PlanningAlerts

6 Comments

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

1. Does 8 lots equal 16 houses (IE duplexes)? If recent developments are anything to go by, then yes. Eight lots on this site would be sustainable. Sixteen would be too many.

   Why? Because the residents will access Rosemary St via De Graff St, which is already an exit point for many others. It's also opposite the exit of Bellbird Gardens, home to some 43 houses when complete.

   Increased traffic volumes will make exiting onto nearby Jones Rd even more difficult.
   Bellbird Park cannot cope with these higher density developments until road and transport infrastructure is upgraded.

   Council, if you approve this development please stick to your guns and reject any future applications for dual occupancy developments!

2. A while ago i went to check out development on Rosmary st. My comment at the time was Have the council given away Rosmary st? . take a look see what is happening..More criminal damage.. I spoke to a resident and she said that, the developers ask for her permission to do some waterworks next to her. The developers assured her that the damage would be minimal. if you remember a dozer smashing trees everywhere. She is super pissed off. Me too. So yes i am totally opposed To more environmental damage

3. So the owners/developer have requested that the planning permission be changed to include the original 12 lots that were requested. Apparently the destruction, I mean development, is not viable for 8 lots. Maybe the owners/developer should have done their job properly and not just gone after a quick profit at the expense of the suburb. Council need to stand firm on their decision. Rosemary St is already under huge pressure from increased traffic and this destruction, I mean development, will only increase the pressure.

4. Think I mentioned this before. After driving up and down Rosemary st my conclusion and question to the council is why have they given this street away? It is a classic example of them siting on their hands blame it on the State . "next applicant" .Blind Freddy can see a snap shot of the development and how it happens. Now what us people in bellbird are up against is there for all to see. . No excuse council. We want to know why streets like Rosemary st are dead in the water. Put simply what is happening is the council and developers work together, pass applications to a point where the developers can say heh you have passed 30 lots in the streets we want the same deal. Another rumor doing the rounds is from a most reliable source within council. "Developers want to talk to communities" Your application has been passed. Next

5. 99 of us are working on giving or views to the next council. Can't help being like another "mushroom." .My main point in waiting until march and the new planning scheme will be like "closing.... We want action NOW to protect vestiges of suburbs like our Bellbird.. . Application XYZ passed. Next.

6. I wish to make a formal objection to this “other change” for the proposed development.

   The documents state that the development as it was approved is “unviable” which I do not believe to be true. There have been plenty of developments in the local area where one block has been divided into 6-9 lots (See Johnston Rd for examples) and they have all been viable. This is just a cash grab for more profit. The developer made it clear in promotional material that the developer could not afford to proceed until the lots were sold, and they have not which is what is actually preventing progress. The size of the lots are not responsible for them not selling, but rather the overwhelming abundance of development sites in Bellbird Park. There are hundreds of lots for sale in the suburb with more being approved all the time. A flooded market will make sales harder. These have been for sale for around 9 months, there is lot around the corner in Katandra St that has been for sale for 18 months and has still not sold. There are still lots in the Bellbird Gardens development that have not sold and have been on the market since 2015. 9 months is nothing in this area, and the developer claiming its unviable is completely disingenuous.

   Additionally the developer has cited recent approvals for 196 Jones rd. as precedent for the change however those developers appealed and the council caved The developers here had the same opportunity to appeal or negotiate and did neither. They made a choice in January and they can’t cry foul now. An increase in lot number of 50% is a significant change and should not be shoved through under the guise of “other change”.

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