98 Haldham Crescent Regents Park QLD 4118

Garage (Reduced Side Boundary Clearance)

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: Logan City Council, reference BWAP-164/2020)

1 Comment

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

  1. Colin Gossip and Alexandra Williams commented

    As immediate resident landowner neighbours adjacent to the proposed shed we object to the location of the proposed garage/machining shed for the following reasons:

    1. Pool access and safety.
    The proximity of the proposal to a pool perimeter enclosure creates increased access opportunities through:

    a) the application for relaxion of the 1.5m side boundary distance that will effectively create a solid wall and 500mm access zone in which someone could brace themselves in such a way as to scale the fence (ie in a 'chimney-climb' style).

    b) the added opportunity of climbing assistance being gained through the storage of moveable materials such as steel reinforcing (as is currently being undertaken by the applicant against the extant garden shed), ladders, machinery or even vehicles which could be parked outside which could be used to aid access as a climbing prop via the vehicle doors, tyres etc if parked close to the fence;

    c) the elevation of the rear of the shed base height by
    900mm effectively reducing the height of the extant common fence by that amount in an area that is not readily visible from either residence for passive surveilance.

    2. Amenity - Noise, Odour, Emissions
    The size and location of any shed in the yard being limited by the sewer easement across the rear of both of our properties should not mean that one neighbour's amenity needs to be impacted unduly by the location, orientation or planned use for a garage/machining shed on one boundary.

    Omitted in the applicant's statement is their history (during approximately 15 years of being neighbours) of using the existing carport immediately adjacent to our dining/living area and in close proximity to our external undercover clothesline/kitchen garden area for:
    - regular running of a very loud vehicle engine (a Chevrolet that is quite loud even while it is idling as well as whrn being reversed up the driveway);
    - undertaking mechanical repairs to the same vehicle and a 4WD vehicle (2 of 3 vehicles kept at that address); and
    - the less regular but still noisy use of welding and metal grinding equipment associated with vehicle repairs by the resident and occassionally for the repair/mechanical work on vehicles of other visiting non-residents.

    With this type and history of 'home activity' usage that has on ocassions felt like we are living in an industrial zone next to a 'chop shop', we expect that activities planned for the proposed shed will be similar in nature and will effectively extend the noise, vibration and particulate/emissions impact from activities currently adjacent to our living area along almost the full extent of our outdoor private space (including our undercover clothesline, kitchen herb garden and outdoor dining/BBQ area, and further towards our pool, deck and garden area at the rear).

    We doubt that such activities will be undertaken inside the shed with the roller doors closed and see no reference to any noise abatement measures being incorporated either within or exterior to the shed as part of this application.

    3. Shade/Solar access.
    This is also partly related to amenity, through the potential for increased shading on the western side of our unheated inground pool and surrounds during late Autumn/Winter/early Spring. This may cause the possible reduction in the use of the pool by us as residents and our visitors (ie a relative regularly uses the pool in the warmer months for post cardio therapy).

    While the impact of regular noise of conversations may be more subjective to asses than lines-of-sight for privacy, the clear lack of a solar/shade diagram in the application does not substantiate the assertion in the application that the proposed shed will not create any shading impacts on the neighbouring property. In fact, we consider C. Jensen's statrment to be based on erroneous assumptions and not fact.

    The southern side of our rear deck awning already casts winter afternoon shade over much of the lower pool deck and in summer the vegetation comprising mostly Strelitzia nicolai (Giant Bird of Paradise palms amongst other palms and shrubs) to our west provides welcome broken shade to the pool area from the mid-afternoon.

    The Strelitzia also provides a steady nectar supply to a variety of honeyeaters, fruit bats and possums, particularly when there are few other native species flowering in the nearby Scrubby Creek reserve. We are planning to remove the small cubby house pool structure and do a gradual trimming/thinning and replacement planting with a mixture of fruit trees that would continue to provide for sumner shading from the west and food for ourselves and nectar-feeding birds and wildlife.

    However it would be difficult to achieve a suitable sapling growing environment in deep afternoon shade due to the close proximity of a shed that is:
    1.61m higher than a 1.8m pool fence at the front; and extending up to
    2.36m higher than the fence at the rear
    (3.26m above the 0.9m built up ground level at the rear less 1.8m fence. *Calculations based on design measurements provided in application.]

    We have taken a photograph of the shadow we already have at approx. 12:30pm on 21 June 2020.
    A mid-afternoon site inspection (while winter shadows are at their full extent) is invited.

    We have requested of the applicant that the timing of a fence upgrade to colourbond (Primrose Wavelock profile) to match the rest of the common fence ooccur BEFORE the construction of the shed (if that is approved) as access to the fenceline after any structure is built, particularly if within 500mm of the boundary, would necessitate removal of much of the vegetation to facilitate access from our side of the property. We are aware of 2 large palm trees and a lillypilly that will meed to be removed for the construction, this has also been omitted in tathepplication.

    If approved as is, we would appreciate a condition to the development requiring the fenceline being constructed along the length to a height that ensures the required pool fence safety height is created for AFTER the shed's construction. We are prepared to contribute 50% of the material cost and our labour for a 1.8m fence. It would be reasonable to expect that any additional material costs to ensure compliance re additional height conditions created by tbe proposed structure should be met fully by the applicant.

    In summary, unless the applicant is willing to consider any or a combination of:
    1. relocation of the structure away from our common boundary;
    2. a shed of smaller size;
    3. reorientation of the opening away from our private space, or a design that facilitates stacked parking eg with a right hand turn from the proposed driveway extension and shed location towards the middle or at the western side of the applicant's property;
    or
    4. construction of a more solid ie masonry boundary wall to a height that achieves both pool safety and noise mitigation measures (at the applicant's expense),
    we respectfully request this application be refused on the grounds that it does not comply, particularly with regards to the Logan Planning Scheme (2005) objectives re 6.2.5.2 - 2c, 3a i), ii) & iii) and 3b for the reasons provided above.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Logan 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