On Tuesday, 4 October 2022, Council formally identified the Ikkina/Tabilban route as a bypass.
• In simple terms, Council admitted to using this local road as a through-route/bypass — a purpose it was never designed for — without upgrading it to meet applicable standards. A through road and a bypass road are one and the same.
• This is clearly demonstrated by the reconstruction works of the route carried out in 2022, which ignored all relevant engineering and safety guidelines to meet the applicable standards.
• The reality is, Council cannot bring this route up to the proper standards required for a bypass. By continuing to use it as one, they are breaching their responsibilities and legislative obligations.
• Council is relying on public ignorance to avoid accountability.
• By demanding that Council bring this road up to the proper standard — which they can’t — they are left with no choice but to reduce traffic volumes using appropriate Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) measures, such as road closures and one-way slow points.
• We have the power to put an end to this reckless misuse of our wildlife-rich neighbourhood — but only if we stand together and act now.
• This is the opportunity to come together with one voice and hold the Council accountable for what they have allowed to happen in our neighbourhood––-and it’s here now.
We’ve built the case and presented the facts. Now, we need your voice. All you have to do is –– Sign the petition — and let’s make it happen.
PETITION TO COUNCIL OF CITY OF GOLD COAST
[ID: petition-gccc-20250512]
Council’s most recent justification for continued inaction is extremely alarming and is outlined in the 824 Transport and Infrastructure Committee Meeting held Tuesday 4 October 2022, from which the following excerpt is taken:
Excerpt from this document:
“A comprehensive traffic study, that included community consultation, was subsequently undertaken that identified the existing east-west through route was essential to the operation of the wider road network
and that the petition proposition cannot be supported as it:
• Will induce more through traffic use of the Koala Park residential area
• Will reduce local residential amenity
• Will impact on the local environment
• Will come with a high financial cost that does not provide a value for money outcome for ratepayers
• Does not have the support of the wider community.”
In this statement, Council officially acknowledges and identifies that the route functions as a through route — otherwise known as a bypass route. This acknowledgment has significant engineering and legal implications, as noted by former Director of Transport and Infrastructure Alton Twine:
Quote:
“If we identify it, then we are obligated to bring it up to standard.”
This admission establishes a clear duty of care. Once identified as a functional through-route, the infrastructure must be assessed, upgraded, and maintained in accordance with applicable engineering standards. These include, but are not limited to, the Austroads Guide to Road Design, the Queensland Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 8: Local Area Traffic Management, and the Queensland Land Act 1994, while adhering to all relevant national and international benchmarks and best practices.
“From the beginnings of traffic calming in Australia and New Zealand, congestion on the arterial system was not seen by local government as a reason to tolerate unacceptable local traffic conditions or to oppose measures to relieve that local traffic (e.g. Loder & Bayly 1974: Section 3.11).(Source AGTM08 16 Guide to Traffic Management Part 8 Local Area Traffic Management.)”
Failure to do so exposes Council to potential legal liability for foreseeable harm — including traffic collisions, pedestrian injuries, amenity loss, and property impacts all which have been well-documented and worsening.
This identification should have triggered an immediate engineering response. Instead, Council continues to ignore this key performance indicator while residents suffer elevated noise pollution, safety hazards, environmental degradation, and rising exposure to traffic conflicts — all of which are foreseeable and legally actionable under both tort law and the Local Government Act 2009.
“While there is a high degree of compatibility between this administrative classification and the relevant functional classification, there is not always a direct relationship between them. For example, some District Roads have the characteristics of an arterial road and carry high volumes of traffic. In these cases, planners and designers should adopt the appropriate standards for the function the road performs.”(Source: Framework of the Road Planning and Design Manual RPDM Chapter 1.)
Under both common law and legislation, including the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, Council holds a legal duty to:
• Ensure public infrastructure is fit for purpose
• Base decisions on expert, evidence-backed analysis
• Avoid foreseeable harm through inaction
• Maintain transparency and public trust in process
The current situation violates these principles on every front.
We the people hold the Gold Coast City Council accountable and call on Gold Coast City Council to formally upgrade this route in accordance with applicable standards, given its clearly identified status as a functional through-route.
In closing, the people hold the Gold Coast City Council accountable and it is the will of the people that Gold Coast City Council follow the LAW and STANDARDS without equivocation.