21 Central Ave St Lucia QLD 4067

Local Government as Referral Agency - The Trustee For BCG Unit Trust (Primary Applicant)

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 16 days ago. It was received by them 4 days earlier.

(Source: Brisbane City Council, reference A005827886)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Steven Cumming commented

    Neptune Homes are seeking a side boundary setback relaxation for 21 Central Avenue along the North-Eastern side, reducing it to 530mm. In the Siting Assessment Report submitted as part of this application it is claimed the setback should be 1400mm, but according to the contour plans submitted to Council at the time Lot 4 was subdivided in 1998, the true height of the building above Natural Ground is greater than 7.8m due the Natural Ground Level at registration of this subdivision in 1998, being below 32.0m across the rear of the proposed development. Based on Council Code MP1.2 for lots of greater than 450m2 with a width of 12.1m, the boundary setback where greater than 7.5m above natural ground should be 2000mm. This means that the relaxation being sought is 1470mm.

    The plans submitted with the application by Neptune Homes show the planned building height to be 6964mm including the supporting slab (310mm). The platform level shown for the site is 33.140m. This is an increase of more than 1140mm above the Natural Ground Level of 32.0m as determined when the Lot was subdivided in 1998. The significant amount of fill required to achieve the planned platform height will result in a retaining wall along the northern boundary of over 2.0 metres in height.

    This substantial relaxation has the effect of considerably increasing the overshadowing along the length of the adjacent properties at 25 and 27 Central Avenue, not to mention creating several significant overland flooding and safety issues:
    • Undermining and or over-loading the existing retaining walls along the length of this boundary.
    • Creating significant overland flooding along the length of the North-Eastern boundary and into the neighbouring properties.
    • Destruction of the existing 40 metre long Murraya Hedge running the entire length of the boundary which has been carefully cultivated and maintained for privacy and amenity over the past 30 years
    • Substantial overshadowing of the properties at 25 and 27 Central Avenue.
    I urge Council to reconsider the request for variation based on the flawed information provided by Neptune relating to the Natural Ground Height, as well as the significant risks to the adjacent properties.

  2. John Brannock commented

    Council should review their approval for the builders siting variation based on the neighbours’ detailed observations of incorrect information being provided to Council. Unfortunately some dodgy builders seek Council approval by providing incorrect plans and/or baseline information and they should be brought to account. Let’s hope that Council pursues this matter fully as they already have the correct information from the 1998 approval so it is easy to check.

  3. Michael Yeates commented

    Is the overall problem with the situation across Brisbane (illustrated here but common everywhere) the idea that the "Town Plan" sets minimum (and in some cases eg heights, maximum) standards eg heights, widths, setbacks, site cover, etc but which are so open to be relaxed as to no longer be reliable?
    So what is good for one site, does not apply somewhere else?
    This inability to rely on these legislated standards appears to have been increasingly the case since at least the 1980s, probably earlier.
    Does it really mean the Council has abrogated defence of its own legislation and if so, then is the question in whose interests is Council and/or its (ie our?) employees acting?
    Clearly not for residents who bought into areas based on the assumption the standards could be relied on?
    Clearly to allow developers to gain benefits for themselves even if not complying with the standards and/or even if disadvantageing neighbours and arguably changing the character of too many, or too much, of Brisbane suburbs?
    Why should residents be expected to defend the Council's legislated standards? Is this the role and requirement for the Council? If not, why not?
    Should Council fund the costs of neighbours and others to appeal relaxations?
    Of course, there are some situations where the legislated standards are identified in the Town Plan as open to justifiable "relaxations".
    But it seems many of these and other "relaxations" are now expected, at least by developers if not by the neighbours and not by at least some of the nearby community.
    Examples include minimum heights of fences on boundaries which it seems can be elevated up to 2m higher if on a retaining wall? Why?
    To this can be added building over former waterways and overland flow paths and removing substantial trees.
    Does this matter?
    While these and other "issues" contribute to changing the nature and character of an area yet appear to be open to relaxation, are the "locals" without a voice in the approval of relaxations by Council?
    Should the locals even be expected to have to try to ensure the Council follows the expectations of desired outcomes in the Town Plan?
    If the relaxation involves an intention of the Town Plan ie a desired outcome, then change the standards so the Town Plan complies with the intended outcomes so that in these areas, there would no longer be the need for unexpected relaxations and expectations would better match desired outcomes.
    The current process not only destabilises those who wish to enjoy the area but arguably is unnecessarily divisive.
    Is it time for a much more open and transparent approvals process such that Council defends (and changes the Town Plan to suit specific localities or precincts) rather than relaxes the legislated Town Plan?
    Clearly this proposal suggests it is?
    For this proposal, should it be assessed against the Town Plan legislated requirements and standards?
    Then having done that, should Council document in detail why any and all "relaxations" have been considered for approval such that the "relaxation" process is transparent and who decides and on what basis, is open to scrutiny by the community?
    All this to help ensure the decisions have merit as the changes have long term consequences?

  4. Penelope Biddlestone commented

    Yet again we have another problematic build and Council has approved a Development Application for highly unreasonable relaxations within two days! In comparison, it takes over three months for a Vegetation Protection Order to be processed.

    Residents are getting sick and tired of the way Council is treating ratepayers. We are losing vegetation and habitat for native animals and houses are covering far too much land with impervious material. The environmental impact of this cannot be understated as we are seeing these builds all throughout the suburbs.

    These are not "clean" or "green" practices and Council should be ashamed of themselves.

    Earlier comments above have addressed the technical details of the application for this particular site and also asked extremely important questions to Council to which the community deserves honest answers.

  5. John A Couchman commented

    Council is requested to review the decision to grant side boundary setback relaxation for 21 Central Ave, St Lucia on the north-eastern side of the property adjoining Nos. 25 & 27 Central Ave.
    Council should recognise the natural ground contour plans submitted to Council at the time Lot 4 was subdivided in 1998 which showed the natural ground level to be greater than 7.8m at time of registration and was below 32.0 metres across the rear of the proposed development. Based on Council Code MP1.2 for lots greater than 450m2 with a width of 12.1m the boundary setback where greater than 7.5m above natural ground level should be 2000m. The relaxation agreed by Council is 1470mm.
    This is contrary to agreed Council principles and should not be given relaxation approval..

  6. Margy Knudsen commented

    It seems to me existing residents have no say regarding their amenity being destroyed by inappropriate development. Why have rules if they are ignored and in this case rushed through in two days. The destruction of the Murraya hedge is appalling, all for the sake of a large McMansion to be built on a small site. As Council allows land to be split into these small, narrow blocks the building should be appropriate to the size of the land with the regulatory space between neighbours, NO relaxations. I am sure if a Councillor lived next door this wouldn’t happen.

  7. Meredith Gray commented

    Concerns Relating to Development Application DA A005827886 Lot 4 21 Central Avenue St Lucia

    I wish to register my concern relating the proposed development at 21 Central Avenue St Lucia. The placement of a 2 storey 6-bedroom house so close to the Northern side boundary should not be allowed without proper community consultation. Council have approved a setback of 530mm, when in fact it should have been a minimum of 2000mm. In the Siting Assessment Report submitted as part of this application, it is claimed the setback should be 1400mm, but due to the Natural Ground Heights shown on the developers own plans, the overall height of the build will exceed 7.8m. This means the true setback should be 2000mm as per Council Code MP1.2 for lots of greater than 450m2.

    This substantial relaxation has the effect of considerably increasing the overshadowing along the length of the adjacent properties, not to mention creating the possibility of several significant safety and environmental issues such as:

    · Undermining and or over-loading existing retaining walls along the length of the boundary.

    · Creating the potential for significant overland flooding into neighbouring properties.

    · Destruction of significant natural vegetation including a 40-metre-long Hedge running the entire length of the boundary.

    · Reduction of privacy and amenity for the residents of the adjoining lots with no apparent screening being applied to any of the large windows immediately along this boundary.

    · Substantial overshadowing of neighbouring properties compromising their access to adequate light and ventilation.

    This is yet another example of Brisbane City Council working with developers to fast track approvals and allow relaxations of their Qld Building Codes, without proper consultation with residents.

    Such relaxations continue to undermine the Town Planning Codes supposedly put in place to protect residents from overcrowding, vegetation loss, overland flooding, the restriction of natural ventilation and other significant environmental factors.

  8. Ken commented

    I wish to register my concern relating the proposed development at 21 Central Avenue St Lucia. Without proper due process and community consultation, it should not proceed. If it is likely to result in significant impact on privacy, overshadowing of adjacent properties (and possible safety and environmental issues), such concerns should be adequately discussed and reviewed before approval is given.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible 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