PlanningAlerts

5 Comments

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

1. BCC should not approve this application because it is inconsistent with BBC own policy: “Heritage places are to be retained and restored to preserve their heritage value. Development on sites next to heritage places should not impact the values of the heritage place”.
   As developer states, the “site is identified as a Local Heritage Place” and a “Queensland Heritage Place”. Therefore, maintaining the heritage character of both the site and the cottage is of paramount importance. The developer is aware of this, stating: “Given the cultural significance of the heritage house, much consideration was undertaken during the design phase of the proposal. As illustrated within the proposal plans, it was determined that the extension would be located at the rear of the site, in an effort to maintain the cultural significance of the site”.
   Unfortunately, “an effort to maintain the cultural significance of the site” is not the same as ACTUALLY maintaining the cultural significance of the site.
   In contrast to that BCC policy, the DA plans propose the building of extension, which, from the front view, presents an ultra-modern-style ‘glass-like’ style, total inconsistent with the required heritage-character of the cottage & site, and from the sides, will present unsightly Besser/brick-like exterior 2-story walls (as opposed to the DA that states the external walls will be timber). This extension will, therefore further detrimentally impact on the value of both the subject heritage site and also the heritage sites beside this site.
   Therefore, BCC should not approve either this proposal or any similar future proposals re the site’s (1) building extension/partial cottage demolition - unless the extension itself ACTUALLY maintains the heritage character of the site i.e. by being designed in a heritage-style consistent with the cottage; or (2) Material Change of Use (e.g. for an Office…) if this causes or may later cause a relaxation of the requirements to maintain the site’s heritage character.
   Any existing re-development of the area surrounding this heritage site such as the high-rise now built behind the heritage sites should NOT be taken as permission to lose more of the Brisbane heritage sites that BCC has indicated should be preserved.

2. The Council must reject this application. The heritage of Kangaroo Point is being totally destroyed and if this application is accepted it will be a nail in the coffin of the cottages at Kangaroo Point. We are already losing the cottages in Lambert St and now this application which will simply destroy the heritage value of a unique streetscape from our past. We must stop developing for developments sake. Please follow your own rules and reject this application.

3. If this application is the result of MUCH consideration to retain the cultural significance of the site it is a dire reflection on the applicant's grasp on reality. There is nothing in the proposed architectural drawings that reflect the heritage features relating to the site. Kangaroo Point has enough atrocious developments that should not have received council approval and this is one more that should be refused

4. Shame on the Council if this Heritage Cottage is defaced in this manner.Any extension
   needs to be in sympathy with the existing building and using like materials .
   The three cottages are all that is left of the workers cottages that used to line Main St.,
   and I hope council will reject this application .

5. as residents of a property overlooking the "heritage listed cottages" I totally object to this application.Iam afraid that it would add nothing to the outlook.Would be a very sad day if it was to be approved.

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