drive. He says Pacific Parade is a more attractive esplanade road characterised by a greater sense of openness along the -- 32 of 71 -- 33 coastal side and an attractive outlook to the beach. Golden Four Drive is more transport oriented and influenced by its proximity to the Gold Coast Highway. [151] I agree with Dr McGowan. His evidence is consistent with my analysis of the unchallenged evidence. It is also consistent with the findings of Her Honour Judge Prskalo KC in Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Cielo Property Group Pty Ltd [2025] QPEC 18 at [35] and [36]. [152] Although there are differences in the amenity experience of Golden Four Drive and Pacific Parade, the taller built form along Golden Four Drive contributes to the character of the immediate locality. From viewing locations in Pacific Parade, the Tugun Esplanade, Joe Doniger Park, the foreshore and the beach, the development on Golden Four Drive provides a backdrop to that located in Pacific Parade. [153] From distant locations, such as the beach, the building form on Golden Four Drive and Pacific Parade merge into a single layer and one cannot readily identify their precise location. In addition, from more distant viewpoints, the buildings in Golden Four Drive appear similar in height to buildings of lesser height on Pacific Parade. That is because of the angle of view from such locations. That said, as one moves closer to the buildings in question, the parallax diminishes and the building forms and relative heights are more evident. [154] Dr McGowan opines that the existing built form is varied in terms of its scale, age, and appearance with little that collectively characterises it. According to Dr McGowan, amongst the established low-rise built form, there is a clear emergence of relatively recent medium and high-rise multiple dwellings that are up to 11 storeys in height. Dr McGowan opines that this reflects a character of transition from the established low-rise and low-key coastal character to a more intensely developed setting. He says that a feature of the transitional process is a dramatic difference in the scale, form and appearance of built form, with the newer, larger buildings standing out in contrast to the established low-rise built form. Dr McGowan opines that this transition is creating a more abrupt edge along Pacific Parade as the taller buildings contrast with the open landscape of the foreshore and beach. [155] Dr McGowan opines that the more recent taller developments in the local area, both built and approved but unconstructed, generally have several attributes in common, namely: (a) prominent balconies directed towards the beach to take advantage of coastal views, breezes and the favourable northeasterly aspect; (b) relatively modest podiums or a complete absence of podiums; (c) elongated and stacked floor plans dictated by rectilinear lots, which are more common through the area than the square or irregular lots; (d) high quality and durable materials that are typical of an attractive coastal suburb, including stone, rendered and textured masonry, glazing, and treated timber or timber-look materials; (e) extensive glazing and frequent use of semi-permeable screens, such as battens; and -- 33 of 71 -- 34 (f) contrasting materials and colour treatments, including common use of lighter colours, such as white and beige, contrasting with darker colours, such as greys, and timber-look materials. [156] According to Dr McGowan, there are other material treatments that are also common to a number, but not all, existing and approved taller buildings. They are: (a) visually or physically recessed upper levels; and (b) vertical battens and louvres and expressed slab edges that provide relief and shading to the façade. [157] Dr McGowan supports his opinions by reference to photographs of all the existing buildings in the locality and visualisations and elevations of the approved but unconstructed buildings. [158] Focussing on the architectural character, Mr Richards agrees with Dr McGowan. According to Mr Richards, there is no consistent, established architectural character or language. Rather, the architecture has a wide variety of scale and architectural expression, reflecting the prevailing design responses of the time. He says that the buildings have different shapes, with rectilinear, angled, and rounded forms. They also use a range of materials and varying extents of glazing. Mr Richards supports his opinion by reference to photographs of the existing built form. [159] Within the mixed character of the existing buildings, Mr Richards says that many of the newer taller apartment buildings have a contemporary coastal character. He says the character is not distinctive to Bilinga but consistent with apartment design in a range of locations along the coast. Mr Richards agrees with Dr McGowan’s assessment of the common attributes in the newer taller buildings. [160] Mr Curtis gives evidence to similar effect. Mr Curtis opines that the architectural character of the locality is neither unique nor distinctive. It is also not necessarily of a consistently high quality. He says that, in terms of architectural character, the local area is primarily comprised of three building typologies, namely: (a) one and two-storey houses, which are typically setback up to six metres from the street frontages and have carparking on extended driveways or within integrated garages or in ground storey under crofts; (b) one to four storey multiple dwelling buildings, which are varying in form and appearance; and (c) medium-rise and high-rise multiple dwellings, which range in heights and are generally: (i) rectangular in shape to reflect the shape of the underlying lot; (ii) comprised of consistent size and shape floor plates that are stacked vertically; (iii) characterised by: (A) extensive fenestration and prominent balconies that are primarily directed towards the ocean to access opportunities for views; -- 34 of 71 -- 35 (B) facades that are typically comprised of painted concrete walls with architectural features that sometimes include containerised landscaping and screening elements; (C) a ground storey that is differentiated by its interface with the street frontage and neighbouring properties; and (D) differentiated upper most storeys or roof form (or both), with the differentiation in the form of varying external colours and finishes, or architectural features, or increased setbacks to those upper floors. [161] In Mr Curtis’ view, recent buildings exhibit a contemporary coastal character, typical of other coastal areas in the region. These new developments consist of generally vertically stacked floor plates of similar form, with visually prominent and generous balconies that capitalise on the views towards the coastline. [162] Overall, Mr Curtis opines that the character of the local area is that of a coastal, predominantly residential area that is in transition to a greater intensity of built form. The existing developments range in heights and forms, seek to maximise views to the ocean, and the taller buildings include elements to reduce the impact of their bulk and scale. [163] I accept the evidence of each of Dr McGowan, Mr Richards, and Mr Curtis. It is supported by the photographs of the area. Their evidence is also consistent with my own assessment. [164] My assessment in this case reveals slightly different nuances in the tall buildings compared to my earlier assessment of the same local area in The Body Corporate for 62 Pacific Community Titles Scheme 45586 & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor; Sexton v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2025] QPEC 13, wherein I found: “[27] The variance in height of the existing built form significantly contributes to the sense of place and local identity. [28] The local area contains a mix of residential building types and styles. There are modest-scale dwelling houses and two and three-storey apartment buildings with an older appearance interspersed among more contemporary large dwelling houses and multi-storey buildings. The taller, contemporary buildings range between seven and 11 storeys in height. [29] The contribution that built form makes to the sense of place and local identity is not homogenous. Parts of the local area have less variation in the building height, such as in the area between Cahill and Graham Streets. In that part of the local area, building heights are predominantly low. [30] In the immediate locality to be examined in this case, the sense of place and local identity is influenced by buildings on Pacific Parade and Golden Four Drive that have a range of heights, including some that are greater than 23 metres. -- 35 of 71 -- 36 … [33] Although the height of built form is a defining characteristic of the sense of place and identity of this local area, it is not the only relevant contributor. The architectural design of the built form in the locality makes an important contribution to its identity. [34] Given the mix of building types, styles and ages in this local area, the built form can generally be described as having a mixed character. Closer consideration reveals that, despite this mix, there are three evident unifying features in their design. [35] First, the built form in this locality is generally characterised by a design that seeks to take advantage of the views and breezes afforded by their coastal location. There is a predominance of buildings with balconies oriented towards Joe Doniger Park and the beach. As is evident on the many photographs before me, this design feature is not only prevalent in those buildings that front Pacific Parade. It is also a feature of those buildings that take their access from Golden Four Drive, and those that take their access from the short cross streets between Pacific Parade and Golden Four Drive: see, for example, the photographs at Exhibit 4 pp 31, 40, 43, and 55 and Exhibit 7, pp 6 and 7. [36] Second, the contemporary multi-storey developments in the locality incorporate deep recesses, steps, angles and other forms of modulation in their street-fronting facades: see, for example, the photographs at Exhibit 6 pp 12-7 and Exhibit 9 pp 14-5 . [37] Third, the taller buildings in the local area incorporate visually recessed or contracted upper floor levels: see, for example, the photographs at Exhibit 6 pp 60-3. [38] Overall, the existing character of the local area is that of a coastal, predominantly residential area that is in transition to a greater intensity of built form. It contains buildings of varying height, which adopt a design that is generally characterised by: (a) prominent balconies oriented towards the coast; (b) pronounced modulation in the street-fronting facades in the form of deep recesses or stepping or both; and (c) visually recessed or contracted upper floor levels on taller buildings.” [165] To the extent that there are differences in the description of the built form, this is attributable to differences in the evidence. In this case, I have the benefit of more extensive evidence about the existing built form and the approved but unconstructed development. The evidence before me indicates that, although some taller buildings have visually recessed or contracted upper floor levels, there are notable exceptions. [166] With respect to the existing built form, I agree with Her Honour Judge Prskalo KC’s finding that the local area is characterised by a mix of building types and styles, whose built form, scale, and bulk are not highly prominent and do not result in visual -- 36 of 71 -- 37 dominance over the parkland and foreshore setting along Pacific Parade: Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Cielo Property Group Pty Ltd [2025] QPEC 18 at [33]. [167] Overall, the existing character of the local area is that of a coastal, predominantly residential area that is in transition to a greater intensity of built form. The transitional character is evident from the generally older appearance of those buildings that are low-rise compared to the generally contemporary appearance of the tall buildings. There are a range of building heights and forms that seek to maximise views to the ocean and the breezes afforded by their coastal location. Although there are a few notable exceptions, taller buildings (built and approved) generally include architectural elements and features that are designed to reduce the impact of the buildings’ bulk and scale. What informs the planned local identity and sense of place? [168] As is explained by Mr Buckley, appreciating the planning context in which the subject land sits is important to understanding the existing development and the intended future of the area. [169] The local identity and sense of place that is planned for this local area is informed by multiple provisions of City Plan. I have identified relevant aspects of the mapping in paragraphs [56] to [58] above. [170] I agree with Mr Buckley that Strategic framework Map 2 – Settlement patterns provides a clear snapshot of the future dominant land use direction for the Gold Coast as a whole and for the locality of the subject land. [171] As I have mentioned above, the narrow, elongated band of urban development that is wedged between Pacific Parade, Golden Four Drive, Musgrave Street and Mills Street is designated as part of the “Urban neighbourhoods”. It is an area that is also subject to “Investigation for future light rail” and located near symbols identifying “State and major road network”. [172] The “Creating liveable places” theme in the Strategic framework identifies the planning intention for built form in Urban neighbourhoods. It is one of six city shaping themes that plays an important role in shaping future growth and managing change across the city: s 3.1(3) of City Plan. [173] The Strategic outcomes for the “Creating liveable places” theme are in s 3.3.1 of City Plan. They include: “(1) Urban activity is contained within the city’s urban area. (2) The Gold Coast’s settlement pattern provides housing choices and diverse lifestyle opportunities in mixed use centres and specialist centres, neighbourhood centres, urban neighbourhoods, suburban neighbourhoods, new communities, and rural residential and township areas. Limited opportunities also exist in the Merrimac/Carrara flood plain special management area. -- 37 of 71 -- 38 (3) Housing is provided in a form, height and scale consistent with the function, amenity and desired future character of local areas and centres, and promotes a sense of community cohesion and wellbeing. Housing is attractive and well- designed. (4) Affordable housing or entry level priced housing meets the needs of low to moderate income households, and purpose-built adaptable housing and accommodation meets the needs of seniors, people with disabilities, students and people in need of emergency accommodation. These forms of accommodation are located close to facilities, services, public transport, employment and essential infrastructure. (5) Varied building height and form throughout the city reinforces local identity, creates a sense of place and supports housing choice and affordability and the function and desired future appearance of each local area. (6) High intensity urban activity optimises land well-serviced by public transport, infrastructure and community facilities and provides mixed use centres and specialist centres and urban neighbourhoods with improved amenity. (7) Medium and higher intensity housing occurs in mixed use centres and specialist centres and urban neighbourhoods. (8) Neighbourhood design maximises walking and cycling and improves access by providing local community facilities and services, public transport and jobs close to home. Socially diverse and inclusive communities accommodate all ages, income groups and cultural backgrounds. (9) Urban neighbourhoods accommodate a diverse and well- connected network of urban places. Development is focussed on mixed use centres and specialist centres and public transport hubs, and densities are higher in areas with high frequency public transport, community facilities and infrastructure capacity. (10) The light rail urban renewal area is a cohesive corridor of distinctive, high quality urban environments that optimises accessibility to light rail services and economic development opportunities. …” (emphasis added) [174] These strategic outcomes indicate an acceptance of variations in building heights that support the desired future appearance. They also indicate that varied building height and form can reinforce local identity and sense of place. In addition, these outcomes reveal a planned relationship between density and transit supportiveness. -- 38 of 71 -- 39 [175] In s 3.3.2.1, City Plan provides specific outcomes for Urban neighbourhoods element that refine and further describe the strategic outcomes in s 3.3.1. They include: “(1) Urban neighbourhoods are compact, well-designed and pedestrian-friendly, offer housing choice and high amenity and provide access to facilities, services, public transport, employment and essential infrastructure. (2) Urban neighbourhoods are generally located on or near high frequency public transport corridors service by light rail or high frequency bus. Note: Some corridors have a specialist employment focus or are unsuited to intensive residential development, including general industry areas that front corridors served by light rail or high frequency bus. (3) Certain locations not within or near high frequency public transport corridors reflect long-term locations of medium and high intensity development and have the potential for increased public transport services. (4) Urban neighbourhoods vary from pockets of detached housing on smaller lots to medium or higher-intensity places containing medium or high-rise buildings. (5) Housing includes a mix of tenure, size and type to assist with affordability and location options, and to support occupants from various social and cultural backgrounds including key workers. (6) Urban neighbourhoods have a public transport hub, community facility, park or mixed use centre, special centre or neighbourhood centre as their focal point. (7) Streets are characterised by high-quality walking and cycling paths, street trees and local streets for shared car and bike use. A legible built form and network of interconnected thoroughfares make it easy to get around. (8) The Building height overlay map shows the building height pattern and desired future appearance for local areas within urban neighbourhoods. This map also shows areas where building heights change abruptly to achieve a deliberate and distinct contrast in built form within and between low, medium or high rise areas. (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) the development is not located within The Spit Master Plan heigh sensitive area, as identified on the Building height overlay map; -- 39 of 71 -- 40 (b) a reinforced local identity and sense of place; (c) a well managed interface with, relationship to and impact on nearby development, including the reasonable amenity expectations of nearby residents; (d) a varied, ordered and interesting local skyline; (e) an excellent standard of appearance of the built form and street edge; (f) housing choice and affordability; (g) protection for important elements of local character or scenic amenity, including views from popular public outlooks to the city’s significant natural features; (h) deliberate and distinct built form contrast in locations where building heights change abruptly on the Building height overlay map; and (i) the safe, secure and efficient functioning of the Gold Coast Airport or other aeronautical facilities. Note: Where the Building height overlay map shows both storeys and metres, the lesser of the two shall apply, and any fraction which results from the calculations shall be rounded down to the nearest floor or partial floor. (10) Increases in building height, beyond 50% above the Building height overlay map, are not anticipated in the urban neighbourhoods. Note: No criteria has been identified for building heights which are more than 50% above the Building height overlay map, because such increases are in conflict with City Plan. Note: Specific outcome (10) does not apply to the Urban neighbourhood within The Spit Master Plan height sensitive area. This is because in this location increases beyond the Building height overlay map are in conflict with the City Plan. (11) Increases in building height above the height indicated on the Building height overlay map anticipated in the Urban neighbourhood within The Spit Master Plan height sensitive area, as this area has a deliberate planned building height. (12) Urban neighbourhoods are diverse and distinguished by a distinct appearance, identity and built form in each neighbourhood. …” (emphasis of Notes and “Building height overlay map” reflects the original, otherwise emphasis added) [176] It is clear from these specific outcomes that one of the planning concepts that informs the local identity and sense of place of an area is building height. The desired future appearance, in terms of height, for local areas within urban neighbourhoods is shown on the Building height overlay map: s 3.3.2.1(8) of City Plan. Mr Butcher and Mr Middleton do not recognise this in their assessment of the local area and their -- 40 of 71 -- 41 consequent opinions about the proposed development’s impact on the local identity and sense of place. Although it was not appropriately recognised by Mr Adamson’s written evidence, in oral evidence Mr Adamson conceded its relevance. [177] Consideration of the Building height overlay map reveals that the subject land is part of the high-rise spine between the Gold Coast Highway and the beach, where a building height of 23 metres is anticipated. [178] Building height is not the only consideration that informs the desired future character of local areas, or its local identity and sense of place. It is also informed by building form and the design of the building. This is apparent from the many provisions that address the planning goal about local identity and sense of place, including ss 3.3.1(3) and (5) of City Plan: see paragraph [173] above. [179] The planning vision that informs the strategic outcomes in ss 3.3.1(3) and (5) of City Plan are set out in the strategic intent: s 3.2 of City Plan. Part of the vision is to support the development of the Gold Coast as a world-class city. That is intended to be achieved by shifting from “development on the city’s fringe to redevelopment of urban centres and key inner-city neighbourhoods”: s 3.2.1 of City Plan. Not all urban areas will be renewed and transformed. Some are planned to be “protected to maintain their existing appearance and amenity”: s 3.2.1 of City Plan. [180] City Plan recognises that urban design excellence is also vital to any world-class city. The strategic intent in s 3.2.1 states: “Our City’s urban design and architecture is world-class and our iconic skyline is internationally recognised. As we become a world- class city, well designed buildings and places will continue to reinforce local identity and sense of place, and provide places that are attractive, functional, safe and accessible, while supporting social diversity and cultural expression.” (emphasis added) [181] “City shape and urban transformation” is another part of the vision that informs the planning goal with respect to local identity and sense of place. In s 3.2.2, the strategic intent states: “… building height and form will continue to vary across the city, including areas where building heights are planned to change abruptly to achieve a deliberate and distinct contrast in built form. This will reinforce community identity, create a sense of place, support housing choice and affordability and reflect the city’s different places and spaces …” (emphasis added) [182] Guidance is also provided in the specific outcome in s 3.8.3.1(1) of City Plan, which forms part of the “Urban design, character and community identity” element for the “A safe, well designed city” theme. It states: “Development is cognisant of the function and desired future appearance of each individual area and reinforces or reinterprets the character of the area.” -- 41 of 71 -- 42 [183] Read collectively, the provisions of the Strategic framework convey that east of the Gold Coast Highway, the narrow strip of land containing the subject land is within an area where: (a) high intensity urban development is intended; (b) varied height and form of buildings is expected where the variety reinforces and achieves the desired future local character; and (c) increases in building height up to 50 per cent above that on the Building height overlay map can be expected when certain outcomes are satisfied. [184] When considering the prospect of an increase in building height above the height limit shown on the Building height overlay map, I have had regard to the recent Court of Appeal decision in Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2026] QCA 136, including the observations of His Honour Justice Kelly at [80]. I have not placed any reliance on the built form that is the subject of the decision in my assessment for this case. [185] As I have mentioned above, City Plan uses 23 zones to organise the local government area in a way that facilitates the location of the preferred or acceptable land uses. Joe Doniger Park and parts of the beach dune areas off Pacific Parade are in the Open Space zone. Otherwise, the land at Bilinga is in the Medium density residential zone. I have identified some of the relevant provisions of the Medium density residential zone code in paragraphs [39] to [41] above. [186] Those provisions, and others in the Medium density residential zone code such as ss 6.2.2.2(2)(a) to (d), provide focussed implementation of the strategic planning provided in the Strategic framework. They reinforce the intention that this pocket of land east of the Gold Coast Highway, between Musgrave Street and Mills Street, will be developed as an area of high intensity urban development that is predominantly comprised of housing and multiple dwellings. It is apparent from the Medium density residential zone code that a mix of development styles is anticipated, which can include building heights of at least 23 metres. [187] Although performance outcome PO3 of the Medium density zone code stipulates that height is not to exceed that shown on the relevant Building height overlay map, the significance of any non-compliance with that provision is to be assessed in the context of the Strategic framework, particularly s 3.3.2.1(9) of City Plan. As I have mentioned above, this issue has been addressed by this Court on numerous occasions. On that issue, I adopt the analysis in Tricare (Bayview) Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2022] QPEC 31; [2023] QPELR 1073 at 1096—1101 [86]—[116]; Bell Co Pty Ltd & Ors v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2022] QPEC 32, [2023] QPELR 1160 at 1167—8 [31]—[36] and 1169—73 [45]—[62]; Archer & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Ors [2022] QPEC 59; [2024] QPELR 387 at 446—9 [285]—[295], 450—2 [299]—[302] and [305]—[309], 469—74 [392]—[414]. I have also considered the recent Court of Appeal decision in Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2026] QCA 136. [188] Overall, I agree with Mr Mewing that City Plan intends that the local area bounded by Musgrave Street, Pacific Parade, Golden Four Drive and Mills Stret will transition from an area of smaller-scale and lower-rise built form to a larger-scale and medium and high-rise built form. As such, although some of the lower-rise built form may -- 42 of 71 -- 43 remain, a smaller-scale and lower-rise built form character is not planned to persist. It is likely to be replaced in accordance with the planning intent. How do the extant development approvals influence the local identity and sense of place? [189] The likelihood that the character of the local area will transition to accord with that planned is evident from the extant development approvals. They demonstrate that the desired local character is gradually being realised. [190] As I have explained above, the evidence before me about the existing and approved development is comprehensive than that presented in The Body Corporate for 62 Pacific Community Titles Scheme 45586 & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor; Sexton v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2025] QPEC 13. [191] The evidence now before me, but which was not before me previously, includes a comprehensive set of renders and floor plates for the six approved developments that exceed 23 metres in height (Exhibit 23, Separate Report of Leo Mewing, Appendix C) and the new approval at 66 Pacific Parade (Exhibit 26). Dr McGowan also provides copies of the elevations for the approved buildings. [192] When one considers the planned outcomes and the recently approved development, it is not difficult to conclude that Bilinga is an area in transition. This is also evident from the existing built form, particularly the form of the older buildings compared to that of the newer development. [193] Although much of the built form along Pacific Parade does not comprise taller buildings, particularly between Cahill Street and Graham Street, that situation is not planned to persist. The area is intended to accommodate medium density residential development. This is planned to include multiple dwellings up to 23 metres and, in certain circumstances, up to 34.5 metres in height. Many such buildings have recently been approved in this local area. [194] Having regard to my review of City Plan and recent development approvals, I accept the opinion of Mr Mewing that, because of recently constructed and approved taller buildings, the area is transitioning into a built form context that achieves urban consolidation with taller buildings as intended by the planning designations. [195] I also accept the evidence of Mr Buckley about the impact of the extant development approvals. He opines that the development height and form in the Bilinga strip is currently varied and, when all current approvals are in place, it will exhibit a character or sense of place where there will be: (a) a reinforcement of the linear nature of the strip through built form; (b) a mix of individual houses and multiple dwellings, with the number of houses reducing over time; and (c) a variety of built form height within the multiple dwelling component, whether the uplift opportunities are afforded or not. [196] As was observed by Her Honour Judge Prskalo KC, the local area is progressing through a period of transition from relatively low intensity, predominantly low-rise -- 43 of 71 -- 44 development to larger medium and high-rise built form. It is transitioning towards a planned character of buildings consistent with the Medium density residential zone and the opportunities for increased height afforded by s 3.3.2.1(9) of the City Plan: Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Cielo Property Group Pty Ltd [2025] QPEC 18 at [39], [40] and [41]; see also The Body Corporate for 62 Pacific Community Titles Scheme 45586 & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor; Sexton v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2025] QPEC 13 at [135]. [197] Although there are some exceptions, the extant development approvals are generally for taller buildings, including buildings taller than 23 metres, that exhibit those characteristics identified by Dr McGowan, Mr Richards and Mr Curtis: see paragraphs [155], [156], [159], [160] and [161] above. Does the proposed development contribute to a reinforced local identity and sense of place? [198] The Appellants allege that the proposed development does not contribute to a reinforced local identity and sense of place. [199] Each of the experts retained by the Appellants addressed the proposed development’s compliance with s 3.3.2.1(9)(b) of City Plan. Additionally, in their written submissions, the Appellants advance a case that is not founded only on the evidence of their experts. [200] Anjos Developments Pty Ltd disputes the opinions of the Appellants’ experts and the Appellants’ contentions. [201] The respective cases call for consideration of three questions, namely: 1. Does the evidence of the Appellants’ experts demonstrate non-compliance? 2. Are the Appellants’ submissions about non-compliance persuasive? 3. What does the evidence demonstrate? Does the evidence of the Appellants’ experts demonstrate non-compliance? [202] The evidence of Mr Middleton that the proposed development does not comply with s 3.3.2.1(9) of City Plan can be dismissed readily for the reasons provided in paragraph [121] and [176] above. These matters infected Mr Middleton’s assessment of impact to the extent that I do not regard it to be reliable. [203] Mr Butcher opines that the proposed development does not reinforce the local identity and sense of place and does not protect important elements of local character as required by ss 3.3.2.1(9)(b) and (g). He regards the proposed development to be inappropriately visually dominant. There are two propositions that are fundamental to Mr Butcher’s opinion about both provisions. -- 44 of 71 -- 45 [204] First, according to Mr Butcher, the proposed development does not “retain” the low- medium height built form of the “local setting”. Mr Butcher’s opinion in this regard is premised on his defined “local setting”, which: (a) excludes development fronting Golden Four Drive, including development on premises immediately adjoining the subject land; (b) excludes taller development fronting Pacific Parade, such as Porta Pacifique, which are visible from: (i) locations near the subject land; and (ii) locations where the view will include the proposed development and the taller developments; (c) includes land north of Mills Street, which is: (i) is mapped on the Building height overlay map in City Plan as having a height of three storeys or 15 metres; and (ii) more distant from the subject land than the site containing Porta Pacifique: Transcript of Proceedings, Stewart Brown and Paul Rimington v Council of the City of Gold Coast and Anjos Developments Pty Ltd; Diane Morton and Jennifer Chatterton v Council of the City of Gold Coast and Anjos Developments Pty Ltd (Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, 1799/25; 1794/25, Kefford DCJ, 23 April 2026) 27—30. [205] During cross-examination, Mr Butcher was unable to provide a rational explanation for selecting such a confined local area. Rather, he explained that, in defining the boundaries of his local setting, he deliberately disregarded the planning intentions and drew his boundaries to exclude any parts of the local area that contained development that was not low-medium height built form. In effect, Mr Butcher drew his boundaries in a way that would ensure a conclusion of non-compliance, i.e., non- compliance would be a self-fulfilling prophecy: see Transcript of Proceedings, Stewart Brown and Paul Rimington v Council of the City of Gold Coast and Anjos Developments Pty Ltd; Diane Morton and Jennifer Chatterton v Council of the City of Gold Coast and Anjos Developments Pty Ltd (Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, 1799/25; 1794/25, Kefford DCJ, 23 April 2026) 27—34. [206] I do not regard Mr Butcher’s approach to be appropriate. [207] For the reasons provided above, I do not accept that it is appropriate to assess the proposed development’s compliance with s 3.3.2.1(9) based on the local setting as defined by Mr Butcher. [208] The second proposition that is fundamental to Mr Butcher’s opinion is that the proposed development will visually dominate natural features and public realm areas because, when viewed from the beach, it is taller than the Norfolk pines in the adjoining linear park and does not have the visual permeability and shape of the Norfolk pines: Stewart Brown and Paul Rimington v Council of the City of Gold Coast and Anjos Developments Pty Ltd; Diane Morton and Jennifer Chatterton v Council of the City of Gold Coast and Anjos Developments Pty Ltd (Planning and -- 45 of 71 -- 46 Environment Court of Queensland, 1799/25; 1794/25, Kefford DCJ, 23 April 2026) 34—6. [209] I do not accept Mr Butcher’s views that the height of the proposed development is greater than the Norfolk pines when viewed from the beach. Mr Butcher does not support his view by reference to any diagram or photo or photomontage. His views are discordant with the unchallenged photos and photomontages, as demonstrated by the analysis in figures 8 to 11 of Mr Powell’s report: Exhibit 7. [210] With respect to the absence of a design that has the visual permeability and shape of the Norfolk pines, I prefer the evidence of Mr Powell. He explains that, regardless of design, there will be an obvious difference between the built form and the natural elements. The character of the area is not defined by built form that replicates or mimics the natural elements. As such, I do not accept Mr Butcher’s view that it is necessary for the proposed development to have the visual permeability or shape of the Norfolk pines to achieve compliance with ss 3.3.2.1(9)(b) and (g) of City Plan. [211] In relation to non-compliance with ss 3.3.2.1(9)(b) and (g) of City Plan, in his statements of evidence, Mr Adamson: (a) places significance on: (i) the height of existing built form proximate the proposed development; and (ii) the height of the proposed development compared to that of the Norfolk pines; and (b) discounts the relevance of development in Golden Four Drive. [212] During cross-examination, Mr Adamson appropriately acknowledged difficulties with his approach and made appropriate concessions. For example, in his first statement of evidence, Mr Adamson opines that it makes sense from a town planning perspective that development in Pacific Parade would be lower than that in Golden Four Drive so that it would sleeve the larger buildings on Golden Four Drive and reduce their impact when viewed from Tugun Esplanade. During cross-examination, Mr Adamson conceded that the explanation for the difference in the existing built form is not informed by town planning considerations. City Plan does not draw such a distinction in terms of the planned outcome. Mr Adamson accepted that the existing built form is more likely to reflect an economic reality whereby owners of underdeveloped sites on Golden Four Drive have, to date, been more willing to sell and developers have sought to maximise the development envelope to sell apartments with views before sites on Pacific Parade are redeveloped limiting those views. [213] I was grateful for the assistance of Mr Adamson. His evidence was based on a careful and close examination of the proposed development. In his statements of evidence, Mr Adamson provides a cogent explanation about the foundation for his opinions. During his cross-examination, Mr Adamson demonstrated an openness to exploring the appropriateness of the foundations for his opinions. He made appropriate concessions when confronted with new information and alternative inferences to those on which his opinions were founded. Mr Adamson clearly identified the implications of such matters to his opinions. In doing so, Mr Adamson appropriately recognised that the issue of compliance with ss 3.3.2.1(9)(b) and (g) of City Plan are -- 46 of 71 -- 47 matters about which reasonable minds might differ. His clear identification of the relevance of considerations to his ultimate opinions allowed me to fairly assess his opinion and test the extent to which it accords with my impression of the unchallenged visual aids. [214] Considering the concessions made by Mr Adamson’s during cross-examination, it is not clear whether Mr Adamson maintains his opinions about non-compliance. The Appellants did not attempt to clarify this during re-examination. [215] In the circumstances, having regard to the cross-examination, it is unnecessary for me to address Mr Adamson’s evidence in detail. It is sufficient to observe that, to the extent that Mr Adamson maintains his views: (a) these are matters about which reasonable minds may differ; and (b) I prefer the evidence of Mr Curtis, Mr Powell, Mr Buckley, Dr McGowan and Mr Mewing to that of Mr Adamson. [216] Although I reject the evidence of Mr Middleton and Mr Butcher about non- compliance with s 3.3.2.1(9)(b) of City Plan, and do not place weight on the evidence of Mr Adamson, it does not follow that the proposed development complies. Anjos Developments Pty Ltd bears the onus. That begs the question: what does the evidence that I accept demonstrate? I will deal with that question after I address the Appellants submissions. Are the Appellants’ submissions about non-compliance persuasive? [217] The Appellants contend that the proposed development is out of character and does not reinforce local identity and sense of place. It says this is evident because: (a) the proposed development will not have a similar height and will not achieve scale compatibility with other taller buildings along Pacific Parade, particularly at the northern end of Pacific Parade; (b) in its immediate setting between Cahill Street and Mills Street, the proposed development will be a dominant element because, at 34.5 metres tall, it is significantly higher than any other building; (c) the proposed development has no prominent step in its height, and its form and scale are fully exposed to view along Pacific Parade without any mitigation measures, such as the use of recessive colours, to reduce its prominence and visual dominance; (d) the proposed development is different to Porta Pacifique, given it is on a site with narrow frontage and the design is without much recess, landscaping, variation, modulation or presentation to relieve it from being imposing and overbearing on its surrounds; and (e) the proposed development will have a visually heavy, overhanging, flat roofline. [218] The Appellants’ essential point is that due to its height, bulky upper levels and location on a narrow allotment, the proposed development will dominate the character of this part of the local area and overwhelm the experience of this part of the public realm. -- 47 of 71 -- 48 [219] The Appellants accept that the character of the local area is in a state of transition. They submit that character, local identity and sense of place must be assessed considering the reasonable expectations of residents of the local area to be gleaned from City Plan. They say that the reasonable expectations are of an intended character in the locality of approvals up to the limit of 23 metres in height, as set by the Building height overlay map, with the possibility of an application of the height uplift provisions “in limited circumstances”. According to the Appellants, the prospect of higher future development cannot come at the cost of ignoring or expunging the influence of existing built form. The Appellants submit that the word “reinforced” does not admit of a departure from the height limit to such a degree as to be grossly discordant with what already exists, including in a part of the local area that has less variation in building height than other parts. [220] If one focuses on a numerical analysis, the sites on Pacific Parade closest to the subject land are generally of lower height than elsewhere in the local area. I do not consider that this justifies confining the local area. To do so would involve an unduly narrow approach that does not pay appropriate regard to the characteristics of the area and relevant planning context. Rather, it would involve ignoring relevant context, such as lot pattern, the visibility of taller constructed and approved developments that are in the same view shed as the subject development, and relevant provisions of City Plan such as ss 3.2.2 and 3.3.2.1(8). It also does not pay appropriate regard to the planning outcomes sought in City Plan. [221] In Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Cielo Property Group Pty Ltd [2025] QPEC 18, Her Honour Judge Prskalo observed at [115]: “I do not accept that the height exceedance is “atypical” on Pacific Parade … The fact that Golden Four Drive has transitioned to medium and high-rise buildings quicker than Pacific Parade is unremarkable. Similar to what was described in Heidelberg Business Park Pty Ltd & Ors v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2025] QPEC 14 at [63], it will take time to achieve the planned character for Bilinga. The transition is happening at a more accelerated rate on the Golden Four Drive side of the local area, but the character of the Pacific Parade side of the locality is not static. The planning scheme encourages change, which is to be reasonably expected throughout the locality and not just on land parcels with a frontage to Golden Four Drive.” [222] Those observations are equally apposite in this case. [223] It is apparent from a comparison of the modern development to the much older built form, as well as the recent approvals, that the area is transitioning to one characterised by development of greater heights located on both Pacific Parade and Golden Four Drive. The Appellants’ submissions do not pay appropriate regard to this fact. [224] I also disagree with the Appellants’ characterisation of the visual impact of the roofline and its visual prominence and dominance. They do not accord with my own assessment, which is based on the unchallenged evidence referred to in paragraphs [20](a) to [20](f) above. -- 48 of 71 -- 49 [225] In my view, the Appellants’ contentions that the proposed development will dominate the character of this part of the local area and overwhelm the experience of this part of the public realm are also not supported by the unchallenged evidence referred to in paragraphs [20](a) to [20](f) above. [226] In terms of the relationship between the proposed development and the natural environment, Dr McGowan says that the proposed development will not be of such a scale as to detract from the visual attributes of Joe Doniger Park, the beach, or the contribution those landscape features make to the character of the local area. Those features are vast and readily appreciated as one moves about the local area. The proposed development will not change that. Dr McGowan opines that the taller buildings along Pacific Parade, including the proposed development, would not diminish the contribution that the trees make to the local character as a defining, albeit sporadic, edge along Tugun Esplanade and as a recognisable coastal species that reinforces the coastal character. [227] I accept Dr McGowan’s evidence in this respect. It accords with my own assessment based on the photomontages. It is also supported by one of the few coherent aspects of Mr Middleton’s oral testimony, wherein Mr Middleton unequivocally explained that the photomontages show that as one moves through the local area, the foliage of the Norfolk pines obscure the proposed development, particularly its upper extent: see Transcript of Proceedings, Stewart Brown and Paul Rimington v Council of the City of Gold Coast and Anjos Developments Pty Ltd; Diane Morton and Jennifer Chatterton v Council of the City of Gold Coast and Anjos Developments Pty Ltd (Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, 1799/25; 1794/25, Kefford DCJ, 22 April 2026) 78. [228] Having regard to the unchallenged evidence referred to in paragraphs [20](a) to [20](f) above, I am satisfied that the proposed development will not dominate the character of this part of the local area nor overwhelm the experience of the public realm at locations close to the subject land. [229] Although I do not find the Appellants’ submissions about non-compliance with s 3.3.2.1(9)(b) of City Plan persuasive, it does not follow that the proposed development complies. Anjos Developments Pty Ltd bears the onus. I turn now to consider what the evidence demonstrates. What does the evidence demonstrate? [230] Dr McGowan opines that, despite being the tallest building along Pacific Parade and one of the tallest in the local area, the proposed development will appropriately reinforce the local identity and sense of place. He explains that, like other medium and high-rise developments in the area, the proposed development capitalises on and references its coastal setting through building and balcony orientation and the use of contextually appropriate materials and landscaping. Dr McGowan also says that, like other contemporary taller buildings, the proposed development incorporates effective modulation and articulation that moderates the overall perceived bulk of the building so that it relates well to the more moderately scaled buildings in the locality. Dr McGowan identifies the design elements that he says provide vertical and horizontal modulation and articulation. The identified elements are some of those design features to which I refer in paragraphs [67] and [69] to [73] above. -- 49 of 71 -- 50 [231] In addition, Dr McGowan says that the proposed development reinforces the local identity and sense of place by: (a) incorporating high quality materials, a lighter colour scheme and other features such as vertical battens and expressed slab edges, which are consistent with the local architectural language on modern buildings; and (b) providing upper levels that are differentiated and partially recessed from the levels below. [232] Mr Mewing also opines that the proposed development complies with s 3.3.2.1(9)(b) of City Plan. He says that it does so by contributing to the transitional character, creating variability and interest in the urban form, and having parallels to the other buildings in the locality. He explains that the proposed architectural response for the subject land is a contemporary residential building that includes a level of urban intensity balanced by landscaping, architectural articulation and sub-tropical design elements. Mr Mewing says the relevant sub-tropical design elements are the suitably sized balconies with orientation towards views and breezes, solar shading, and openings to multiple facades for all units. According to Mr Mewing, these design features of the proposed development reinforce aspects of the character of the locality that are expressed in the more contemporary towers. [233] I accept the evidence of Dr McGowan and Mr Mewing. It accords with my own assessment, including the impressions I have formed having regard to the unchallenged evidence referred to in paragraphs [20](a) to [20](f) above. Conclusion regarding reinforced local identity and sense of place [234] For the reasons provided above, I am satisfied that the proposed development achieves the specific outcome in s 3.3.2.1(9)(b) of City Plan. Is there compliance with s 3.3.2.1(9)(c) regarding a well-managed interface? [235] The Appellants allege that the proposed development does not comply with the specific outcome in s 3.3.2.1(9)(c) of City Plan. That outcome is expressed as: “a well managed interface with, relationship to and impact on nearby development, including the reasonable amenity expectations of nearby residents”. [236] The case now advanced by the Appellants is that the proposed development is visually dominant and overbearing. They say that is a consequence of a design that has inadequate: (a) setbacks; (b) variations in site cover; (c) modulation and articulation; and (d) landscaping. [237] During final submissions, the Appellants abandoned their allegations about inappropriate impacts on privacy, and inappropriate impacts occasioned by shadow and inadequate access to sunlight: see Exhibit 28. Although very late, the -- 50 of 71 -- 51 abandonment was appropriate. The evidence comfortably demonstrates that the proposed development is designed skilfully to avoid any unacceptable impacts in those regards. [238] Anjos Developments Pty Ltd disputes the Appellants’ allegations. [239] Before addressing the Appellants’ case and the evidence, it assists to briefly address general considerations that inform the approach to this assessment benchmark. What are the general considerations that inform the approach to this assessment benchmark? [240] The Appellants submit that “well managed” means more than unsurprising, usual or merely acceptably managed. They say that, like the term “excellent” used in s 3.3.2.1(9)(e) of City Plan, the term “well managed” is seeking a higher standard than average or usual management. [241] The term “well managed” is not defined in the Planning Act 2016, the Planning Regulation 2017, sch 1 of City Plan, the Acts Interpretation Act 1954. As such, it should be given its ordinary meaning: see s 1.2.1 of City Plan. [242] The Macquarie Dictionary defines the term as “managed or controlled skilfully”: Macquarie Dictionary Online, 2026, Macquarie Dictionary Publishers, an Imprint of PanMacmillan Australia Pty Ltd, www.macquariedictionary.com.au. [243] The Court of Appeal considered the meaning of “reasonable amenity expectations” in s 3.3.2.1 in McEnearney v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2024] QCA 246; [2025] QPELR 658. In that case, the Court of Appeal was considering an allegation that the trial judge had erred in discounting the weight given to properly made submissions because of their failure to have sufficient regard to an extant development approval. The trial judge had relied on the extant approval and City Plan in determining the reasonable expectations. The Court of Appeal found at 671 [45]: “The Applicant’s submissions cannot be accepted. As correctly submitted by the Second Respondent, it has long been recognised in decisions of the P&E Court and this Court, that the reasonable expectations for the community are informed not only by the adopted planning controls, but also by what exists on the ground.” (emphasis added) [244] Section 3.3.2.1(9)(c) of City Plan calls for consideration of whether the proposed development is well-managed with respect to its: (a) interface with nearby development; (b) relationship to nearby development, which may include a visual relationship, matters of privacy, overlooking and shadowing; and (c) impact on nearby development, including reasonable amenity expectations of nearby residents. -- 51 of 71 -- 52 [245] In Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Cielo Property Group Pty Ltd [2025] QPEC 18, when addressing this assessment benchmark, Her Honour Judge Prskalo KC observed at [136]—[138]: “[136] The term relationship is broad enough to include a visual relationship as well as matters of privacy, overlooking, and shadowing. [137] Consideration of amenity in a town planning context is not in the abstract. It is informed by the planning controls applying in the area under consideration and the notion of reasonableness. Proposed development will often affect existing amenity. What is unacceptable is a detrimental effect to an unreasonable extent according to the reasonable expectation of other landholders in the vicinity given the sorts of uses permitted under current town planning controls. While the subjective views of those whose amenity may be affected by a proposed development are not to be ignored, in the final analysis the question must be answered according to the standards of comfort and enjoyment which are to be expected by ordinary people of plain, sober, and simple notion not effected by some special sensitivity or eccentricity. The weight to be accorded to subjective views can only be judged in the light of all the evidence about the subject: see Acland Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Rosalie Shire Council & Ors [2008] QPELR 324 at [40] (citations and footnotes omitted). [138] The use of the term ‘overbearing’ in an amenity and character context typically refers to the visual relationship between built form and a potential receptor. The receptor can be a person or other built form. An overbearing visual relationship is one characterised by excessive visual dominance in light of the relevant circumstances. The relevant circumstances include the existing character of an area, the content of adopted planning controls, and rights conferred by extant development approvals that, at the time of the assessment, have not been acted upon: Heidelberg Business Park Pty Ltd & Ors v Council for the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2025] QPEC 14 at [76].” (footnotes omitted) [246] I agree with the observations of Her Honour Judge Prskalo KC. [247] A convenient starting point for determining the acceptability of any impacts of the proposed development on nearby development is an appreciation of its planning context. In this respect, I accept the evidence of Mr Buckley. He explains that amenity and expectations of amenity are influenced strongly by the planning scheme. [248] I have addressed aspects of the relevant planning context in paragraphs [38] to [44], [56] to [58], and [168] to [188] above. -- 52 of 71 -- 53 [249] Other provisions of City Plan that provide relevant guidance on what might reasonably be expected include: (a) performance outcome PO1 of the Medium density residential zone code, which relevantly states: “Setbacks: (a) assist in the protection of adjacent amenity; (b) allow for access around the building; (c) contribute to the streetscape character; and (d) allow for on-site car parking.” (b) performance outcome PO2 of the Medium density residential zone code, which states: “Site cover: (a) is balanced between built form and green areas for landscaped private open space; (b) contributes to the neighbourhood character and amenity; (c) promotes slender bulk form; (d) promotes an open and attractive and distinctive skyline; and (e) facilitates small, fast moving shadows.” (c) performance outcome PO4 of the General development provisions code, which states: “The proposal provides landscape work that protects and enhances the character of the local area.” [250] The Appellants place significant emphasis on departures from acceptable outcome AO1 of the Medium density residential zone code. They refer to the Court of Appeal’s decision in WBQH Developments Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council & Anor [2010] QCA 126, wherein Fryberg J, with whom McMurdo P and Atkinson J agreed, observed at [36]: “As WBQH correctly conceded, that does not mean that the content of an acceptable solution is irrelevant. It may indicate what the planning scheme desires or prefers as development in the particular area. It takes but a small inference from such a conclusion to find that the intent of the Scheme is to favour such development in that area. I reject WBQH’s submission that an express statement of desire is irrelevant in indicating a planning scheme intent.” [251] Care must be taken in placing reliance on this decision as authority for the proposition that an acceptable solution indicates what the planning scheme “desires or prefers”. The relevance of acceptable outcomes is to be considered in the context of the planning scheme in question. The planning scheme that was the subject of the decision in WBQH Developments Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council & Anor [2010] -- 53 of 71 -- 54 QCA 126 contained a provision that expressly stated that it was “desirable” for there to be compliance with acceptable solutions: see WBQH Developments Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [2009] QPEC 54; (2009) 167 LGERA 194 at 197 [7] and footnote 3 and Main Beach Progress Association Incorporated & Ors v Gold Coast City Council & Anor [2008] QPEC 37; (2008) 164 LGERA 233 at 253 [88]. [252] Under City Plan, the acceptable outcomes are not expressed as indicating the desired or preferred means of achieving compliance with a code. Rather, s 5.3.3(4)(c) of City Plan states that development that complies with the performance or acceptable outcomes complies with the purpose and overall outcomes of the code. In addition, s 6.1(8) of City Plan indicates that for zone codes, the acceptable outcomes are taken to achieve the performance outcomes, the overall outcomes and the purpose of the code. [253] Under City Plan, compliance with the acceptable outcomes is not mandatory. Acceptable outcome AO1 of the Medium density residential zone code provides quantitative standards that, if complied with, demonstrate the acceptability of the proposed development’s setbacks without the need to scrutinise its performance against the associated performance outcome. Compliance with a code can also be demonstrated by compliance with either performance outcomes or the purpose and the overall outcomes of a code. That said, where exceedances of the quantitative standards in the acceptable outcomes are substantial, the design may attract closer scrutiny. [254] Having regard to the planning context, I accept the evidence of Mr Buckley and Mr Mewing about reasonable expectations of amenity impacts. Having referred to relevant aspects of City Plan, Mr Buckley opines that the reasonably expected amenity of the area is one that will be consistent with a medium-density residential environment that contains a mixture of tall and low-rise buildings. Mr Mewing similarly opines that taller scale buildings are to be reasonably expected. [255] In the circumstances, it is reasonable to expect a degree of impact from taller buildings locating cheek-by-jowl with low-rise buildings. The real issues are whether the level of impact is acceptable and the interface is well-managed having regard to: (a) the design of the proposed development; and (b) the circumstances to which it must respond, such as the features of existing and approved surrounding development. [256] With those matters in mind, I now turn to consider the allegations of unacceptable impact. Will the proposed development be visually dominant and overbearing? [257] The Appellants contend that the proposed development will present as visually dominant and overbearing, particularly to the four-storey development at 2 Graham Street (Pacific Place Apartments) and the proposed three storey house and six-storey multiple dwelling development approved for 160 Pacific Parade. In support of their submission, the Appellants rely on the evidence of Mr Middleton, Mr Butcher and exceedances of quantitative standards in City Plan and building metrics. [258] Mr Middleton opines that the proposed development does not comply with s 3.3.2.1(9)(c) of City Plan. He says that the proposed development fails to achieve -- 54 of 71 -- 55 an appropriate standard of residential amenity for the adjoining sites and the wider local setting. There are two propositions that are fundamental to Mr Middleton’s opinion, namely: (a) the proposed development pays “scant attention” to City Plan’s acceptable outcome for setbacks, particularly for the upper levels; and (b) the different expression of the upper levels lacks inherent urban elegance for such a prominent, and intentionally prominent, component of the built form. [259] With respect to the first proposition, Mr Middleton accepts Mr Curtis’ analysis regarding setbacks. Mr Curtis’ analysis demonstrates that: (a) the front setback to Pacific Parade satisfies acceptable outcome AO1 of the Medium density residential zone code: (i) up to and including level six (i.e., the seventh storey); (ii) at levels eight and nine, other than with respect to: (A) the projecting planter box at level eight; and (B) the projecting roof above level nine; (b) along the southeastern boundary, the side setback satisfies acceptable outcome AO1 of the Medium density residential zone code from ground floor level up to and including level three (i.e., the fourth storey); (c) along the northwestern boundary, the side setback satisfies acceptable outcome AO1 of the Medium density residential zone code from ground floor level up to and including level three other than: (i) the columns that are built to the side boundary; and (ii) the floor plate above and its containerised landscaping that are supported by the columns, which are setback approximately one metre from the side boundary; and (d) the proposed development otherwise provides less setback than the quantitative standards set in acceptable outcome AO1 of the Medium density residential zone code, including by approximately two metres at levels seven and eight and approximately three metres at level nine. [260] Regarding setbacks, Mr Middleton says that the acceptable outcome for setbacks “is designed to achieve precisely the amenity that the proposed development fails to address”. Based on that opinion, in his conclusion, Mr Middleton says “the minimal setbacks proposed are not compliant with the Acceptable Outcomes or the Performance Outcomes of the Planning Scheme”. [261] In his written statements of evidence, Mr Middleton provides little justification for his opinion other than the bare, unexplained assertions to which I refer above. He does not articulate, in a comprehensible manner, the basis for his opinions, other than insofar as his reliance on non-compliance with acceptable outcomes. During cross- examination, when efforts were made to elicit relevant information so that his opinions might be tested, Mr Middleton gave evasive answers. The way Mr Middleton explains his views in his statements of evidence left me with the -- 55 of 71 -- 56 impression that he regards non-compliance with the quantitative standards in the acceptable outcomes to be determinative. It seems to me that he is of the view that the non-compliance obviates the need to meaningfully assess whether the design achieves an appropriate, performance-based outcome. [262] Mr Middleton’s oral evidence did not alter my impression. When tested about his treatment of the acceptable outcomes during cross-examination, Mr Middleton said that it was not necessary to comply, but also said that “it is not helpful to depart from the basic expectation”. [263] With the benefit of my observation of all of Mr Middleton’s oral evidence, I am left with the clear impression that Mr Middleton approached his assessment of the proposed development with a closed mind. He was not genuinely receptive to the possibility that a development can achieve an acceptable outcome that is different to that provided by the quantitative standards in the acceptable outcome. It also seems to me that his approach infected his opinions on all issues. For this reason alone, I do not find any of Mr Middleton’s evidence persuasive. [264] In relation to the second proposition, during cross-examination Mr Middleton characterised his view that the upper levels are inappropriately designed as “a matter of just simple observation”. His opinion in this regard is informed by his view that the roof is the “pivotal architectural feature” and is “aggressively expressed”, “simplistic and heavy” and “out of scale”. [265] Having regard to the unchallenged evidence identified in paragraphs [20](a) to [20](f) above, particularly the photomontages, I do not share Mr Middleton’s view. This is another reason that I do not find Mr Middleton’s evidence on this matter to be persuasive. [266] Like Mr Middleton, Mr Butcher opines that the proposed development does not comply with s 3.3.2.1(9)(c) of City Plan. He says that the proposed development does not comply by reason of its overbearing impacts and unacceptable impacts on outlook. He says the proposed development will present as an overbearing structure when viewed from external private and communal spaces on adjoining approved and existing developments. [267] Mr Butcher’s opinion is founded on six propositions, namely: (a) the non-compliance with acceptable outcome AO1 of the Medium density residential zone code in terms of setbacks; (b) Mr Butcher’s view that the proposed development will have a large, highly prominent vertical form when viewed from external private and communal spaces on adjoining approved and existing developments; (c) the boundary block wall of 2.15 metres’ height along the northwestern boundary and the series of five columns above them present as an overbearing series of structures adjacent the property boundary; (d) the proposed development’s appearance would substantially change the nature of the outlook from adjoining properties; -- 56 of 71 -- 57 (e) although the height of the proposed development may not obscure views to North Kirra Beach and Joe Doniger Park, it does not have an appropriate relationship to the Norfolk pines; and (f) the landscaping fails to make any material impact to the character of the building, especially in terms of softening or moderating its height, bulk and scale. [268] Unlike Mr Middleton, Mr Butcher does not place definitive weight on the failure to provide setbacks that comply with acceptable outcome AO1 of the Medium density residential zone code. Rather, Mr Butcher appears to use the non-compliance to justify closer scrutiny of the design. I have no difficulty with that aspect of his evidence. [269] With respect to the second proposition, Mr Butcher provides diagrams identifying the views from external private and communal spaces on adjoining approved and existing developments to which he refers. Mr Butcher also explains the basis for his view that the proposed development will have a large, highly prominent vertical form. In that respect, he says the proposed development has limited modulation of its form and limited articulation of the facades. According to Mr Butcher, when that is considered in combination with the limited setbacks and the height, the proposed development will have in an imposing form within the surrounding residential context. [270] Although Mr Butcher provides a clear and helpful explanation for his opinion, it is a matter about which reasonable minds may differ. Having regard to the unchallenged evidence identified in paragraphs [20](a) to [20](f) above, particularly the photomontages, I do not share Mr Butcher’s views that the proposed development has limited modulation and articulation or that it will have an imposing form. [271] In the circumstances, I do not accept Mr Butcher’s second proposition. [272] My assessment of the impact of the boundary block wall of 2.15 metres’ height and the series of five columns along the northwestern boundary also differs from that of Mr Butcher. Having regard to the unchallenged evidence identified in paragraphs [20](a) to [20](f) above, particularly the architectural and landscape plans that show the detail of the interface, I do not regard them to be overbearing. [273] Mr Butcher’s fourth and fifth propositions are founded on the same concepts that inform his views about non-compliance with ss 3.3.2.1(9)(b) and (g) of City Plan. I have already addressed why I do not consider them to be persuasive in paragraphs [203] to [210] above. [274] Finally, Mr Butcher says that the planters on the façade from levels two to nine are small (about 1.5 metres by 0.8 metres) and have minimal value. According to Mr Butcher, they are too shallow to support the larger species that would be required to soften the external character of the overall built form. He says they offer little in the way of relief, screening, softening or moderation of the built form. [275] Mr Butcher also opines that the proposed 250 by 600-millimetre-wide planters around the Pacific Parade frontage on level eight do not provide the depth, volume of soil or coverage to make a material difference to the appearance, form or scale of the proposed development, especially the northeastern and southwestern facades. -- 57 of 71 -- 58 According to Mr Butcher, they offer little more than the opportunity for trailing species, groundcovers and small shrubs to soften a small, isolated section of the building. Mr Butcher says that, although they create a minor point of interest around the balcony, generally the containerised landscaping on level eight will be very localised. He opines that within the context of the overall proposed development, the containerised landscaping will have a negligible impact on the proposed development’s scale, form and appearance. [276] I accept Mr Butcher’s evidence about the extent of landscaping that will be sustainable in the proposed containerised planting at levels two to nine. It is also not difficult to accept that the landscaping will not obscure the building from view. However, I do not accept that it follows that the proposed development will be visually dominant and overbearing. Mr Butcher’s conclusion in that respect is discordant with my independent assessment, which is based on the unchallenged evidence identified in paragraphs [20](a) to [20](f) above. [277] With respect to the landscaping and visual dominance, I prefer the evidence of Mr Powell. It accords with the approach I have undertaken in my independent assessment based on the unchallenged evidence identified in paragraphs [20](a) to [20](f) above. [278] Mr Powell explains that visual dominance is relative. The greatest dominance happens when one is next to a tall building. As one moves through the locality, the nearest tall building becomes more dominant. He also says that the expression of dominance may be mitigated, which is done through modulation and articulation. Finally, and importantly, Mr Powell opines that an assessment of interface and impact needs to be approached in its full context. I agree entirely with Mr Powell’s evidence in this respect. [279] The need to have regard to the full context was explained well by Mr Powell during cross-examination when questioned about Mr Butcher’s view on landscaping. It was suggested to Mr Powell that the containerised landscaping on the balconies offers little more than the opportunity for some trailing species, ground covers and small shrubs to soften a small, isolated section of the building. It was also suggested that the landscaping is generally very localised and has a negligible impact on the scale and form of the appearance of the building. In response, Mr Powell explained: “I think Mr Butcher’s – and this is no criticism of Mr Butcher – but I think Mr Butcher’s approaching it from a different appro – a different angle than I am. Mr Butcher’s approaching it from looking at that just as a planter without seeing the rest of the building, and from seeing the rest of the building, and particularly in a photo montage, but also the elevations, you can understand that there is a – a physical break that happens elsewhere around the edge of the building, and a change in the materials, a step in in modulation, additional shading from that sweeping roof, and this edge of landscaping is the – sort of the – the final piece of the puzzle. It’s not in and of itself doing all the heavy lifting; it’s working with a well-considered design.” [280] This explanation by Mr Powell epitomises the difference in approach between the assessment of the proposed development undertaken by Mr Butcher and Mr Middleton (on all issues) as compared to the assessments undertaken by -- 58 of 71 -- 59 Mr Powell, Mr Curtis, Dr McGowan and Mr Richards. This evidence usefully highlights why I prefer the evidence of Mr Powell, Mr Curtis, Dr McGowan and Mr Richards to that of Mr Butcher and Mr Middleton. [281] In the circumstances, I do not accept Mr Butcher’s final proposition. [282] Overall, I do not accept Mr Butcher’s opinion about non-compliance with s 3.3.2.1(9)(c) of City Plan. [283] In his written statements of evidence, Mr Adamson also opines that the proposed development does not comply with s 3.3.2.1(9)(c) of City Plan. Mr Adamson’s opinion is premised on an assumption that the evidence of Mr Middleton would be accepted. As such, I reject his opinion in that regard. [284] In addition to the evidence of its experts, the Appellants note that the site cover for level eight is 44 per cent. They submit that this exceeds the expected site cover for above eight storeys of 40 per cent in acceptable outcome AO2 of the Medium density residential zone code, which seeks to provide a balance between built form and green areas for landscaped private open space. The Appellants say that this demonstrates that the landscaping is inadequate to effectively mitigate or soften the impact of the built form. [285] Although I accept the metrics to which the Appellants refer, I do not accept their ultimate submission. As is apparent from paragraph [249](b) above, there is no direct correlation between the acceptable outcome for site cover and the provision of a balance between built form and green areas for landscaped private open space. The quantitative standards set in the acceptable outcome at the higher levels are informed by a combination of outcomes that are sought in the performance outcome, including promotion of a slender bulk form, promoting an open and attractive and distinctive skyline and facilitating small, fast-moving shadows. There is little, if any, direct relationship between these outcomes and landscaping provided at level eight. In my view, despite not complying with the acceptable outcome, the proposed development achieves all the outcomes sought in performance outcome PO2 of the Medium density residential zone code. [286] I am cognisant that the rejection of the evidence of Mr Middleton, Mr Butcher and Mr Adamson and the Appellants’ submissions about non-compliance with s 3.3.2.1(9)(c) of City Plan does not, of itself, justify a finding of compliance. Anjos Developments Pty Ltd bears the onus. [287] In my view, compliance with s 3.3.2.1(9)(c) of City Plan is readily demonstrated on the evidence. My view in that regard is largely informed by my own assessment of the unchallenged evidence identified in paragraphs [20](a) to [20](f) above. [288] As I have mentioned above, an assessment of interface and impact (including privacy, impacts on outlook and impacts occasioned by visual dominance and a sense of overbearing) needs to be approached in its full context. Part of the context that is relevant to an assessment of the extent to which the proposed development will be overbearing on adjoining premises requires careful consideration of the direct interface between buildings. This includes having regard to the attributes of the adjoining premises. This is a matter to which Mr Middleton, Mr Butcher and Mr Adamson pay no material regard. The same cannot be said of the evidence of -- 59 of 71 -- 60 Mr Powell, Mr Curtis and Dr McGowan. Their evidence identifies relevant aspects of the context and provides clear and cogent explanations about the relevance of the contextual matters to their opinions. [289] As is identified in the evidence of Mr Powell, Mr Curtis and Dr McGowan, with respect to the premises to the northwest, the impact is largely limited to the ground terraces of the multiple dwelling. There will only be limited views to the upper parts of the proposed development from within those units or from the small rear balconies. It is also relevant that those units are oriented towards Graham Street. Along this interface, the proposed development will remove a 50-metre length of driveway and hardscape and replace it with a 50-metre length of landscaping at ground level supplemented by perimeter planting at level one. The planned landscaping will grow to three and four metres in height and climbing plants will soften the columns along the boundary. The result is a substantial improvement in the standard of appearance of the interface compared to that which exists at present. [290] The proposed development will also be readily perceived from the balconies of the multiple dwelling behind the proposed development. However, those units have been designed to be close to the rear boundary. As such, having regard to the relevant planning context, a degree of impact would be expected. Along the rear boundary, the proposed development will remove the existing carport that immediately adjoins the boundary and replace it with an attractive arrangement of ground level deep planting. The area of planting ranges between 1.2 and 1.77 metres in width. There is also substantial planting to the level one perimeter that will provide a softening at that interface. [291] The adjoining premises to the southeast is vacant. Despite that, the ground level interface along that boundary has been carefully designed to have regard to the development approved for 160 Pacific Parade. As is explained by Mr Powell, the design includes: (a) coordinated planting at the interface with the neighbouring approved six storey building; (b) colocation of approved neighbouring vehicle manoeuvring with proposed service cabinets; (c) colocation of water meters at adjacent corners; and (d) colocation of feature planting at adjacent corners. [292] Mr Powell provides annotated photographs and plans that well justify his opinion that the landscaping at the lower levels, where site cover is highest and where the proposed development extends closest to the boundaries, follows a logical and balanced approach to the concept of a well-managed landscape interface. I accept his evidence in this regard. It is cogent and accords with my own assessment. [293] I also accept the evidence of Mr Curtis, Mr Richards, Mr Powell and Dr McGowan who each identify design attributes of the proposed development that, collectively, mitigate the appearance of bulk. The proposed development involves a well- considered design that skilfully utilises a range of architectural and landscaping design features to achieve a well-managed interface with, relationship to and impact on nearby development. The result accords with reasonable amenity expectations of -- 60 of 71 -- 61 nearby residents informed by relevant planning context and other relevant context, including the characteristics of the subject land and the development on and approved for adjoining premises. Conclusion regarding well-managed interface [294] Overall, I am persuaded that the proposed development satisfies the specific outcome in s 3.3.2.1(9)(b) of City Plan. Is there compliance with the outcome in s 3.3.2.1(9)(d) regarding a varied, ordered and interesting local skyline? [295] The Appellants allege that the proposed development does not comply with the specific outcome in s 3.3.2.1(9)(d) of City Plan. That outcome is expressed as “a varied, ordered and interesting local skyline”. [296] The achievement of a varied, ordered, and interesting local skyline is a matter that calls for a value judgment. It is a matter about which reasonable minds might differ. [297] The terms “ordered” is not defined in the Planning Act 2016, the Planning Regulation 2017, sch 1 of City Plan, the Acts Interpretation Act 1954. As such, it should be given its ordinary meaning: see s 1.2.1 of City Plan. [298] The Macquarie Dictionary defines “order” as: “a condition in which everything is in its proper place with reference to other things and to its purpose; methodical or harmonious arrangement”: Macquarie Dictionary, (9th ed, 2023) ‘order’ (def 6). [299] As such, the requirement that the skyline be “ordered” does not necessarily mean uniformity. Rather, it calls for consideration of whether there would be a harmonious arrangement: Aesthete No. 15 Pty Ltd & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Cielo Property Group Pty Ltd [2025] QPEC 18 at [180]. [300] The Appellants accept that the proposed development will result in a varied local skyline but contend that the resultant local skyline will not be ordered or interesting. Relevantly, the Appellants allege that there is non-compliance with this provision because: (a) the proposed development does not have an attractive building cap or rooftop features; (b) the proposed tower cap design does not attractively integrate services; and (c) the height and design of the building cap does not achieve an interesting or ordered skyline when compared with surrounding development: Exhibit 28. [301] In support of its case, the Appellants rely on the evidence of Mr Middleton and Mr Adamson. They also advance additional arguments by reference to the plans and photomontages. [302] Mr Middleton opines that the proposed development does not achieve an interesting local skyline. He describes the building as being topped by a flat roof with a pronounced curved edge that follows the form of the street front balconies. He says -- 61 of 71 -- 62 the roof is expressed through a strong cantilever form with overhangs to the northern and southern elevations that create a solid architectural roof form when read against the sky. According to Mr Middleton, the roof line is expressed in an inelegant format that competes with the more subtle materiality of the lower seven levels of the proposed development. In Mr Middleton’s view, the proposed skyline treatment is not a consistent architectural resolution of the architecture of the lower nine levels. [303] When read against the extended side overhangs of the roof form, Mr Middleton opines that the large curved form of the roof is not reflective of the more considered and subtle expression of the lower tower forms. He says that it results in a skyline form that is aggressively expressed. Mr Middleton considers that this is unacceptable as, in his view, the roof should subtly diminish the built form termination. According to Mr Middleton, by employing this design approach, the proposed development draws attention to its height and its form through an elevational feature of visual dominance attached to a flat roof form. In his view, the roof does not integrate with, nor compliment, the architecture of the balance of the proposed development. Mr Middleton describes the roof as simplistic and heavy. He says that it serves to emphasise the top part of the building as an out of scale element in its urban setting. For those reasons, Mr Middleton concludes that the proposed design does not result in an ordered and interesting local skyline. [304] As I have already mentioned, this is a matter about which reasonable minds may differ. My view of the upper extent of the proposed development, including its roofline, differs from that of Mr Middleton. My views accord with those of the expert witnesses retained by Anjos Developments Pty Ltd and the Council. [305] As I have mentioned, the Appellants’ case also relies on the evidence of Mr Adamson, who opines that the proposed development does not comply with s 3.3.2.1(9)(d) of City Plan. Mr Adamson’s opinion is, in part, informed by his own view about the locality and local character, particularly the character towards the northern end of Bilinga. However, Mr Adamson’s opinion is also premised on an assumption that the evidence of Mr Middleton will be accepted. In the circumstances, I do not find his opinion persuasive. [306] In addition to the evidence of Mr Middleton and Mr Adamson, the Appellants contend that non-compliance is evident from a consideration of the architectural plans and a comparison of the proposed development to other developments in the locality. [307] According to the Appellants, there are several developments within the locality that have a height like that of the proposed development. They also form part of the coastal spine. The Appellants say that most of these tall developments are removed from Pacific Parade and are in Golden Four Drive. They say that there have been only two other developments approved in Pacific Parade to the southeast that have a comparable building height. The Appellants submit that those developments are substantially removed from the subject land and are located closer to the larger developments in Coolangatta. According to the Appellants, it is this spread of development, and the location of the proposed development on a prominent site within the local area, which provide the relevant context for assessment of the contribution, or impacts, of the proposed development. -- 62 of 71 -- 63 [308] I do not agree with the Appellants’ approach of: (a) dividing the skyline up into segments; and (b) disregarding those buildings that are visible in the skyline on the basis that they: (i) are located on Golden Four Drive; or (ii) have a height dissimilar to the proposed development. [309] In my view, the assessment should be undertaken having regard to the skyline in the local area considered holistically. The photomontages are particularly helpful for that exercise. [310] Finally, the Appellants submit that the architectural plans identify that the northern and southern edges of the proposed development are slightly curved and terminate in points, but the roof top is otherwise flat and featureless except for a lift overrun. They submit that, when seen as part of the skyline, the proposed development generally presents as a broadly rectangular building with a flat roof structure. [311] In my view, the Appellants’ description of the roof does not fairly reflect the nuances in the design. I prefer the description of the attributes of the proposed development that contribute to the skyline provided by Mr Richards and Mr Curtis. [312] Mr Richards says that the relevant attributes are: (a) the distinctive, expressed roof form that caps the proposed development; (b) the setbacks that provide contrast between the upper two levels of the proposed development and the levels below, which create a distinctive crown to the building; and (c) the cantilevered balconies at the front and rear of the uppermost levels, which form “feathered edges against the sky”. [313] When cross-examined on the roofline, Mr Richards conceded that the concave form with the sharper points is “a bit pointy” and “some people might think it’s aggressive”. He also agreed that the distinctive upper floors reflect the architectural intent to express the top two floors of the building rather than attempt to hide them. The Appellants rely on this evidence to support their case. I am not persuaded that it does. Rather, it reflects the quality of Mr Richards’ evidence. He clearly recognises that this is a matter about which reasonable minds might differ. He acknowledges that the upper levels will be visible on the skyline. Nevertheless, he opines that the proposed development will contribute to a varied, ordered and interesting skyline. [314] Mr Curtis provides a similar description of the upper floors and roof to that given by Mr Richards. Mr Curtis says the upper levels comprise: (a) a distinctive and extended roof form, which caps the building and provides a resolved and completed form that is visually distinctive and highly legible; (b) treatments to the upper levels to distinguish them from the lower levels, while retaining the traditional tripartite compositional form of a legible building top, middle and base; and -- 63 of 71 -- 64 (c) cantilevered balconies at the front and rear, which form feathered edges against the sky. [315] According to Mr Curtis, the clear legibility of each part provides visual complexity and interest and yet still achieves a cohesive integration. [316] I accept the evidence of Mr Richards and Mr Curtis about the attributes that define the upper levels and roof of the proposed development. I also agree with Dr McGowan. He describes the roof as being defined by bevelled overhangs that reference the concave forms of the balconies below. In my view, these attributes provide an interesting contribution to the skyline. [317] In relation to whether the contribution is ordered and varied, Mr Curtis acknowledges that the proposed development will be highly visible at various locations across the surrounding area, including from parts of Pacific Parade, Tugun Esplanade and the beach proximate to the subject land. Mr Curtis explains that the proposed development’s visibility and relationship to the existing skyline (and that informed by approved but unconstructed development) will vary depending on the location on the viewer. [318] I accept Mr Curtis’ evidence in this regard. The point made by Mr Curtis was highlighted during the oral evidence of Mr Middleton. Relevantly, when taken to one viewing point shown in the photomontages, Mr Middleton complained that the upper floors were obscured by the Norfolk pines. [319] The photomontages assist in appreciating the proposed development’s contribution from various locations, including from the beach where the most expansive views of the skyline will be available. [320] As is explained by Mr Curtis, the photomontages show the parallax effect, where the relationship of building heights to other elements in the view, such as trees, vary depending on the viewpoint of the observer. [321] With those matters in mind, Mr Curtis opines that the height of the proposed development is compatible with the height of tall existing and approved developments. He says that the proposed development has a high-quality appearance and contributes to a varied skyline. He also says that it will contribute to the order of the skyline by making the location legible. In Mr Curtis’ view, the proposed development’s extruded form, layered heights and prominent balconies will provide visual interest to the skyline. [322] Dr McGowan also provided evidence relevant to this issue. He says that the local skyline is defined by various built forms ranging from tall buildings to low-rise buildings and by vegetation, including the pine trees located in the park. He says that the building form, scale and appearance of the existing built form is highly varied. According to Dr McGowan, the proposed development will contribute to the order of the skyline through compatibility of height amongst the taller existing and approved buildings. He says that it will have a harmonious relationship with other buildings in the local area, particularly as the area transitions towards its planned character. Dr McGowan opines that the proposed development will also contribute to an interesting skyline due to the difference in fenestration and material treatments, as seen on the upper levels of the proposed development. -- 64 of 71 -- 65 [323] Mr Powell gave relevant evidence during cross-examination. In response to a suggestion that the proposed development would be visually dominant, Mr Powell explained that, in his view, the proposed development sits comfortably within the existing context. He explained that the context has a “rhythm going up and down the beach as you have the more exposed sort of – or the – longer side facades are less exposed, and the narrower façade facing the beach, which is more articulated and more modulated.” [324] I accept the evidence of Mr Curtis, Mr Richards, Dr McGowan and Mr Powell. Their evidence is supported by cogent explanations. Their evidence also accords with the views I have formed having regard to the unchallenged evidence identified in paragraphs [20](a) to [20](f) above. That evidence demonstrates that the proposed development shares some rooftop features with other development in the area, such as a protruding roof form, to provide order to the skyline. Overall, the result is harmonious. [325] For the reasons provided above, I am satisfied that the proposed development will make a positive contribution to a varied, ordered and interesting local skyline. It complies with s 3.3.2.1(9)(d) of City Plan. Is there compliance with the outcome in s 3.3.2.1(9)(e) regarding an excellent standard of appearance of the built form and street edge? [326] The Appellants allege that the proposed development does not comply with the outcome in s 3.3.2.1(9)(e) of the Strategic framework. It is expressed as “an excellent standard of appearance of the built form and street edge”. [327] Unsurprisingly, the term “excellent” is not defined in the Planning Act 2016, the Planning Regulation 2017, sch 1 of City Plan, the Acts Interpretation Act 1954. As such, it should be given its ordinary meaning: see s 1.2.1 of City Plan. It is defined in the Macquarie dictionary to mean “possessing excellence or superior merit; remarkably good”. [328] The appearance of a building is not necessarily defined by focussing on individual features or elements that cause a building to stand out from others. A range of architectural elements are employed in the design of a building. Individually, each element might not be particularly special. It is the way the elements are arranged or combined to form an ensemble that informs its visual impression: The Body Corporate for 62 Pacific Community Titles Scheme 45586 & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor; Sexton v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2025] QPEC 13 at [171]. [329] Ultimately, whether the proposed development has an excellent standard of appearance of the built form and street edge is a matter about which reasonable minds may differ. It involves matters of impression and judgment: Archer & Anor v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Ors [2022] QPEC 59; [2024] QPELR 387, 468 [386]; Heidelberg Business Park Pty Ltd & Ors v Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor [2025] QPEC 14 [49]. [330] The Appellants do not allege that the proposed development will not result in an excellent standard of appearance of the street edge. Their allegation of non- -- 65 of 71 -- 66 compliance relates only to the built form. The Appellants’ Amended List of Issues, Exhibit 28, particularises their allegations as follows: “(a) The top two floors of the building do not have an excellent standard of appearance of the built form by reason of those parts of the building having: (i) inadequate visual recess or contraction; (ii) unattractive facades; (iii) inadequate articulation; (b) the appearance of the roof cap is not excellent and/or attractive as it: (i) is too thick and heavy, inelegant and does not compliment or balance of (sic) the remainder of the building; (ii) unduly exacerbates the height and scale of the building; (c) by reason of the above, the proposed development is not an attractive building and does not provide for a high-quality urban design. (d) The provision of landscaping is not high-quality and does not adequately soften the impacts of the built form.” [331] The Appellants’ submissions on this issue are brief. They say: “77. The Court would not be satisfied that the building will provide an excellent standard of appearance in built form in the following respects: (a) For the reasons canvassed above, the proposed development fails to effectively mitigate the impacts of its bulky and visually dominant form and height and fails to be contextually responsive to and compatible with its surroundings. The proposed architectural form is strongly at variance with its contextual setting. The design does not align with the local setting and fails to deliver a built form of appropriate scale and form. The higher built form relies on substantial intrusion into the setback provisions of the Planning Scheme which, on a narrow site, results in a dominant and unrelieved architectural form. (b) The top of the building, by not mitigating the impact of the additional height but instead by being, as Mr Richards stated, to “dramatically change the treatment of the upper two flows of the building” to emphasise and “draw attention” to the top two levels, fails to either effectively mitigate the effects of bulk and scale or be contextually responsive and compatible with its surroundings. -- 66 of 71 -- 67 (c) Overall, the upper two floors of the building deliver a “bland façade” form without any subtropical expression that is in direct opposition to the more considered subtropical architectural treatment of the lower floors. While the lower levels utilise integrated landscaping, shading, and overhangs, these essential subtropical principles are dispensed with on the upper floors, precisely where environmental exposure is highest. This adds to drawing attention to the top two floors, which are the tallest in this northern part of the local area. 78. Cumulatively, the presentation of the built form, as it appears depicted in the photomontages, is not one that is excellent.” (footnotes omitted) [332] I have already addressed many of these allegations above. [333] I identify the relevant attributes of the design that inform its appearance in paragraphs [59] to [85] above. [334] According to Mr Richards, those attributes that collectively achieve an excellent standard of appearance are: (a) its narrow-built form, which reduces the visual impact on the beach and foreshore; (b) its two-storey roof cap with a contrasting architectural expression, which: (i) creates a visually ordered and interesting skyline; (ii) reduces the overall bulk of the proposed development; and (iii) acknowledges the two-storey scale of existing dwellings; (c) the prominent expressed roof line, which is a visual cap to the building that shades the upper levels; (d) the cantilevered roof, which contributes to a distinctive skyline; (e) the concave balconies with a recessed form; (f) the presence of large balconies facing the street, which strongly contribute to subtropical design and create an excellent design frontage; (g) the planter boxes, which introduce vegetation where the upper floors are setback; (h) the use of articulation, variety of materials and screening to break the length of the side facades into three vertical elements; and (i) the vertical wall elements that reinforce a vertical expression of a mass that does not have a vertical proportion. [335] Mr Richards helpfully provides annotations to extracts from the photomontages to explain his views. -- 67 of 71 -- 68 [336] In response to Mr Middleton’s concerns about the upper two floors of the proposed development, Mr Richards opines that the proposed development has an overall design response that is informed by thoughtful and creative ideas. He opines that the architectural expression is distinctive and memorable, given its projecting roof form and concave shape to the street. [337] Mr Curtis opines that, in relation to built form, an excellent standard of appearance pertains to matters of architecture. He says that architecture is concerned with the built form’s design response to its context, functional program, constructability, and a person’s experiential, psychological and emotional needs. [338] According to Mr Curtis, the desirable qualities in the proposed development’s appearance that contribute to its excellent standard of appearance are: (a) the employment of a traditional tripartite composition strategy; and (b) the use of symmetry for the lateral arrangement of elements reflected across a vertical centreline to create a balanced appearance. [339] Mr Curtis explains that, when applied successfully, these strategies fragment the built form’s overall bulk into smaller complementary parts that are viewed as separate elements while also forming part of a larger integrated whole. Mr Curtis says that the clear legibility of each part fragments the overall bulk and provides visual complexity and interest. [340] In Mr Curtis’ view, the proposed development successfully employs these strategies to deliver an excellent standard of appearance. He identifies the features that achieve the outcome as including: (a) its traditional tripartite compositional strategy, comprised of a legible building top, middle and base; (b) a building top that effectively terminates the building’s height resulting in the appearance of a resolved and completed form as opposed to a form that was randomly terminated at an arbitrary height; (c) the visually distinctive and highly legible top, which is characterised by changes to the fenestration, setbacks, cladding and containerised landscaping; (d) the timber soffits that pedestrians will perceive from ground level, which give the proposed development a prominent “crown” to its built form; (e) a middle section that is characterised by the horizontal stratification of its appearance provided by: (i) the floorplate projections; (ii) the projecting concave balconies; and (iii) the fenestration, screens and external wall materials between the floorplates; (f) the symmetrical appearance that moderates the length of the side facades; -- 68 of 71 -- 69 (g) the horizontal layered expression of the individual storeys contrasted by the modulation and stacking of wall elements, which balances the horizontal and vertical proportions of the facades’ visual composition; (h) the projecting concave balconies that: (i) provide feathering to the visual bulk when viewed obliquely from the street; (ii) provide depth that erodes the visual mass when viewed from the front; (i) the symmetrical concave form of the balconies with curved glass front balustrades and solid side balustrades, which: (i) individually give the balconies an appearance of refined sculptural architectural elements; (ii) as a vertical grouping, provide the front façade a highly distinctive and memorable identity; and (j) the cohesive appearance of the ground floor, which is achieved by assembling a group of architectural elements, landscaping and materials. [341] I accept the evidence of Mr Richards and Mr Curtis. It accords with my own view that the presentation of the built form is excellent. I consider the proposed development to have an architectural and landscape design that manifests in an appearance that is of outstanding quality. [342] Although it is no longer in issue, the evidence before me also addresses the appearance of the street edge. I accept that the proposed development also has an excellent standard of appearance. [343] Overall, I am persuaded that the proposed development satisfies the specific outcome in s 3.3.2.1(9)(e) of City Plan. Is there compliance with the outcome in s 3.3.2.1(9)(g) regarding protection for important elements of local character? [344] The Appellants contend that there is non-compliance with the outcome sought in s 3.3.2.1(9)(g) of City Plan. That outcome is expressed as: “protection for important elements of local character or scenic amenity, including views from popular public outlooks to the city’s significant natural features”. [345] This provision calls for identification of the relevant “elements of local character or scenic amenity” that require protection. As is identified by Mr Buckley, the Strategic framework in City Plan helps to identify what those elements may comprise. They include urban elements, green space and landscapes. [346] In the Appellants’ Amended List of Issues, Exhibit 28, the Appellants particularise their case with respect to this assessment benchmark. The particulars are the same as those provided in support of the allegation of non-compliance with s 3.3.2.1(9)(b) of City Plan. Their submissions on this issue are also identical. Consequently, I have -- 69 of 71 -- 70 already addressed why I do not consider their case persuasive when dealing with s 3.3.2.1(9)(b) of City Plan above. [347] As I have already explained, to the extent that North Kirra Beach, Joe Doniger Park and the Norfolk pines are considered important elements of local character or scenic amenity, the proposed development protects and respects that importance. They will remain attractive, legible and cohesive features of the local area. Relevantly, the overall visibility of the Norfolk Pines remains unaffected and the proposed development will not dominate or detract from their contribution to the amenity of the local area. The visibility of the beach access track is also unaffected given the public open space between it and the proposed development. The beach and park are vast in size and their contribution to the area is also unaffected by the proposed development. [348] Overall, I am satisfied that the proposed development does not detract from the experience of the local area. Oral evidence given by Dr McGowan explains the situation well in this regard. The relevant evidence was given during cross- examination by Mr Morzone KC, wherein this exchange occurred: “MR MORZONE: The beach or foreshore. And so impact on character, or impact upon the sense of place, or impact on the identity, to the extent it’s contributed to by the beach and the Norfolk pines, is being – rather than being reinforced, it’s actually being detrimentally impacted upon?‑‑‑I don’t – I don’t agree. I agree that the – the beach and the foreshore and the – the park are the – the important features of the local area – um – but I don’t agree that the proposal’s detracting from them or eroding the – the valued characteristics of those spaces – um – as I’ve said in the report, they are vast spaces and – um – uh – a single development wouldn’t fundamentally change them, but it’s also the case that it’s just – um – it’s not a novel outcome. As I said, you move further down the beach and you see tall buildings along Pacific Parade – um – that are prominent – um – it’s part of the character of the area. They’re not eroding the quality of the beach or – or the reason that people go to it …” (Transcript of Proceedings, Stewart Brown and Paul Rimington v Council of the City of Gold Coast and Anjos Developments Pty Ltd; Diane Morton and Jennifer Chatterton v Council of the City of Gold Coast and Anjos Developments Pty Ltd (Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, 1799/25; 1794/25, Kefford DCJ, 22 April 2026) 59.) [349] For the reasons provided above, including with respect to s 3.3.2.1(9)(b), I am persuaded that the proposed development achieves the specific outcome sought in s 3.3.2.1(9)(g) of City Plan. Should the proposed development be approved in the exercise of the planning discretion? [350] The appropriate approach to the exercise of the planning discretion is explained in paragraphs [15] to [17] above. -- 70 of 71 -- 71 [351] As I have noted in paragraphs [35] and [36] above, the Appellants conceded that the proposed development should be approved if I find compliance with ss 3.3.2.1(9)(b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of City Plan. I agree. [352] For the reasons explained above, the evidence demonstrates full compliance with the outcomes in ss 3.3.2.1(9)(b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of City Plan. [353] No sound town planning reason is advanced to not give the planning policy with respect to building height in City Plan its full force and effect. As such, compliance with s 3.3.2.1(9) of City Plan is a matter that attracts significant weight in the exercise of the planning discretion under s 60 of the Planning Act 2016. It is a compelling ground in favour of approval and lends strong support to the conclusion that an approval should be granted, subject to conditions. Conclusion [354] Anjos Developments Pty Ltd has discharged its onus. [355] In due course, the appeal will be allowed, and the decision of the Respondent to approve the Co-respondent’s development application will be set aside and replaced with a decision to approve the Co-respondent’s development application (as changed), subject to lawful conditions. [356] On my review of the Council’s original decision notice, I would expect that very few changes to the conditions will be required apart from obvious amendments to update the approved drawings and approved plans in conditions 2 and 3 and any adjustment to condition 9 required to reflect the changes to the development application. [357] To allow an opportunity for the Council to prepare a suite of conditions that accords with my reasons for judgment, I will return the appeal to the applications list for review on 13 August 2026. The appeal will remain on the applications list unless and until a dispute arises about the conditions of approval. [358] In the circumstances, I order: (a) by 4 pm on 6 August 2026, the Council is to file and serve a document identifying the conditions that it contends should be imposed in accordance with my reasons for judgment; (b) by midday on 11 August 2026, the Appellants and Co-respondent are to file a document identifying any conditions that they dispute; and (c) the appeal be listed on the applications list on 13 August 2026 for final judgment or, if necessary, for allocation of a hearing date shortly thereafter with respect to any dispute. -- 71 of 71 --