2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814

Lot Creation - One (1) into 95 Lots - Stage 1 (25 Lots), Stage 2A (16 Lots), Stage 2B (16 Lots), Stage 3A (21 Lots) and Stage 3B (17 Lots) - associated with MI13/0042

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website almost 6 years ago. It was received by them 3 days earlier.

(Source: Townsville City Council, reference RC13/0096)

24 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. chris keeley commented

    I ask that no entry on Buchannan st be inline with other houses or driveways, please consider aligning the entry to an already existing side road, street or major road. currently the plan has the road on to Buchanan street, would have residents reversing out of their driveways onto the intersection proposed! this needs to be stopped.

    thank you

    Chris Keeley

  2. Janet Hinds commented

    I would like to lodge an OBJECTION to the position of the road from BUCHANAN STREET to the new development at the above address.
    We live at 24 Buchanan Street, Mt Louisa. We strongly OPPOSE the position of the road “Entering / Exiting” this new housing development into BUCHANAN STREET as THIS PROPOSED ROAD IS DIRECTLY IN LINE WITH OUR DRIVEWAY.
    It’s going to be VERY DANGEROUS TO REVERSE OUT OF OUR DRIVEWAY. After living here for 35 years not having to worry about traffic behind us, reversing out is going to be a nightmare. We will not only need to watch more traffic left and right, but also will need to be able to see directly behind us as cars come out of this new proposed road. Watching directly behind us as we reverse out of our driveway is going to be impossible - THE POSITION OF THIS ROAD IS GOING TO BE DISASTROUS. An accident waiting to happen.
    There are only three houses facing this vacant block on Buchanan Street, this new road will affect all three. The position of this road will affect us at 24 Buchanan Street more significantly. If there has to be an “Entry / Exit” Road onto Buchanan Street, make it further up the street, where all houses are facing Eura, Legge or Ellis Courts and not facing Buchanan Street. Furthermore, all “Entering / Existing” roads should be directed onto BANFIELD DRIVE, as it is a much wider road to accommodate turning traffic, and the INCREASED volume of traffic the 96 dwellings are going to generate in our area.
    Having this new street enter from Buchanan Street will add a greater burden on our street, which is quite busy already. Buchanan Street services Karanya Street, Etheridge Street, Coates Street, and Pankina Street and it is very narrow as well. It’s not built for a large volume of traffic. In addition, the noise level will increase dramatically, with cars slowing down and accelerating around the corner. There is no additional room for going around vehicles waiting to turn into this new proposed road. How do our visitors park safely in front of our house with such a proposed hazard?
    With an earlier development at the other end of this proposed area, there are no “Entry / Exit” Road onto Buchanan Street, two “Entry / Exit” Road (Corella Court) onto Banfield Drive.
    We strongly OPPOSE the position of the road “Entering / Exiting” this new housing development into BUCHANAN STREET.

  3. Norman Hurle commented

    Objections to proposed development to vacant land Bordered By Buchanan Street, Karanya Street, & Banfield Drive. 2 Karanya Street; LOT 743 on EP1456

    You’re Ref: MEN001-Lo1-Sec
    Council Ref – M113/0042 & RC 13/0096

    Dated 24th October 2013
    Item – 4 Parking and access Code

    Dear Sir;
    My Concerns: Item – 4, Parking & Access Code.
    As I reside at 35 Banfield Drive Mount Louisa 4814, I see by your Preliminary sketch plan showing available on-street parking on the eastern side Banfield Drive.
    As I have lived at this address since December 1976 I have noticed an increase in traffic volume over the years.
    I find that my family and I may have difficulty entering and exiting our premises which appears to be directly opposite the entrance to the new estate. This will be a bigger problem as “my family are experiencing this problem now at peak hour traffic morning and afternoon/evening”.

    Is the existing dual shared parking for “motor vehicles and bicycles” going to be retained along the western side of Banfield Drive to service all 7 homes? I find the existing preliminary drawing men 001 dated 24/10/13 is a little bit confusing.

    “if not I strongly object”, to sharing the eastern side of Banfield Drive as parking bays for my residence with the other the 6 houses on the western side of Banfield Drive.
    There will be difficulties for visitors, trade people, senior’s, children or anyone trying to cross Banfield Drive to enter and exit various premises along Banfield Drive.
    Relating to other entry and exit roads.

    Consideration should be given to placing all entry/exit roads to the new estate opposite existing courts or streets to elevate difficulties, for other residences to enter and exit their respective properties.
    List of existing courts and streets
    1. Galway court & Banfield Drive
    2. Banora Court & Banfield Drive
    3. Karanya Street & Etheridge Street
    4. Eura Court & Buchanan Street
    5. Legge Court & Buchanan Street.
    6. Ellis Court & Buchanan Street.

    I would be pleased to have a representative from your organisation visit and explain your Preliminary diagram to me to elevate my concerns to the matters as mentioned in the above correspondence.

    Norman Hurle

  4. Janet Hinds commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    After viewing the comments on the web site: http://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/339383, we also agree with Norman Hurle. Consideration should be given, to placing all “Entry / Exist” roads to the new development opposite existing courts or streets, to eliminate difficulties for other residences to “Enter / Exist” their respective properties.

    Below are a list of existing courts and streets:
    1 Galway Court & Banfield Drive
    2 Banora Court & Banfield Drive
    3 Karanya Street & Etheridge Street
    4 Eura Court & Buchanan Street
    5 Legge Court & Buchanan Street.
    6 Ellis Court & Buchanan Street.

    As we too understand the information MI13 0042/ Part 2 - Page 95 - Item - Parking And Access Code - there will be no parking on the western side of Banfield Drive. If this is the case, it’s absurd and very dangerous. There will be difficulties for visitors, trade people, seniors, children, or anyone trying to cross Banfield Drive to enter and exit various premises along Banfield Drive.
    Janet Hinds

  5. Janet Hinds commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096
    TRAFFIC FLOW ON BUCHANAN STREET
    The proposed plans for this new development have the properties squashed into this area for maximum profit, with no regard to the surrounding, already established property owners.
    The indifference is very evident as shown in file: MI13 0042/ Part 2 - Page 71 - Figure 3 - Noise Monitoring Locations. The developer has shown all surveys reflecting the noise levels predicted to affect the new development. In all the Figures and Charts included in the files, there is no consideration regarding noise levels the new development is going to cause established property owners. (i.e. 150 extra cars entering and exiting this new development.)
    The developers are ensuring the new development is protected from traffic noise by building high external barriers along Banfield Drive. There is no consideration for property owners along Buchanan Street and the 7 property owners facing Banfield Drive opposite this new development.
    All Traffic Flow Surveys have centred on Karanya St / Banfield Drive /Hedley Court Intersection, Banfield Drive / Bayswater Road /Brice Court Intersection, and Banfield Drive. I cannot see any Traffic Flow Surveys done for Buchanan Street. There is reference (MI13 0042/ Part 2 - Page 11) to a survey done 13th March 2012. Since then the traffic has undoubtedly increased on Buchanan Street.
    A high percentage of the traffic servicing Karanya Street / Banfield Drive Intersection, travel along Buchanan Street to avoid the volumes of traffic delayed along Banfield Drive during peak times.
    (MI13 0042/ Part 2 - Page 77 / 78 - Table 6 & 8). These tables state 800 cars per day travel on Buchanan Street (both ways), with a projection of 1000 cars per day by 2024. With 95 new houses, with an average of 2 cars per household, another 100-150 cars per day, increases the volume of traffic and the noise on Buchanan Street.
    To gauge the correct volume of traffic using Buchanan Street, Traffic counters should be placed on both ends of Buchanan Street before this development is approved. Buchanan Street is not wide enough to accommodate turning vehicles and through traffic at the proposed position. Towards Bayswater Road end of Buchanan Street, if a car is parked on either side of the street, only one car can drive between them, it’s essential for the second car to wait.
    CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN, TO PLACING ALL “ENTRY / EXIST” ROADS TO THE NEW DEVELOPMENT ONTO BANFIELD DRIVE OR OPPOSITE EXISTING COURTS ON BUCHANAN STREET.
    (MI13 0042/ Part 3 - Page 12) The information indicates the primary access to the proposed development will be via a new intersection on Banfield Drive. This may not be the case. Residences will use Buchanan Street, as Banfield Drive will be too busy. Firstly, to turn right from new development into Banfield Drive to drive towards Bayswater Road. Secondly to turn right into the New Development, crossing over Banfield Drive. It will be easier to use Buchanan Street. If the residences are going towards the City or The Strand, they will be more inclined to use Buchanan Street where they don’t have to cross over Banfield Drive with traffic coming from their left.
    In addition, having an “Entry Road” in Buchanan Street connecting through to Banfield Drive may encourage more traffic to use this as a short cut to avoid the Karanya Street Intersection and the Bayswater Road Roundabout. Thus making the streets of the new development a lot busier.
    Please do not pass this road in this position onto Buchanan Street. It would be much safer and more logical to have this road enter Buchanan Street (if necessary) joining one of the existing Courts - Ellis, Legge or Eura Courts.
    Janet Hinds

  6. Janet Hinds commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    MI13 0042_Part3.pdf
    APPENDIX D
    WATER RETICULATION LAYOUT PLAN

    In addition to the previous objections, I would also like to raise the problem of the “WATER RETICULATION PLAN” for the PROPOSED KARANYA STREET DEVELOPMENT. (Refer Page 25 - MI13 0042_Part3.pdf)
    After perusing the map, we noticed the “WATER” for the new development is going to be supplied from one point - which is directly in front of 24 Buchanan Street, our address.
    These plans indicate our footpath will be dug up and we may even loose a couple of the well-established trees.
    In addition, the question needs to be asked as to how our water pressure is going to be affected. With an EXTRA 95 BLOCKS connected to the exiting Mains Water, IS OUR WATER PRESSURE GOING TO DROP.
    WE, at 24 BUCHANAN STREET, SEEM TO BE THE MOST DISADVANTAGED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, WITH THE ROAD DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF OUR DRIVEWAY AND THE MAINS WATER CONNECTING ON OUR FOOTPATH.
    Janet Hinds

  7. Janet Hinds commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096
    MI13 0042_Part3.pdf
    APPENDIX F
    SEWERAGE RETICULATION LAYOUT PLAN
    In addition to the previous objections, I would also like to raise the question of the “SEWERAGE RETICULATION PLAN” for the PROPOSED KARANYA STREET DEVELOPMENT. (Refer Page 33 - MI13 0042_Part3.pdf).
    As the plan indicates, the SEWERAGE is also going to be connected in Buchanan Street.
    The question also needs to be asked as to how the sewerage system is going to handle SEWERAGE from 95 extra houses.
    We hope you consider all points we have raised, and any other objections you receive, before approving this new development. We would appreciate a response on all matters raised.
    Janet Hinds

  8. Raymond Hurle commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Dear Sir
    I too join with other concerned contributors regarding the removal of parking from out front of existing houses on the western side of Banfield Drive.
    I am totally amazed that the developer has taken this approach, it is obvious that they are only concerned with their development and they are showing little or no concern for existing residents with their suggested removal of parking form surrounding streets. The developers drawing, Karanya Street MI 13 0042_Part3 page 97 needs much more thought than has been given thus far. The developer proposes removal of parking from the western side of Banfield Drive and show two off street parking areas on the eastern side. The developer has obliviously failed to notice that there are NO houses fronting Banfield Drive in their proposed development and further their appears as though there will be a brick wall running along western side of their development.
    I ask the question why has parking been suggested for this area and who do they expect will be the users?
    Council is therefore requested to oppose the removal of parking in lieu of the the off street paring outlined as above and configure lanes by line-marking to enable the residents on the western side of Banfield drive to retain access to their properties for the reasons already contributed.

    A response is requested.
    With Thanks

  9. Raymond Hurle commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Entry/Exit access.

    Please let it be noted that I too join with other contributors in objecting to the proposed entry/exit roads for the new development. There are already several streets/courts fronting Banfield Drive and Buchanan Street. Surely two four way intersection (one each side of the development) would be much better for traffic flow than what has been presented in this proposal.

    Your response would be appreciated.

    With Thanks.

  10. Raymond Hurle commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Dear Sir
    I too join with other concerned contributors regarding the removal of parking from out front of existing houses on the western side of Banfield Drive.
    I am totally amazed that the developer has taken this approach, it is obvious that they are only concerned with their development and they are showing little or no concern for existing residents with their suggested removal of parking form surrounding streets. The developers drawing, Karanya Street MI 13 0042_Part3 page 97 needs much more thought than has been given thus far. The developer proposes removal of parking from the western side of Banfield Drive and show two off street parking areas on the eastern side. The developer has obliviously failed to notice that there are NO houses fronting Banfield Drive in their proposed development and further their appears as though there will be a brick wall running along western side of their development.
    I ask the question why has parking been suggested for this area and who do they expect will be the users?
    Council is therefore requested to oppose the removal of parking in lieu of the the off street paring outlined as above and configure lanes by line-marking to enable the residents on the western side of Banfield drive to retain access to their properties for the reasons already contributed.

    A response is requested.
    With Thanks

  11. Raymond Hurle commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Traffic Flow

    Dear Sir,
    despite in-depth traffic data being presented with this proposed development I wish to make the following observations.
    1. The developer assumes that all traffic is going to enter/exit via Banfield Drive and has gone to great lengths to provide data for Banfield Drive, Karanya Street and the Round-about on Banfield Drive Bayswater Road to support this.
    2. The developers traffic flow further suggests that only ten cars per peak hour will enter /exit this development. That indicates that only 10 people out of a probable 190 residents will exit/enter during peak hour!
    3. The developer through their traffic study suggests that once the road connects Cosgrove to Liberty Rise that traffic on Banfield Drive will reduce.
    4. The traffic flow study does not appear to have taken into consideration the increased traffic flow along Bayswater Road from theses developments.
    5. There has been no data suggesting the increased traffic flow in Buchanan Street from this development or from increased rat-runners wanting to avoid queues on Banfield Dve. There are already delays at the Buchanan St /Bayswater Rd intersection during peak hour due to the housing increase in Crestbrook

  12. Raymond Hurle commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Stormwater Run off.

    Dear Sir, can you please confirm how the storm water will be dispersed from the proposed new development?
    Already from a decent amount of rain, Buchanan from our property south, the street floods from water run off from this site, the site becomes a lake and drains for up to a week into drainage already in place.

    With Thanks

  13. Raymond Hurle commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Sewerage

    Dear Sir,
    In the preliminary application it is suggested that sewerage will be connected via the allotment at 25 Buchanan Street on approval from the owner of that property.
    From this inspection point the connecting sewerage line crosses Buchanan Street and runs through our property. The application advises that the pumping station on Mather Street could handle the increased flow.
    I wish to advise Council that in recent medium to heavy rainfall a toilet flushing by someone and passing via the inspection point in our property causes water to bubble up through the lid.
    I am concerned that an additional 95 homes in the proposed development will further compound this problem.

    Your response would be appreciated.

    With Thanks

  14. chris keeley commented

    Dear Sir, can you please confirm how the storm water will be dispersed from the proposed new development?
    Already from a decent amount of rain, Buchanan from our property south, the street floods from water run-off from this site, the site becomes a lake and drains for up to a week into drainage already in place.
    I too am concerned regarding the water run-off, Buchanan street flood consistently during any significant rain. Flooding the entire paddock area, engulfing Buchannan Street into a river and over flowing to current resident door steps! With the rain over flow from this proposed development plan having the over flow run into Buchanan street, will you have the developer made accountable if current residents are cause any water damage because of more off flow water? I can supply pictures of the proposed site flooded up to our door step! Our house has never flooded in 34years, I would like a guarantee from the council and developer that if any water damage occurs during and after development that all compensation will be meet for those damages!

  15. Sandra Hobden commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Dear Sir, I wish to lodge the strongest objection to the proposed 95 lots which are to be created on 2 Karanya Street, Mount Louisa QLD 4814. The proposed precinct's character is over-bearing and out-of-scale compared to our existing surrounds. With our suburb placed around the foothills of Mount Louisa itself, it gives the feeling of living in a semi rural suburb. The high level of residency proposed will take this away and overpopulate the area causing added strain to an already congested Banfield Drive. The majority of lots proposed are half the size compared to what occupies the existing vicinity. Please act as our advocate to reduce the number of blocks proposed to keep Mt Louisa in scale to how it is today. To overpopulate our suburb will take away the natural beauty of where our suburb lies. It should not be allowed for the sake of a developer making maximum profit.

  16. Sandra Hobden commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Dear Sir,

    As a long term resident of Mt Louisa and mother of 3 school aged children who use Banfield Drive as a cyclist and pedestrian. I am greatly concerned the proposed road changes to Banfield Drive to accommodate a new main entrance for the Karanya Street Precinct, will adversely affect the safety of pedestrians and cyclists who rely on Banfield Drive.

    The development proposed for 2 Karanya St is closely surrounded by Mt Louisa's many schools and day cares.

    Calvary Christian Early Learning Centre

    Calvary Christian College

    ABV Care Calvary

    Mt Louisa Child Care

    Mt Louisa Good Early Learning Centre A and B

    Heatley Secondary College (zoned for Mt Louisa Area)

    Heatley State Primary (zoned for Mt Louisa Area)

    Banfield Drive is used as a main transit link for all these schools and day cares.

    Furthermore, the developer has proposed the main entrance to be situated in very close vicinity of two public bus stops on this heavily used road.

    With this development introducing 95 more lots. The pedestrian, cyclist and public transport traffic is going to increase considerably.

    If there is multiple cars waiting to turn right into the new estate on Banfield Drive. A large bus at the Galway Court bus stop will have difficulty trying to enter back into traffic with cars starting to divert around the new entrance. A pedestrians safety is also put at risk as they have to try and gain access to the refuge island. I'm unsure and concerned where a cyclist is suppose go during all this??

    If the western side of Banfield Drive side road is going to be incorporated into a channelised right hand turn, will a large bus, cement truck etc have enough room to divert around stationary traffic waiting to turn into the new estate? Where is a cyclist suppose go? If any error in driving or cycling is to occur I'm concerned it could be fatal.

    How are Banfield Drive residents proposed to reverse out of their driveways and will this affect a cyclist?

    The construction of a new refuge island at the Banara Court bus stop will be essential if a main entrance is to be located on Banfield Drive. The increased traffic and amount of new properties being introduced will have an effect on pedestrians safety trying to cross the road.

    If a Lawn Mowing contractor were to service any 7 houses on the western side of Banfield Drive. Where are they expected to park their ute and trailer? Would this impede on pedestrian /cyclist safety?

    In regards to the new car parks proposed on the eastern side of Banfield Drive. Can the developer assure that these parks will only be used by the 7 houses affected on Banfield Drive? The parks will be very inviting to be used by the new estate residents to park their work vehicles and trailers on. With the new estate being so squashed together the likeliness of this happening is very high and should not be assumed by the developer that it won't happen.

    As a regular visitor to a Banfield Drive resident in the affected area, my car is going to be required to be parked a fair distance away. My car will be out of my clear sight for myself to monitor it's safety. I am extremely upset that the developer has such disregard for the safety of my car compared to the residents of his new estate. Can the developer assure that my car is safe parked so far away, and near a major public bus stop??

    The increased cars due to be parked on the eastern side of Banfield Drive to compensate the removal of western street parking will impact pedestrian safety hugely!

    The cars parked will be directly in front of the Galway Court Bus Stop and refuge island. Pedestrians will be forced to deal with a potentially opened car door as soon as they exit off the refuge island. Also, pedestrians will be forced to walk in the middle of cars trying to pull out of car parks. My children use this refuge island every school day. It is very congested at peak hours with buses and school traffic. Having cars parked here will provide no safe route for my children to get to school.

    To insure traffic flow is maintained along Banfield Drive at the intersection of Banfield Drive and Galway Court. A turning lane will be needed. If not added, vehicles that are stationary waiting to turn right into Galway Court will block traffic from flowing as this is the exact spot the new eastern side car parks are proposed. Could I highlight the road is already narrowed here due to the refuge island. If the traffic backs up enough in peak hour it will furthermore block the entrance to the new estate. I am a resident of Galway Court and this intersection concerns me greatly as it is already difficult at peak hours to get in and out of our court. This court services Galway Court, Lewin Court, Gruner Court and Bancroft St.

    The developer proposing to take parking away from long term residents is disappointing especially when he privileges his new estate residents with it. This breaks community spirit and it should not be allowed.

    If all entry and exit roads to the new estate were to be placed opposite existing courts or streets. This estate could be introduced without disrupting any existing properties in the already established area.

    I fail to see any plans to alleviate my concerns regarding pedestrian, cyclist and public transport user safety on Banfield Drive. When will the public be entitled to further detailed plans? Will this be before council approval is granted? The on site plans fail to highlight major changes needed and I feel the communities rights have been neglected.

    A response with answers to my concerns is requested. Thank you for your time.

  17. Sandra Hobden commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Dear Sir

    I am concerned of the social impact the Karanya Street development will impose on our existing community.

    The Karanya Street development provides no open green space. With multiple dwellings proposed to be Villa, courtyard and dual occupancies. The estate provides nothing to promote getting outside and staying active.

    The existing communities facilities will be put under enormous pressure due to the estate offering nothing but high residency.

    In our vicinity we have 1 park with 1 covered table. Can council confirm our park will receive an upgrade to accommodate at least 4 covered eating tables and extra play equipment like other parks?

    Furthermore, with the major changes proposed to Banfield Drive. The safety for pedestrians and cyclists will decrease significantly compared to how it is. I find it necessary the whole western side of Banfield Drive receives cemented pathways. The eastern side of Banfield Drive has an existing cemented pathway. The main entrance road of the new estate also has cemented pathways on both sides proposed.

    With so many schools surrounding this area and heavy vehicles that use Banfield Drive, it is a priority for safety.

    The cemented pathway will decrease the need for a lot of pedestrian traffic to cross Banfield Drive. It will give the western side residents a direct safe walk way to schools, day cares, park, soccer field and corner shops. This in turn will reduce the number of cars on the road and promote getting out and being active.

    The current proposed plans is dangerous with pedestrian and cyclists needing to share the road with heavy vehicles turning into the new estate.

    The increased traffic produced by this estate will make it harder for the west side to access the cement pathway. No provision has been proposed to add extra pedestrian refuge islands.

    A lot of suburbs are already privileged to this safety. Kern Brothers Drive, Sandstone Drive, Burnda St, Thuringowa Drive, Lindeman Avenue, just to name a few.

    Could you Please consider this with your highest priority.

    Being able to get out and stay active along with my children getting to school safely concerns me greatly.

    The increased traffic from the new estate and changed traffic conditions has disadvantage the west side immensely, but favoured the east. All residents should be entitled to the same safety.

    Thank you for your time. A response is requested.

  18. Dave Hinds commented

    To Whom It May Concern

    I too believe that this proposed development in it's current is blatantly discriminating against the rights of all previous long term residents of Mount Louisa.

    Not only does it favour the developers possible clients, it generates a great inconvenience to all current residents by increasing local traffic flow, water useage without new infrastructure to handle the increased useage volume, increased pressure on an almost inadequate sewerage and drainwater system currently in place.Not to mention the abysmal attempt to stop residents on Banfield Drive and their visitors from parking in the gutter outside their homes.

    All access to the new development should be opposite an existing street so as to alleviate any of the existing homes being disadvantaged by having a road directly opposite their driveway.

    The developers have shown a complete disregard on tyhe current residents (and Ratepayers I might add) of Mount Louisa, with this proposed development. Council shpould think long and hard before approving same. Council should also communicate with resident abount their concerns.The developer doesn't give a toss about the rateayers currently ivingin the area, apparently.

    I look forward to a response.
    Regards,
    Dave Hinds.

  19. MICHAEL ARTHUR commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456 APPLICATION
    NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096 Dear Sir, I find the traffic report
    inconclusive of what is actually required to make the new main entrance intersection
    of Banfield Drive operate in a safe and functional manner. With the
    traffic report failing to directly investigate the Galway Court/ Banfield
    Drive bus stop intersection. They have therefore, not had to highlight the
    many traffic implications associated with it, and furthermore, not had to
    justify it's practicality in terms of operating safely. The two comments
    made in the traffic report on (page 26) 8-4-1 and mentioned again in
    8-4-2, regarding Practically of Proposed Intersection Upgrade support this. The comment reads "In terms of positioning the proposed CHR(s) on Banfield
    Drive, the bus stop and pedestrian crossing refuge on Banfield Drive requires
    consideration" Does this mean the developer wants to remove the Galway
    Court Bus Stop and Pedestrian Refuge Island? This leads me to believe
    the developers intention is to make the Galway Court bus stop obsolete, so
    the practicality of the new intersection can be implemented. When the
    council approached UDP Consulting Engineers in correspondence dated 10 October,
    2013. The council required further information in regards to Road Design,
    which was: "The applicant must confirm that the proposed intersection upgrades
    will not adversely impact on the existing bicycle and pedestrian routes along
    Banfield Lane and that the location of the entrance road to the site from
    Banfield Lane will not impact on existing bus stops". The engineers
    have assured council in correspondence dated 24th October, 2013 that "The
    existing bus stops would not be impacted by the location of the access to
    the site by Banfield Drive" and "everything will be addressed in further
    detail during the detailed design stage" With the traffic analyst
    carrying out no direct investigations around this bus stop intersection, but
    has in fact stated twice it needs further consideration. I am unsure how this
    reply is supported. I feel the traffic report has not disclosed their
    full intentions to public yet regarding Banfield Drive. I feel it is of the
    public's right to be provided with a traffic report that clearly states all
    changes needed to make this new intersection operate in a safe manner for
    motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and bus users. I hereby ask the Karanya
    Street application to be not approved until the public can be assured of full
    details, and have the opportunity to further comment on. I, with other
    community members would appreciate a group meeting to talk with you, to discuss
    the many shortcomings the Galway Court and Banfield Drive intersection has.
    As this intersection has not been directly addressed in the traffic report,
    I feel it's imperative it gets addressed. I look forward to hearing
    from you.

  20. Michael Arthur commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Dear Sir,
    In accordance with my objection I just emailed today 9.12.13. I would like to highlight some impacts the new main intersection on Banfield Drive will have, that the traffic report has not identified and taken into consideration finding a solution for.

    1. The new intersection will stop Banfield Drive residents from being able to turn right directly into their premises. They will be using the Galway Court intersection to do a U TURN to access their premises. This is now encouraging more traffic to use the Galway intersection. I feel a NO U TURN PERMITTED sign will be needed at this intersection, as it would certainly impact the safety of pedestrian and bus users as there is a pedestrian crossing and bus stop here.

    2. Galway Court will need a (CHR(s)) to improve it's intersection safety and improve traffic flow. The traffic report is providing one for Hedley Court to reduce the risk of rear-end collisions (quote from page 19 of traffic report). Why is this not imperative at Galway Court considering there is a bus stop and pedestrian crossing?

    3. In the hand sketched drawing submitted to council in correspondence, it clearly shows the proposed new parks blocking the pedestrian refuge . I don't find this safe. No cars are ever parked here as there is no reason for them to have to be. Eliminating parking from the western side will be forcing these parks to be used. If cars are parked here pedestrians will have to be standing very close to the road waiting for a clear run of traffic to get to the pedestrian refuge. If a car is waiting to turn right into Galway Court, there is high risk of that a pedestrian will get hit, as traffic is blocked, due to no turning lane.

    I find it neglectful the traffic report overlooked all these traffic impacts there affects on pedestrian/cyclist/ motorist and bus user safety. It surely makes sense the developer would want the bus stop and pedestrian refuge to become obsolete. If this were to occur I find it deceitful and misleading the public. It also raises questions to where will they replace the pedestrian crossing to? and will it adversely make it harder for pedestrians and children trying to get to school safely. The public should be able to comment on this.

  21. Dorothy White, Graham Brierley, & Gwen Stirrup commented

    To Whom It May Concern, I would like to object to the planned street
    which enters on to Buchanan Street from the planned development. Buchanan
    Street is too narrow as it is, without another street entering on to it.
    I fear it will make exiting our homes almost impossible, and could cause
    someone to be badly injured. The amount of traffic this development will
    incur will make it difficult for free flow of traffic due to any cars parked
    on either side of the road. Buchanan street is too narrow. (Have you ever
    driven down this street). Also considering we have poor water pressure
    now, what will happen when another 96 houses are added to the supply, also
    where will the excess water go if there is heavy rain, will we end up flooded
    by excess run off, as the streets have flooded before. With the increase
    of children in the area with the new development there will be a considerable
    amount of traffic which could put their lives in danger with such a narrow
    street. We do NOT want another street entering on to Buchanan Street. I hope you will consider these important points as to making this development
    a safer place for us all.

  22. Jacqueline Ann Whalley commented

    Dear Sir

    I have only been recently made aware of the proposal of the 95 new dwellings. At this stage I am still going through the paperwork concerned. I am the owner of 25 Buchanan St, the property is leased. I understand that the sewerage of the new dwellings is going to be connected via our property, with our permission being sought. If this is the case, at this stage I am advising you I do not give the council permission to do so. I would like be contacted by your office as soon as possible. As I do not live there and can only go by the concerns of the residents that do, I see there are many issues that need to be addressed.

    As per usual developers are squeezing in as many dwellings as possible in an area that the infrastucture may not be able to handle. It is well known that councils make mistakes (we all do) in planning and cause major issues down the track. It is much cheaper to amend during the planning stage than later.

    I will be in contact with our tenant and neighbors to discuss the above issues. Hoping to hear from your offices soon.

    Regards

    Jacki Whalley

  23. Robyn Barcello commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Dear Sir,

    I wish to lodge the strongest objection to the proposed 95 lots which are to be created on 2 Karanya Street, Mount Louisa QLD 4814.

    I am the owner of 47 Banfield Drive, Mount Louisa. After reviewing the proposed plans and traffic report for the development, I cannot see how the traffic management plan in place will make the traffic movement safer, with the increasing number of vehicles using this area.

    It will cause more hazards to all road users and residents including my tenants residing in the above address.

    The concern I have for my tenants residing on Banfield Drive is the limited safety zone they have to enter and exit the driveway, as it is only metres from a very difficult intersection (Banfield Drive & Hedley Ct) where there has already been a number of accidents, including vehicles coming to rest on the property.

    With this development, it will increase the number of road users and an unfortunate accident will occur with a loss of life which has almost happened in the past. Just a couple of concerns, not to mention the school kids walking home and the cyclists on the western side of the development.

    I look for to a response
    Regards,
    Robyn Barcello

  24. Cherryn Huggon commented

    Re. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF 2 KARANYA ST, Mount Louisa

    As a long term resident of Buchanan St, Mount Louisa I wish to lodge my objection to the above mentioned development. Over the past 10 years I have witnessed first hand the increased traffic flow in our already narrow street since the opening and expansion of Crestbrook estate and Montana Estate, and hold concerns for the development of 95 new dwellings on this parcel of land. Blocks in the area are a consistent 600sqm trying to squeeze 95 homes is not in line with the current aesthetics of our neighbourhood and current homes. Not to mention the construction of a brick wall for noise reduction is hardly pleasing to current residents who have to stare at it.

    The increase in traffic will add a dangerous amount of cars to our street that has been the scene of some nasty accidents in recent years the last being a child hit by a car on the corner of Bayswater Rd and Buchanan St in December 2013. The area is currently not serviced by footpaths, causing individuals to have to negotiate the road way and share it with the traffic that already utilise the road to access their own homes or as a way to avoid the traffic delays on Banfield Dv/ Bayswater Rd intersection. Especially during the summer when traffic is blocked at the Bohle River on Dalrymple rd.

    Current flooding in our street during summer also occurs regularly often with access from Bayswater Rd difficult or non existent, and current flooding in the block exacerbates the issue. The question is where will this water now flow to?

    Banfield Dve and Bayswater Rd are not only used by residents but is the only feasible thoroughfare for workers accessing the industrial areas of Mount Louisa, Bohle, Mt St John and Garbutt. As we lack a state school of any type in our local area residents have to access Schools on the other side of Dalrymple Rd or Garbutt (not to mention the 1000 odd students who access Calvary Christian College each week day). And the Child Care Centres located on Bayswater Rd.

    We lack sufficient community infrastructure (parks, play grounds, sporting facilities, off leash areas) to accommodate another 200 odd residents leaving push bike riders and families trying to exercise at the peril of increased traffic.

    We are currently at capacity on all roads leading in and out of Mt Louisa including delays at Mather St (despite the inclusion of traffic lights), Bayswater Rd/ Nathan St, Bayswater Rd/Banfield Dve and Banfield Dve/Dalrymple Rd.

    We have an existing Government housing area located at the top end of Buchanan St and Davies St that are already dealing with poor access to public transport and also house an independent living home for individuals with a disability some 50 meters from the development that also require public transport access. It is the major school bus route servicing students from schools all around Townsville also. Banfield Dve runs on a fairly decent slope with a curve right at the crest of the road. The intersection of Karanya St and Banfield Dve has been the scene of some pretty nasty accidents as individuals come over the crest to find a car waiting to turn into Karanya St and is impossible to turn right from Karanya onto Banfield Dve due to the crest and curve especially during peak times. Buchanan St is only serviced by a safe island in the middle if turning right onto Bayswater Rd and already requires individuals to negotiate traffic doing U turns and turning into Buchanan St as well as oncoming traffic over dual lanes. It is not unreasonable to have to sit at the intersection for up to 5-10 minutes during peak times trying to cross.

    Further down traffic congestion at Calvary Christian College during peak times is becoming dangerous due to the increased housing in the area and individuals "rat running" and turning right over Woolcock St to use Bayswater Rd (illegal but can be witnessed every day), so not all of the vehicles travelling from the North use Woolcock St as their entry into the city.

    The development of the new area of Greg Jabs Crt also needs some consideration especially if they choose to go ahead with the plan of allowing access into the estate via Karanya St also, this then opens the Mount Louisa area to more increased traffic as it allows access to the Domain precinct and potentially the new Masters planned for construction on the site.

    Our power supply here is already dodgy at best and we regularly loose power due to the age of the lines and infrastructure. Our telephone cables are also intermittent due to ageing infrastructure, as well as our sewerage and water pipes and you would like to add another 95 households to each of these services (might I suggest you throw in free buckets, a torch and mobile plan, just in case).

    I am not against development of the block, what I am objecting to is the numbers. Either the blocks need to be made bigger and there for dwelling numbers reduced to suit the current style of the area, or major infrastructure upgrades to all residents need to be considered including, widening of roads, inclusion of footpaths, traffic management devices, better public transport infrastructure, upgrades to power, communication, sewerage, storm water and water infrastructure, better/ extended public facilities.

    Because although your interest in the area only lasts until the last brick is set, it is the rate paying residents of the area who will have to live on a daily basis with any poor decisions you make in planning in the future.

  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