18-20 Harris Street Bellbird Park QLD 4300

Superseded Planning Scheme Request – Single Residential with Auxiliary Unit (30 Lots)

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website about 1 year ago. It was received by them 6 days earlier.

(Source: Ipswich City Council, reference SPSR-3740/2019)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. 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.
    Amendments to auxiliary unit provisions were made in 14 October 2014 in order that Ipswich home owners would be able to house relatives and visitors without having a negative impact on neighbours. These proposed auxiliary units will have a negative impact on the whole suburb – not just the neighbours.
    I understand the refusal of this application to apply for the superseded planning scheme would result in the pursuance of compensation in accordance with Section 30 of the Planning Act 2016.
    I, personally, would like to see Ipswich City Council Planning Department refuse this application and fight the compensation claim. IF any compensation is found to be payable to the developer then this can be paid from the money saved on Councillors’ wages and expenses etc etc. This suburb cannot keep being destroyed piece by piece and the Council need to make a stand and consider the long term impact of auxiliary units effectively doubling the number of residences, cars and congestion on this development.

  2. R Marshall commented

    QLCL Developers have requested auxillary units on all 30 blocks of this site. These auxillary units have a separately fenced yard, have their own garage and letter box. Unlike duplex development they are occupied (rented) generally by non related people. They are in effect an individual dwelling which brings the total number of dwellings on this development to 60. This far exceeds the Planning Guideline allowable number of 15 units per hectare.
    Other non conforming issues with this development are three quarter width roads which restrict traffic and pedestrian flow and limit parking. In fact no parking area is available for visitors. This road location does not meet with the Bellbird Park Strategic Road Network (Figure 3) which shows the road on the western side and does not include cycle paths.
    Lot sizes do not meet the Planning Guideline of an average of 600m2 for the overall development.
    Stormwater from some 15 lots (+15 auxillary units) will be directed into the neighbouring block at 35 Morgan Street and not to storm water drains in Morgan Street as is normally required. This is the same drainage line to Happy Jack Gully that council plan to allow developers to fill and place houses on. This will create more extreme flooding on Jones Road.
    Significant vegetation in the form of mature eucalyptus trees which currently form a Harris Street view amenity will be totally removed. No green space is planned to maintain the wildlife habitat that currently exists. Some 29 bird species were identified in a recent count.
    There is no public transport available in this immediate area therefore individual cars are the only transport option. 30 houses plus 30 auxillary units (many rented) will see 120 or more cars traversing this three quarter width road on a daily basis. With minimal separation between pedestrians (school children) and vehicles this presents a serious safety risk.
    This development fails to meet normal development planning guidelines and needs to be totally redesigned to take into account the historic and environmental amenity that Bellbird Park has provided Ipswich for many years.

  3. Natalie Thorpe commented

    I object to this development application. It states that there are to be 30 dwellings with auxillary units. These units were initially approved in the Ipswich area to allow for relatives to have a family member live with them on the same block. However what is really happening is that developers are using this as duplexes. They are rented (Tamatea Street as an example) so instead of the investor having one house for rent they collect rent for both side of the duplex. This is simply a money making scheme for developers. Potentially there will be up to four cars for each dwelling. The garages are often to small to fit a family sized car. That means up to four cars parked on the footpath. A drive by to any of these developments with the auxillary units will show a lot of people living in these dwellings, and all are rental properties, every single one!!! The 3/4 road will also block access to cars as there is not enough parking spaces. There almost seems to be a disdain for the natural environment of Bellbird Park. This block the water drains into Happy Jack Gully. Now Jones Road floods. There has even been swiftwater rescues due to the amount of flooding. None of this occurred before Bellbird Park became a developers paradise. There are also some large trees on these blocks which house wildlife. These are going to be destroyed. This development application is in reality sixty dwellings, for interstate investors to rent out. There is no infrastructure for the residents, so everyone will need a car. This of course doesn't concern the developers or the investors. A quick look on the real estate pages will show that these types of dwellings in Bellbird Park are rented out by interstate real estate agents. This also affects the demographics of the area with a high rental turnover and the suburb does not have the infrastructure or roads to cope with a lot of new dwellings. If this gets approved it will show that ICC thinks Bellbird Park should just be paved over and the residents objections mean nothing. Our once beautiful suburb has been destroyed in the last couple of years due to these developments. I have a hard time even getting out of my street now due to the massive increase in traffic. Also these backyards are extremely small, which means the children then all play on the street, this is a major safety concern.

  4. R Marshall commented

    This development does not stack up financially. This is evidenced by the fact that council needed to assist the viability of the project by donating the access road from Harris Street (RP132365). Why should council be making such donations to a private developer ?
    The developer has approval to disperse stormwater from 14 dwellings and 14 auxillary units onto the surface of a neighbouring property at 35 Morgan Street. Most developers are required to pipe stormwater away from land into stormwater drains. Why has council bent over backwards to assist this development at the cost of future flooding in Jones Road? This natural drainage line meets Happy Jack Gully where council also intend to approve filling the natural drain to build houses.
    The new development design now has the three quarter road along the eastern side of the plan where the Ipswich Planning Scheme Strategic Road Network shows that road on the western side. This three quarter road proposed has one 1.5 metre footpath which makes the assumption that the property owner on the eastern side needs to donate land 70 metres in length and 4 metres in width for a footpath at some future date. How can the council volunteer others' private land just so that this current proposal can look viable?
    No where does this proposal state that developers need to maintain the 200 metre timber fence over a long period. Experience in the Uldis Place development shows that developers build sub-standard fencing which can fall apart within two years, leaving neighbours with the cost of maintenance.
    To most observers this long narrow block is unsuitable for this type of development. It does not have the space to provide parking for visitors vehicles, proper roads, parkland, cycle tracks, green space for wildlife habitat to name a few of the council's own development guideline requirements. Council staff need to stand up to shoddy development proposals to improve Ipswich's flagging reputation not head for the lowest possible option.

  5. Alecia Scott commented

    I am very concerned about what this means for Mark Winter court. Our street is mostly a calm, quiet, friendly street. Currently there are many young children who play on, or near, the road as there is no park nearby. Visibility is already limited due to insufficient parking spaces, leaving most properties with a car parked on the road. This approval shows the new road flowing from Mark Winter COURT, with up to 60 residences (assuming each residence has two cars, this is 120 extra vehicles using our street).

    I am greatly concerned for the safety of our children in this street.

  6. Megan commented

    I strongly oppose this application for 60 auxiliary units and question why the ICC are allowing the the small length of Harris St been numbers 18-24 to be an auxiliary unit ghetto. With 17 auxiliary units (out of 25 available lots) in the Uldis Pl development (previously 19-23 Harris St), an auxiliary unit at 24 Harris and this current developer fight for 30 units at 18-20 Harris St, how could anyone think of this area as anything but an auxiliary unit ghetto?

    Under what grounds is it appropriate for the developers of 18-22 Harris St to submit a superseded planning request for 30 auxiliary units? A request for these units was made in the initial DA for this site and Council denied the request. Isn’t the auxiliary unit superseded planning request only for approved DAs that did not disclose an intent to build auxiliary units? In these cases Council didn’t know they were approving auxiliary units when they approved the DA; in contrast, Council knew the developers of 18-22 Harris St intended to build auxiliary units on every available lot and they said NO.

    Council, stick to your initial decision and decline the superseded planning request. Better still, don’t accept the submission for assessment as it has been made under inappropriate circumstances. If you decline the request to assess the submission, surely there would be no need to pay compensation?

    If you agree to assess the submission, what compensation will I, a home owner and rate payer, receive for being boxed in by auxiliary units and inconvenienced on a daily basis by 78 houses with an auxiliary unit, the equivalent of 156 dwelling units that are occupied by renters, and 312 additional vehicles on Harris St? I’m sure it isn’t hard for you to understand the impact this will have on surrounding residents and their quality of life. Where is your duty of care for the existing residents of the area, especially the home owners who are your current constituents and rate payers?

  7. David Harris commented

    My understanding is that after 2 years and then ability of the community to hopefully stop these totally inappropriate developments Auxiliary units and duplexes as part of a new planning scheme will see the stopping of these blights on the landscape. Trouble is that these blights on the landscape will have already been built, . By then it will be too late and our comments are just a waste of time now Bellbird Park will be unrecognisable. The fault is that of the State government who have set residential zones with no further examination of these blights on the landscape. Every thoughtful colmment by "us"goes nowhere. We have stated quite forcefully the inappropriate nature of these developments. I call on the Council to do all they can to "slow down" this process and give our community some recognition of our total opposition to Auxiliary units and Duplexes. If you want to know what we are in for check out Harrisville. Springfield in the making and incremental destruction of our once "Leafy suburb"

  8. Vicky Rall commented

    I am shocked to know that the developers are, again, attempting to convince ICC to allow them to cram as many houses as possible onto this block. We live just meters from this block and are so concerned for our beautiful neighbourhood. The increase in traffic alone will be a nightmare. The increase in noise, waste and pollution will be devastating for existing residents and the loss of habitat is unconscionable. If this application is approved, it will turn this area into a ghetto for sure.

    ICC, please do not approve this. Most residents don't mind sensible development but this application is so incredible, one cannot consider the developers' motivations to be based on anything else but pure, undiluted greed. They are motivated by money and do not act in the best interest of the residents of Bellbird Park.

    Please stop this insanity by rejecting this superseded planning request.

  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