The urban transformation of the Gold Coast, involving billions in public funding, has left residents in the dark, writes Richard Holliday.
A SWEEPING REDEVELOPMENT proposal for Royal Pines Resort at Benowa is shaping up to become one of the most significant urban transformations on the Gold Coast in decades — and one of the most controversial.
With $3.5 billion of public money allocated for athletes’ villages statewide – including $150 million in the 2025–26 budget alone – residents and community stakeholders are seeking clarity on the contractual arrangements between government and developer, the extent of public funding involved, and what happens to the accommodation after 2032.
A broad planning framework with narrow scrutiny
The project is being progressed under the Integrated Resort Development Act 1987 (IRD Act), alongside the Planning (Social Impact and Community Benefit) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (POLA Bill).
The IRD Act was created nearly four decades ago to manage resort-style developments such as Hope Island, Marina Mirage and Laguna Quays — typically greenfield or waterfront projects jnot large-scale densification of established residential communities.
Under the newer POLA framework, developments associated with the Olympics can be fast-tracked, with limited appeal rights and reduced opportunities for judicial review.
Residents argue this creates a troubling precedent: a hybrid Olympic and huge real estate project delivered under emergency-style planning provisions, even though the Games are still more than six years away.
Residents point out that major residential projects elsewhere on the Gold Coast, including SkyRidge and other master-planned communities, are being delivered through conventional planning pathways and under the Planning Act 2016, without special legislative treatment.
The concern is that Royal Pines is being positioned as an exception — not because the planning system lacks capacity, but because accelerated approvals and potentially reduced appeal rights deliver commercial advantage along with an Olympic Athletes Village.
Backed by proposed amendments to the Royal Pines Scheme of Integrated Resort Development, the plan would open large portions of the existing golf course to high-density residential and mixed-use development, introducing multiple towers of up to 25 storeys alongside hotel, commercial and accommodation uses.
Supporters describe it as renewal and revitalisation. Critics see it as the conversion of a long-established resort community into a high-rise residential precinct, enabled by legislation originally intended for a very different purpose.
At the centre of the proposal is the removal of the eastern nine holes of Royal Pines’ Resort Golf Course, where a new “Mixed Use Precinct G” would permit a broad range of development outcomes.
Planning maps received by Royal Pines residents show several sites allowing buildings up to 25 storeys, alongside additional 15-, 14-, 10- and 4-storey zones. While final building numbers are not specified, residents estimate the development could accommodate between 3,000 and 5,000 new people — effectively creating a new suburb built on top of an existing community.
The scale of change is unprecedented for Royal Pines, which was originally conceived as a low-rise integrated resort combining golf, hotel and conference facilities and detached or semi-detached housing.
Olympic legacy — or real estate opportunity?
The redevelopment is occurring against the backdrop of the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Royal Pines has been publicly identified by the Queensland Government and RACV as a future Gold Coast Athletes’ Village site to host up to 2,600 athletes, with billions of dollars committed statewide for athlete accommodation across Brisbane, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast.
Yet the proposed scheme amendments make no explicit reference to Olympic use.
That omission has raised concerns about transparency, particularly around how much of the project is genuinely tied to the Games infrastructure and how much represents a long-term private real estate development.
Traditionally, Olympic villages are promoted as legacy housing, often incorporating social and affordable dwellings. However, no such commitments appear in the current Royal Pines documentation.
Given recent sales prices within the estate, critics question whether any future apartments will be accessible to average buyers, let alone key frontline workers or lower-income residents.
Without firm guarantees, many fear the Olympic designation could become a vehicle for fast-tracked approvals of high-value residential towers, rather than a catalyst for inclusive housing outcomes during a housing crisis.
Density without detail
One of the most striking aspects of the proposed amendments is the breadth of permissible land uses.
The new mixed-use precinct allows for everything from residential towers and hotels to service stations, warehouses, caravan parks, institutional accommodation and even helicopter or vertiport facilities.
For residents accustomed to a quiet, pine-tree-lined golf resort environment, the scope feels excessive and incompatible with Royal Pines' character.
The inclusion of “rooming accommodation” has also raised an alarm. Defined broadly, it could permit transient or shared living arrangements outside traditional apartment models, potentially opening the door to backpacker-style or short-term housing — well beyond what many believe was envisaged for the estate.
Residents say this lack of detail makes it difficult to assess overshadowing, privacy impacts or the cumulative visual effect of multiple high-rise buildings clustered near Ross Street and the internal roads within the Royal Pines precinct.
Traffic already stretched
Perhaps the most immediate concern is traffic.
Ross Street, Ashmore Road and Nerang-Broadbeach Road already experience daily congestion, particularly during school and commuter peaks. Local bottlenecks routinely extend from Ross Street, along Ashmore Road into Heeb Street and through to the Ashmore Road and Benowa Road intersection.
The proposal asserts that increased development yield can be “adequately supported” by infrastructure upgrades, but provides no publicly available modelling to support that claim.
Residents ask, how can “adequately supported” take into account several other large projects underway or approved in the surrounding area, including, the Benowa Gardens Urban Village redevelopment, adding more than 400 apartments, a multi-tower residential project at Ashmore Road and Reed Street, the future traffic from the Coomera Connector (M9), expected to feed into Nerang-Broadbeach Road and the Gold Coast Titans sporting precinct planned for Emerald Lakes?
Comments from a Bundall, Benowa and Sorrento Community Facebook page inform:
'Independent planning experts say the Benowa Gardens’ traffic plan will keep local residential streets safe and quiet, with all heavy service and delivery vehicles restricted to Ashmore Road. And with 1,400 car spaces at the Centre, parking in local neighbourhoods will be discouraged.'
Residents argue that traffic assessments must account for these cumulative impacts rather than treat Royal Pines in isolation.
They also want infrastructure agreements and trip-rate modelling, as well as the independent planning experts’ advice released publicly, particularly where upgrades may affect existing residents who have lived with stable traffic conditions for more than a decade.
Safety concerns have also been raised around existing intersections, including the lack of slip lanes at key exits where vehicles merge into high-speed traffic.
Environmental and amenity impacts
The redevelopment footprint sits alongside the Nerang River, raising questions about riparian protection, erosion control and long-term habitat health.
The proposed scheme allows for vehicle access near the river edge, including during construction, prompting fears about the degradation of sensitive waterways and green corridors.
Landscaping provisions are another flashpoint. Mature trees — including the pine plantings that give Royal Pines its identity — are seen as integral to the estate’s character. Any further removals would be deeply unpopular following past incidents of unauthorised clearing.
Advertising controls are also under scrutiny. Residents fear that illuminated signage or large roadside billboards could transform the precinct’s visual amenity, turning a residential resort into something closer to a commercial strip.
Dust management, stormwater runoff and flood mitigation during construction remain largely unaddressed in the documentation, despite the scale of earthworks implied by multiple tower sites.
Body corporate power shift
Beyond physical impacts, the amendments propose a major change to governance within Royal Pines.
Approximately 2,200 new voting entitlements would be created, increasing the total by more than 70 per cent. These additional entitlements are expected to sit with the primary thoroughfare body corporate, significantly diluting the influence of existing residents.
For many, this represents a structural transfer of control from long-standing homeowners to future commercial interests — a fundamental shift in how the estate is managed.
Not an integrated resort anymore?
Critics argue the proposal stretches the definition of an “integrated resort” beyond recognition.
Unlike other IRD developments in Queensland, Royal Pines already contains a mature residential community of detached and semi-detached homes. Introducing thousands of new high-rise residents into that setting would make it unique among IRD projects — and arguably inconsistent with the Act’s original intent.
Comparisons have been drawn with Brisbane’s Queens Wharf (Star Entertainment Casino Hotels and residential towers), Sanctuary Cove, Jupiter’s Casino precinct and Hamilton Island, all of which were developed under distinct legislative frameworks tailored to their specific circumstances.
Calls for transparency and reset
While many residents support renewal of ageing resort infrastructure, and the Olympic Athletes Village, they are calling for a more measured, transparent and accountable approach.
Key requests include:
- Reduction of building heights and densities
- Public release of traffic modelling and infrastructure agreements
- Clear separation between Olympic-related development and commercial real estate outcomes
- Disclosure of any commitments to social or affordable housing
- Removal of incompatible land uses
- Independent financial analysis of body corporate impacts
- Increased residential security, via a precinct-wide CCTV network
With the Games still years away, critics argue there is ample time to establish a purpose-built legislative pathway that balances housing supply, community protection and Olympic legacy — without sidelining local community voices.
Royal Pines residents insist they are not anti-development. But they want assurances that transformation will enhance, rather than overwhelm, one of the Gold Coast’s most established resort communities.
As one of the city’s largest redevelopment proposals moves forward, the outcome may set a powerful precedent for how Olympic-linked projects are delivered across Queensland — and how much say existing communities retain in shaping their future.
Richard Holliday is a senior executive with over 25 years of experience in management roles, including CEO, General Manager, Director, and Commercial Manager. He has held executive roles in the natural resources, consumer products, transport, and tourism sectors across both the corporate and government sectors.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.
