1 hour ago, New display name said:

What on earth is this?

Indoor drop tower confirmed/s

1 hour ago, Guest 239 said:

New supporting documents and plans released to the public:
Plans.pdfSupporting Documents.pdf

Idk about you but I feel like having a the hotel taller then DCR will take away from the feeling like your higher then everything else when your on rivals. It might shrink it a little. Ofc giant drop is taller but it’s far enough away to still feel like when your going over that drop your on top of the world

Edited February 21, 20232 yr by REGIE

2 minutes ago, REGIE said:

Idk about you but I feel like having a tower taller then DCR will take away from the feeling like your higher then everything else when your on rivals.

Yeah that was my thought initially but this projected view in the documents kinda eased that worry a little.

13 minutes ago, REGIE said:

Indoor drop tower confirmed/s

Idk about you but I feel like having a the hotel taller then DCR will take away from the feeling like your higher then everything else when your on rivals. It might shrink it a little. Ofc giant drop is taller but it’s far enough away to still feel like when your going over that drop your on top of the world

Don't look at it.🤷‍♀️

New name confirmed.

Even village forgot it’s real name. Since 98% of people call it joker anyway they might as well change the name

3 hours ago, REGIE said:

Even village forgot it’s real name. Since 98% of people call it joker anyway they might as well change the name

Everyone I know calls it Rivals…

FYI - no one working for Village is putting this application together, it’s an external company they’ve engaged that specialises in DA’s/planning etc, and would just be a naming error by them 

This was in the GC Bulletin today….

I never realised the area was known at cades county I thought it was a name made up for the original cades county water park.

The area isn't known as Cades County. The substation was built in the Cades County days and the name has stuck.

 

Quick history lesson for you. The original owner of Cades County had a theme-park approved to be built where MW is now located and was to be named "Around the world in 8 hours" or something like that.

 

 

The Energex objection alleges the following (my emphasis):

Quote

The Burchill Engineering Report lodged with the Development Application advises that the Q100 level for the Energex Substation is RL 5.77m. The proposed development models a worsening outcome of +55mm, resulting in a Q100 flood height of RL 5.825. Energex has existing electrical works including capacitor bank slabs at RL 5.3m and a transformer at RL 5.6m within the Substation site that would be directly impacted in a flood event. The proposed development worsens the flooding impact on the Cades County Substation

So the entire substation is already built lower than the Q100 flood level. A 55mm increase in levels may mean the site is impacted earlier, but it sounds like Energex already knows that they have a problem, and i'm wondering why they haven't already taken steps to mitigate the flood levels since their equipment is already around 500mm lower than the flood line.

 

I took a quick look at some of the other submissions, and here they are in a nutshell:

• Old Woman yells at cloud. Expects everyone to return to horse and cart.
• Man thinks property with direct on-ramp access to major highway in both directions will worsen traffic in surrounding roads. Hasn't lived in metropolitan area for 50 years.
• Man thinks rollercoasters are transparent. Doesn't want people looking in his backyard. Doesn't realise Google has been doing that since 2005.
• Guy thinks traffic will be busy during busy times. Thinks theme park needs new rides and experiences, doesn't realise how that works economically since the hotel would support the theme park to upgrade more. Says local shops will also be impacted 'dramatically' but doesn't say whether he thinks it will be positively or negatively. (Sounds like the local shops could benefit from a whole bunch of tourists staying nearby)
• Woman thinks a traffic impact assessment is needed, hasn't read the application to see they've already done one. Also thinks Movie World needs to upgrade, but thinks the money should be spent on upgrading the park rather than creating a new revenue stream... Also thinks Village should have to pay to upgrade the local woolworths.
• Man thinks stunt show is noisy and hotel will reflect this noise. Doesn't understand how sound waves work.
• Resident thinks check-in and check-out days will bring more traffic to the area without acknowledging mid-stay days would result in less traffic on those days. Thinks the local area is 'rural'. Considers overlooking a childcare centre as an invasion of privacy. Local business will lose customers. Apparently building a hotel on an asphalt carpark will decimate the local wildlife.
• Woman objects. Doesn't say why. Lives in Upper Coomera
• Man objects. Also doesn't say why. Lives in Robina and is definitely suffering from this development.
• Woman objects. Doesn't say why. Lives in Biggera Waters.
• Looney* Woman STRONGLY OBJECTS on the basis of additional light pollution. Also claims wildlife impacts from this hotel built on a carpark. Claims evening noise will somehow be worse than the highway. Also claims no increase in parking. Probably objected to the parking development proposed a few years ago.
• Woman objects to lighting impacts, thinks special purpose tourism zone is still rural. Has different surname but email address suggests a 'looney' relationship exists.
• Woman thinks half the rides closed at movie world should be a reason for denying a hotel. 
• Intelligent man supports application as he recognises that the GC's economy is tourist driven
• Intelligent man supports application as it will create jobs, provide facilities for use by locals and tourists, diversifies the local tourism \ business sector and is consistent with the zoning of the property.
• smart person recognises there is no decent hotel at the northern end of the gold coast
• Woman is all for bringing money into the northern gold coast, but doesn't want hotel that will bring more money to the northern gold coast. Complains about the waste of electricity for Lantern and DCR, says nothing of the stupid street light art on the M1. Thinks the hotel should be half the size and powered by plants.
• Woman supports proposal. doesn't say anything else, but at least lives in the correct suburb.
• Man supports proposal. Doesn't say why but lives closer than the ones that don't support it.
• Man supports proposal. Praises the boost to local economy and recognises that vacant land isn't going to impact on wildlife. He notes traffic is already crap in the area, but feels hotel checkout would be after peak commuting periods anyway. Also states other residents should read the plans before jumping to conclusions.
• Person supports the proposal. Doesn't say why but lives closer than Robina.
• Many very politely STRONGLY SUPPORTS the proposal as it is wonderful for the gold coast and interstate visitors.
• Woman resides in Oxenford and thinks a hotel  will transform her backyard into surfers paradise. Thinks Village should build their hotel at Dreamworld instead.
• Woman thinks council shouldn't even allow businesses to submit development applications. Claims to speak on behalf of literally thousands of people, claim is doubtful. Asks council to consult with the residents in a submission literally designed to consult with residents. Blames state minister for transport for traffic.
• Man objects. Says they should build hotel at Sea World. Hasn't visited The Spit in 50 years.
• Man STRONGLY OBJECTS. thinks area is rural. claims endangered koalas will lose their habitats. thinks koalas live in asphalt carparks. Thinks they should build a hotel at Surfers, and bus tourists in. Also thinks local traffic is horrendous, wants to add more buses.
• Woman objects, uses same copy-and-paste reasons including bad traffic and lost koala habitat. Hasn't looked at plans.
• Man objects due to flooding - doesn't appear to have read the flood study. Thinks tall hotel in carpark bad. suggests tall hotel behind outback spectacular instead.
• Business supports application. Based in Arundel. Nothing further to add.
• Man objects because the proposal is different to the last proposal. traffic. local businesses. homelessness (apparently), koala habitats, alleges council officers must be taking bribes. Thinks one hotel will enable other high rise buildings in the area. Doesn't understand what progress is and thinks surfers paradise has been around since the dinosaurs.

*Looney is her last name, according to the submission.

 

Of course, i've added my own bias here (I'm supportive of the application but did not make a submission). My summary is meant to be humorous and anyone taking offence should sit on a pineapple. 

What I did find though is that many of the objectors did not appear to have read through the application or its associated studies and other supporting documents and have made very large assumptions which mostly appear to be false. 

I think the biggest complaint from residents should be traffic (and it appears to be) but it seems like the net effect of people staying on property would largely reduce the traffic at peak times, or at least spread it out over a longer period. I think its a bit of a stretch for people to claim the area is 'rural' when the only bushland on the western side of the highway is the property operated by Village themselves. It's also a stretch to argue that a tall hotel is going to be out of place when it stands beside a hypercoaster (and others) as well as giant golf nets and waterslide towers. 

Just have to wait and see!

Really appreciate you taking the time to filter through some of the submissions. I almost get "Clarkson's Farm Season 2" vibes, except instead of an insane council, the locals seem clearly opposed to a tent-pole business that literally makes their entire local community grow.

Haha that was hilarious. Good on ya @DaptoFunlandGuy  So many looney’s. Build it at dreamworld one says 😂 I am sure DW would love their competition to build and pay for a hotel for DW.  I can’t say I am completely in favour of the hotel how ever I can see the benefits.  If rooms were affordable I would definitely stay there from time to time.  I also like that it forces DW to either expand the park instead of do a hotel or it means they gotta think more outside the box on an attempt at having a hotel/resort.  My only concern is it taking away from the MW skyline but top golf has already ruined it so it won’t really matter.  Either way I am excited to see what happens and I definitely won’t lose any sleep over which way they end up going. I loved reading the objections 😂 

Edited March 19, 20232 yr by REGIE

8 minutes ago, Slick said:

Really appreciate you taking the time to filter through some of the submissions. I almost get "Clarkson's Farm Season 2" vibes, except instead of an insane council, the locals seem clearly opposed to a tent-pole business that literally makes their entire local community grow.

Happy to - i was interested and humorously summarising them as I went wasn't much additional effort.

I especially loved the contradictions - some people said it would close down local businesses because they would lose patronage to the big hotel, while others said that local businesses wouldn't cope with the increased visitation from all the extra tourists staying nearby. 

The Koala habitat thing just blows my mind too - they clearly have no idea. 

I will say - many objections i've listed haven't detailed every single complaint. It was getting a bit repetitive so I edited each down a little by excluding the things being said constantly (like traffic, noise, light pollution and koalas) that seemed to be a very common theme.

6 minutes ago, REGIE said:

So many looney’s

Technically only 1, with a possible second.

 

33 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

The Energex objection alleges the following (my emphasis):

So the entire substation is already built lower than the Q100 flood level. A 55mm increase in levels may mean the site is impacted earlier, but it sounds like Energex already knows that they have a problem, and i'm wondering why they haven't already taken steps to mitigate the flood levels since their equipment is already around 500mm lower than the flood line.

 

The Q100 goes up all the time and a big chunk of the gold coast is under the Q100 because of this, but the fact remains, you can't build on your property and make flooding worse on the neighbouring property.  All this means is MW will have to create flood storage on their property.  Council were already unsatisfied with the flood issues before Energex objection.

Edited March 20, 20232 yr by New display name

1 minute ago, New display name said:

All this means is MW will have to create flood storage on their property.

When they dig up the existing high voltage main, they can just not backfill the trench, and that'll give plenty of flood storage! /s

2 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

The Koala habitat thing just blows my mind too - they clearly have no idea. 

It is funny how dumb some of the reasons people are voting no are TBH. "Koalas will lose their habitats" and "Village should build there hotel at Dreamworld" just makes me laugh. I have also noticed that the people wanting the hotel are generally smarter than the people opposing it.

6 minutes ago, TBoy said:

It is funny how dumb some of the reasons people are voting no are TBH. "Koalas will lose their habitats" and "Village should build there hotel at Dreamworld" just makes me laugh. I have also noticed that the people wanting the hotel are generally smarter than the people opposing it.

Change is the great fear that fuels NIMBYs.

 

13 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

When they dig up the existing high voltage main, they can just not backfill the trench, and that'll give plenty of flood storage! /s

That's why you get paid the big bucks @DaptoFunlandGuy🤣

15 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

The Koala habitat thing just blows my mind too - they clearly have no idea. 

It might blow your mind but the Gold Coast council in the last couple of years have created a koala paperwork nightmare with Council zoning anything with a eucalypt tree, environment significance land.

MW is on environment signific land according to council.

 

 

Edited March 20, 20232 yr by New display name

Of course its a bloody Koala Habitat - have they not been to Paradise Country?

The only objection that has any teeth is the Energex objection, which can be sorted if MW decide to spend the money on it.   MW being shocked Energex is objecting is a strange one because the first time Energex has probably seen the flood reports was after the application was lodged.  MW would have had discussions about moving the infrastructure under the property and this is what Energex would have agreed to.

As seen by attached request by council, MW didn’t submit the flood calculations with the application, so I highly doubt Energex had seen them.

The other objections are pointless (it’s really just a way for council letting people have a winge).  MW already had an approval for a hotel so 99% of the concerns were delt with the original approval.  Besides Energex issues with flood, everything else is a tick & flick. 

 

Considering the budget is 333M I am sure they could spend some of that on dealing with the floods better. Put in some big tanks or something 

8 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Technically only 1, with a possible second

Don’t be too hard on your self. 

11 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

What I did find though is that many of the objectors did not appear to have read through the application or its associated studies and other supporting documents and have made very large assumptions which mostly appear to be false.

That’s usually what happens with development applications. So many people object with such irreverent or ridiculous reasons that the majority just get overlooked because they’re stupid. A lot of the time, the people who actually write these complaints are either direct neighbours (who likely bought the home knowing the theme park was next door) or they have nothing better to do. The only comments I would acknowledge are the ones in regards to traffic, but as the report comments on this, it is very likely the planners and council won’t have any issues with this application.

At least, in the spirit of good fun and good news, they’re planning on tearing down that stupid light sign along the M1.

Should redirect some of that much needed electricity to a place that so desperately needs it.

https://7news.com.au/news/qld/controversial-gold-coast-public-art-installation-to-be-torn-down-c-10038377.amp

What does that have to do with anything?

 

5 minutes ago, New display name said:

What does that have to do with anything?

 

It's tangential sir, but it checks out...

On 20/03/2023 at 9:31 AM, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

• Woman is all for bringing money into the northern gold coast, but doesn't want hotel that will bring more money to the northern gold coast. Complains about the waste of electricity for Lantern and DCR, says nothing of the stupid street light art on the M1. Thinks the hotel should be half the size and powered by plants.