41 Trees Road, Tallebudgera QLD 4228

Darren Smith
200 Tallebudgera Connection Rd
Tallebudgera
Djsmith73@gmail.com

Planning Assessment
Gold Coast City Council
PO Box 5042
Gold Coast Mail Centre QLD 9729
Email: mail@goldcoast.qld.gov.au

Re: Objection to Development Application COM/2025/361
41 Trees Rd Tallebudgera

Dear Planning Assessment Team,

I write as a local resident of Tallebudgera and neighbour/community member to formally lodge my objection to the above‐referenced development application. While I recognise the need for growth and development in our region, I believe that this proposal raises significant concerns that warrant refusal or substantial revision. My key points of objection are as follows:

⸻

1. Incompatibility with the local planning scheme and zone
• The proposal appears to conflict with the objectives of the applicable zone under the Gold Coast City Plan, in particular regarding lot size, density, building height, bulk and scale, or maintaining local character.
• For example, local lots are predominantly 4000m2, whereas this proposal seeks to subdivide a 4000m2 block by 3 ways which is a minimum requirement which is inconsistent with the zone’s intent.
• The development does not appear to respect the surrounding environment in terms of built form, scale, and interface with existing residences.

⸻

2. Amenity impacts (overshadowing, privacy, noise, traffic)
• Increased bulk/height/scale will adversely affect neighbouring amenity by creating overshadowing, reduced daylight, and loss of open sky views.
• The proximity to existing homes may lead to loss of privacy (overlooking windows, balconies) and increased noise (from additional units/residents).
• The traffic generation from the development is likely to exceed local road capacity, increasing congestion, reducing safety and impacting pedestrian/cyclist amenity.
• The drainage, stormwater and infrastructure implications (from a denser development) may adversely impact neighbouring properties (flooding, stormwater run‐off/discharge).

⸻

3. Infrastructure capacity and services
• The proposal may place additional burden on existing infrastructure (water, sewer, stormwater, roads, public transport, schools, parks) which may not have capacity for the increased load without upgrades.
• The applicant has not clearly demonstrated how the necessary infrastructure will be upgraded or provided without impacting local ratepayers or the amenity of the neighbourhood.

⸻

4. Environmental / landscape concerns
• The development may adversely impact environmental values (trees, vegetation, wildlife corridors) if significant vegetation is removed or local ecology disturbed.
• It may also adversely impact the know koala population that reside in the trees on the property.

⸻

5. Precedent and community expectation
• If approved, the scale/intensity of this development may set an undesirable precedent for future developments in the neighbourhood, undermining the local planning scheme and community expectations of amenity and character.
• The community reasonably expects that developments should respect the local context and not erode the liveability of existing residences.

⸻

In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Council:
• either refuse the application, or
• require substantial modifications to the design to reduce height, density, bulk/scale, ensure appropriate setbacks, protect amenity, minimise traffic impacts and provide clear infrastructure upgrades.

I also request that my submission be treated as “properly made” and that I receive notification of any decision and any appeal rights.

Thank you for considering my objection.
Yours sincerely,
Darren Smith

I am objecting to this development application on grounds that is does not suitably assess and/or address the impact of the development on the local koala habitat.

The lot is a known koala hotspot within the local community, and my understanding is the Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary have formal data records of koala presence on this lot.

A116467343 Specialist Reports notes evidence of koalas in at least 7 trees on the lot (see Drawings VMP-02 and VMP-05). However, there is no further mention of koalas within document A116467347 Supporting Documents, nor in the DA Form 1.

I believe there are grounds for referral requirements due to interference with koala habitat in koala habitat areas outside koala priority areas.

Re: Objection to Development Application COM/2025/361 on Lot 13 RP31959
41 Trees Rd Tallebudgera.

Dear GCCC planning assessors,
I wish to make comment on the Development Application (COM/2025/361) for a Combined Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot (1 into 3 Lot Subdivision) and an Operational Works Permit (Tree Clearing) at 41 Trees Road, Tallebudgera (Lot 13 on RP31959) and register my objection to this development as I do not believe that the documents in this submission have addressed the impact this development will have on the local koala and native wildlife populations and also through this lack of detail, the local community values.
I would also like to make note that whilst it is not a requirement of town planning, there is no mention of this lot at 41 Trees road being located in Koala District A, of the Queensland governments regulatory koala habitat maps for South East Queensland (SEQ), which is linked to the implementation of the SEQ Koala conservation strategy 2020-2025 and koala conservation protections within the planning framework. When viewing the map layers linked to the koala plan it can also be noted that the property is connected through vegetation to core koala habitat north of Trees road and south west of Lot 13. It is also surrounded by the SEQ koala protection area and high valued land for rehabilitation. This is not mentioned in the supporting documentation.
Koala District A has the highest population densities in Queensland, and the koala population is highly threatened due to habitat loss and human impacts. I believe that the development will increase these impacts, by removing significant koala habitat trees and building more houses. The development may negatively impact environmental values (trees, vegetation, wildlife corridors) if significant vegetation is removed or local ecology disturbed.
I personally have seen Koalas in the trees in Lot 13 on RP31959 and recently have seen a female koala with her joey in one of the Tallowwoods there on numerous occasions. Community members frequently stop for Koalas and possums crossing the road adjacent to 41 Trees road to get to their core habitat. There have also been recorded vehicle strikes on Koalas and native wildlife in that section of the road. We also frequently see people walking past and viewing the Koalas in the natural habitat. Increasing the number of houses in the area will also increase the number of vehicles and the possibility of vehicle strikes/dog attacks on the local Koalas. Rejecting or modifying this application may assist in the conservation efforts of the local community for this critically endangered species.
As indicated in the specialist reports A116467343 in the Key Environmental Values Drawing No:VMP02 there are 8 trees on the site that are trees with evidence of Koala scat, all scheduled to be removed as per the vegetation impact plan drawing VMP:O3.
Estimated age of Trees with evidence of koala as per Key Environmental Values Drawing No:VMP02
37- Eucalyptus tereticornis-Forest Red Gum 16-25m high trunk DBH-0.75m age 150-180yrs
35 Eucalyptus microcorys- Tallowwood DBH 0.8m >180yrs
33 Eucalyptus microcorys- Tallowwood >25m DBH-0.75 age 150-180yrs
26 Eucalyptus microcorys- Tallowwood >25m DBH 0.80 age 150-180yrs
19 Eucalyptus crebra- Narrow leaved ironbark16-25m DBH 0.4m 211 & 281 yrs
Adapted from Land for Wildlife “How to Age Trees” (Metters, 2017)
All of these trees are Koala habitat trees, and all of them due to their age would be significant habitat trees for native birds,other native mammals and insects in addition to having historical significance. An example would be the species E. tetricornis, as it starts producing hollows at approximately 170-200 yrs old, it’s tree hollows provide crucial habitat for native wildlife. The removal of these trees will adversely impact native species and set an undesirable precedent for future developments by not maintaining local character and environmental values.
In addition to this the Uniting Church of Australia has made a commitment to the environment arising out of the belief that Gods will is for humans to renew and reconcile not destroy. They state they take their responsibility to care for all of creation seriously both for present and future generations and value the natural world for its own sake, not just for the material benefits to us. Therefore, it is a reasonable community expectation in the local context that this proposal is modified or rejected to take this into consideration.
As a result of the above points, I respectfully request that the council planners reject the application and consider the purchase of this corridor for their Natural Areas Acquisition Program, as the local community views this land as having high environmental value linking natural areas within the City’s biodiversity areas network, thus ensuring long-term viability and secure pathways for wildlife movement.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kulari Harris