Wayne Purcell for Better Planning Gold Coast

For years, public transport has been treated like a plaything on the GC; debates going round in circles while very little gets done. Politicians have over-politicised it instead of being up-front with the community.

Right now, we’re seeing data‑gathering exercises dressed up as progress -

- The 𝐅𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐏 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐌𝐜𝐏𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 is gathering contact details via a petition for a heavy rail business case
- The 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐌𝐏 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐆𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐧 is doing the same thing with a light rail petition

Here’s why it's just grandstanding -

𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐲 𝐑𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐄𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧

●The Feds already funded an $8M study in 2020. It still hasn’t been released
● Extending heavy rail south of Currumbin faces significant geographic and cost barriers. I wrote about this 6yrs ago*
● It’s primarily a State responsibility. I can't see the Feds helping to fund this before Melbourne gets its airport rail link

𝐋𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐑𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝟒

●Stage 3 cost $1.55B for 6.7km - $224M/km
●Stage 4 requires land resumptions, large creek crossings, and cutting into hills. It will easily exceed $5B
●The Member for Gaven, when in Government, did not commit funds to build it

These projects make noise, but they’re not happening. With Olympic construction absorbing all spare labour and funding, neither could start before 2033 at the earliest

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝?

The State Government has announced 4 other PT projects -

● Varsity Lakes to GC Airport via Burleigh Heads (Metro-style bus)
● Broadbeach to Nerang via Carrara Stadium (Metro-style bus)
● Miami to Robina via Bond Uni (Metro-style bus)
● Griffith Uni to Harbourtown (Light Rail)

Two of these (Broadbeach-Nerang and Miami-Robina) are tied to the Olympics, so they’re pretty locked in. But almost no detail has been released.

These are the projects we should be scrutinising, not the ones that exist only in petitions and press releases. We need more information on -

● Station locations
● Service frequency
● Traffic priority
● Integration with the existing network
● Mode choice
● Costs

In my opinion, we need to stop being distracted by thoughts of a rail line to the airport and start focusing on what's actually happening, what's actually realistic and what will actually help more residents use PT to where they want / need to go on a daily basis - to work, school, shops, cafes, parks and the beach. And, now, not in 15yrs' time.

It'd be great to see some details, genuine community engagement on the projects in the pipeline.

We might eventually get somewhere!

6 years to go!

Time is ticking until the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games.

When the current government was voted in in Oct 2024, they declared an end to the "Olympic chaos". They would get things back on track.

It's 18 months since their 100 day review. While they made some big announcements and changes, most notably -

● Moving the main stadium to Victoria Park
● A National Aquatic Centre at Spring Hill
● Scrapping Brisbane Live and offering up the GoPrint Site in Woolloongabba for a privately-funded indoor arena
● Moving the main Athlete's Village to the RNA Showgrounds
● Moving the GC Athlete's Village to Royal Pines
● Taking rowing to the Fitzroy River in Rockhampton

There hasn't actually been much progress at all on the ground. It's still just concept drawings being released to the public. There's no construction happening (unless you consider early works / site investigations construction).

What's happened is that, by making these changes, things have essentially been delayed by 2 years. This is because all the above has had to start again from scratch.

We now have a more concentrated construction timeline. The Qld Audit Office raised the issue last year, stating "Workforce constraints and early stage planning present delivery risks for both the capital program and Brisbane 2032 projects".

It was also pointed out by the Qld Major Contractors Association back in 2023, before the Government made the above changes.

The big problem we have is, unlike many other infrastructure projects, the Olympics needs to be delivered "on time". Given the current situation, "on time" means two things -

𝐑𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐞 - May happen with stadium design / size, and ancillary works like landscaping / rehabilitation or associated transport infrastructure projects may be reduced or paid out of another magic bucket of money

𝐁𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 - Almost certain as work transitions to weekends and, potentially, 24/7 set-ups

With all this in mind, you would think the Government would try and keep things simple. But, in going with their choices for the main stadium, aquatic centre and main athlete's village, they've gone with locations that are extremely complex.

It's necessitated more detailed and longer preliminary investigations and design work as well as more earthworks and site establishment. They've compounded the problem, making delivery more difficult, not less.

Obviously, the idea we won't be ready in time for the Olympics seems unfathomable. But, there is a mammoth amount of work to be done from now until then.

We can forget about any semblance of sticking to the $7.1B venue or $3.5B athletes' villages budgets, despite the Government's continued insistence.

The impending closure of the Burleigh Library has raised significant community concerns regarding the decision-making process, the lack of community consultation and Council priorities.

Some people may remember the same happening with the closure of the Palm Beach Library in 2020.

Unfortunately, this is not new. Council decided way back in 2001 to go with a smaller number of libraries. It led to the closure of Mudgeeraba and Cascade Gardens libraries prior to Palm Beach and, now, Burleigh Heads.

In my opinion, it's a strange way to go about providing services to a growing population. 2001 was 25yrs ago. A lot has changed since then.

What it means is residents having to travel further and longer to access what should be a "local" library. Despite Council saying services will be maintained, the following stats (courtesy of the Queensland Public Libraries
Statistical Bulletin 2024-25) suggest otherwise -

1. The GC with only 11 libraries will have the highest ratio of residents to libraries of any SEQ Council at 60.5k people/library. The rest of SEQ is only 40k/library

2. The GC also has the lowest number of physical items per resident (0.71) of any SEQ Council and is, also, the 3rd lowest across all of Qld (behind only Torres and Townsville). The State average is 1.01

3. The GC spends less on libraries per resident ($44) than others SEQ Councils with the exception of Scenic Rim (SEQ ave $50)

The Burleigh Heads Library is not small. At 680m2, it's bigger than 13 of Brisbane's 33 libraries. When it comes to other community infrastructure such as parks and sporting facilities, Council recognises the importance of scale, planning for local, district and regional. I don't see why libraries should be any different, why a small number of big libraries is deemed sufficient.

Council may point to the GC having the highest collection usage per capita in Qld to justify their approach to library services. This is due, in part, by the large number of digital services on offer compared to other SEQ and Qld Councils, which is a welcome part of a library's offerings.

But, a library isn't just about collection use, it's about the space it provides for people to study, to read, to relax, to connect. It's a safe, free space for all to enjoy.

I'd love to see more, smaller libraries, not less. And, the 2001-2011 Library Infrastructure Plan definitely needs reviewing!!

As for the Burleigh Heads Library, it's worth noting the first part of the resolution from back in 2001 that's led to its closure -

"That the future development of the City's library infrastructure network will be based on fewer, larger libraries sited optimally within or adjacent to successful key retail / activity centres or in high profile locations on major traffic corridors"

Following revelations that Council has pencilled more than $𝟑𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬 into the next four budgets, attention now turns to what might soon have a For Sale sign out the front.

According to the latest Bulletin article*, several “𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐚𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬” are being eyed off to help fund the Gold Coast Arena.

The Mayor argues selling land to fund community infrastructure - a hall, a library, an Arena - is beneficial. Generally, I agree. But only if the land is 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐥𝐮𝐬.

This is where it looks pretty shaky.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 “𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐥𝐮𝐬”

Mal Burke Car Park and Athol Paterson Car Park are currently car parks. Council charges $8.70/day - hardly a money‑spinner, so I can understand the argument that they’re not profitable.

But profitability is not the point.

Both sites have long‑held strategic purposes -

𝟏. 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬

In the current 𝐋𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧 (𝐋𝐆𝐈𝐏), both sites are identified as future 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬 to be delivered by 2036. This makes sense. As Southport grows into its role as the city’s CBD, high‑density needs matching public space. The Broadwater Parklands alone isn't enough.

Cities around the world rely on smaller civic squares to keep density liveable. Even Brisbane CBD (smaller than the Southport PDA) has four, plus the Botanic Gardens and Roma Street Parklands.

𝟐. 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞

Athol Paterson has also been earmarked for years as the logical home for a future Council administration building when the move from Bundall finally happens.

These are not leftover scraps of land. They are strategic CBD assets.

𝐁𝐮𝐭, 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞?

Curiously, there's an LGIP amendment currently underway^ that 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬 from future planning. This is despite the amendment also showing even 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐭𝐡 for Southport-North than previously projected.

Removing the parks from the LGIP makes the land far easier to be considered "surplus".

𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 -

● Is Council genuinely selling only “surplus” land?

● Are we sacrificing long‑term city‑building just to plug a financial hole?

● What future benefits - civic parks, public buildings, CBD flexibility - are being traded away in the process?

Over the last 6mths or so, there's been a number of headlines / rumours around Council "investigations" into potentially selling some of its land holdings. The latest involves a "secret" list of 100 properties*.

The Mayor responded by stating he has "no intention to sell them".

But, what does the budget tell us?

If you dig deep into Council's Annual Plan^, you will find a line item - 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭 / (𝐋𝐨𝐬𝐬) 𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐬 (p38).

This can include many things. It's not just land sales. Ordinarily, this sits around $5-10M/yr.

But, for the next 𝟒 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐭'𝐬 $𝟑𝟑𝟑𝐌!

What is Council proposing to sell in order to make about $𝟑𝟎𝟎𝐌 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥?

And, if the Mayor has no intention to sell, why do these numbers remain in the "most heavily scrutinised budget"?

There’s been a lot of noise recently about air taxis on the Gold Coast, especially the headline‑grabber -

“𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐞 𝐀𝐢𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐔𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐁𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤”

It sounds fantastic (for those affording Uber Blacks), but the reality is far less straightforward.

Getting an air taxi into Brisbane Airport means crossing the busiest controlled airspace in Qld. Slotting slow‑climbing eVTOL aircraft into parallel runway operations is, in my view, highly unlikely. The more realistic scenario is landing outside the airport precinct and finishing the journey by road.

As for the “$900 total” price tag, I don’t think that’s where it will land once real operating costs are factored in.

But none of this means air taxis don’t have potential.

In fact, you may have seen Cr Glenn Tozer raise the idea of 𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐒𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐤.

It's not a bad one!

Springbrook is exactly the kind of route where air taxis can work - short distance, no controlled airspace, high tourism value, over difficult to construct terrain. When you compare the two options, the differences are striking.

𝐀𝐢𝐫 𝐓𝐚𝐱𝐢 (𝐞𝐕𝐓𝐎𝐋)

● Very low environmental impact — no towers, no clearing, no national park footprint
● Can take off from Surfers, Broadbeach or Southport
● Small capital cost (around $𝟏𝟎-$𝟐𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 for vertiports)
● Low political and environmental risk
● Ticket price around $𝟏𝟓𝟎-$𝟑𝟎𝟎 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧
● Door‑to‑door time around 𝟐𝟎-𝟑𝟎𝐦𝐢𝐧

𝐂𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐲

● High environmental impact - towers, clearing, permanent structures
● Base station would be far inland (Mudgeeraba), requiring ground transport first
● Large capital cost ($𝟒𝟎𝟎-$𝟔𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧+)
● High political and approval risk
● Ticket price around $𝟏𝟎𝟎-𝟏𝟓𝟎 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧, but with an added $𝟏𝟎-$𝟓𝟎 to get to the base
● Door‑to‑door time 𝟒𝟓-𝟕𝟓𝐦𝐢𝐧

Air taxis deliver most of the tourism benefit of a cableway at a fraction of the cost, with almost none of the environmental or political risk.

Of course, air taxis aren't actually operating in the world at the moment so there's still a long way to go. But, a cableway's a long way off as well (it's not getting built before the 2032 Olympics).

If Council is serious about “de‑risking” options for hinterland access and bringing air taxis to the GC, then this is an idea worth serious consideration.

It also potentially enables access to, not just Springbrook, but Binna Burra and O'Reilly's as well

There’s been a lot of conjecture about whether the Miami Arts Depot (MAD) is really a creative industries precinct, or more a major residential development wrapped in creative‑industry branding.

There’s also been some back‑and‑forth about how tall the buildings would need to be.

Now that the EOI documents have been released, we can get a clearer picture.

Based on the information contained in the EOI documents released by Council to tender participants, the 4‑hectare site is proposed to accommodate:

● 6,000 m² of “MADSCAPE” creative industries space
● 3,500 m² of retail
● A public plaza (size not specified)
● 𝟖𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎𝐦𝟐 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥, accommodating approx 780 dwellings

That’s over 13 times more residential than creative‑industry space.

𝐒𝐨 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝟖𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐦² 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤?

The EOI diagrams show a 3,250 m² ground‑floor footprint for the mixed‑use buildings (retail at ground level, residential above).

In real‑world built form, residential towers typically sit at 70–85% of the podium footprint once you account for setbacks, articulation and tower separation.
Using those standard planning assumptions, the residential floorplates would be in the range of 2,300–2,600 m².

When you divide 80,000 m² of residential GFA across those floorplates, you end up with buildings in the order of 𝟐𝟖–𝟑𝟒 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐲𝐬, plus podium levels.

Yet the diagrams released publicly show buildings of around 12 storeys. So either:

● the diagrams are purely illustrative,
● or the yield assumptions in the EOI don’t match the built form shown,
● or something in the numbers needs clarification.

And for those interested in the 𝐁𝐮𝐫𝐥𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐁𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐆𝐲𝐦𝐧𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬:

The EOI confirms that both facilities are proposed to be demolished as part of the redevelopment.

New artists impressions have dropped on what a 𝐌𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐢 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐭 (MAD) could look like.

There one pretty important question, though, that hasn't been answered along the way - 𝐖𝐡𝐲?

MAD (on the site of the Council depot) is supposed to become a mixed-use creative industries precinct that strengthens the Gold Coast’s cultural and economic landscape while delivering new residential, retail, and commercial spaces.

It sounds very familiar, though!

Back in 2015, Council launched their new Masterplan for the Gold Coast Cultural Precinct (now known as HOTA). It was to become a -

● "Cultural Centre of Gravity": clustering arts, culture and creative industries
● An economic driver: complemented by entertainment, retail and hospitality to attract investment

It was even embedded into the City Plan -

● "The Gold Coast Cultural Precinct is the focal point of the city’s cultural and creative activities"
● "Bundall and Gold Coast Cultural Precinct ... fosters creativity and innovation in art, design, lifestyle and performance industries"

Council also has quite a few office buildings across the road that could be repurposed for creative industries employment.

After all, the City Plan also says Council was to establish Southport as the Gold Coast's CBD and there's been long-term plans for Council to move there.

There's also plenty of privately-owned land and buildings in the Bundall area that could provide important studio space.

This is what does my head in - government and the community spending countless hours putting together masterplans, schemes, agreements etc only for it to be ignored.

Can anyone explain why we're going with MAD (and the subsequent flow-on effects with depot relocations) all of a sudden when we already have BAD?

The Mayor is calling on the State to build a wildlife overpass over the GC Hwy at Burleigh.

OK, but the data shows there are many other places on the Gold Coast where koala vehicle strikes happen more often.

According to Council’s own 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲‑𝗩𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗠𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺 (𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟮), the Gold Coast Highway at Burleigh is 𝟭𝟰𝘁𝗵 on the hotspot list.

There are 𝟳 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱𝘀 and 𝟲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱𝘀 with higher koala strike numbers.

If we’re serious about reducing koala deaths, the logical starting point is the 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗲𝘀𝘁‑𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, not the mid‑ranked ones.

Does this mean the Mayor will commit to fully fund the $𝟭𝟯𝗠 𝗠𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺 in this year’s budget, and advocating for measures on the higher‑ranking State‑controlled roads, including 𝗕𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗮𝗵, one of the city’s most significant hotspots?

After all, this program was paid for out of the 𝗞𝗼𝗮𝗹𝗮 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗟𝗲𝘃𝘆. It should lead to on‑the‑ground action, not sit on a shelf.

Koalas need evidence‑based action, not politics.

For people already worried about losing Carey Park, the latest whispers should have everyone paying attention.

According to the Gold Coast Bulletin, Council is now considering the sell‑off* of public land in Southport and Surfers Paradise to plug the Arena funding shortfall. The sites being floated as “surplus” are almost certainly -

- Mal Burke Car Park (Southport)
- Athol Paterson Car Park (Southport)
- Cypress Avenue or Bruce Bishop Car Park (Surfers Paradise)

Some will say, “It’s just a car park.”

But that’s not the full story.

These sites were never meant to be disposable

Under Council’s Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP), millions of dollars were allocated to turn Mal Burke and Athol Paterson into 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗸𝘀 - public spaces that keeps density humane, attractive, and economically productive. Athol Paterson has also been the long‑flagged site for a future 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴

These are not leftover scraps of land. They are strategic assets in the heart of the city. Public investment in these areas would drive private investment around them.

Here’s what most people probably missed -

Both planned civic parks 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗟𝗚𝗜𝗣 𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, a consultation that quietly went through last month. The changes are buried in spreadsheets, but the effect is clear -

- the civic parks are gone
- the LGIP no longer protects these sites
- their removal makes them far easier to sell

This is planning being reshaped to fit a financial problem.

The bigger mistake - treating the financial bottom line as the only line.

Selling strategic public land to avoid a rate rise today creates much larger long‑term costs, the loss of -

- future civic parks
- future public buildings
- the very assets needed to support high‑density living

The contradiction is staggering

The Arena is being promoted as a catalyst for Southport’s revitalisation. Yet the trade‑offs being floated would strip Southport of the very assets that make revitalisation possible.

This isn’t “robbing Peter to pay Paul”.

It’s robbing Peter to rob Peter again!

In the rush to claim “no cost to ratepayers”, meaning no rate rise and no new debt, we may end up with ratepayers paying the biggest price



* it may just be a "lease" according to the Mayor