PlanningAlerts

5 Comments

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

1. Objection to the proposed redevelopment of 45 Mabel St., Highgate Hill (Application A005641086)

   I live at 50 Mabel Street, across from and just down from #45. We have lived here for 39 years.
   Mabel Street, south of Gertrude Street, is dead-end, running steeply down to an old creek at the bottom of the hill. Several houses on our street have more cars than off-street parking spots (and some have cars but no off-street parking), so our street is frequently congested. Garbage and delivery trucks, in particular, often have serious problems trying to turn around, usually impossible, or reverse up the steep hill - often not possible when it rains.
   Two of the houses on Park Road West also use Mabel Street for car access, and sometimes parking, so that adds more cars to our congestion.
   The proposed expansion of #45 Mabel Street would change that building from two to five bedrooms, from two to three stories, would more than double the footprint on this small block of land, and roughly triple the inhabitable floor space. It would also shade the garden of #47 Mabel Street.
   With heavy rain, a tremendous flow of water comes down Mabel Street and the storm-water drains are often unable to cope, so serious flooding affects the houses on Park Road West. One resident has installed sandbags near the storm-water drain below #45 to try to staunch this regular flooding of his yard and car. More than doubling the roof area of #45 would more than double its runoff, contributing to these unresolved flooding issues.
   Such a gross expansion of this cottage would seriously add to the current congestion on Mabel Street and utterly destroy the aesthetic and heritage value of this house (just as has been allowed to happen with the totally inappropriate modifications to the house four-doors above. It was a lovely, three-bedroom cottage and is now an ugly monstrosity, totally out of character.)
   To allow #45 to be redeveloped and expanded, as proposed, would reduce the 1880s heritage value of our whole street and, I believe, it would adversely affect the value of everyone else's property on our street.
   A small point on the issue of heritage is that ex Governor-General, Bill Hayden, was born and grew up at 48 Mabel Street.
   During the building process at #45 there would be serious impacts on Mabel, Louisa, Park Road West and, perhaps, Gertrude Street residents from trucks, machinery, tradesmen’s utes, etc. The impact would be noise, soil runoff and even worse street congestion.
   As an historian, I know that #45 Mabel Street (like our own home) was built in the mid to late 1880s. What charm it retains would be totally destroyed through the proposed expansion.
   And, on a procedural matter, there is no sign alerting neighbours to this proposed development, nor has any attempt been made by the non-resident owner and would-be developer to advise and consult with neighbours.

2. The proposed expansion of #45 Mabel Street would change that building from two to five bedrooms, from two to three stories, and roughly triple the inhabitable floor space.
   With heavy rain, a tremendous flow of water comes down Mabel Street and the storm-water drains are often unable to cope, so serious flooding affects the houses on Park Road West. One resident has installed sandbags near the storm-water drain below #45 to try to staunch this regular flooding of his yard and car. More than doubling the roof area of #45 would more than double its runoff into the street, contributing to these flooding issues.
   Such an expansion of this house would seriously add to the congestion on Mabel Street and utterly destroy the aesthetic and heritage value of this house (just as has been allowed to happen with the totally inappropriate modifications to the house four-doors above. It was a lovely, three-bedroom house and is now an ugly monstrosity, totally out of sympathy with the rest of the area.)
   To allow #45 to be redeveloped and expanded, as proposed, would reduce the 1880s heritage value of our whole street.

3. The proposed development is much more than an extension. It is changing a small house in a heritage area to a multiple level development. If the heritage values mean anything in Brisbane Town Planning, this development should include a design that enhances heritage values not ignores them. The BCC development manager should request a sympathetic extension design.

4. The design alters the original design the front of the house. The bullnosed verandah addition changes the aesthetic and character of how this house was built. The original verandah should be reintroduced (opened back up) and the asymmetrical gable design retained. Adding ill-considered features from other character house types is not an appropriate response to the character code.

   The designers need to review the sun shading of this house design. While we understand that Queensland’s BA criteria for energy efficient window and glazing design will likely be met by this design (care of Newman’s government and their QDC document relaxing the NCC by more than a decade for the energy efficiency section), with very minimal side boundary setbacks, no eaves and no external sun shading and only a token effort at sun shading to the western deck this design will let in a lot of heat and led to a high electricity bill.

   Larger homes with token character additions (rather than attention to the original design) and heavily reliant on air-conditioning for the occupant’s comfort were not the original intent of the housing, small lot and character housing codes.

   It is also requested that council attends to the impacts of this proposal for this end of Mabel Street (which compounds issues created by other recent works, by others). There are currently several issues that suggest Council sees this as a ‘second-rate’ street, not maintaining it to the same extent as adjoining streets.

   There is currently a stormwater issue on the street, which at present is in part mitigated by the lack of stormwater connections of many houses to the kerb (many of the houses being older building stock, not having had substantial works done to trigger plumbing upgrades to connect them). The greater roof area of this design, with no rainwater tank to detain water after significant down pours will put further pressure on the stormwater system of Mabel Street, directly affecting the houses at the lower end of the street. Sandbags now seem to be a permanent feature at the street end. Council needs to address this urgently.

   While construction works is welcomed to improve the street, the council needs to invest in the road. Mabel Street (and Ridge Street also) has potholes, patch jobs and a comparatively rough surface. It is timely that the street is repaired properly.

   This part of Mabel street has a bitumen footpath, directly beside the kerb, no finished inside edge, and is damaged in places due to water mains repairs and trees. It is timely that the footpath is done properly, in concrete.

5. This is an an objection to the proposed extension of #45 Mabel St Highgate Hill to a 2 storey residence. It would change the character of the street as most of the dwellings on this street relect a small housing design. The design of this house changes the facade so seems to contravene the heritage stipulations.
   This proposed exstension would impact the people who live on this small street negatively creating congestion and crowding.
   Such a building endeavour would also create pressure on the storm water drain at the end of the street. Which is being managed by sand bags.
   I would like this extension to be re considered and for the design to take into consideration the beautiful heritage and history of this street.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Brisbane 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