Leaderboard

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. 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!

The thing about public art is sometimes it's good, and sometimes it's not, but 100% of the time stuff designed by council committee is shit, so you have to take a chance, this chance just didn't happen to come off. It was fairly predictable, I mean I saw it coming and commented on what it would look like when you're driving before they built it, but so what? It cost a million or so bucks, which a lot to us as individuals, but it's nothing I'm the grand scheme of things. Not sad it's going, it was pretty shit, but was never outraged by it either. As an aside the one at the airport looks good 👍🏻

How movie worlds work on cleaning up that ugly falling apart hut in the kids zone is going… you seem to really have it out for dreamworld right now…

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

If you get a private message in Parkz, from a random person, their rides are probably not good.🤪