Royal Pines redevelopment raises major questions on the Gold Coast
Gold Coast’s urban regeneration involving billions of dollars in public funding has left residents in the dark, writes Richard Holliday.
A COMPREHENSIVE REDEVELOPMENT proposal for the Royal Pines Resort in Benowa is shaping up to become one of the most significant urban redevelopments on the Gold Coast in decades, and one of the most controversial. With $3.5 billion of public money allocated to athlete villages across the state (including $150 million in the 2025-26 budget alone), residents and community stakeholders are seeking clarity on contractual arrangements between the government and developer, the scope of public funding involved and what will happen to accommodation after 2032.
A broad planning framework with narrow scrutiny
Progress continues within the scope of the project Integrated Facilities Development Act 1987 (IRD Act), next to you Planning (Social Impact and Community Benefit) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (POLA Bill).
The IRD Act was created nearly four decades ago to govern resort-style developments (usually green space or waterfront projects, not large-scale concentrations of established residential communities) such as Hope Island, Marina Mirage, and Laguna Quays.
Under the newer POLA framework, Olympic-related developments can be fast-tracked, with limited appeal rights and reduced opportunities for judicial review.
Residents argue it sets a troubling precedent: a hybrid Olympic and massive real estate project being delivered under contingency-style planning provisions, even though the Games are still more than six years away.
Residents point out that major housing projects elsewhere on the Gold Coast, including SkyRidge and other master-planned communities, have been carried out through traditional planning routes and under the 2016 Planning Act, without specific legislation.
The problem is that Royal Pines is positioned as an exception; not because of the inadequate capacity of the planning system, but because accelerated approvals and potentially reduced appeal rights provide a commercial advantage in combination with an Olympic Athletes’ Village.
The plan, supported by proposed changes to the Royal Pines Integrated Resort Development Program, would open large portions of the existing golf course to high-density residential and mixed-use development, offering hotel, commercial and hospitality uses as well as multiple towers of up to 25 stories. Supporters describe it as renewal and revitalization. Critics see it as the transformation of a well-established resort town into a high-rise residential district, made possible by legislation originally intended for a very different purpose.
Central to the proposal is the removal of the eastern nine holes of Royal Pines’ golf course; here, a new “Mixed Use District G” will allow for a wide range of development outcomes. Planning maps received by Royal Pines residents show 15, 14, 10 and 4-storey zoning, as well as various areas allowing buildings up to 25 storeys. Although final building numbers have not been specified, residents estimate the project could house 3,000 to 5,000 new people; This means 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 with detached or semi-detached residences.
Olympic legacy or real estate opportunity?
The rebuild takes place against the backdrop of the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Royal Pines has been publicly identified by the Queensland Government and RACV as the site of the future Gold Coast Athlete Village to host up to 2,600 athletes, with billions of dollars allocated across the state for athlete accommodation in Brisbane, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast.
But the proposed plan changes make no explicit reference to Olympic use.
This omission has raised concerns about transparency, particularly about how much of the project is actually tied to Games infrastructure and how much represents long-term private real estate development.
Traditionally, Olympic villages are promoted as legacy housing, often containing social and affordable housing. However, no such commitment appears in the current Royal Pines documents. Given recent sales prices on the site, critics question whether future apartments will be affordable to average buyers, let alone front-line workers or low-income residents.
Without firm guarantees, many fear that the Olympic title could become a tool for rapid approval of high-value residential towers rather than a catalyst for inclusive housing outcomes during the housing crisis.
Density without detail
One of the most notable aspects of the proposed changes is the breadth of land uses permitted.
The new mixed-use district allows for everything from residential towers and hotels to service stations, warehouses, caravan parks, corporate accommodation and even helicopter or vertiport facilities.
To residents accustomed to a quiet, pine-lined golf resort environment, the scope seems excessive and incompatible with the character of Royal Pines.
The inclusion of the “room accommodation” option also caused alarm. Broadly defined, it could allow temporary or shared living arrangements outside of traditional apartment models and potentially open the door to backpacker-style or short-term housing; far beyond what many believed was envisioned for the site.
Residents say this lack of detail makes it difficult to assess shadowing, privacy impacts or the cumulative visual impact of the many high-rise buildings clustered near Ross Street and interior roads within the Royal Pines area.
Traffic is already tense
Perhaps the most pressing concern is traffic.
Ross Street, Ashmore Road and Nerang–Broadbeach Road already experience daily traffic congestion, especially during busy school and commute times. Local bottlenecks routinely run from Ross Street along Ashmore Road to Heeb Street and the junction of Ashmore Road and Benowa Road.
The proposal suggests that increased development efficiency can be “adequately supported” by infrastructure upgrades, but provides no publicly available modeling to support this claim.
Residents are asking how the “adequate support” of the many other major projects underway or approved in the surrounding area will be taken into account, including the redevelopment of Benowa Gardens Urban Village, the addition of more than 400 flats, a multi-tower housing project at Ashmore Road and Reed Street, Nerang-Broadbeach Road and traffic from the Coomera Connector (M9), which is expected to feed into the Gold Coast Titans sports precinct planned for the Emerald Lakes.
“Independent planning experts say Benowa Gardens’ traffic plan will keep local residential streets safe and quiet, all heavy-duty and delivery vehicles will be restricted to Ashmore Road and with 1400 car spaces in the Centre, it will discourage parking in local neighbourhoods.”
Residents argue that traffic assessments should take these cumulative impacts into account rather than considering Royal Pines in isolation. They also want infrastructure deals and ride fare modelling, as well as advice from independent planning experts, to be made public; especially where improvements could impact existing residents who have lived with stable traffic conditions for more than a decade.
Safety concerns have also been raised about existing junctions, including the lack of slip lanes at main exits where vehicles merge into high-speed traffic.
Environmental and comfort effects
The redevelopment footprint is located along the Nerang River and raises questions about riverbank protection, erosion control and long-term habitat health.
The proposed plan allows vehicle access near the riverside, including during construction, raising fears of degradation of sensitive waterways and green corridors.
Landscaping provisions are another flashpoint. Mature trees, including the pine trees that give Royal Pines its identity, are seen as an integral part of the character of the land. Any further removals would be unpopular after past unauthorized purges.
Advertising controls are also being reviewed. Residents fear that illuminated signs or large roadside billboards could transform the visual beauty of the area, turning a residential area into something closer to a commercial strip.
Dust management, stormwater runoff and flood mitigation during construction are largely not addressed in the documents, despite the scale of earthworks implied by the multiple tower sites.
Body institutional power change
Beyond physical impacts, the changes suggest a major shift in the management of Royal Pines.
Approximately 2,200 new voting rights will be created, a total increase of more than 70 percent. These additional powers are expected to be built into the high street body corporate and will significantly reduce the influence of existing residents.
For many, this represents a structural transfer of control from long-time homeowners to future business interests; This represents a fundamental shift in the way property is managed.
No longer an integrated facility?
Critics argue that the proposal stretches the definition of “integrated resort” beyond recognition.
Unlike other IRD projects in Queensland, Royal Pines currently includes a mature residential community of detached and semi-detached homes. The introduction of thousands of new high-rise residents into this environment would make it unique among IRD projects and would likely be inconsistent with the original intent of the Act.
Comparisons have been made 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 different legal frameworks tailored to their particular circumstances.
Calls for transparency and reset
While many residents support the renovation of aging resort infrastructure and the Olympic Athletes’ Village, they are calling for a more measured, transparent and accountable approach.
Key demands include:
- Reducing building heights and densities
- Public disclosure of traffic modeling and infrastructure agreements
- A clear distinction between Olympic-related development and commercial real estate outcomes
- Explaining commitments to social or affordable housing
- Removal of incompatible land uses
- Independent financial analysis of the organization’s corporate impacts
- Increased residential security through district-wide CCTV network
While the Games are still years away, critics argue there is ample time to create a purposeful legislative pathway that balances housing supply, community protection and the Olympic legacy without excluding local community voices.
Royal Pines residents insist they are not anti-development. But they want assurances that the transformation will strengthen rather than overwhelm one of the Gold Coast’s most established holiday communities.
As one of the city’s biggest redevelopment proposals moves forward, the outcome could set a strong precedent for how Olympic-related projects are carried out in Queensland and how much say existing communities have in shaping their future.
Richard Holliday is an IA contributor.
Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.
