Two Growth Fronts, One Evidence Base: Inside City of Gold Coast's Growth Model for a Million-Resident Future
How City of Gold Coast (CoGC) runs its infrastructure planning evidence base across broadacre growth corridors and high-rise infill at once, and what the model means for high-growth councils in every state.
Before we start: a short word list This post is about a Queensland council. It is written so that a council anywhere in Australia can read it and recognise the same problem at home. A few words change from state to state, so here is the short version. Planning permit and development application mean the same thing: the approval a council gives before land is developed. Queensland calls it a development application, or DA. Victoria calls it a planning permit, or permit. New South Wales calls it development consent. Western Australia calls it a development approval. All refer to the same core idea. Planning scheme: the rulebook that sets what can be built where. Victoria calls it a Precinct Structure Plan (PSP). New South Wales uses Structure Plans and Precinct Plans. Western Australia uses District and Local Structure Plans. Queensland integrates the equivalent detail into planning schemes and Priority Development Area processes. Each sets out the future arrangement of a growth precinct. Trunk infrastructure: the big shared water mains, sewers, roads, drains and parks that serve many properties at once. Not the pipes inside a single estate. LGIP, or Local Government Infrastructure Plan: the Queensland plan that sets out trunk infrastructure and how it is paid for. The nearest Victorian equivalent is an Infrastructure Contributions Plan, and before that a Development Contributions Plan. New South Wales uses section 7.11 local contributions plans, section 7.12 fixed levies, and Special Infrastructure Contributions for state agencies. Western Australia uses Development Contribution Plans under State Planning Policy 3.6. Each names the council's system for funding trunk infrastructure through developer contributions. Growth model: a forecast of how many homes, people and jobs will appear, where they will appear, and when. |
Most growth councils manage one dominant kind of development. A growth corridor council manages broadacre greenfield land carved into new suburbs. An established metropolitan council manages infill and redevelopment inside a settled footprint. Few councils run both at large scale, on the same charge schedule, at the same time.
CoGC does. A broadacre northern growth corridor releases new suburbs at a pace few Australian councils match. An established coastal city redevelops into higher and higher density along the same beach the city has occupied for a century. One evidence base has to hold up for both development fronts. The pressure to hold up under both is now spreading. High-growth councils in every state face the same combination as their own housing reforms take effect.
Key Takeaways:
City of Gold Coast runs broadacre greenfield growth and high-rise infill through the same growth model. A single-growth-type council never experiences this level of stress on one evidence base.
The PUG model already has an adopted planning scheme track record. The LGIP2 development projection scenario, produced through the model, was adopted as part of City Plan Version 10 on 4 July 2023 after independent review, State Interest review, and public consultation. The current Interim LGIP Amendment, out for consultation in early 2026, rests on the same modelling framework and projects 388,300 more people, 173,800 new jobs, and 185,300 new homes by 2046.
The statutory maximum infrastructure charge behind the pipeline is $36,670.70 per three-bedroom lot, the same rate cited in the Toowoomba case study. At CoGC's scale, the charge schedule sits behind billions of dollars in future revenue rather than millions.
The City used the same growth model to test light rail extension scenarios toward the airport corridor in four weeks. Queensland's 2026-27 Budget has since committed funding to progress a light rail extension along the corridor.
Deputy Mayor Mark Hammel publicly named the Planning and Urban Growth model in the Gold Coast Bulletin on 23 July 2026, describing the model as guiding future planning decisions across the city. A related Urban Twin project is now in development inside the same planning function.
High-growth councils in every state face the same combination CoGC has managed for years. Broadacre release running alongside infill densification, on one contributions ledger. The mix shows up in Victoria's Tier 1 growth councils under Plan for Victoria, in New South Wales under the Housing Delivery Authority and the Transport Oriented Development program, in Western Australia under Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million, and in South Australia under the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.
CoGC Planning & Urban Growth Model (PUG) powered by Forecaz
What this council has to plan for
City of Gold Coast is Australia's second-largest local government area (LGA) by population, behind Brisbane City Council. The estimated resident population reached 691,230 at 30 June 2025, up from 681,389 the year before. The city is on track to pass 700,000 residents inside the current Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) cycle. The Queensland Government's population target for Gold Coast is one million residents by 2046, adopted by the council in March 2026 through a 20-year Local Growth Management Strategy.
The council area covers roughly 1,400 square kilometres. The area runs from the New South Wales border to the edge of Brisbane's southern suburbs, and from the coastline inland to the Gold Coast hinterland. Two distinct growth fronts sit inside the footprint. A northern growth corridor through Coomera, Pimpama, and Ormeau releases broadacre land for new suburbs at one of the fastest rates in South East Queensland. At the same time, the established coastal strip from Southport to Burleigh Heads redevelops low-rise housing into multi-level residential towers. Land scarcity and a beachfront address few other Australian cities offer drive the second engine.
On top of both growth fronts, the city carries a visitor population. Visitors add real demand to transport, water, and stormwater networks well beyond what residents alone generate. A growth model built on residents alone misses part of the network load.
On 15 June 2026, the council handed down a $2.7 billion Operational Plan and City Budget for 2026-27. The budget includes a $543 million investment in transport and infrastructure. Capital deployment at this scale needs a growth forecast holding together across greenfield and infill, and across resident and visitor demand, at the same time.
691,230 Esimated resident population ABS, 2025 | ~1,400 km² Size of council area City of Gold Coast | $2.7B Total 2026-27 budget CoGC, June 2026 | 185,300 New homes forecast by 2046 Interim LGIP Amendment 2026 |
Why two growth fronts make forecasting harder than one
The same network, opposite development types
A broadacre lot in Coomera and a 30-storey tower in Southport draw on the same trunk water main, the same sewer network, and the same transport charge schedule. One is a single dwelling on its own block, sequenced against a PSP land release program. The other is dozens or hundreds of dwellings on a single parcel, sequenced against a development approval and a construction program moving in a fraction of the time. A growth model calibrated only for broadacre sequencing under-reads the infill tower. A model calibrated only for infill density under-reads the corridor. City of Gold Coast needs both calibrated inside one evidence base.
Density that changes street by street, twice over
In the growth corridor, density is mostly a planning scheme setting. One precinct sits at low density, another at medium density, and the assumption holds for years. On the coastal strip, density is a live negotiation. A site might redevelop at a modest scale, or, subject to planning scheme provisions and market conditions, at a much greater height and yield. The same council holds defensible assumptions for both kinds of uncertainty, in the same charge schedule, at the same time.
A visitor population the resident count does not capture
The Gold Coast's tourism economy sizes transport corridors, car parks, stormwater systems in tourist precincts, and some recreation infrastructure for a functional population well above the resident base. A growth model stopping at resident dwellings and resident population understates real demand on the networks visitors use most.
What the growth model has been used for
The City's evidence-based Planning and Urban Growth model
City of Gold Coast has used Forecaz to build what the council calls the Planning and Urban Growth (PUG) model. The PUG model is a parcel-level evidence base covering both the broadacre corridor and the established city. The model produces the parcel-level planning assumptions behind the City's LGIP. Queensland's LGIP is the direct equivalent of Victoria's Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP).
The PUG model has an adopted track record. The LGIP2 development projection scenario, produced through the model, went through public consultation, State Interest review, and independent review by the LGIP-appointed reviewer, Continuum Group. The scenario was adopted as part of City Plan Version 10, which commenced on 4 July 2023. The current Interim LGIP Amendment rests on the same modelling framework, now in a refined form. Further detail on how the PUG model was built sits in Issue 23 of Engineering for Public Works, the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA) Queensland journal.
“The development of the City’s planning and urban growth model has been a game changer for the planning team.”
Deputy Mayor Mark Hammel, quoted in the Gold Coast Bulletin, 23 July 2026 |
An Interim LGIP Amendment now working through consultation
Public consultation on an Interim LGIP Amendment ran from 3 February to 2 March 2026. Submissions sit under review ahead of a final report and a submission to the State seeking Ministerial approval to adopt. The amendment updates the maps, growth forecasts, and costs behind the City's trunk infrastructure program.
The numbers behind the amendment are the numbers every council in this position eventually defends. By 2046, the City projects 388,300 more people, 173,800 new jobs, and 185,300 new homes. Every one of those figures survives scrutiny from the development industry, the Queensland Government, and the council's own audit processes. A Victorian ICP faces the same pressures from the Victorian Planning Authority (VPA), the Department of Transport and Planning (DTP), and Panels Victoria.
The same statutory charge, a different scale entirely
Queensland's maximum adopted infrastructure charge for a new urban residential lot with a three-bedroom or larger dwelling, connected to all trunk networks, sits at $36,670.70. The rate is the same statewide ceiling referenced in the Toowoomba case study. City of Gold Coast's charges resolution also removes exemptions for larger secondary dwellings, phasing to a 50 per cent charge from January 2026 and to the full charge from January 2027.
An illustrative calculation, not an official council figure 185,300 forecast new homes multiplied by the current $36,670.70 three-bedroom rate produces a back-of-envelope figure above $6.8 billion. Real revenue will differ once dwelling mix, unit sizes, credits, and offsets apply, and the City has not published a figure of this kind. The point of the arithmetic is scale, not precision. Even a small percentage error in growth assumptions compounds into a large dollar figure at a metropolitan council's pipeline size. |
Scenario testing that outran the usual timeline
City of Gold Coast has used the same model for faster, decision-specific scenario work outside the statutory planning cycle. Planners build and compare what-if scenarios inside the Model Viewer, whether higher density along a transport corridor or an alternative land use mix, without commissioning a separate study. The City used this approach to test light rail extension scenarios for a Gold Coast Airport business case, turning the analysis around in four weeks. Queensland's 2026-27 Budget has since committed funding to progress a light rail extension along a corridor connecting toward the same airport precinct. The commitment sits inside a wider Gold Coast Transport Plan, which also includes an extension from the Gold Coast University Hospital to Biggera Waters. No single piece of modelling determines an outcome of this scale on its own. The sequence shows the kind of real investment decision this scenario capability informs.
Faster data, not only faster answers
Building the original evidence base was a data problem before a modelling problem. Parcel records, zoning layers, approvals, and constraints all needed reconciling before any forecast ran. City of Gold Coast's experience with Forecaz cut the data cleansing timeline from a process running up to 18 months to around 6 months. Councils refresh their evidence base on a five-year statutory cycle, and far more often than that in practice. The difference between an 18-month start and a 6-month start is the difference between modelling the past and modelling the present.
Public validation and the Urban Twin extension
On 23 July 2026, the Gold Coast Bulletin reported the council's use of AI-driven modelling to plan for the state government's one-million-resident population target for the city by 2046. Deputy Mayor Mark Hammel confirmed to the Bulletin that the PUG model now guides future planning decisions across the city, covering where homes, jobs, and infrastructure sit and how the city grows over time. The tool integrates AI, 3D visualisation, reporting, and scenario analysis, and the council briefs councillors first on the outputs.
A related Urban Twin project is now in development inside the same planning function. The Bulletin describes the project as a browser-based Digital Urban Twin platform integrating 2D and 3D city planning data for immersive visualisation and scenario simulation to aid policy development.
Where the growth model gets used
Infrastructure plan evidence. The Interim LGIP Amendment, now in the review-of-submissions stage, rests on the same parcel-level growth assumptions as the PUG model, across both the broadacre corridor and the established city.
Infrastructure charges. The statutory maximum adopted charge stays defensible only when the growth and dwelling-mix assumptions behind the charge stay current. At Gold Coast's scale, the defensibility question sits behind billions of dollars in projected revenue rather than millions.
Scenario and business case testing. Transport corridor and light rail extension scenarios run through the model outside the statutory cycle, on a timeline measured in weeks rather than months.
Capital works timing. A $543 million annual transport and infrastructure program inside a $2.7 billion budget needs sequencing reflecting two development speeds at once. Broadacre land release on one side, infill redevelopment on the other. A single average rate applied across the LGA misses both.
What this means for high-growth councils across Australia
The Gold Coast pattern is not a Gold Coast pattern
High-growth councils in every state now hold a defensible growth story across broadacre release and infill densification, on the same contributions ledger, at the same time. State housing reforms are the driver, and the pattern is showing up wherever a growing metro or regional city meets a state government pushing for more homes faster.
In Victoria, Casey and Wyndham are the closest analogues to the Gold Coast on scale. Both run large, multi-precinct Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) programs comparable to the Gold Coast's northern growth corridor. Plan for Victoria and the Victorian Housing Statement now layer Activity Centre infill obligations onto councils whose evidence base was built around broadacre PSP sequencing. Infrastructure contributions for the first ten pilot Activity Centres begin in January 2027. The wider 48-centre program follows in July 2027.
In New South Wales, Blacktown, Camden, Wollondilly, Penrith, and the Hills Shire run some of the country's fastest greenfield release programs. At the same time, the NSW Housing Delivery Authority, the Transport Oriented Development program, and the Low- and Mid-Rise Housing reforms are pushing new density into established centres and suburbs. The section 7.11 contributions plans covering these areas rest on population and dwelling assumptions the council eventually defends before developers, industry bodies, and the Land and Environment Court.
In Western Australia, Wanneroo, Swan, Kwinana, and Serpentine-Jarrahdale carry the Perth metropolitan region's fastest greenfield growth. Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million adds infill obligations on top. Development Contribution Plans hold up against both.
In South Australia, Playford and Salisbury run northern Adelaide's greenfield growth, while the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide pushes infill into established transit corridors and mixed-use precincts.
This is the combination City of Gold Coast has run through one model for years. A broadacre corridor and a densifying established area, on one charge schedule, defended against the same kind of scrutiny.
What CoGC deals with | The same thing at your council | What a growth model changes |
A broadacre northern growth corridor releasing new suburbs at scale | A greenfield precinct program across multiple growth fronts | One model that sequences broadacre release against realistic uptake |
An established coastal strip redeveloping into high-rise infill | Housing-reform density obligations layering onto established suburbs and transit corridors | The same model calibrated for infill density, not only greenfield lots |
A statutory charge schedule covering both growth types on one ledger | A contributions plan covering both greenfield precincts and, increasingly, infill areas | A single, defensible evidence base instead of two disconnected ones |
A visitor population adding load beyond the resident count | Any council with tourism, event, university, or commuter demand beyond residents | Demand forecasts reflecting functional population, not only residents |
Scenario testing for transport and light rail business cases in weeks | Testing a growth scenario or density option before it goes to Panel, Court, Minister, or Cabinet | A live model that answers a scenario question before the decision, not after |
A five-year statutory LGIP review cycle running in parallel with faster ad hoc studies | A scheme review running under state housing reform while day-to-day decisions continue | One evidence base feeding both the statutory review and the immediate decisions |
A charge schedule defending billions raher than millions is not a bigger version of the same problem. The scale carries a much smaller margin for error. |
One final translation point. Where this post refers to a development application (DA), read the equivalent term for your state. Planning permit in Victoria. Development consent in New South Wales. Development approval in Western Australia. The value of loading your own approvals into a growth model is the same wherever you sit. A near-term pipeline view no public dataset provides on its own, covering both your greenfield release sites and your infill redevelopment sites in the same model instance.
Forecaz VIC for Victorian Councils
Forecaz VIC is an urban growth modelling platform set up for Victorian councils.
The platform arrives pre-loaded with:
Precinct Structure Plans
Victorian Planning Authority growth projections
Planning scheme settings, and
Land use data for your LGA
Council planners run real scenarios within weeks. No data scientists, no long onboarding, and no rebuilding assumptions from scratch each time policy shifts.
Forecaz VIC uses AI-powered Bayesian Network modelling
The model assigns a development propensity to every land parcel, based on proximity to infrastructure, development yield, current land use, and local constraints. Growth follows realistic paths across projection years you define.
The Forecaz VIC platform produces parcel-level forecasts for:
dwellings
population
gross floor area, and
employment.
The platform also produces unlimited scenario comparisons that can spatially viewed in the map explorer.
When Councils load their own development permits into the model, each council instance gains a near-term pipeline view no public dataset offers on its own.
Forecaz appears on the MAV AI Procurement Register
Every vendor on the Municipal Association of Victoria's (MAV) AI Procurement Register meets the AI Vendor Evaluation Criteria, covering ethics, governance, data security, regulatory compliance, and implementation support.
To discuss the procurement path for your council contact Annette Henry.
Arrange a discovery session today
Discover how quickly Forecaz VIC can be configured for your LGA
Call Annette Henry (0418 123 133), Bradley Rasmussen (0419 738 378) or book below:
Sources and References:
Population: Estimated resident population of 691,230 at 30 June 2025, up from 681,389 the previous year. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Regional Population, compiled via profile.id.com.au/gold-coast and economy.id.com.au/gold-coast. City of Gold Coast is Australia's second-largest local government area by population after Brisbane City Council.
Council area: Approximately 1,400 square kilometres, consistent with City of Gold Coast and economy.id.com.au published materials.
2026-27 Budget: $2.7 billion Operational Plan and City Budget, including a $543 million investment in transport and infrastructure, handed down 15 June 2026. City of Gold Coast media releases.
Interim LGIP Amendment: Public consultation ran 3 February to 2 March 2026, currently at the review-of-submissions stage ahead of a final report and Ministerial approval process. Projected growth to 2046 of 388,300 more people, 173,800 new jobs, and 185,300 new homes. gchaveyoursay.com.au/interimlgipamendment.
Infrastructure charges: Statutory maximum adopted charge of $36,670.70 for a new urban residential lot with a three-bedroom or larger dwelling connected to all trunk networks, as also cited in the Toowoomba Regional Council case study in this series. Secondary dwelling exemption phase-out to 50 per cent from 1 January 2026 and to the full charge from 1 January 2027, under the City's Charges Resolution.
PUG model and LGIP: City of Gold Coast has used Forecaz to produce an evidence-based Planning and Urban Growth model, used to produce parcel-level planning assumptions for the City's LGIP. The LGIP2 development projection scenario produced through the PUG model was reviewed by LGIP-appointed reviewer Continuum Group, publicly consulted, State Interest reviewed, and adopted as part of City Plan Version 10, which commenced on 4 July 2023 (City of Gold Coast). Further detail on the PUG model build in Engineering for Public Works, Issue 23 (IPWEA Queensland and Northern Territory), page 44, issuu.com/ipweaqld/docs/epw_september_2021_final.
Data cleansing and scenario testing outcomes: Reported reduction in data cleansing timelines from up to 18 months to approximately 6 months, and light rail extension scenario testing for a Gold Coast Airport business case completed in four weeks. Both figures drawn from Forecaz project material. The figures are indicative benchmarks from Forecaz deployments. Independent verification is recommended before use in an internal business case.
Light rail and transport investment: Queensland's 2026-27 State Budget committed funding to progress Gold Coast public transport projects, including a light rail extension from Gold Coast University Hospital to Biggera Waters and a further extension from Robina to Coolangatta, as part of a new Gold Coast Transport Plan.
State housing reforms: Plan for Victoria released 28 February 2025 and introduced into all Victorian planning schemes on 8 September 2025 through Amendment VC283. Activity Centre infrastructure contributions apply to the first ten pilot centres from January 2027 and the wider 48-centre program from July 2027 (Department of Transport and Planning). Equivalent reforms include the New South Wales Housing Delivery Authority, the NSW Transport Oriented Development program, and the Low- and Mid-Rise Housing reforms (NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure); Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million (Western Australian Planning Commission); and the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide (Department for Housing and Urban Development, South Australia). Each state's public planning portal is the authoritative source for its own framework.
Public validation and Urban Twin project: “Gold Coast council using artificial intelligence to avoid ‘Sardine City’ future”, Gold Coast Bulletin, 23 July 2026 (Paul Weston and Andrew Potts). Article names the Planning and Urban Growth model, quotes Deputy Mayor Mark Hammel confirming the model is guiding future planning decisions, and describes a related Urban Twin browser-based platform in development. The one-million-resident population target and the March 2026 twenty-year Local Growth Management Strategy are drawn from the same article.
MAV AI Procurement Register: The register and the AI Vendor Evaluation Criteria are published by the Municipal Association of Victoria at mav.asn.au. Other state and territory local government associations run their own procurement guidance and registers.
Legal Disclaimer:
This article covers the operational and commercial context for high-growth councils across Australia, drawing on publicly available information about City of Gold Coast and general Queensland planning legislation. The article is not legal or planning advice, and does not describe the specific legal obligations of any council under the Planning Act 2016 (Qld), the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), or any equivalent state, territory, or Commonwealth legislation or Ministerial guidance. Figures relating to City of Gold Coast are drawn from public council and government sources current at the time of writing, and may change as the Interim LGIP Amendment progresses through review and Ministerial approval. Forecaz-reported outcomes from Queensland deployments are indicative benchmarks only. Independent verification is recommended before use in an internal business case. Councils should seek their own legal and planning advice on their obligations under their own state or territory framework.