Recent comments on applications from Brisbane City Council, QLD

  1. In East Brisbane QLD on “Shop, Food and Drink...” at 148 Wellington Rd East Brisbane QLD 4169:

    Katerina Bolton commented

    Edited:
    Please construct a pedestrian crossing on Wellington st in front of this building and on the side street Toohey street which is one way. Drivers leaving Mowbray terrace turn LEFT to enter toohey St which is against road rules signage states right turn only. This has happened too many times witnessed and been a victim of negligent driver's too many times also. Many children walk to school past this address please make it SAFE for them and everyone.

  2. In East Brisbane QLD on “Shop, Food and Drink...” at 148 Wellington Rd East Brisbane QLD 4169:

    Katerina Bolton commented

    Please construct a pedestrian crossing on Wellington st in front of this building and on the side street Toohey street which is one way. Drivers leaving Mowbray terrace turn right to enter toohey St which is against road rules signage states right turn only. This has happened too many times witnessed and been a victim of negligent driver's too many times also. Many children walk to school past this address please make it SAFE for them and everyone.

  3. In Wynnum QLD on “Food and Drink Outlet” at 183 Wynnum Esp Wynnum QLD 4178:

    Ron Atkinson commented

    It will be great to see this property restored to a food & drink outlet. It will add more to the social environment of the waterfront strip.

  4. In West End QLD on “Build Over or Near Stormwater” at 13A Egbert St West End QLD 4101:

    Bobby Noone commented

    In regard to this application which must have been approved as the work has started.

    The builders are using a Private Driveway (Dept of Housing) to access the property with articulated truck carrying fibre glass pool. No advice was given to public housing residents. Driveway was blocked for considerable parts of the day during moving of the fibre glass pool into the adjoining property.. Blocking driveways is an offense I believe. I have called Brisbane City Council re the illegal parking. This work I assume will take a few weeks to complete.

    No authority was given to builders to use private property car park to move their equipment or supplies..

    Ref No BCC 10 Skinner Street West End

  5. In West End QLD on “Food and Drink Outlet,...” at 91 Boundary St West End QLD 4101:

    Carolyn Kalymnios 91 Jane Street West End. 4101 commented

    I do not agree to this application at all. How many food and drink establishments does West End need? The existing establishments are struggling to exist already.

  6. In Calamvale QLD on “Multi-Unit Dwelling” at 2236 Beaudesert Rd Calamvale QLD 4116:

    M Shamim Akhter commented

    Had I known that our area will be turned into multi unit small dwellings I wouldn’t have moves here 15 years ago. Already water pressures, gas pressures and internet connection have been affected. Traffic volume has increased noise level. It is earnest request to provide parking space inside all these dwellings so as not to clog the streets

  7. In Kangaroo Point QLD on “Food and Drink Outlet,...” at 25 Ferry St Kangaroo Point QLD 4169:

    Christian Bassos commented

    Woolworths in this development site is fantastic news for the residents of the Kangaroo Point suburb - they will no longer have to drive their cars to other neighbouring suburbs to do their grocery shopping! Please approve this project - it is needed and wanted!

  8. In Chermside QLD on “Residential Care Facility,...” at 930 Gympie Rd Chermside QLD 4032:

    Carolyn Wendy Skitch commented

    Traffic is of concern, especially given that the large development approved for the bend on Curwin Terrace ,(outside the Mission’s Aged Care precinct) will increase even further the volume exponentially and may not have been factored into this application.
    The Boulevard provides access to/ egress from the Mission’s other entity, Wheller on the Park Retirement Village, where the average age of Independently living Residents is 78 years. Increasingly other members of the public are using The Boulevard as a quick through road and many drive at high speed. Only two weeks ago, a passing through driver lost control of his vehicle, knocked down a developed tree and came to a stop straddling the drain situated between the Parkside Kerb and Parkside fence. It would help if the Boulevard could be designated as an internal suburban Road and traffic restriction lowered from 40 Kim to say 20 Kim.

    Increased traffic noise is also of concern. Boulevard numbers 1 to 20 are privately leased Villas. Cluster 1 , 1 to 6, were fitted with acoustic screening as part of their development approval. Cluster 3, 13 to 16 and Cluster 4 ,17 to 20, are set well back from the Roadway. However, Cluster 2, 7 to 12 were the first built as part of Stage 1 of the WotP development. These 6 villas are quite close to the roadway and none has any acoustic screening. Furthermore, pollution from vehicular emissions is high, evidenced by dust intrusion and black “soot” accumulations.

    I ask that these matters be taken into consideration.

  9. In Alderley QLD on “Subdivision of Land” at 117 Mina Pde Alderley QLD 4051:

    Catherine Stoll commented

    My concern is the impact the increased traffic flow will have on Mina parade and Wilston Road. My driveway is on Mina Parade. Ive noticed that the traffic often requires people to drive single file due to parked cars.

    It is very risky already to enter or cross Wilston road near the train crossing as there is no traffic light and is already conjested near the crossing. The traffic also gets particularly heavy when there is a game on at the indoor fitness centre at the other end of Mina parade.

    I oppose this development due to these concerns.

    Many thanks,

    Catherine

  10. In Alderley QLD on “Subdivision of Land” at 117 Mina Pde Alderley QLD 4051:

    Holly Bretherton commented

    I live at 7a Wilston Road and accessing my property is already highly problematic with the high volume of traffic coming through the rail crossing (turning from Mina Parade into Wilston Road). I have nearly been involved in 5 accidents already, being stuck on the rail crossing (when traffic in front has stopped, turning right into Murrell Street). I completely oppose this development due to traffic safety and volume concerns.

  11. In Alderley QLD on “Subdivision of Land” at 117 Mina Pde Alderley QLD 4051:

    Michael Lennon commented

    I believe the traffic impact has not been properly assessed. The density of the proposed housing will bring a lot of extra traffic to the area. Mina Street is already overloaded with cars parked on the side of the road by people attending sports after hours, this housing will mean an increase of traffic during peak hours. The intersection near the train crossing will not be able to handle the amount of extra traffic during peak hours and I fear an already busy Wilston Road will become congested.

  12. In Bridgeman Downs QLD on “Service Station, Caretakers...” at 915 Beams Rd Bridgeman Downs QLD 4035:

    Lucille Hopkins commented

    Omg another petrol station leave Bridgeman Downs alone and Albany Creek, the poor wildlife here, and the traffic coming with all this development. Ugly townhouses everywhere thought the council said no more townhouses for Brisbane. Yep just re- zone it so council can build more ugly, townhouses. Petrol stations should not be allowed in a built up area.

  13. In Sandgate QLD on “Extension, Dwelling House” at 160 Flinders Pde Sandgate QLD 4017:

    THERESA DOW commented

    I oppose plans and the look of this Plan, after knowing the original owners of this Property for many years, The Campbell-Wilson's had been very long term owners, knowing the top part of the home was still very original and the bottom level had been changed back in the 60's 70's covering of brick. I would have to say the top part of this home would be close to the 100 years. This home right beside the historical Cremorne on the corner, and why the council is not sticking to the heritage and character overlay for the area, let alone the property direct beside, any new renovations or changes should have a heritage look NOT a total modern look. This should be upmost important to promote the heritage of Cremorne and the character overlay of the area.. The History of 120 Flinders Pde should be looked into before and Plans are passed to alter or change forever, I did notice that the property had a name removed from over the front door just after property was Sold recently after the death of Betty late last year 2019

  14. In Yeronga QLD on “Child Care Centre” at 96 School Rd Yeronga QLD 4104:

    Paul and Mona Ryder commented

    We have lived in our character residence at 162 Park Road Yeerongpilly for 25 years. We have restored the property from 5 flats to a family home. Our rear boundary is common with 96 School Road, The owner has just placed a shipping container at the rear and is storing equipment on top in a very unattractive fashion which is now an eyesore to us. We had screened and fenced our pool at our expense and it is now clear the proposed development at 2 storeys plus parking beneath will have a significant permanent impact on our privacy.
    I am concerned about congestion and access from school road and the local community is already well serviced with child care facilities, There are already 2 commercial centres in School Road and the after hours facility at the school itself.

  15. In Wavell Heights QLD on “Subdivision of Land” at 24 Campbell Tce Wavell Heights QLD 4012:

    Keren McKenna commented

    I reside at 33 Eliza Lane with my driveway access near the corner at 41 Eliza Lane. The laneway is very narrow and has no footpath on either side. When any large building construction or delivery trucks attempt to access the laneway they regularly either hit the fence or telephone pole. The damage to the curb is evidence of the unsuitability of large vehicles to access the laneway. When construction is underway vehicles regularly block the laneway which means that not only residents cannot access the only exit to Rode Road but endangers the lives of residents as emergency vehicles are unable to access the laneway when the construction & delivery vehicles block the laneway for lengthy periods. The proposed development at 24 Campbell Terrace should not be granted access into Eliza Lane due to inadequate width for manoeuvring but stay via Campbell Terrace. I urge council to place priority safety of the current residents and our properties and deny the proposed development vehicular access via Eliza Lane.

  16. In South Brisbane QLD on “Heritage Place - Partial...” at 79 Boundary St South Brisbane QLD 4101:

    Marlene King commented

    I do not oppose the alterations to the current West End Market site, but I do object to the proposed name: Soda Factory. Soda is used in the USA as a term for sweet aerated drinks, known in Australia as "soft drinks". The original name of the building was the "T. Tristram Aerated Waters and Brewed Beverages" factory.

    It would be more appropriate to use an Australian term not an imported one.

  17. In Wavell Heights QLD on “Subdivision of Land” at 24 Campbell Tce Wavell Heights QLD 4012:

    Vickie Dawson commented

    We live in Kinmond Avenue with a back entrance onto Eliza Lane. The traffic in the lane has become far heavier than the narrow lane can sustain. Our small garden and back gate backs directly onto the lane and when cars drive (frequently very fast) along the lane it is dangerous for us to exit our property that way. We only ever use that back entrance as a pedestrian entrance. The noise has also increased significantly making it less desirable a place to live. The narrowness of the lane makes it very difficult and dangerous for large vehicles and we have watched in horror as delivery trucks reverse the wrong way down the lane all the way from Rode Road because they cannot make the right angled corner near 41 Eliza Lane. I submit that access for the developments at 24 Campbell Terrace should not be into Eliza Lane and, as with those at 20 Campbell Terrace, a condition of development should be that there be no vehicular access to Eliza Lane

  18. In Eight Mile Plains QLD on “Subdivision of Land” at 3 Kirstin St Eight Mile Plains QLD 4113:

    William Dutton commented

    The plan to split the block into two, but not mention if the existing house will have a garage erected to be in keeping with the rest of the neighbourhood.

    The loss of entertainment space for the existing property is very sad. If what was being removed was a tennis court, then it would be suitable but to remove the car storage and entertainment facilities is very poor.

    It does fit the new standard under BCC town planning so very difficult to object to this.
    Sewage connection does need approval from the neighbour behind for this to be successful.

    The only issue I foresee is if this can be on-sold at this time due to the 300ish lots are being released slowly at Warrigal farms off Warrigal road, less than 5mins from this location which is of prime realestate instead of a slice of land in the middle of an existing area.

  19. In Grange QLD on “Dwelling House, Dwelling...” at 58 Prince St Grange QLD 4051:

    Robert Wilson commented

    Lets be blunt a frank - none of the neighborhood wanted the land boundaries from no 71-73 Grange Rd to be turned sideways into Prince St. The very concept of a house at the back here is flawed but that is "Progress"!!!

    This imposter to the Prince St streetscape does not deserve the term quality development because its a budget house that is situated directly over a sewer line.

  20. In Kenmore QLD on “Child Care Centre,...” at 35 Brookfield Rd Kenmore QLD 4069:

    Amanda Stinson commented

    I object to this application as I believe there is an oversupply of childcare centers in the Kenmore area, as well as too much traffic already on Brookfield and Moggill Roads. Another child care center will cause further congestion on this part of Brookfield Road and the Kenmore roundabout. Further, as I understand most centers including local Kindergartens are only at 75% capacity so by support an additional center we are essentially forcing the closure of another, which I don't see the point in. This is not a development the community needs at this time.

  21. In Woolloongabba QLD on “Dwelling House, Extension” at 87 Annerley Rd Woolloongabba QLD 4102:

    Daryll Bellingham commented

    Looks OK to me. Makes sense for the use of the facility.

  22. In Coorparoo QLD on “Dwelling House” at 16 Sector St Coorparoo QLD 4151:

    Near Neighbour commented

    The land subdivision and proposed housing development are inconsistent with BCC guidelines for a low density residential zone, and they have adverse effects on the neighbourhood.
    The land subdivision results in two 320 m2 blocks, whereas 400 m2 is the minimum for a low density zoned neighbourhood, according to BCC guidelines. The current property is more than 200 m walking distance from the shopping centre car park and even further to the actual shops. Thus, there should be no relaxation of BCC regulations due to proximity to shops, which are not even visible from the property.
    The 3 m setbacks of the proposed two houses are inconsistent with every house in Sector Street. (Cited examples in other streets facing Boundary Rd are irrelevant as Sector St is perpendicular to this Boundary road). This type of extremely small sub-division in an area zoned for low density residential use will set a precedent for future developments.
    The proposed house heights (~9.5m) are both substantially inconsistent with BCC height regulations (less than 7.5 m) for properties less than 400 m2 in area. The house in each subdivision is two storeys with an additional entertainment deck with an access structure on top of the second story. This design on top of both houses will broadly distribute noise and light to many neighbouring homes including those across and along the street and thereby compromise their privacy, amenity and liveability.
    Over time, the entertainment decks will likely be modified with shade and rain protection physical structures effectively resulting in three-storey houses. BCC regulations for properties less than 400 m2 in area limit houses to two storeys (all houses in Sector street are only 1-2 storeys). It is important that any new house is compatible with existing houses in the street.
    Privacy issues also will arise from the very close boundaries between the proposed new houses, and their close proximity with existing neighbours. This is not a trivial point as the proposed plans are not sympathetic to privacy issues.
    All BCC guidelines should be followed.

  23. In Sandgate QLD on “Dwelling House, Extension,...” at 14 Towner St Sandgate QLD 4017:

    Cliff Heydon commented

    As a resident in the street I fully support this application. The property owner should be able to make best and highest use of the property provided they comply with the zoning, local district plan and other code/overlays required by council. The plans look to be in keeping with the "tin and timber" flavour of Sandgate village. There have been in the past, several inappropriate developments in prominent locations that have destroyed the Sandgate streetscape, with their bulk, choice of materials and architecture. Although the property is in central Sandgate, it's visibility is diminished by the Railway Station. The existing building is probably past it's use by date. While it has some architectural merits, it is not outstanding and the new building is retaining most of the buildings features. Built in to the new building will be materials that provide the amenity expected for modern day living. Throwing a blanket ban on the demolition of houses built before some arbitrary date is not a progressive strategy. Imagine if we applied a similar rule to motor vehicles.
    I am more fearful of what may occur on the old gas works site and the impact any development there will have on the amenity of Towner Street. While we have a Council that thinks extensive and wide spread consultation with residents and ratepayers regarding a new District Neighbourhood Plan is achieved by placing a few triangulated signs on some obscure poles, I am sure we will be kept well and truly in the dark.

  24. In Deagon QLD on “Rooming Accommodation” at 57 Nearra St Deagon QLD 4017:

    Peta malyon commented

    Thankyou for this alert. I object to this type of accommodation as there is already and existing rooming accommodation at the end of the street. I would like to know the details before any more works continue. 1. How much is each unit? 2 what will be the cohort of renters? 3. With this be rented through agents or privately rented ? Why is there an need for this as there is already the same type of housing not even 300 metres at the end of this road. Therefore this type of accommodation is not necessary in this street and strongly object to the build going ahead.

  25. In Sandgate QLD on “Dwelling House, Extension,...” at 14 Towner St Sandgate QLD 4017:

    Tony Paton commented

    That's a great development, it is good to see that they to keep the front houses in line with the character of the area.

    Good stuff should be more of it.

  26. In Sandgate QLD on “Dwelling House, Extension,...” at 14 Towner St Sandgate QLD 4017:

    Helen Boseley commented

    That is a big “NO” on demolition of any historical properties in Sandgate and Shorncliffe. These houses are the heart of Sandgate and many people come here from other states just to see these legendary Queensland homes as they are now well known for their legacy to Queensland.

  27. In Sandgate QLD on “Dwelling House, Extension,...” at 14 Towner St Sandgate QLD 4017:

    Brigid McGrath commented

    I strongly object to the demolition of any old and historic house in Sandgate and the surrounding area. Sandgate is an opportunity to preserve the history of Brisbane and Queensland architecture. Too often the character of a suburb is destroyed with over or inappropriate development. Only after the fact does the community realise what has been lost. Don’t let this happen in Sandgate.

  28. In Sandgate QLD on “Dwelling House, Extension,...” at 14 Towner St Sandgate QLD 4017:

    Sarah Hopkins commented

    I would actually just like to reiterate the comment above by Deborah Price. I couldn't say it better. I am deeply concerned about over development and innappropriate development in this historic area.
    Who would approve the demolition of a house that is part of the character of Sandgate? Let’s see some sensible decisions about preserving Sandgate’s character. If we don’t start really looking at the impact demolishing character homes and putting multiple buildings in their place as a matter of urgency, Sandgate will lose its appeal. Not to mention impacts of infrastructure and the community as a whole.
    Please consult widely with the community before approving such applications.

  29. In Brighton QLD on “Demolition” at 478 Flinders Pde Brighton QLD 4017:

    Anna commented

    So many of the new builds along Flinders look like they don't belong in Sandgate. The whole feeling of the area lessens with each new "artistic" connotation of what is the norm for a house in a beachside residence. This isn't Bondi, the Gold Coast or even the Sunshine Coast. It's a little suburb lucky enough to have a beach attached. I am all for renovating, updating materials etc to keep the houses liveable and homely. This house could be made more beautiful with giving it a lift on to a newer base, perhaps adding an extension, and by all means a new paint job. Not everything needs to be stuccoed, ploughed under, or replaced with concrete.

  30. In on “Dwelling House, Dwelling House” at 9 Francis St Corinda QLD 4075 (L1/RP29714):

    Carmen Mendel commented

    I OPPOSE Building Application A005273006 at 9 Francis Street Corinda

    I live on Francis Street, Corinda and am the Group Leader of the Francis and Augustus Streets Habitat Brisbane Group which incorporates Francis Lookout.

    I am writing to raise my concerns over Building Application A005273006 for the house proposed at 9 Francis Street Corinda, especially the impact it will have on the adjacent Francis Lookout site which is listed as both a Local and State Heritage Place.
    Its entry on the Queensland Government Heritage Register (602441) states that the lookout is significant – “The place is important because of its aesthetic significance. The hilltop setting of Francis Outlook with its panoramic views of Brisbane… especially towards Mt Coot-tha”. https://apps.des.qld.gov.au/heritage-register/detail/?id=602441

    The development proposal at 9 Francis Street intends for a 3 storey, 9.7m high structure that would block the views to the west, particularly as it would set a precedent for the same developer who owns 74 Hilda Street, also adjacent to Francis Lookout and directly west towards Mt Coot-tha. A similar sized structure at 74 Hilda Street would completely block the west face of the park, obstructing the panoramic views.

    Francis Lookout is also heritage listed because “The collection of eucalypts is especially significant, as they represent a community type that is found exclusively on rock outcrops at higher altitudes.” The arborist’s report (Appendices A and C) show the works proposed are within the Tree Protection Zone of the Eucalyptus tereticornis (forest red gum – tree #6), 10 metres from the property boundary. This tree is larger (1.2m DBH, 28m high) than the same species found in the Brisbane Botanic Gardens which is listed the National Trust (1m DBH, 25m high, 250 years old). This suggests that the eucalyptus at Francis Lookout is over 250 years old. https://trusttrees.org.au/tree/QLD/Brisbane/Brisbane_City_Botanic_Gardens_147

    Photographs from 1931 show the eucalypts as mature trees. A structure of the proposed size could also affect the amount of sunlight, access to moisture and further room for growth available to this significant tree. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/StateLibQld_1_91784_Panoramic_view_from_Francis_Lookout%2C_Corinda%2C_across_the_Brisbane_River_towards_Mt._Coot-tha%2C_1931.jpg?1587712347948

    This development proposal will compromise the heritage value of Francis Lookout in terms of both the views and the significant plant species and should be rejected on this basis.

    I look forward to your response.

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