Recent comments on applications from Bundaberg Regional Council, QLD

  1. In Bundaberg West QLD on “Short-Term Accommodation” at 12 Bingera St, Bundaberg West, QLD:

    Philippa Wallace commented

    There is enough backpacker accommodation in Bundaberg to accommodate staff, travellers and immigrants.
    People living itinerantly in a restaurant precinct will lead to parking, ablution, laundry, rubbish, the risk of overcrowding and other problems associated with this type of living.

  2. In Kalkie QLD on “Change Other (Rooming...” at Georgia Tce, Kalkie, QLD:

    Bernadette Spink commented

    This part of Kalkie is a residential neighbourhood densely inhabited by families. It is not an appropriate place for such a large development of this type and is not in keeping with the family spirit of our neighbourhood.

    I have several concerns with regards to placing this development in an area zoned residential.
    ⁃ there is already a high concentration of dual density residences in our area. This creates issues with parking and traffic on already narrow streets. Some of these streets have no footpaths and there are many children in the area. Safety is a great concern.
    ⁃ The intersections and roads that lead to our area are already in need of repair. Roads with no shoulders. Several cane crossings with lights only.
    ⁃ There are no plans to improve our public ammenities in the area including rubbish bins, parks, public toilets, or bus stops. Litter is already an issue where quests park there cars at the end of the caldesac.
    ⁃ Very concerned about parking and where all those vehicles are going to go. It is a common problem around existing shared worker accommodation in Bundaberg and it is not fair to place extra pressure on narrow suburban streets.
    ⁃ As a family neighbourhood we show each other respect when it comes to noise. I am concerned about the implications of such a large development in a small area.
    ⁃ I do not understand the need to place this development in Kalkie, it is surrounded by family homes and industry that does not employ transient workers, it is not close to the TAFE or University and the development is not within the CBD for ease of transport. There seems to be far more appropriate areas to place worker/student accommodations within Bundaberg.
    Please do not ruin our neighbourhood with this development in this location.
    It is a great development but needs an appropriate location both for its success and to ensure our residential neighbourhoods remain residential.

  3. In Kalkie QLD on “Change Other (Rooming...” at Georgia Tce, Kalkie, QLD:

    GILLIAN JENNEY commented

    I want to object to this planning application, having council already overpopulating and devaluing property already in One Mile Crossing due to allowing illegal dual occupancy accommodation to be built.

    I do not support this application on the following grounds:

    • It will detrimentally impact the amenities in the neighbourhood due to its size and scale.
    • It does not represent low density development that is traditional in the area therefore not maintaining the residential character of the area.
    • It will significantly increase the residential population of the area by over 300 people. this is well above traditional housing.
    • It will introduce significant numbers of transient persons into the community.
    • It will significantly increase traffic and cause serious road safety impacts on Morgan Way and Georgia Terrace; this area does not have the required infrastructure or roads for this high capacity housing.
    • There is no planning need to locate this high-density housing in the form of multiple units in this low-density housing area.
    • We have built our house in a low residency area for a reason. Our expectations are that adjoin developments should also stick to the character and intensity of this development in Our community. We request council to protect our investment and our community and protect the high level of residential amenity in our community. Not only will this detrimentally effect the value of the housing in the area, it will also detrimentally affect the low-density community aspect. There is no need for a development of this sort in a low-density area.
    • Council need to think about the local people who have invested in living and working in the Bundaberg Region and protect their quality of life and enjoyment of where they live. It is extremely disappointing after residential concerns regarding dual accompany dwelling that the council take one step further and decide to allow a high populated development in a low-density housing area

  4. In Innes Park QLD on “Subdivision (1 lot into 2...” at 23 Kathleen Dr, Innes Park, QLD:

    Wayne loader commented

    We strongly object to any such subdivision

    The blocks are all uniformed in size in the estate we would hate to see this ruined with a subdivision of any matter.

    The area is not sewered, this is just a cash grab by the original developer who cannot sell his over priced block. We were all forced to buy bigger lots in the original development and were assured of consistent planning and lot sizes.

    There is plenty of smaller blocks for sale in the area and general coastal communities.

    We feel This would detract values in the area and our property, along with any others in the estate

  5. In Burnett Heads QLD on “Associated with 12 Lot...” at 70-80 Shelley St, Burnett Heads, QLD, Australia:

    Rose James wrote to local councillor Scott Rowleson

    Excellent news. This will have little effect on turtles, unless they can climb a 50 foot rock cliff.
    Very small addition to our entire coastline of housing.
    Turtle worry folk ALL live opposite this new estate,, and are worrying about their views being impacted .
    These new houses will be on an otherwise ugly, uncared for lot of land . They have been an eye sore for years.
    I absolutely welcome this development.
    Our town has a rapidly aging population, of single occupant houses.
    We need new blood, kids for the school, folk for the bus, to keep our services .
    Folk at our town meetings, and shopping in our shops.
    Thankyou.

    Photo of Scott Rowleson
    Scott Rowleson local councillor for Bundaberg Regional Council
    replied to Rose James

    Hello Rose.
    I agree with your sentiment.

    I would dearly like to see this entire parcel and other parcels of subdividable land around our region, master planned to give the community some vision for the future.

    Regards

    Cr Scott Rowleson
    DIVISION 6 COUNCILLOR
    Portfolio - Waste and Recycling

    Bundaberg Regional Council
    PO Box 3130
    BUNDABERG QLD 4670
    W- 1300 883 699
    M- 0438 543 258

    E-

    www.bundaberg.qld.gov.au

  6. In Burnett Heads QLD on “Associated with 12 Lot...” at 70-80 Shelley St, Burnett Heads, QLD, Australia:

    Heath Greville commented

    Should not be allowed, the state goverment has asked for the zoning of this area to be looked at. This should be put on hold until these instructions have been followed.

    This area should be subject to an environmental impact study due to local endangered species.

  7. In Burnett Heads QLD on “Associated with 12 Lot...” at 70-80 Shelley St, Burnett Heads, QLD, Australia:

    Heath Greville commented

    Should not be allowed, the state goverment has asked for the zoning of this area to be looked at. This should be put on hold until these instructions have been followed.

    This area should be subject to an environmental impact study due to local endangered species.

  8. In Burnett Heads QLD on “Survey Plans - Standard” at 112-122 Shelley St, Burnett Heads, QLD, Australia:

    Den wat commented

    This whole area is already approved for new houses. One more makes no difference .

  9. In Burnett Heads QLD on “Survey Plans - Standard” at 112-122 Shelley St, Burnett Heads, QLD, Australia:

    Den wat wrote to local councillor Scott Rowleson

    Already houses here have been passed.
    One more won't matter.

    Delivered to local councillor Scott Rowleson. They are yet to respond.

  10. In Burnett Heads QLD on “Survey Plans - Standard” at 112-122 Shelley St, Burnett Heads, QLD, Australia:

    Heath Greville commented

    No, this should not be approved.

    We have endangered species nesting along this area of the coast. To approve this would show the council couldn't care less about the environment.

    An environmental impact study is needed regardless of plot size, to not have one is shamless.

    1 house 1 shed...

    This is just money making at it's worst

  11. In Burnett Heads QLD on “Survey Plans - Standard” at 112-122 Shelley St, Burnett Heads, QLD, Australia:

    Heath Greville commented

    No, this should not be approved.

    We have endangered species nesting along this area of the coast. To approve this would show the council couldn't care less about the environment.

    An environmental impact study is needed regardless of plot size, to not have one is shamless.

    1 house 1 shed...

    This is just money making at it's worst

  12. In Sharon QLD on “Two into Five Lots” at 4 Workmans Rd, Sharon, QLD, Australia:

    Catherine & Peter Boes wrote to local councillor Jack Dempsey

    Morning Michael,

    Not a good start for a new council, yes we will be taken action against the Bundaberg City Council and have contacted the Planning and Environment Court. We are disappointed in and have a vote of no confidence in the planning department given the circumstances in which this application was approved, furthermore as a public servant we have raised the question of access to which you have not responded.

    You have stated that once approved, an application cannot be cancelled but you can have the application amended (ref to letter addressed to C L Field on the 13 April 2016)13 days after approval and replaced the previous decision dated the 1st April. The council can amended the decision and correct the errors so that it does comply with P07 section A to F and table 9.4.4.3.3 which states that rear access strips will not exceed 60 meters in length and that minimum access to cul-de-sac head must be be 15 meters. It is up to the developer to comply with planning codes it should be your job to see that they do.

    Also you stated that, Once issued by a relevant entity and after the expiry of any appeal periods. an applicant is fully entitled to act on a decision notice, what appeal period?, we were not offered a right of appeal, but did make our concerns know to council and the planning department early in 2015, long before the application was approved.

    Regards Peter & Catherine Boes

    PS Just noticed that work has already started on the development. Another coincidence?

    Delivered to local councillor Jack Dempsey. They are yet to respond.

  13. In Sharon QLD on “Two into Five Lots” at 4 Workmans Rd, Sharon, QLD, Australia:

    catherine mccue wrote to local councillor Jack Dempsey

    Peter and Catherine,

    Thanks for your follow up email. In relation to the Operational Work approval that was issued on the day we met, that was pure coincidence. I had no knowledge that the application was with Council and I have no direct involvement in the approval of operational works.

    In relation to your request to suspend the approval, unfortunately the Council is not able to do this. Once issued by a relevant entity and after the expiry of any appeal periods, an applicant is fully entitled to act on a decision notice. There is no ability under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 for the Council to suspend an approval once given. If you wish to take this matter further the I recommend that you seek legal advice.

    Regards,

    Up Date from Mr Ellery

    MICHAEL ELLERY
    Group Manager - Development

    Delivered to local councillor Jack Dempsey. They are yet to respond.

  14. In Sharon QLD on “Two into Five Lots” at 4 Workmans Rd, Sharon, QLD, Australia:

    Peter & Catherine Boes wrote to local councillor Jack Dempsey

    Up Date on the application for the development of a subdivision at the end of Pleasant Drive Sharon. The application was approved while in caretaker mode on the 1st April. This development was approved by Mr. Michael Ellery (Group Manager Development) and did not go the council.
    A meeting was arranged to meet with Mr. Ellery at the location on the 7th July to explain how this development would work and address our concerns about further subdivision of this very steep water catchment area,( size 99,473m2), in the 2013 flood this land was all but meters under water. Mr Ellery response to our concerns about all aspects of the development was at the best disappointing. In relation to the conditions of which the application was approved Mr Ellery seemed vague to the point of not realizing that he in fact was the one who approved it. When questioned about the possibility of future flooding in that area, his response was ‘well they will know what to expect’. Moreover when questioned about evacuation planning, his response was there will be plenty of warnings for people to get out in time, (Tell that to the residents of North Bundaberg who had little time to get out in the 2013 floods)
    Asked if this application had gone to council would it have been approved, Mr. Ellery’s response was ‘probably’ this begs the question why do we need councilors at all. Mr. Ellery stated that if the application, (which was prepared by paid professionals that pride themselves in ‘unlikely to be refused’) ticked all the boxes there should be no objections.
    Note; later the same day as our meeting with Mr Ellery, Mr Adam Johnston( Senior Development Engineer), sent an approval for operational works (subject to conditions) to be carried out, coincidence or is the application being rushed through. This application for the subdivision of land at the end of Pleasant Drive Sharon should be placed on hold until it meets the requirements set out in reconfiguring of a Lot Code and access because as it stands the application does not meet the requirements. The requirements as stated by Mr Ellery are outlined below
    In relation to your questions about road frontage, I note that the Reconfiguring of a Lot Code provides for reduced frontages for hatchet (rear access) lots. The following is an extract from the current code that outlines the requirements:

    Rear (hatchet) lots
    PO7
    Development provides for rear lots to be created only where:-
    (a) the lots are not likely to prejudice the subsequent development of adjoining land;
    (b) it is not desirable nor practicable for the site to be reconfigured so that all lots have full frontage to a road;
    (c) the siting of buildings on the rear lot is not likely to be detrimental to the use and amenity of the surrounding area;
    (d) uses on surrounding land will not have a detrimental effect on the use and amenity of the rear lot;
    (e) the safety and efficiency of the road from which access is gained is not adversely affected; and
    (f) vehicular access to rear lots does not have a detrimental impact on lots adjoining the access strip due to excessive noise, light, dust, stormwater runoff and the like.
    AO7
    Rear lots are designed such that:-
    (a) the minimum area of the lot, exclusive of any access strip, complies with the minimum lot size specified in Table 9.4.4.3.2 (Minimum lot size and dimensions);
    (b) the gradient of the access strip does not exceed 10%;
    (c) no more than four lots directly adjoin the rear lot, excluding lots that adjoin at one point;
    (d) no more than three lots gain access from the same access handle;
    (e) no more than 10% of lots within a subdivision are accessed from an access handle;
    (f) where two rear lots adjoin each other, a single common driveway and reciprocal access easements are provided;
    (g) no more than two rear lots and/or rear lot access strips directly adjoin each other (excluding lots that directly adjoin each other at a single point e.g. a corner);
    (h) rear lot access strips are located on only one side of a full frontage lot; and
    (i) rear lot access strips and driveways comply with the requirements of Table 9.4.4.3.3 (Access strip requirements for rear lots) and the standards specified in the Planning scheme policy for development works.


    Table 9.4.4.3.3 states:

    Access strip requirements for rear lots

    Column 1 Zone
    Column 2 Minimum width of single access strip (metres)
    Column 3 Minimum width of combined access strips with reciprocal easement (metres)
    Column 4 Minimum driveway width
    (metres)
    Column 5 Maximum driveway length (metres)
    Residential zones
    5
    6 (2x3)
    3.5
    40
    Rural residential zone
    6
    6 (2x3)
    3.5
    60
    Rural zone
    10
    10 (2x5)
    4
    100

    Delivered to local councillor Jack Dempsey. They are yet to respond.

  15. In Sharon QLD on “Two into Five Lots” at 4 Workmans Rd, Sharon, QLD, Australia:

    Mrs. Boes wrote to local councillor Jason Bartels

    Thanks, but there is nothing more to say, it's done, however I will say on record that we are very disappointed in the way this was passed while council was in caretaker mode and the underhanded methods used to by The developer to obtain this result. Moreover in the Bundaberg City Council complete disregard for better management of flood areas. But then greedy developers will always win when local councils fail to do there job to protect these water catchment areas.

    Delivered to local councillor Jason Bartels. They are yet to respond.

  16. In Sharon QLD on “Two into Five Lots” at 4 Workmans Rd, Sharon, QLD, Australia:

    catherine mccue wrote to local councillor Jason Bartels

    How disappointing to hear that this subdivision has been approved. I cannot believe that no one in Pleasant Drive especially those that this subdivision directly effects has not been informed. We have been sending our concerns about this development since 2015, letters were sent to the Chief Executive Officer by register mail with no response nor reply to our concerns. Does this council have little regard for the recent flood report, that outlines better use and management of FHA ( flood hazard area) or is this just a case of mates doing favours for mates. Thank you for the reply Jason, to date you are the only one to do so. The Bundaberg city council has a lot of explaining to do about this one.

    Photo of Jason Bartels
    Jason Bartels local councillor for Bundaberg Regional Council
    replied to catherine mccue

    Hi Catherine,
    Sorry I couldn't do more.
    If you would like to discuss the issue further let me know and we will find a time to meet.
    Regards
    Jason.

  17. In Sharon QLD on “Two into Five Lots” at 4 Workmans Rd, Sharon, QLD, Australia:

    Derek Scott wrote to local councillor Jason Bartels

    We have just heard about planning permission being given to 5 lots at the end of Pleasant Drive , Sharon. I believe that this whole area flooded at the last flood. Can't believe you would even think about allowing houses to be built there. A number of years ago you allowed people to build on Grahams Road , in a known flood area also and lo and behold they got flooded. Are you doing the same again ? Is there some hidden agenda here we don't know about ? I await your reply . Regards Derek Scott

    Photo of Jason Bartels
    Jason Bartels local councillor for Bundaberg Regional Council
    replied to Derek Scott

    Hi Derek,
    Unfortunately the Planning application for the Reconfiguration of Lots at 66 Pleasant Dr/4 Workman's Rd Sharon, was approved by delegation while BRC was in caretaker mode during the election period. The conditioned approval was granted on the 1/4/16 , so the Council that I am part of has had no say or involvement with the approval of this application. Currently before Council is the Operational works application which is just for the scope of work that is to be carried out as per the conditions of the development approval.
    If this application would have come before me, I would have also questioned the flooding issues and the concerns of the residents that submitted public submissions against the development, but as approval has been granted, there is nothing Council can do except ensure that the conditions of the development are met.
    Should you require any further information or would like to discuss this matter further, please give me a call or email.
    Regards
    Jason.

  18. In Sharon QLD on “Two into Five Lots” at 4 Workmans Rd, Sharon, QLD, Australia:

    ginger gordy commented

    i've recently moved to Sharon. it would amaze me if the local planning authorities don't already have regulations against any new building in areas known for flooding risks, as climatologists warn us that these flooding events will increase in frequency and severity. if this development is approved, it would be negligent to the community (the cost of unnecessary emergency services) and all our insurance premiums (bigger payouts for flood damaged properties will raise all premiums), and would be especially damaging to people who might buy the new properties without understanding the flood damage they will likely incur in the future.

  19. In Sharon QLD on “Two into Five Lots” at 4 Workmans Rd, Sharon, QLD, Australia:

    ginger gordy wrote to local councillor Judith Peters

    i've recently moved to Sharon. it would amaze me if the local planning authorities don't already have regulations against any new building in areas known for flooding risks, as climatologists warn us that these flooding events will increase in frequency and severity. if this development is approved, it would be negligent to the community (the cost of unnecessary emergency services) and all our insurance premiums (bigger payouts for flood damaged properties will raise all premiums), and would be especially damaging to people who might buy the new properties without understanding the flood damage they will likely incur in the future.

    Delivered to local councillor Judith Peters. They are yet to respond.

  20. In Sharon QLD on “Two into Five Lots” at 4 Workmans Rd, Sharon, QLD, Australia:

    Peter Boes commented

    Peter & Catherine Boes
    69 Pleasant Drive
    Sharon
    Bundaberg
    4670
    0471559036

    To all Councilors and the Chief Executive Officer
    We are writing this letter to have on record that we strongly oppose the development of a subdivision being constructed at the end of Pleasant Drive
    Currently this is a no through road, Cul-de-Sac Head.
    This is also a water catchment area with most of the runoff from Pleasant Drive being diverted to the Burnett River.
    This is a know flood area, even in a minor rain event, this area is in flood with erosion.
    Given that this area was completely under meters of water during the recent floods it would be irresponsible on the part of the Council to approve a subdivision in this catchment area
    This is an area that is currently quite with very little traffic and a great out look over the water catchment area, this would change if a subdivision was approved.
    We understand that our developer wishes to subdivide land in a know catchment area, with access through Pleasant Drive, this is not part of the original subdivision of Burnett Downs and is a already a tight Cul-de-sac head .
    Other considerations are services, like power, water and septic, how would this be achieved in a know flood area.
    These are just some of our concerns, we have spoken to roads, and planning dep with no one able to give us any straight answers as to the possibility of this access road being approved or not.
    The approval of a subdivision will greatly reduce the value of our property and take away the current beauty and peace and quiet of the property which is why we bought it in the first place all those years ago.
    Note at no time, have we been informed by council that changes to planning & development would result in changes that would directly affect our property.

    Sincerely Peter & Catherine Boes

  21. In Burnett Heads QLD on “Civil Works Associated with...” at 112-122 Shelley St, Burnett Heads, QLD, Australia:

    Stacey Cook commented

    For the initial intended result of turtle conservation for our future and the protection of the direct foreshore against unnecessary damage I DO NOT agree with the proposed plan. Think toward the sustainable future of our coastline, instead of a couple of greedy pockets right now!

  22. In Burnett Heads QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot (One...” at 70-80 Shelley St, Burnett Heads, QLD, Australia:

    Cynthia Workman commented

    I would like to say no to this development as I feel it would be wrong to clutter this area of the foreshore. I did not know until this came up that it had been rezoned from rural to residential . There are plenty of blocks of land if people wish to build in our area. Moved to Burnett Heads purely for the rural feel of our town and personally I feel it would be a shame to ruin this town with crammed home developments. Please keep it as is, not all townspeople wish it to be changed.

  23. In Burnett Heads QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot (One...” at 70-80 Shelley St, Burnett Heads, QLD, Australia:

    Heath Greville commented

    I feel that the development would have a detrimental effect to the local area, please correct me if I am wrong, but I was lead to believe that the councils long term plan for all the five acre plots in the proposed area where to be limited to one shed and one dwelling per plot.

    Firstly I see no need for the council to back track on this stance, the Burnett Heads community would not gain from turning the foreshore into another monstrosity the likes of which has been allowed to occur (and ruin) along the Bargara foreshore.

    Secondly, I feel that by allowing such developments in this area it would impact on the appeal and future sustainability of tourism, on what is one of the regions biggest draw cards, Mon Repos. By allowing housing estates so close to this local treasure would surley ruin what is currently an amazing walking route. The coucil should be commended for the turtle trail, but by allowing this development it would ruin the appeal of part of the trail to visitors.

    Thirdly, any estate built in the area would have an effect to the locally created light pollution, regardless of best intentions and meeting of regulatory planning to cut light pollution, the existence of a housing estate over a single dwelling would surley have a detrimental effect on the local native wildlife.

  24. In Burnett Heads QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot (One...” at 70-80 Shelley St, Burnett Heads, QLD, Australia:

    Fergus Hogg commented

    We have lived here 27 years and are all for development, but there is an abundance of vacant land in the area so there is no justification on need.
    A large part of the areas charm is the larger 5 acre blocks on the front that at the time the then Port authority assured residents would remain that if given approval for the subdivision of the then 60 odd acres they sold off. I understand times change, but again there is no need for more lots to be made available, this is purely speculative development done for financial gain.
    Also that location is quite busy with schoolkids walking and riding to the park opposite, school, beach etc. There are no footpaths!
    Revisit it in 5-10 years when perhaps demand will justify it but certainly not now.

  25. In Bundaberg South QLD on “Higher Density Residential...” at 33 Curtis St, Bundaberg South, QLD:

    Jess commented

    Hi just wondering who the developer is I'm looking for a removal house to put on my land at wallaville any help would be appreciated thanks Jess

  26. In Bargara QLD on “Undefined Use - Helicopter...” at 2 Woongarra Scenic Dr, Bargara, QLD:

    Mike Rennie commented

    It is for good reasons of public safety, noise abatement and concern for the environment that the take off and landing of aircraft are effected from land that is, as far as possible, set aside from residential development and subjected to strict regulatory provisions. Air ports are suitably equiped with flight management, fire and medical facilities as well as trained staff to deal with the threats posed by these risks.

    The risk of accident and mishap are considerable and it is unreasonable to permit the take off and landing of aircraft from a residential property zoned exclusively for residential purposes. Particularly one as densely populated and proximity to community recreational parks, swimming areas and a golf course.

    Surely counsellors will recognise the risk to life and property and accept that it is wrong to expect that other families who have chosen to live in this precinct should share this risk to satisfy the recreational pusuits of one resident.

  27. In Bargara QLD on “Undefined Use - Helicopter...” at 2 Woongarra Scenic Dr, Bargara, QLD:

    Donna Max commented

    To The Chief Executive Officer
    Bundaberg Regional Council
    P.O. Box 3130
    Bundaberg Qld 4670

    Dear Sir/Madam

    I am against Mr Perry or anyone else being allowed to use this land for the landing, takeoffs and storage for this or any kind of helicopter or helicopters. The airport is the appropriate place for this purpose. I suggest Mr Perry purchase a very large property in a rural area away from Bargara, and a busy street and beach where families swim and picnic.

    To allow Mr Perry to get his way is leaving the door open for other people with money to change the use of land for their own selfish purposes.

    His talk of "shark watching" is ludicrous as this would go against his talk of minimal use.

    Any talk by people of tourists etc, is already jumping ahead further to imply that a commercial scenic helicopter flight centre could impact further on this residential area.
    The whole idea of someone landing and taking off in any kind of an aircraft from here is absolutely ridiculous. For one thing the property is far too small, too close to a busy road and houses, not to mention the children swimming nearby. The takeoff and landing of an aircraft including a helicopter regardless of the brand name, size etc is the time most accidents occur.
    Is the Bundaberg Regional Council prepared for possible future lawsuits if anyone was to be injured by a miscalculation by Mr Perry or anyone else landing and taking off from here?

    Please do not approve this development.

  28. In Bargara QLD on “Undefined Use - Helicopter...” at 2 Woongarra Scenic Dr, Bargara, QLD:

    Donna commented

    To The Chief Executive Officer
    Bundaberg Regional Council
    P.O. Box 3130
    Bundaberg Qld 4670

    Dear Sir/Madam

    I am against Mr Perry or anyone else being allowed to use this land for the landing, takeoffs and storage for this or any kind of helicopter or helicopters. The airport is the appropriate place for this purpose. I suggest Mr Perry purchase a very large property in a rural area away from Bargara, and a busy street and beach where families swim and picnic.

    To allow Mr Perry to get his way is leaving the door open for other people with money to change the use of land for their own selfish purposes.

    His talk of "shark watching" is ludicrous as this would go against his talk of minimal use.

    Any talk by people of tourists etc, is already jumping ahead further to imply that a commercial scenic helicopter flight centre could impact further on this residential area.
    The whole idea of someone landing and taking off in any kind of an aircraft from here is absolutely ridiculous. For one thing the property is far too small, too close to a busy road and houses, not to mention the children swimming nearby. The takeoff and landing of an aircraft including a helicopter regardless of the brand name, size etc is the time most accidents occur.
    Is the Bundaberg Regional Council prepared for possible future lawsuits if anyone was to be injured by a miscalculation by Mr Perry or anyone else landing and taking off from here?

    Please do not approve this development.

  29. In Bargara QLD on “Undefined Use - Helicopter...” at 2 Woongarra Scenic Dr, Bargara, QLD:

    Ann Jarman commented

    Dear Councillors

    I think it is inappropiate to have a helicopter landing pad in a residental area. The town plan does not recommend such a facility because of the noise and danger associated with such a facility. The owner says that it will be used only twice a week but what is to stop the owner from using the helicopter on a regular bases, once a helicopter landing pad has been approved, it makes a precident for other helicopters to be used in residental areas.

    There are many nesting shore birds on the lagoon, such as a Seaeagle, a helicopter landing and taking off will disturbe these birds and they may die as they have no other place to nest and eat.

    Please do not approve this development.

    Ann Jarman

  30. In Avondale QLD on “Waterway Barrier Works (Gas...” at 80 Mill Rd, Avondale, QLD:

    Dave commented

    What bright sparks is the BRC?
    Who the hell gave permission with the gas pipeline to go ahead with this new development what ever it is they have just done in the past 2 to 3 months?

    Every day 7 days a week the residents of MILL ST /LUND RD /STARKEY ST Now have to live with trucks screaming up and down the what use to be quiet country roads.

    The company have many water trucks watering the DIRT road turning it into a mud slide when riding or driving on it, turning it very dangerous.

    Many of us were woken 30-11-14 by some extreme gas fire with a huge rumbling as the flames shot high in the air for an hour, I / we never asked for this when we moved here, it's bad enough council makes us live without a garbage waste service or a tar road and makes us pay the same rates as those in town with all the services, now we have to live with all this from a gas line with no one telling us what's going on or how dangerous it is..

    BRC should be abolished for allowing such nonsense near the residencies.
    Very Angry that you would let this noise and exhaust pollution interrupt our homes like this.

    Should NOT have been approved!

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