12-18 Haysmouth Parade, Clontarf QLD 4019

Dear Moreton Bay Council,

40 dwelling is an unrealistic number of dwellings in an area that has 8 to maybe 10 at the moment. Access to this area is serviced by one road and this number of dwellings would put extreme pressure on this service to the extent that the council would have to upgrade roading and the number of roads servicing the area, would the applicant be willing to fund this. The proposed site is below the tidal scope for the area and dwellings could not occupy the ground floor thus pushing the proposal above a 3 floor limit for properties. Being built in an area immediately adjacent to waterways that are of recreational significance and of significance for its natural attributes and habitats that number of dwellings would put pressure on the environment . On balance any council agreement to a proposal of this magnitude would have to be questioned.

To whom it may concern

The site is attractively located within an area of local and state interest; it fronts wetlands in an environment of State significance.

This next generation neighbourhood precinct is a quiet residential area with considerable natural environmental features and natural habitat.

On the proposed lots, Residential development Is a reasonable venture if it were done with sympathy to the current neighbourhood. The proposal for 40 dwellings within a multi storey complex (artists impression 5-6 storeys +) is excessive and not consistent with the local area.

This small residential / environmental enclave cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed 40 dwellings and the traffic / street parking associated with this.

Please consider:

1. Limit overall height of development to 12 meters consistent with MBRC Building Height Overlay Condition;

2. Limit number of dwellings within the development - perhaps twenty (20)

3. Require on site parking is provided for no fewer than 2 vehicles per dwelling plus additional visitor spaces allowing for at least one visitor per dwelling on site

In appreciation of consideration
Thank you

To Moreton Bay Regional Council,

The application for a 'material change' , is well beyond scope of the 12m limit that is currently in place. This material change is almost double the amount in height of the zoning , put in place for a reason by our local council.

Currently there are approximately 45 residential homes in the area covering more than 30,000 sqm and this application is seeking to place 40 units in around 3000sqm , effectively doubling the population in that area and adding a potential 96 extra cars on the road into the estate daily.

This application also talks about the development keeping within the character of the area but if this was so, they would consider character style townhomes that won't detract from the surrounding homes.

Hays inlet is an environmental haven for wildlife and conservation of this is paramount, additional residential structures of this size will be a potential hazzard considering the tidal flooding that occurs.

You will find that most residents won't be against a development of the intended site but it needs to be in touch with the surrounding area and the developer needs to consider this if they are to achieve a positive outcome.

Dear Moreton Bay Regional Council,

As a local Redcliffe resident, this proposal is concerning. This is located in close proximity to an important natural habitat for koalas, kangaroos and other wildlife. Not only is this a great concern for the biodiversity of the area, but it will also place significant pressure on Haysmouth Parade with the 40 dwelling proposal net keeping with natural look of the waterway or local suburban area.

The height of the structure is inappropriate to the area and is close to a tidal line which may mean significant modification of the shoreline to protect against erosion to the detriment of Hays Inlet.

Kind regards,

Amy from Redcliffe

Hello Moreton Bay Regional Council,
I am not against development if it is done correctly. This application is clearly not.
Way above the 12m height assigned to this quiet residential area. This development of 40 units is on 6 medium sized house blocks. One small road services this suburban area, of about 50 residences at present. You will be basically doubling the capacity, and overloading all the services i.e. traffic, sewerage, parking, water and electricity.
Are all the golf buggies in their assigned allotments going to drive on councils road?
The total area is nearly 100%runoff from rain. Where will this go?

Recently 23rd June, MBRC co hosted and attended a "Paddle Against Plastic" event at the end of this street to help clean and protect the Internationally Ramsar listed Hays Inlet site. The event was instructed by MBRC to be a small scaled event due to this small residential area with one access road.

The street and small ramp at the western end is used by a limited number of kayakers and fisher persons, regularly, as there is limited room. It is a quiet, nature enjoying area. Hats Inlet is an area of approximately 2,400 hectares, which makes it one of the largest and most significant wetland sites in South East Queensland. It is a wetland and estuarine area dominated by intertidal mudflats, lined with mangroves, surrounded by low, flat land containing saltmarsh and coastal bushland. The habitat is of international significance as it supports migratory birds and is part of the Moreton Bay Ramsar site. Hays Inlet is listed in the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia, and is a Declared Fish Habitat Area.
The area supports a wide range of resident and migratory fauna. The Queensland Government’s WetlandInfo website provides a fauna species list for Hays Inlet Fish Habitat Area which is included in Appendix F, noting that this includes all environments of the Inlet including those types upstream of, and relatively unaffected by activities undertaken at, the Site including Saltmarsh wetlands, coastal and sub-coastal tree swamps and Casuarina forest.
Nationally listed threatened species known to utilise the Inlet area within 1km of the Site pursuant to the EPBC Protected Matters Report include: Curlew sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea), Critically Endangered; Great knot (Calidris tenuirostris), Critically Endangered; Greater sand plover (Charadrius leschenaultii), Vulnerable; and Lesser sand plover (Charadrius mongolus), Endangered; Bar-tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica baueri), Vulnerable; Eastern curlew (Numenius madagascariensis), Critically endangered; Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Vulnerable; Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), Endangered; Green turtle (Chelonia mydas), Vulnerable; Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), Endangered; Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), Vulnerable; Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea), Endangered; Flatback Turtle (Natator depressus), Vulnerable; and Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias); Vulnerable.
Migratory and wetland species known to use the area include several species of Sandpipers, Plovers, Curlew, Tattlers, Greenshank, Godwits, Knots, Frigatebirds and Shearwaters, to name a few. The Inlet would also be utilised by crustaceans such as Mud crabs (Scylla serrata), Bay prawn (Metapenaeus bennettae), Sand crab (Portunis armatus) and fish such as Sea mullet (Mugil cephalus) and Yellowfin bream (Acanthopagrus australis).
We do have species of delicate sea grass returning to our area after the 1996 floods, and Dugongs have been frequenting our area of Moreton Bay lately.
Moreton Bay itself is the most biodiverse bay for a major city any where in world, and she needs protecting. Our mangroves ( 7 species in the area) and salt marsh protect our shorelines from erosion, allow juvenile fish a protected environment to grow and thrive, are fantastic at blue carbon sequestration, and help cleanse pollutants and sediments from our waterways.
The carpaks, underground, and the base floor level is at -2m AHD, which is 3.26m below High Water mark. Is it going to be used as a pool. The foundations will go further still into this sub-strat.
Please make this development much smaller and protect our Ramsar Site. I represented Moreton Bay at its 20th Ramsar anniversary in October 2013, and again at the 25th Ramsar Anniversary in October 2018. Lets protect it for more celebrations.

I disgaree with any further high rise development anywhere on the Redcliffe Peninsula as it is already overcrowded. But I am absolutely horrified that this development in this area would even be considered. This is an important enviromental area for both insects, animals and vegetation. I hope that just this once Council will consider the long term effect of a development this size on the environment and the people already living here.

To Moreton Bay Regional Council.

I recently returned to the Peninsula and have been enjoying the lifestyle here for the past 12 months. I love the mix of old and new here and I'm excited to see what the future brings for this part of South East Queensland.

I have concerns about this proposal for development, however I am not opposed to development if it is done in keeping with the local area, including the community and environment.

The area is quiet secluded and has only single dwelling homes, other than one tastefully built unit of two and the multi dwelling site of proposal. I don't feel the propsed building takes into consideration the existing homes at all. Terraced town homes would certainly be more tasteful and in keeping with the local area. I believe a development that puts such a shadow (both figuratively and literally) on most of the existing homes in the area would be detrimental to the community.

The area also has only the one road in and out and it is already flush against cliff and the footpath. The additional traffic would be significant. I am concerned the congestion would be horrendous, especially with the development of the site at the lights on Elizabeth Avenue for the Child Care center. This would not only affect the residents in the immediate area but the community as a whole who use that intersection on a daily basis for the access to the bridges and the shopping areas. I would like to know what would be done to mitigate this impact.

I love walking down to the inlet. I love the mangroves and all the wild life the area homes. It is a beautiful area and I am aware of the need for conservation of this unique and fragile ecosystem. I am very concerned about the impact on the inlet itself. I am not an expert by any means, but even I can imagine the negative effects on the environment. In the past 12 months I've had the pleasure of observing snakes, birds (so many birds), koalas, possoms (pesky as they are, they're still pretty cool), sting rays, turtles, jelly fish and bats. I want to be able to keep enjoying them, I want future generations to as well.

Lastly, I'm concerned about the future impact on other areas of the Peninsula. Development is wonderful. However it must be done considering the community. If a project of this magnitude is approved in this small, secluded area with out consideration for the residents, environment or greater community, what's stopping other areas being developed and overshadowing the existing community. Why set a precedent for over development?

Thank you for your time.

I grew up in Clontarf and my parents still live there. much of my childhood was spent on the beaches and inlets around Clontarf, so there is a special place for it in my heart.

the Hornibrook Point precinct is predominated by larger family homes of quality and style, and unlike some low lying areas nearby the houses are well built and of generous appearances. they are not ramshackle, flood impacted or derelict. There is no impending need for rejuvenation of the area, and therefore no overwhelming need for council to support such extreme over-development of this site.

this development does not meet the desired environmental outcomes of the planning scheme. wetlands and mangroves will be affected by reduction in ground water and surface run off and therefore affect the ecology of the area.

I suspect that when council changed the zonings recently and increased the height limits in this precinct from 8.5m to 12m that residents were offered peace of mind that any infill development would be low key in nature and would be required to fit in with surrounding houses. home owners have a right to peaceful enjoyment and a right to believe that their property values will not be eroded away by council decisions. any application outside of planning limits MUST be rejected.

there is plenty of land around the peninsula that is suitable for highrise incursion.
the foreshores along Hornibrook Esp and other similar locations have little impact on wetlands and beachfronts and offer a far more suitable location for higher density of this nature.

the proposed outcome seeks to blow the council imposed height limit from 12m (previously 8.5m) to well over 20m plus a roof top deck. that is to extend an allowable 4 storey development limit up to 7 storeys plus roof deck (total 8 storeys above ground) and occupying almost the entire site. this is completely unneccessary and so far outside of planning limits it should not even remotely be considered.

I am a building designer so i understand the need to provide high density living around transport nodes and shopping areas or areas with well connected transport options. Clontarf has none of these things. this means that any high density introduced MUST be sympathetic to its surroundings.

As a building designer i understand the developers drive to seek out far more than they are entitled to and to provide fancy reports and dazzling plans to demonstrate or convince would be neighbours of how good it will be for them and the neighbourhood.

This means that I can also read plans and understand the negative impacts it will create. The sun shadow diagrams provided actually demonstrate how horrible it will be to live anywhere near this development The snap shot of shadows at 9, 12 and 3pm should be replaced with video sun paths and accurate models of adjoining houses. you would then see that the house at 27 Bayview Tce will be in shade for the entire day during winter and half shade for at least half the year. No sun, no grass, cold, damp, horrible. and the three houses on the opposite side of the road will experience an early sunset every single day of the year. of the 48 houses on the point no less than half will have some kind of view of this enormous tower from a window or private space.

At least 4-5 of these properties will be significantly devalued by this development.
a development that wont set a precedence because the surround land parcels are all too small to develop, leaving this huge building towering on its own forever.

the current developments look like they generates maybe a dozen cars maximum. Probably less because people living in mobile homes often cant afford a car.
The proposed development is stated as providing 86 car parks plus 20 odd golf buggies? Visitor parking is insufficient for the development and therefore will generate higher on street parking demands as well.
that will nearly treble the number of car movements to haysmouth parade and intersection of Elizabeth ave. people who live in apartments will not walk to work or to the shops, they will drive. with a high sale price point every dwelling will have no less than two cars.

there is no need for this development to exceed ANY of the prescribed planning limits. the planning limits in place are already out of keeping with the low scale residential nature of the precinct, and council MUST reject this application or require it to comply with ALL height and density limits for the current zoning. Any change of zoning request should be denied.

council MUST send a clear message to developers that this is not acceptable to the community or to council and will not be encouraged. the current zoning constraints must be met in full.

I am in favour of this development.

The Redcliffe Peninsula is going through an exciting change at the moment, with more development which in turn brings more people and more opportunities.

People want to invest in the Peninsula and it would be a travesty to have such votes of confidence denied or blocked.

To Moreton Bay Regional Council,

I am a resident of Princess Terrace Clontarf and do not support the application in its current form.

At approximately 22 m height the tower will loom over the surrounding houses and have a huge impact on the character and amenity of the established low-rise suburb.

It is beyond any reasonable expectation that the existing residents could have anticipated for development in such a scenic and peaceful area, such a development is in conflict with zoning and will have a huge impact on the character of the established low-rise suburb apart from the fact that such a development conflicts with all current applicable zoning

This development does not represent the lifestyle or behaviors of the people in this area, it does not enhance our lives and I personally am against it, and I know first-hand many of my fellow neighbors are against it also.

The street and small ramp at the western end is used by a limited number of kayakers and fisherpersons, regularly, as there is limited room. It is a quiet, nature enjoying area.

Paddle Against Plastic event at the end of this street in June to help clean and protect the Internationally Ramsar listed Hays Inlet site. The event was instructed by MBRC to be a small-scaled event due to this small residential area with one access road.

Apart from the obvious dangers imposed by the increased traffic and street access. Vehicle access to the site is inadequate for the nature and scale of the proposed development.

Haysmouth Parade and Bayview Terrace are not designed to support the quantum of traffic the proposed development will bring.

The plans show future widening of the street, where is the land for this to come from?

This application for material change is well beyond the scope of the 12m limit that is currently in place. This change is almost double the amount in height of the zoning, which has been put in place for a reason.

The structure is inappropriate to the area and is close to a tidal line which may mean a significant modification of the shoreline which would be detrimental to Hays Inlet.

The proposed development site sits on a Ramsar site which is of international significance.

The Ramsar Convention encourages the designation of sites containing representative, rare or unique wetlands, or wetlands that are important for conserving biological diversity. Once designated, these sites are added to the Convention's List of Wetlands of International Importance and become known as Ramsar sites.

It provides for national action and international cooperation regarding the conservation of wetlands, and wise sustainable use of their resources. Ramsar identifies wetlands of international importance, especially those providing waterfowl habitat.

In light of its significant conflicts with the assessment benchmarks, Council cannot – pursuant to its responsibilities under the Planning Act 2016 – consider approving the proposed development.

On this basis, the Council has no choice but to unequivocally refuse the proposed development."

Kim Davis

Michael Martin
Haysmouth Parade resident and property owner

There are real and genuine reasons that this proposal should be denied and denied emphatically.

1. The proposal shows absolute disregard for at least one neighbouring property, 27 Bayview Terrace, which would be effectively left in the shadow of the proposed development. It is my understanding that this proposal would result in a legal claim for compensation costing both the developer and our own council significantly. This is only the financial likely outcome but the moral stance by all parties should be considered before all other considerations.
We only need an ounce of empathy to realise that this is not acceptable. It is my belief that council will already have a policy on this, the developer clearly does not. Every resident has the right to peaceful enjoyment. Living in the dark is not fair or reasonable.
Refer section 2 and consider that there would be quite a number more that would be left in almost complete shade. A class action would surely follow. Rate payers and Council should not be burdened such a significant and avoidable cost.

2. The magnitude of this proposed building flies in the face of convention and common sense. It is well outside Moreton Shire Councils regulations. The height limit was increased quite recently from 8.5 to allow a new 12 meter limit, to concede a 22 meter approval would be quite ridiculous and unnecessary. Keep in mind it was previously (8.5) eight point five meters!
*The site is prone to tidal flood water so the initial first floor of tenancy must surely be
about 2 meters above the ground level now,
*the common practice of including mezzanine floors could take the shadow even higher, say an additional 3.5 meters as a minimum.
*Shade sails and dividing walls on the penthouse rooftops take it up again. let's say a conservative 2.5 meters higher. This, by definition, would create extra shadow and shade.
the aggregate being a further (8) eight meters, 30 meters ( approximately 100') above the current ground level.
these practices are common "variations" once approvals are granted so this is not beyond the realms of possibility, in fact it is very likely and has happened here on the peninsular before.
This brings the likely result to a staggering 30 meters above current ground level!
Who knows what damage will be done to the area substrate?

3. The development proposal gives scant, if any, genuine consideration for the mangroves, marine and birdlife which would undoubtedly be affected. A detailed, independent and comprehensive study with open report should be furnished and funded by the developer. This comment is based on observations as a local resident, I fish, photograph and traverse this area frequently as do many other residents of the Peninsular and beyond. The reflection of such a massive number of glass windows and doors may, in all likelihood, affect the ecology there. We need to know the actual affects before granting approval of any sort, even a lower building.

4. The Peninsular enjoys and promotes tourism. The local businesses gain valuable tourist dollars from fishermen and women, boaties, canoeists, eco-tourism and food outlets. The argument that more residents creates more business is not lost on me but it is limited. Currently people visit the Peninsular for the natural beauty it has to offer. If this development were to progress as stated there would be nowhere for tourists / visitors to park and the appeal would quickly disappear with the tourist dollars. The site offers one of the world's best photographic opportunities for those magnificent sunsets. If the site has nowhere to park Sandgate will be the winners and Moreton will lose a great opportunity. You can often see photographic clubs meeting before sunset and then continuing on to restaurants and clubs.

5. A separate but recent development approval in the area will now create an unprecedented and dangerous risk for vehicles traversing and accessing the intersection at the single entry and exit to this area. The Haysmouth Parade traffic lights and access to the intersection (a State asset) will be overrun with traffic as the recent (100) child care facility is to be located on that corner. The reason this is of significant importance is that the 95 motor vehicles proposed to be parked at the site would surely be expected to access that same intersection, say 200 per day. The "child care parents" would also access that intersection 200 times per day. Examination of this intersection quickly shows the impending safety issues. The intersection is just coping with the traffic at the moment, complicating the main access and egress point to the whole Peninsular would be beyond the safe limits of the Haysmouth Parade intersection. The current "green light interval" is about 25 seconds to allow safe passage for the people on foot and those living in the 48 residences currently. The proposed increase would need to change that "green light" time dramatically.
The impost of parents with small children entering and exiting the new child minding centre as well as the massively increased Haysmouth traffic can only end in serious injury, or at worst, multiple fatalies. This can be substantially avoided by limiting the proposal size or restricting it to match other residences in the area.

6. Should this application be approved it would set a dangerous precedent. Other developers could, or would, look at such approval with glee sighting "common practice" as a valid argument for many more approvals. Any application outside of current Council regulations must be denied.

7. The application ignores Council's thoughtful expectation of harmonious, sympathetic development. There appears to have been no attempt whatever to consult with the local community or to develop a building design which would "fit in" with current dwellings in the area.

8. Koalas frequent Haysmouth and Princess Parades, it does not matter if they are temporarily disorientated or lost, they are seen and heard here often. More than doubling the traffic would mean that our local visiting koalas would be in peril. We have proof positive that they actually do come here and frequently. To fob this off would be unreasonable and the poor old koalas would suffer.

9. Our information is that the sewerage system is frequently in need of repair as it struggles to cope with the volume as it stands currently. We see trucks removing waste regularly so it is obvious there are issues with it. If a developer wants to profit from erecting a unit block they do so for the purposes of profit. If the developer expects the MBRC to foot the bill for a substantial upgrade this needs to be discussed, exposed and denied. Rate payers do not deserve a further cost at the behest of developers who profit substantially and make demands on Council to keep services going for the property when it would probably be the development which caused the problem.

10. Last and not least, the site is listed by the International organisation Ramsar. In my opinion a single profit driven development by any entity should have done their due diligence and made sure there were no such environmental impacts and if they did, should have advised Council's building Department on how they intended to manage them. A scurrilous omission seems unlikely but is not beyond the realms of possibility for many developers. Fortunately the Council now know this and will hopefully resist development on that basis as well as the many other compelling arguments against it with the available facts to back them up.

MBRC Please say NO to this proposed development and as a minimum, say no the increased height allowance. It is hard to imagine a proposal that is less suited to the area.
( I urge that there be no variations on approvals allowing anything which can cast a shadow from the top of the building. )
Thanking you in advance
M Martin

To Moreton Bay Council,

Building a 40-dwelling high rise in this suburban area is mind-boggling to say the least. This proposal will completely overshadow the houses around it and I genuinely can't understand how the developers think this is appropriate to the area.

This is a residential area with very limited on-road parking. Placing such a big tower beside little houses is heartbreaking. This area is NOT a bustling stretch of high rises and trendy cafes. These are family homes which will be directly impacted by the size of it and literally overshadowed. If this application is approved I think it would set a dangerous precedent for the rest of the Redcliffe peninsula. While I understand development is important, the sheer size of this proposal is not ok.

In addition to the concerns of the suburban area, this proposal is in direct proximity to a pristine piece of area with significant environmental value. Hays Inlet is home to a vast array of birds, fish and other aquatic life and placing such a large strain on this area could be catastrophic. This will open the flood gates for other developers to submit proposals along Hays Inlet that will threaten the future of this incredible conservation park. I don't think the developer have done their research because if they had, they would know that Hays Inlet is a Ramsar site with international importance. It must be protected for future generations.

Moreton Bay Council. Please come and see the site for yourself because I think you will be shocked to see how out of touch it is with the surrounding area.

Wayne Lewis
Redcliffe resident

I am against the proposed development , and I say PROPOSED because I am not against a development that would be in keeping with the area but a 40 Unit development at the height on the application, is unrealistic, and the number of dwellings for the area is unacceptable for many reasons , logistical, ecological and environmental. Access to this area is by one road and this number of units would lead to extreme congestion on this road. Also , the Drainage for the site would certainly place unrealistic demands on an already dated sewer system ,along with the a new localized catchment of rainwater that will be channeled it into an already fragile environment , this would be catastrophic for our remaining mangrove clumps that are only now just recovering from the tidal changes brought on by the construction of the Ted Smout and Houghton bridges with this number of Units it would put too much unnecessary pressure on the environment, and they would be lost.
Mangroves in Moreton Bay Marine Park are impacted by both human and natural influences. Between 1974 and 1997, approximately 313 hectares of mangrove were lost from the Marine Park. Much of this loss was due to land reclamation for port, residential and industrial development - making way for south-east Queensland's rapidly expanding population. Changes to tidal flows through dredging of channels and the construction of rock walls and groynes all take their toll on mangrove communities
Mangroves systems are critically important habitats for a wide range of species.
Our mangroves and salt marsh protect our shorelines from erosion, allow juvenile fish a protected environment to grow and thrive, are fantastic at blue carbon sequestration, and help cleanse pollutants and sediments from our waterways.
Mangroves act as soil stabilizers, thus helping to reduce excessive sediment flow and decreasing the threat of erosion caused by currents and stream flow.
Moreton Bay is home to hundreds of species of fish, six of the world’s seven sea turtle species, three species of dolphin and herding dugong. It also contains numerous species of shark and ray and thousands of mollusc and other invertebrates. The rays are regular visitors to our area of Hays Inlet . A quick stroll across the flats at low tide would allow you to see the evidence of their visits.
For over 30 odd years I have fished , walked ,crabbed ,swam in this area and my wife was born and bred here and as stated earlier in my objection it is only now returning to the beauty of those times , lets help it continue to rejuvenate and stay that way for the future.
Thank you .

STATEMENT OF CONTENTION, GROUNDS AND PARTICULARS,
AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR 12- 18
HAYSMOUTH PARADE AND 27 BAYVIEW TERRACE CLONTARF.
GROUND. 1 BUILDING HEIGHT
At 7-8 stories, the proposed development is excessive in height for
this site and for the surrounding area having regard to reasonable
community expectations about the height of development and planning
scheme standards which all indicate a maximum of 12 meters.The
excessive height will result in undue amenity impacts by overshadowing
neighbouring properties,is inconsistent with the height of the surrounding
development and is over development of the site.The applicant has not
demonstrated a community need and an economic need for the
development to exceed the expected height for the development on this
site.The development is not consistent with the Moreton Bay Next
Generation Neighbourhood Precinct Plan.
GROUND 2. BULK AND SCALE, OVERDEVELOPMENT OF
PREDOMINANTLY LOW LEVEL QUIET RESIDENTIAL AREA.
The proposed development is an overdevelopment of a low level quiet
residential area.The site proposal does not comply with the planning
scheme standards for this area.Above the 12 meter height for this area a
development of 40 units on a 6 medium housed size block is
inconsistent with the community and the previous approved application
for 6 townhouses.The infrastructure of roading, sewage, waste, water
and electricity will not cope with a development of the size.
GROUND 3. LACK OF SETBACKS AND OVERSHADOWING
The proposed building would compromise the amenity of existing and
future residents. The height of the building at 23 meters will cause
serious overshadowing to immediate neighbouring properties as well as
loss of outlook for a number of other properties.
GROUND. 4 PARKING AND SERVICES
The proposed development cannot accommodate the necessary on
site car parking and traffic movements along Haysmouth Parade and
surrounding streets .Exiting through a left turning only intersection onto
Elizabeth Avenue .Currently this precludes an ability to turn right towards
Brisbane City.
Car parking on site would be compromised by having to build the
basement 3.2 meters below high tide level,which could cause problems
of inundation with storm surges and potential water level changes with
global warming.
Services like rubbish pickup would require a different style unless all
units have an individual rubbish and recycling bin and could be
accommodated with the current service.
GROUND 5 . COMPLIANCE CANNOT BE CONDITIONED
The proposed developments non compliances with the planning
scheme are of such significance that compliance cannot be conditioned.
GROUND. 6 THE PROPONENT HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY
COMMUNITY NEED AND ECONOMIC NEED PROMOTING
APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DESPITE
CONFLICTS WITH THE PLANNING SCHEME.
GROUND. 7. CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THE PLANNING
ACT 2016 (QLD)
Approval of the proposed development would be contrary to the
purpose,as it would not maintain the physical and social well-being of
people and communities.
GROUND 8. PARTICULARS AND PLANS AS PRESENTED TO THE
MORETON BAY COUNCIL HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY MADE.
(A) The Ecological Assessment Report only includes 12-18 Haysmouth
Parade Clontarf,it does not include 27 Bayview Tce Clontarf.The view of
the proposed development labeled as views from Bayview Tce shows 27
Bayview Tce Clontarf remaining as an existing building contrary to
associated plans.
(B) Incomplete shadow line topography in the plans showing an
outcome of less impact than would be the case 3 time points is not
sufficient.There is no indication of compensation for loss of aspects for
surrounding properties.
(C) View from Location Marker 16 on the Houghton Highway Bridge
(Indicative) shows a building out of proportion to its surroundings.
(D) Plans of the Ground Floor of Proposed Building.This indicates , by
description that the road , Inlet Tce ,Clontarf will be developed along the
west side of the complex between it and Hays Inlet. This has not been
referred to in the dialogue and therefore leaves this open to
interpretation as to proposed outcomes.
(E) There is no allowance in the tidal measurements and storm surge
heights allowing for the known prospect of global warming which will
increase the measurements and heights significantly.
GROUND 9. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DETAILS VERSION 1.1
22 JUNE 2018.
(A) Application placed over one year ago and not communicated to
residents despite the application being outside of the Next
Generation Neighbourhood Precinct Plan (Ref Section 1 ) Aspect
Development 6.1 C What is the level of Assessment - Impact
Assessment requires Public Notification.
(B) Question 4 on the Application Form states Identify any of the
following that apply to the premises and provide relevant details
.In Tidal Area , not indicated on application.In or adjacent to a
water body or an aquifer, not indicated on application.
(C) Part B Development Details , Applicant ticked - Development
Permit, Applicant should have ticked - Preliminary Approval that
included a Variation Approval.
(D) REFERRAL DETAILS, Applicant should have ticked - Tidal
Works or Works in Coastal Management District Applicant should
have ticked - Waterways Barrier Works.
SUMMARY- Application for a Material Change of Use for 12-18
Haysmouth Parade and 27. Bayview Tce Clontarf, applied for on 26
August 2019, well after the Development Application on June 22, 2018.
If this proposal had been an open consultation a process would have
been setup in June 2018 involving all parties to reach an amicable
outcome that would have benefits to all. To reach a point where all will
have to go through a conflict resolution with possible legal implications is
a poor outcome and one which has not been managed well.
Dave and Denise Thomson

A couple of years ago we saw a property for sale in Hays Inlet. Redcliffe was a holiday destination when we were growing up, so the area had an extra attraction. I had actually stayed at Hayes Inlet and Dad would hire a boat to fish the channel. Before signing a contract on the property, I wanted some information regarding the Hays Inlet area, such as the local Council Zoning and the situation with neighbouring properties. I found that two adjacent properties had the one owner and all occupants were renting and to me that meant a likelihood of development.
I searched Development Applications and found a previous DA plan for Townhouses on both properties that had been approved but not proceeded with.
Believing that any future development close to us would be of a similar nature and would comply with the area zoning requirements, we bought the property.

We now hear of this current DA - not for 2 or 3 story townhouses - instead a seven story apartment block and we were astounded. Words fail me.

Regarding the bulk and height of the building:

1 Page 17 of the Town Planning Report included in the DA states the proposed building:

(c) is not visually dominant or overbearing with respect to the streetscape)

I cannot believe anyone assessing this, knowing the area, could possibly agree. All other dwellings in this area comply with the current height limit of 12m.

2 Apart from the visual dominance, the shade pattern created by a building of this size and height would have significant impact on nearby properties.
We are on the southern side, during summer we would lose all cooling northerly breezes and for most of the day during the winter months we would be in total shade. We were planning to install solar panels on the north facing roof but in this situation it would be out of the question.

Community Planning Regulations are there for a good reason, recently the height limit was increased to 12ms (3 stories) which to me is sensible and means just that.

There’s been a lot said regarding the environmental credentials and importance of this specific location. The impact of a construction of this size, so close to the bank of the inlet would be significant and unprecedented. I trust all the relevant overlays pertaining to this proposed development will be applied and carefully considered.

I’m also not anti-development, just sensible development, development that protects our environment and improves people’s lives and livelihood in the area.