42 Ara St Camp Hill QLD 4152

This subdivision is likely to result in two 5 bedroom duplex houses crammed into the space with no street frontage (only 8m wide each subdivision) and only one garage each (ie parking for a single car per duplex). Looks to be similar to recent subdivision at 25 Ara St further down the road. Thus this block will go from what looks like a 3 bedroom house to having 10 bedrooms (5 in each duplex) in total over the same area with no street parking. Where are all these cars going to park? Ara Street is not wide enough. This region is low density. This is a proposed high density development that is escaping council attention - street cannot support these cheap looking duplexes.

This building proposal is massively inconsistent with other houses in the street and the immediate and wider local areas. The proposal is also a symptom of a much larger issue. It is a duplex construction, with each construction built on 320 m2! It will impose adversely on the street and especially on neighbouring houses and parking. Existing backyard green space will largely become concrete acting in the future as a heat sink.

What is being abused here is the residential proximity rule to shops. This is happening in many places in Camp Hill and Coorparoo. The BCC proximity rule "relaxes" minimum area, street frontage and property boundaries etc, if it is located within 200 m (?) of "shops". Even a couple of minor shops not visible to the location is activating this rule (e.g. Eva street), ultimately leading to much of Coorparoo and Camp Hill falling under this umbrella regulation.

Moreover, houses built within or even near the 200 m radius to shops are being used as precedents for similar constructions, some of which are OUTSIDE of this radius (e.g. Arc Street and Canopus Street). This practice is mischievous IMO and leads to spreading intensification of an area as developers use precedents to paradoxically cite what will become new precedents.

If 200 m2 radius circles are placed around every isolated coffee shop, newsagent, hairdresser or on the multiple corners of larger groups of shops in the wider "low density" regions of Coorparoo and Camp Hill, then these collective areas will actually become medium- density by default and encompass a large fraction of the current "low density " regions in these suburbs.

The BCC can do better in it its planning process and needs to restrain this highly questionable practice (loophole).

Sector Street resident, I agree with the other residents near the shopping centre in Samuel Street. Arc Street is a perfect example of ridiculous developments, allowed because of proximity to shops. Here a 1050 sq m block with one house became a site with 3 town homes, each on 350 sq m!

This regulation allowing such developments should be revisited as the resultant congestion of streets will only get much worse than it already is. Also most of these small block houses do not look anything like the general traditional character of this area, although this has changed a lot in recent years due to Council relaxation of development rules. Also, there is often no public notification of proposed new developments so there is virtually no chance for residents to complain.