3 Radcliffe Court Bellbird Park QLD 4300

Superseded Planning Scheme Request - Single Residential with Auxiliary Unit

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website about 1 month ago. It was received by them 3 days earlier.

(Source: Ipswich City Council, reference SPSR-9978/2018)

6 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Chantelle Rogers commented

    To whom it may concern,
    I do not agree with the building development being built at 3 Radcliffe court bellbird park. It will be an eyesore and daily reminder of the natural bush and wildlife that was destroyed. The block sizes are also disturbingly small. Please look into this matter as soon as possible.
    Kind regards,
    Chantelle Rogers

  2. Megan commented

    I object to this application for auxiliary units on lots 6, 8, 10 and 12 of this development. I have reviewed the initial application for this development (RAL - 6052 / 2016) and at no stage were auxiliary units mentioned, let alone approved. Please use common sense and don't approve something that wasn't permitted in the first place!

    If the building of auxiliary units is approved simply because the previous edition (2016) of the Ipswich didn't specifically define an auxiliary unit lot or state a lot size on which auxiliary units may be built, specifications within the 2015 edition of the Ipswich Planning Scheme's Guideline 1 should be enforced. To quote this Guideline:

    - 'The Auxiliary Unit is subservient in form and nature to the main dwelling on the lot' - Purpose of the Guidelines, page 1
    - 'The term (auxiliary unit) does not include "Dual Occupancy"...' - Definitions (a) (ii), page 1
    - '...the development of an Auxiliary Unit ... will be treated in a similar manner to a single family dwelling' - Guidelines, page 1

    In other words, if this application is approved Council must ensure that the auxiliary units are built and used as intended through the Ipswich Planning Scheme. That is, developers SHOULD NOT be allowed to divide the lot into two separate and completely independent residences with their own back yards - this disregards the 'single family dwelling' intent of an auxiliary unit. Developers must not be allowed to create dual occupancy-style living on these 450m2 blocks - this breaches the auxiliary unit 'term does not include "Dual Occupancy"' definition of an auxiliary unit.

    ICC: Please remember that an auxiliary unit is not only defined by the the gross floor area and number of bedrooms it has. According to your own guidelines it is defined by its use: as '...a building or part of a building used as a SECONDARY residence ... associated with a dwelling on the same lot'. Please remember that a secondary residence is not synonymous with a second residence! Although the 2018 edition of the Ipswich Planning Scheme introduced and specified requirements for an Auxiliary Unit Lot type, the definition of an auxiliary unit has not changed between the 2015 and 2018 editions of the Ipswich Planning Scheme. Therefore the definition of an auxiliary unit and intended use of it must be enforced.

    DO NOT ALLOW THE FOUR AUXILIARY UNITS REQUESTED IN THIS APPLICATION TO BE TURNED INTO FOUR DUAL OCCUPANCY STYLE HOUSES ON SMALL LOTS THAT ALLOW THE POTENTIAL TO LEASE EIGHT RESIDENCES. This is not in line with the character of Bellbird park!

  3. J Burnell commented

    Auxiliary units should not be approved on this development as it would be creating a defacto duplex dwelling estate which does not conform to the planning scheme requirements in terms of clustering and separation distances. This concentration of auxiliary units will have an impact on the visual amenity of the area, car parking, traffic congestion and recreation space, particularly as this development does not have good access to facilities and services.

  4. Rachel Grant commented

    I object to the request for at Radcliffe Court, primarily because I do not think that density of people is compatible with the street and am concerned about residents trying to turn right onto Jones Rd at peak times.

    Jones Rd is already extremely busy and has yet to reach the full impact of other nearby developments, such as the completion of Brentwood and Bellbird Gardens, not forgetting the recently SHAMEFUL developments just approved, a little further along Jones Rd!

    My friend lives in the house next to this development so I know first hand how difficult it is to turn into and out of her driveway on Jones Rd. Allowing increased density in Radcliffe Court will simply add to this problem.

    Additionally, Radcliffe Court is located not far from a bend in Jones Rd, which reduces visibility and will make entry and exit from the street even more difficult.

    My other objection is that these are not really auxiliary units that the developer is proposing, they are duplex lots. Bellbird Park has seen a proliferation of this type of development in recent years and it is poorly designed - the duplexes are so small that the residents turn their garages into bedrooms, and then the streets - which are already very narrow - become clogged with cars, making it dangerous for residents and road users alike,

    Council, please enforce the original DA (which is bad enough in my opinion) and do not allow the developer to make this poor quality development even worse!

  5. ross moore commented

    the council can not pass the construction of these auxiliary units on ANY of these allotments as per the guidelines in document IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINE NO. 1- Development Standards for Auxiliary Units and Dual Occupancies, including those which are Used to Accommodate Relatives or Aged or Infirm Persons
    The person who lodges this application has to sign a stat declaration and witnessed by a Justice of the Peace

    https://www.ipswichplanning.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/2003/ips_implementation_guide_1.pdf

  6. S. Bourne commented

    I wish to voice my objection to this development application (SPSR - 9978/2018). Auxiliary units on lots 3,7,11 and 15 is too many for development of this size. The approval of 4 auxiliary units (33% of the total lots in this development) would not meet community expectations or the planning scheme in terms of density and separation of auxiliary units especially as the lots are the smallest they can possibly be in the area.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts