PlanningAlerts

4 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. Given thar I received advice from Lara Minion of Ipswich Council that this development had been approved as all blocks under 800m2, in order to avoid dual occupancy, I assume this application for auxilliary units will be rejected.

   See excerpt from Lara's email below:

   "To have a block larger than 800m2 as you preferred, could facilitate dual occupancy development.  This could lead to a development that exceeds the density range of 10-15 dwellings per hectare for the area.  This is the very outcome we understand the community is seeking to avoid.  Therefore this fact, contributed to an outcome of balanced lot sizes to the Morgan Street frontage, all lots less than 800m2."

   Will ICC keep their word, or let us down again..?

2. I strongly object to this application. It is requesting approval for 17 auxiliary units in a 29-lot development site, which equates to a 60% auxiliary unit density.

   This development site (at 18-20 Harris St, Bellbird Park) is directly opposite the 25-lot development at 19-23 Harris St (now Uldis Place), which already has 10 auxiliary units (a 40% concentration) and is awaiting the outcome of a superseded planning request for an additional 6 auxiliary units - if approved, the concentration or auxiliary units in Uldis Place will be increased to 65%. As there will still be 6 empty lots, there is potential for this concentration to increase further. There is also an auxiliary unit at 24 Harris St and a number of auxiliary units in Western Court and Mark Winter Court, both of which are to be extended into the 18-20 Harris St development. As this area is predominantly acreage, the high number of auxiliary units currently in existence already far exceeds the number of single dwellings.

   The volume of traffic in Harris St has markedly increased since the opening of BPSSC and both Western Court and Mark Winter Court are almost blocked by parked cars at night and on weekends. If the 18-20 Harris St development was to include auxiliary units, Western Court and Mark Winter Court would become gridlocked as parked cars would obstruct through traffic from the new development, and the traffic traveling on Johnston St and Harris St (both of which are narrow roads) would be significantly increased by cars exiting the new development.

   In the cover letter of this superseded planning request is written: '...the refusal of this application to apply for the superseded planning scheme would result in the pursuance of compensation in accordance with Section 30 of the Planning Act 2016.' Please see this as the idle threat as the developers don't own the land yet. It is under contract and the original land owner of 18-20 Harris St is still in residence there. How can the developers seek compensation for land they don't own?

   Also written in the cover letter is: '...As a consequence of the Planning Scheme change, current development provisions for Auxiliary Units would trigger the requirement for Town Planning approval which under the new requirements, would likely cause at least some of the applications to be refused. Naturally, this would likely cause detrimental impacts to the market value of each lot in this instance'. But what about the detrimental impact this development will have on the market value of my land, which directly adjoins 18-20 Harris St? Being surrounded by auxiliary units and blocked in by both parked cars (from the Uldis St development) and traffic will only cause a decline in the market value of my land. There is no nearby public transport and therefore Harris St (a narrow minor collector road) is becoming a major thoroughfare as people have no option but to drive their cars. Potential buyers will also be driven away by the bleak landscape that has been created as development removes all the tall trees which once filled Harris St properties and helped define the well-known character of Bellbird Park. As a current local resident and an ICC ratepayer I find it highly unacceptable that the ICC is allowing - nay, encouraging - the market value of my property to be detrimentally impact by the encroaching developments directly at my doorstep (i.e. 19-23 Harris St and 18-20 Harris St).

   ICC Town Planners - please use common sense when considering this application and remember the council's prescribed intention for auxiliary units as detailed in IPS Implementation Guide No. 1 - 'The ability to develop Auxiliary Units will have significant
   benefits, including the provision of a greater range of INTERGENERATIONAL HOUSING OPTIONS. The Auxiliary Unit is SUBSERVIENT in form and nature TO THE MAIN DWELLING ON THE LOT and may be USED TO HOUSE AN ELDERLY RELATIVE OR TEENAGE CHILDREN, may be used to house a boarder for supplementary income, and then may be USED BY AGING PARENTS WITH A YOUNG FAMILY MOVING INTO THE LARGER PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE'. Do you seriously believe that 60% of the houses built in the 18-20 Harris St development site will be used for intergenerational housing? I don't. It's a future development site (development hasn't started) and the lots haven't been sold. So how do the developers know who will purchase them and whether intergenerational housing will be required?

   The current 'auxiliary units' in Bellbird Park are essentially duplexes - they are well disguised dual occupancies built on lots that don't meet the 800m2 dual occupancy lot size, even though Implementation Guide No. 1 clearly states that 'The term (auxiliary unit) does not include "Dual Occupancy"...'. The only aspect of these 'auxiliary units' that complies with Implementation Guide No. 1 is the floor size (less than 50m2 - although this is often questionable) and internal design (maximum of one bedroom). Although they are attached to the 'principal dwelling', the 'principal dwelling' and 'auxiliary units' are two independent dwellings that are completely segregated (the yards are separated by fencing and they have their own letterboxes and council rubbish bins) and independently leased through real estate companies to people who are not members of the same family. Why would the 17 auxiliary units requested through this superseded planning request be treated any differently? If the request is approved, how will the ICC ensure that the auxiliary units are used for intergenerational housing (the intent of an auxiliary unit) and NOT created as more well-disguised dual occupancies that are independently rented?

   Please remember the intended dwelling density for Bellbird Park is 15 dwellings/hectare. Auxiliary units built as two completely independent residences are two dwelling units not one and developers are using this housing type as a loophole to increase the dwelling density of our suburb. The ICC should not allow this to continue. Specific to the current superseded planning request, the future dwelling density of this 2 hectare development site is 14.7 dwellings/hectare based on the recent approval of 29 lots (this approval rejected the inclusion of auxiliary units and dual occupancies). Adding 17 'auxiliary units' (disguised dual occupancy houses) will increase the number of dwellings to 46 and create a density of 23.4 dwellings/hectare. As this density far exceeds that permitted for the low density residential zone in which the development site is located, this alone should be sufficient grounds to reject the application.

3. Yet another application to wreck the bush. It is also applying to build auxiliary/ duplexes
   on this site which is totally at odds with the character of Bellbird park and is just another application by a developer with no other reason other than to make a lot of money. This application is totally unsuited to the character of Bellbird Park This alien application must be rejected completely. Duplexes/ auxiliary units must be rejected.

4. This initial development has been approved by Ipswich when it does not meet Council Guidelines. Now council is about to approve auxillary units on the tiny 400m2 blocks.
   Paragraph 12.6.3 of the Residential Code seeks various outcomes which auxillary clearly do not meet.
   (i). create a pleasant, safe and attractive living environment...
   Once approved this development will mirror Uldis Place with the worst development design in Bellbird Park. The crush of residents' parked cars make the design unsafe and unattractive. The crowded closeness of poorly ventilated units will not be pleasant in Ipswich Summer temperatures.
   (ii). maintain, and where possible enhance residential amenity both internal and external to the site...
   The current residential amenity of Bellbird Park's acreage blocks cannot be enhanced or maintained by destroying them and converting them into a sardine city. The low cost housing experiment comes at a cost to existing residents who see their amenity stolen and their land values diminished along with the lifestyle long cherished in Bellbird Park.
   (iii). blend new developments into existing streetscapes and neighbourhoods...
   Someone please explain to me where the new developments make any effort to blend in with the existing streetscapes. Once quiet, tree lined, poorly maintained streets are now becoming congested, treeless poorly maintained streets. A neighbourhood is not created by cramming dozens of auxillary units into one development. That design creates a ghetto. The neighbourhood is created by providing parkland and cycle tracks to allow children to safely play and exercise. None of these exist in this council approved development.
   (iv). conserve places of cultural significance or streetscape value...
   The culture of Bellbird Park was the treeline horizon and was as significant to the residents as it is to the wildlife. Mature trees are culturally significant. They cannot be replaced in a generation and their destruction has ongoing negative impacts on the environment. Development designs of 400m2 blocks will never see large trees because of space restrictions and insurance risks which makes preservation of the existing mature trees culturally significant and of high streetscape value.
   Approved removal of the large trees on 18-20 Harris Street will break the wildlife corridor that extends from the highest point at No.1 Harris Street to Happy Jack Gully in Jones Road and beyond. The common culture bond that holds new and old Australians together is the Australian wildlife and its loss will be significant.
   Paragraph 12.6.4 lists Density and Character - Specific Outcomes.
   (a) dwelling density...
   Approval of auxillary units immediately exceeds the 10-15 units per hectare required by the council. There is a serious lack of attention to detail by town planners if the cannot see the obvious when it is in front of them.
   (c) lot sizes and dimensions
   The 2016 Ipswich Plan promised voters that development would follow the guideline of 600m2 block sizes. Alleged corruption in Ipswich Council saw this plan overturned in favour of developers desires. However easy profit comes at a cost. A cost to residents of Bellbird Park in reduced house values and a cost to those renters who's last resort is to live in a one bedroom unit with no yard, limited parking and no public transport.
   (d) boundary clearances and provision of space around buildings...
   The soon to be approved auxillary units will have the width of a wheely bin between them and the next unit fence. This design prevents airflow and prevents privacy.
   (e) the location and design of parking areas...
   The soon to be approved auxillary units are generally advertised with a rental value. Four bedroom units once rented can house up to eight people and more than four cars.
   One carpark is provided per auxillary unit so the overflow cars park on footpaths. There are no public parking areas provided as there are no playgrounds or parks provided. The developers are given a free ride on this issue by the town planners who are supposed to be designing a liveable city for the future. Obviously none of them plan to live in these developments.
   (f) provision of recreational space..
   Where is the recreational space? The developers have provided none. Council tells us that the land next to the scout hut in Jones Road is our designated recreational space. While being in excess of 500m from this development (council's own requirement) it is also about to be approved for the location of a phone tower. So much for recreation in the new Bellbird Park.
   (j) vegetation protection...
   The development has no provision for vegetation protection. If fact every single tree will be cleared for development and land reconstruction. The mature trees approximately 60 years old will be removed in the name of progress. That was the type of unenlightened progress accepted in the 1850s during the explorer times. This is now the 21st century, in a land of educated people supposedly tuned into the discussion of the importance of the environment that surrounds us. Council, town planners and developers will never be forgiven by the next generation who will ask why didn't we protect their heritage when we had the opportunity.
   As is clear here there is a huge gulf between the residents who care about the future of Bellbird Park and the powerful developers who ask favours of the council. Turn a blind eye to this regulation or that guideline as the local residents don't have a council representative to phone up and the foreign buyers of the auxillary units don't know the difference between standard and sub-standard accommodation. It is a Win-Win for those with influence.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Ipswich City Council. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment