20 - 28 Burbank Road, Birkdale QLD 4159

Other Change to Approval Code - SB004732 Standard Format Reconfiguration - 7 lots

External link Read more information

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

(Source: Redland City Council, reference RAL19/0103)

13 Comments

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

  1. Trevor Manning commented

    We would like to strongly object to the rezoning of Lot 1, 20-28 Burbank road. We recently purchased a property in Birkdale moving here from Sydney. We carefully researched this area and this location before we purchased our property (August 2019) and understood that the parkland and lake were protected by a long term covenant. Building on this land will impact wildlife, air quality and our property values. The quality of air is important to us as our prime reason for moving was to get away from building dust and noise in our previous property in Sydney, where I suffered a collapsed lung from an allergic reaction due to the poor air quality. We have come to enjoy the amazing variety of birdlife and enjoy the abundance of wildlife found in our area shared with visiting family and friends.

  2. jack commented

    Just returning the above comment. I would like to see the rezoning go ahead. I understand the parkland are important but t this could possibly to cause bushfires etc which would cause more health damage

  3. Ray Covill commented

    As the previous owner of Lot 1, 20 - 28 Burbank Rd, I would like to give the history of the property. The Redland City Council Mayor and his Senior Council officers approached me and convinced me to place a Covenant on the land in question. It was recognized that Lot 1 was the Link in an environmentally sensitive Koala/Wildlife Corridor, linking the tree line and Five dams together. A Covenant was put in place to protect the environment, the wishes of myself and my family, and the Council under clear condition that the land was never to be developed and it remained bush land. I was assured by all members present at the time along with the Lawyers that the Covenant COULD NOT BE REVOKED, no matter who purchased the land. It is a Legal Binding Agreement. The property was purchased by the Applicant knowing that the Covenant was in place. The dam is 90 years old and was built with the help of prisoner labour. It is said that the soil taken from the area was then used as road base for some of the streets in Cleveland. This Covenant should stay for all time and be a benefit to all Wildlife/birdlife and the well being of everyone who visits and lives in this area. Any Development of this bushland would only benefit the Applicant while negatively impacting many people. Please leave the Covenant on as it was agreed to so many years ago.
    Ray Covill and Family

  4. Kaitlyn Morton commented

    We would like to strongly object to this application, based on the following:

    1. Impact to native wildlife and bush land. I note the description of this application is 'Other Change to Approval SB004732 Reconfiguration - 1 into 7 lots.' Rezoning and subdivision of this lot into 7 will inevitably lead to further development and buildings on the land from which to run the commercial business currently operating out of 17-19 Honeygem Place. This development will lead to noise pollution and disruption of native wildlife which all surrounding streets currently enjoy. I do not believe our native wildlife should be disturbed or pushed out of their natural habitat to line the pockets of a business. The current owner of this land has already breached council regulations by introducing horses and dogs onto this land, which had a negative impact on the local wildlife. On several occasions in the past I have had to return a dog to the property as it was let wander the streets and bushland corridor between Honeygem Place and Seeana Lane, home to many birds and other animals. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the historic environment or our local wildlife to allow this application to be approved. The applicant knew when purchasing the residence that the Covenant was in place and that this was a quiet residential area home to a variety of birdlife and other small animals - it should not be revoked.

    2. Future developments. As mentioned above, if this application is approved it can only lead to further development on the land. This is in direct contradiction to the application for material change of use (MCU19/0134) in which the applicant states no changes to the existing layout of the land will be made. Forgive me for not believing that an individual paying thousands of dollars to have this land rezoned and subdivided would not then go on to further expand their business (which has seemingly been operating under the council's radar for several years). I understand that public notification of this application was not required, however I feel that the material change of use application is somewhat of a smoke and mirrors when also taking into account this application to subdivide. It is clear from the two concurrent applications that a lot of future development is planned and I feel as though residents have not been fully informed due to this not requiring public notification. As residents we have not been given the full picture as to what the plans for the lot are, just as we were never given notification that a business would be running from the lot in the first place.

    I urge you to consider the impact this will have on our local wildlife and environment if this application is approved, as well as what impact the expanding business will have on residents.

    I would like to implore you to decline both applications currently active and retain the Covenant on the land to protect the environment, wildlife, and residents of the area.

    Kaitlyn and Tania Morton

  5. Robert Weismantel commented

    Jack's comment "this could possibly to cause bushfires etc which would cause more health damage" is quite far fetched. It is a large dam. The covenant was placed in good faith with legal advice and Mr Colville was assured at the time that it was binding.
    The rezoning should not go ahead and should not breach the long standing covenant. If this covenant is ignored, then a "wedge" effect could be used against neighboring properties or properties elsewhere in the Redlands. .

  6. commented
    Hidden by site administrators
  7. Chris Quarmby commented

    I have a couple of comments, I would first like to ask Jack if he is ‘Jack’ the son of the owner of the property in question? I would also like to comment on Jacks post.. ‘possibly cause bush fire which could cause more health damage’ so ‘rezoning should go ahead’ the owner doesn’t seem to share the same concerns as there has been numerous burn offs to get rid of the waste on the property over the years which has caused unpleasant toxic smoke for everyone in the immediate area, even to the point that the fire brigade were called... so what concerns for Bush fire hazard does the owner have then?? Obviously none..

  8. Eric Allart commented

    Dear Jack,
    I strongly object to your line of thinking. If you follow your thought through, you are suggesting that every tree in a koala corridor, backyard or forest should be removed because it is a potential fire hazard. Where do you expect our nature to reside? This is ridiculous.
    We have lived here for over 20 years and apart from the property mentioned burning off illegally, have had no fire issues. You can probably go back 100 years and find the same.

    I’ll finish off by objecting to the above proposal to change the covenant:
    RAL19/0103
    SB004732
    Eric

  9. Lisa Mayer commented

    I object to the application for material change of use (MCU19/0134), change the covenant:RAL19/0103 SB004732 Reconfiguration - 1 into 7 lots based on the following.
    We have lived in the area for 20 years and have seen some changes of which have always taken in to consideration the environment and allowing the koala corridor, bushland and wildlife reserves to all remain and exist in harmony. The idea of running a business in these small streets will become dangerous for the all who use them including families with small children and wildlife.
    It would greatly impact the lifestyle of 1000's of residents in the area for the benefit of the applicant only.
    With schools close by many small children walk past this area on there commute to and from school, again their safety would be under threat with the increase of traffic, parking and loss of safe pathways. Will also be distressing for small children to observe this type of facility.
    This is a residential area for homes and families, who enjoy the surrounding bush environment and that is why we all bought and live here including the applicant originally. If the applicant doesn’t appreciate this environment, they can find a more suitable area which will not be as costly to the all who are affected.
    The applicant clearly does not have the best interest for the area in mind.

  10. Anita Graham commented

    Anita Graham commented 1 day ago
    We would like to strongly object to this application based on the following
    1. Potential destruction of bush land and koala corridor application sb004732 reconfiguration - 1-7 lots . Rezoning and subdivision of this lot into 7 will lead to further development and buildings on the land from which a commercial business currently operating out of 17-19 Honeygem Place.
    2. Increased traffic noise in a relatively small road with chicanes as is . Directly facing property driveways with no ample parking .
    3. 24/7 business operating in a neighbourhood right next to a small park hence children crossing near increased traffic.
    4. Decreased property value as business running in a residential estate.
    5. This is a direct contradiction to the material change of use MCU 19/0134 in which the applicant make no changes to the existing layout of the land will be made. It should not be revoked .
    delivered to the planning authorityreport comment

  11. Erica Siegel commented

    re: Removal of Covenant from Lot 1 20-28 Burbank Rd Birkdale 4159
    RAL19/0103 Change to an existing Approval SB473201

    I strongly object to the application to remove the covenant from Lot 1 20-28 Burbank Rd Birkdale 4159

    The covenant had been placed on said land for the specific purpose to protect the vegetation, wildlife and 90 year old dam in perpetuity, the covenant was in place at the point of sale.
    The purchaser accepted the covenant and restrictions.
    The sales price reflected the restrictions of the covenant.
    Removing the covenant will affect the value of the land in favour of the applicant.

    The removal of the covenant can lead to the keeping of dog(s) on the land which is detrimental to all wildlife on said land.

    The removal of the covenant can lead to the clearing of trees and other vegetation which are habitat for many species of wildlife.

    This land is part of a wildlife corridor connecting with Tarradarrapin Wetland in the east, it is used by Koalas during mating season.

    The trees/vegetation contribute to the aesthetics of the environment, improve air quality, enhance biodiversity, and perform water retention functions.

    The removal of the covenant will lead to the loss of amenities to the local community and will impact on nearby residents if the land is cleared.

    The adjoining streets and pathways are much used by many walkers with children and dogs.

    I urge Redland City Council to reject this application

  12. Jenny Woodward commented

    I would like to strongly object to the removal of the covenant on Lot 1, 20 -28 Burbank Rd Birkdale 4159. The removal of this covenant would be detrimental to the wildlife in the Redlands and Birkdale in particular. Koalas are active in the area and are known to use this particular area for breeding and food. With the devastation of the bushfires though Australia this past summer it is important to maintain these areas for our wildlife as we lost so many in the fires.
    We don’t need any more high density housing but we do need more areas for our wildlife, koalas are in need of safe areas to walk and feed in.
    I urge the Redland City Council to reject this application.

  13. Leisa Sutton commented

    I would like to strongly object to the removal of the covenant on Lot 1, 20 -28 Burbank Rd Birkdale 4159. The removal of this covenant would be detrimental to the wildlife in the Redlands and Birkdale in particular. Koalas are active in the area and are known to use this particular area for breeding and food. With the devastation of the bushfires though Australia this past summer it is important to maintain these areas for our wildlife as we lost so many in the fires.
    We don’t need any more high density housing but we do need more areas for our wildlife, koalas are in need of safe areas to walk and feed in.
    I urge the Redland City Council to reject this application.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Redland 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

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is part of the digital library from the local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small 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