Recent comments on applications from Fraser Coast Regional Council, QLD

  1. In Booral QLD on “Material change of use -...” at 87 Pacific Drive, Booral, QLD:

    Michael Boonstra commented

    Will the Pacific Drive be extended through to River Heads Road. This I feel is a must as Mathiesen Road traffic is already very heavy particularly at peak times as is the Maddever Road intersection on both ends.
    The 42 Planned Lots on Pacific Drive will make this much worse, plus with there being so much bush land, any potential bush fire issue will make this a serious problem as the only escape road out will be bottle necked and put lives at risk.
    Pacific Drive is already gazetted through to River Heads Road and I feel this definitely needs to be completed to ease the congestion issue.

  2. In Maryborough QLD on “Material Change Of Use -...” at 322 Ann Street, Maryborough, QLD:

    Jill Atkinson commented

    Dear Council,
    I own the house at 329 Ann Street Maryborough which is on the opposite corner to this property. I believe that a low impact industry would not be suitable at this location. I have lived in the house for 10 years and have witnessed numerous accidents. The intersection is very busy and accidents occur on a regular basis by traffic coming from all directions. In fact the installation of Traffic lights would be welcome. This location would be best suited for residential use. Is the town growing sufficiently to support another Tyre Mechanical workshop? I believe it isn't, sadly. Please consider my submission.

  3. In Craignish QLD on “Operational Works - Code -...” at 17 Sawmill Road, Dundowran Beach, QLD:

    Brian Hutchinson commented

    Please advise if the proposed works is to take in the land at the corner of Henks Court and Sawmill Road and proceeds down to the kerb and guttering further along Sawmill Road.

    Brian Hutchinson
    Owner 18 Sawmill Road

  4. In Maryborough QLD on “Reconfiguring A Lot – Two...” at 227 Walker Street, Maryborough, QLD:

    Elizabeth Davies commented

    My property shares a back fence with this property. Please let me know how this will impact me.

  5. In Booral QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot - One...” at 366-388 River Heads Road, River Heads, QLD:

    Geoffrey J Mathiesen commented

    This planning application belongs to a section of the land which was originally part of the Mathiesen property there is no reason we have to object as long as the application comes within all the requirements

  6. In Toogoom QLD on “Plan Sealing SP284349 -...” at Carkeet Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Vicki Moulds commented

    I'd appreciate the T intersection at Carkeet & O'Regan Creek Road to have the cement island (that blocks a large area of O'Regan Creek Road) removed.

    FCRC seem very keen to approve development plans in O'Regan Creek Road.
    A major factor in favour of buying in O'Regan Creek Road 4 years ago was the rural acreages across the road.
    i.e. no neighbours with dogs, children, pushbikes, vehicles etc.

  7. In Toogoom QLD on “Plan Sealing SP284349 -...” at Carkeet Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Lorraine commented

    The speed limit on O'Regans Creek rd is only 60kmh now. Surely that is slow enoigh

  8. In Toogoom QLD on “Plan Sealing SP284349 -...” at Carkeet Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Maryann commented

    Please can you look at slowing the traffic speed down to built up area limits on Oregen Creek Rd or try to police it, also Carkeet would benefit with lower traffic speed signs on Oregen Creek Rd end

  9. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Bob Forrester commented

    I understand that the date for submissions opposing the Material Change of Use to be considered has now passed, but after reading the owner’s (Tammy Davies) comments expressing her views I can’t help feeling that she is making a very poor argument when she says ‘My property is extremely unique and is valued way in excess of the majority of properties in Toogoom’ It seems to me to be a case of IFYS make better tenants because they will return a higher rent and could be expected to be longer term tenants than a normal family. The council rates are no doubt substantial due to the size of the land area.
    Her comment ‘If my tenants were to relocate away from my property who will my next tenants be ????) provides a clue to the possibility that “good” long term tenants are hard to come by. A property of that type requires a tenant that would be able to utilise the land area and therefore is prepared to pay a higher rent.
    Her comment that she had over $80,000 worth of property stolen, with no resolution by the police, seems to imply that there are already thieves in the area. Whilst this is possible as it is any other area she may be able to put the record straight, as sometime after that event there was a rumour that the “stolen property” was removed by the then tenants.
    I understand it is hard to get “good” tenants when one is relying on rental managers especially when the owner is not living in the area
    As I said in my earlier letter the property itself is fairly well suited to the proposed use, it is the conduct of the persons living there and the supervision by the organisation (IFYS) that have allowed it to get the reputation that it now has.
    As the property has been in use for the proposed purpose since 2009 would it be true to say that it is only now being made “legal” because of the complaints to police due to the activities of the tenants?

  10. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    lorraine taylor commented

    I was not aware that property had been stolen from your property. I have been led to believe that residents from your property had in actual fact been caught on ctv footage at neighbours property at night. If this is incorrect, then l apologise, but l do believe it to be true.I do know that residents from your property have been seen roaming at night. One has to wonder about the proper supervision.This is not helpful to the children involved or anyone else.

  11. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Tammy Davies commented

    Bob and Lorraine, I have known you both for many years.......my tenants were approved and recommend to me by TOOGOOM BEACH REAL ESTATE and spent years at my property without ANY issues being raised. As for the value of my property I was responding to other comments made on here that "MY PROPERTY" was devaluing Toogoom. I whole heartedly support my tenants. As for the Police well they were not interested in over $80,000 of property being stolen from my property WELL BEFORE my current tenants even resided in Toogoom!!! I am still interested to know WHO is responsible for this! But unfortunately no body knows anything, especially the Police!

  12. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    lorraine Taylor commented

    I am still outraged by Ms Davies comments re being "Un Australian" and " not in my backyard". If her concern is for the welfare of these residents of her property, and not merely a monetary concern for herself, perhaps she could make arrangements for them in "her backyard". I don't think this will happen.I wonder if she has taken the trouble to contact Howard Police to ascertain what has been happening in our area, concerning these "residents" she is so concerned about. Is it "unAustralian" for residents in our area to be concerned about their own welfare and property ?.You are obviously concerned about your property being rented out for monetary gain.We are concerned for our welfare and safety of our property.You mention the "high value" of your property. This is completely irrelevant to the issue.I might add, that l am NOT embarrassed to be Australian, a Toogoom resident, or, a Fraser Coast rate payer.I imagine that l pay about the same as you do for rates.

  13. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    ROBERT (BOB) TAYLOR commented

    I ROBERT TAYLOR of 2 RIES ROAD,TOOGOOM object to this application on several
    grounds.
    1. This property has been run illegally for some time now (a poor indication of the ethics of the operators and owners of this facility) If this is their mind-set what mey expect in the future?
    2. This property and its residents have the subjects of many calls to police and thus police investigations some of which are teenagers identified by CCT as residents of this facilitystealing cigarettes, alcohol,and money on multiple occasions. Police have not been able to gain any satisfaction through the legal system. Are we to be held to ransom by these and future thieves?
    3.The staffing situation is tolally inadequate for this type of facility.One fulltime staff member is ridiculous to maintain strict supervision 24 hours per day.They could not be expected to control the residents during the hours of darkness(the hours that the resident seem to be most active ).
    4.On several occasions in the last week I seen some of these residents (the last time Monday November 2 ) after dark roaming the streets.Why are young people allowed to roam at at will at night?
    In reply to the Owner ,of course the property would suit ,-----as far as you she is concerned from a purely monetary point of view ----anybody. As for her other comments I " think she protests too much". Also we and the other protesters have chosen to live in this country and in Toogoom in particular as occupier residents and rate and tax payers

  14. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    lorraine Taylor commented

    My name is Lorraine Taylor, and l live in the area near this residence, 482 O,Regans Creek Rd,Toogoom.Naturally the owner of this property has an interest in this property being rented out, so l would completely rule out her comments. Because we live with the threat of our homes being broken into by some of these "residents" of 482 O'Regans Creek Rd, l do not consider it to be "unAustralian" to object to their being there. I find her comment very insulting. I wonder how she would feel if she lived nearby(which she doesn't!).She misses the point entirely when she states that her property is valued "way in excess of most Toogoom properties". It is not about the value of properties, but about being able to live with peace of mind, not being under the threat of being burgled.To the owner, l say, "Come out here and live nearby" before you post your "UnAustralian" comments.

  15. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Tammy Davies commented

    I am the OWNER of this beautiful property at 482 O'Regan Creek Road, Toogoom and have been for the past 11 years.

    I have lived in this property for many years and know only too well that it suits my tenants needs 100%. It gives my tenants an AMAZING opportunity to grow and develop as every Australian citizen deserves.

    I feel the negative responses to the application for material use of change stems from a "not in my backyard" mentality which is very unaustralian. My property features a huge house with ALL bedrooms are attached to the house, nothing is detached. My land is NOT tidal. This is a material use of change NOT development of my land.

    My property is extremely unique and is valued way in excess of the majority of properties in Toogoom so for it to be mentioned that my property devalues Toogoom is a complete joke.

    If my tenants were to relocate away from my property......who will my next tenants be ???? Are they going to be ostracised from the community too because they do not "fit" other residents ideal of a community member?

    Sometimes I am embarrassed to be an Australian, a Toogoom property owner and a Fraser Coast rate payer!

  16. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Bob Forrester commented

    I Bob Forrester would like to comment on the proposed Material Change of Use of the property, 482 O’Regans Creek Road.

    Whilst I agree with the comments of the previous persons I acknowledge as stated in the IFYS submission that the property has been used for the proposed purpose since 2009.
    My wife and I have lived in Ries Rd since 2002 and to my knowledge the problems of kids roaming and thieving etc has only been happening relatively recently, mainly but not exclusively after dark in the early hours of the morning.

    The application states that there is only accommodation for one carer 24/7. I understand that a comment was made that the carer cannot see what these kids are up to when he/her is asleep. This comment I believe was made during Police visits to persons that had been victims of theft by kids resident at these premises at the time.

    Whilst the premises and location are theoretically ideal for the purpose being applied for, the actual layout of the buildings, there being two (2) bed rooms detached from the main building, makes the premises unsuitable for the intended purpose, unless better supervisory facilities are put in place.

    These could/should include:
     more conscientious carers,
     a 24/7 carer in each sleeping area
     movement sensors to monitor the movement of persons outside the buildings during hours when direct supervision is not possible.
     no bedrooms detached from the main building.

    Certainly more concern for the existing residents of this quiet residential area should be given before approval by FCRC goes ahead.
    Bob Forrester
    15 Ries Rd Toogoom

  17. In Dundowran Beach QLD on “Code Assess - Material...” at 58B Waterview Drive, Dundowran Beach, QLD:

    Steve and Kate Cavanagh commented

    We object to the application as it stands due to the failure to properly address:

    * parking, noise, privacy, drainage,traffic, dust and intrusion concerns with neighboring properties.
    * the criteria pertaining to the operating of a home based business in terms of hours of operation; client numbers; Sunday and public holiday operation.
    * The simple fact that such approval will change the low density residential nature of Dundowran Beach and have consequent negative impact upon the quiet and safe environment- the major reason for our choosing to build in this area.
    * the reaction to previous concerns and council meeting discussions to a prior application by the occupants was for them to apparently totally ignore both and to proceed with unauthorized ceremonies on the site. This indicates an arrogance and flagrant disregard for legal protocols hardly likely to instill confidence that this photographic application is not merely the first step in a larger ceremony business plan.
    * the breaching of council regulations for the operation of such a business- so that the applicants are asking to change residential zoning status to our area and also to change the rules under which this business will then operate.

  18. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Janice & Ross Breedon commented

    We Ross & Janice Breedon have seen first hand the residents of 482 O` regan Creek Rd
    entering properties checking for unlocked house windows & car doors of our neighbors &
    removing items from their patio tables that don`t belong to them. This makes us feel very uncomfortable about going out & leaving our homes unattended which is affecting our peaceful lifestyle that we purchased along with our property that we valued until this so called halfway house with their "residents" arrived.
    We would like to decline the proposed change so we can feel safe & comfortable again.

  19. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Colin and Lynda Smith commented

    We,Colin and Lynda Smith would like to oppose the change of use to this address. We have had to rely on the Howard Police to control the theft, vandalism, break'ins and trespass incidents that have occurred by the 'residents' residing at this address. As they walk our streets heading to the beach, we feel as if they are casing our homes and properties. These 'residents' have been caught on camera during night time raids, stealing property that is not theirs.

    We now have to lock everything away, even if only visiting neighbours for a short time.

    There is no regular bus service, shopping outlets or activities in the immediate vicinity to service a community housing of this nature.

    These 'residents' have proven unacceptable behavior as per reports to the Howard Police Station. We should not have to change our lifestyle to accommodate the bad behaviour from these 'residents'. Please decline the proposed change so our quiet lifestyle will continue.

  20. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Peter van Rooyen and Karli Jozeps commented

    We Peter and Karli appose the change because there have been problems with the 'residents' of this address. There have been numerous incidents requiring police involvement. These residents have been respnsible for trespassing, often after dark but not limited to the night time. There have been thefts and break-ins as well.
    This has been a quiet neighbourhood where residents feel safe leaving their homes unlocked whilst away on short visits, erands or beach walks. Unfortunenately because of the presence of these people we have had to alter our way of living which, we came here for the quiet life.
    These people have been hanging around, malingaring, the streets and beach at times one would expect them to be home. One feels like they are 'casing the joint' when they walk down to the beach (down ORegans Creek Rd and then via Ries Rd) They have been caught on camera stealing cigaretes and alcohol sometimes at one oclock in the morning!
    There are children in the community who could/will be influenced by these people with regards to smoking, stealing and bad behaviours. There has been some graffiting although this is not confirmed as having been committed by the residents of this facility.
    We strongly feel that this type of facility is best suited for another area not ours. We are not prepared to change our lifestyle for the sake of having such a facility in our area. We believe that having this facility here will adversly affect future house and land prices and who will recompence us for this? The Council perhaps or the facility?
    Please decline the proposed change and let us continue to enjoy the peaceful lifestyle that we have enjoyed and not infringe on our right to continue to enjoy in the future.

  21. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Lynette Bradford and Paul Bradford commented

    We wish to express our disapproval of above application and do not support approval of any change. We live at 515 O'Regan Creek Road and have been broken into, robbed, ramsacked and had our car stolen by juveniles residing in current residence of 482 O'Regan Creek Road run by a government department (DOCS). Our suburb of Toogoom does not provide facilities such as a regular bus service (except for morning and afternoon school service) or affordable, convenient grocery store such as Woolwoorths, Aldi or Coles or a petrol station. Community housing brings residents of lower income whom may not be employed or may have a disability. Locating residents in this area will isolate them with no convenient services. This will lead to unacceptable behaviours which current residents of Toogoom should not have to deal with. Toogoom is a desirable area for quiet pleasures, natural vegetation, rural type properties, untouched beaches and an abundance of flora and fauna. Existing residents in this location are on larger alotments and have greater real estate values. Properties have also been purchased for the lifestyle that presents as being safe and away from the CBD and suburbia. A Community residence will devalue all properties. Will the developer or the council compensate existing residents for the loss of property values. very unlikely. Please explain how an approval benefits the suburb or the existing community. I thought this land is tidal so most of it would be unusable or will developers change natural flow of creek which will lead to greater flooding in area.
    PLEASE DO NOT change Toogoom. Please come and look at our quite little part of paradise on the Fraser Coast.

  22. In Dundowran Beach QLD on “Code Assess - Material...” at 58B Waterview Drive, Dundowran Beach, QLD:

    Kim Burns-Atkinson & Craig Atkinson commented

    6th October 2015

    The Assessment Manager,
    Fraser Coast Regional Council,
    PO Box 1943,
    Hervey Bay QLD 4655

    We wish to object to the development application before council. Material change of Use – (Home based business - Photographic Location Service). 58B Waterview Dve, Dundowran Beach QLD 4655.

    Having read the development application we would like to draw your attention to the following facts.
    Our major concerns are: -
    1) It is clearly in breach of PO2 that states “No more than 2 customers or clients are present at any one time and no more than 8 customers or clients are present in any one day.” The application clearly states that group-wedding photographs will likely attract larger numbers of up to 10 guests, with the opportunity for multiple sessions to be held each day between the hours of 8am and 6pm.
    2) It does not comply with hours of operation PO4 - AO4 which states “ Not at all on Sunday’s or public holidays.” The application states that: - “Most demand will be expected to be on weekends.” Clearly, this application does not comply with the requirements for a small home business and therefore not suitable for a low-density residential area.
    3) Parking will be adjacent to the back of our house and is in breach of PO16. At present the proposal is to leave the area as it is – poorly grassed. This could well become a dust bowl over time, particularly during dry weather, with dust blowing into our yard, dirtying our house, dirtying washing and dirtying our swimming pool. We note that on (1.3 paragraph 5) “Parking will be provided with a dust free surface.” Clearly grass or gravel are not dust free.
    4) Our privacy, peace and serenity will be impacted by the noise of vehicles coming and going, doors opening and closing and guests mingling in the car parking area. Our yard is clearly visible from both the proposed parking area and the rose gardens. Whilst trees have been proposed as a screen this is not more than a token gesture from the developer. They would take some time to grow and would have little impact on reducing the noise that clearly is expected. We find this solution completely unsatisfactory. In addition, a wedding ceremony that was held there on 26th September confirmed our concerns, with guests parking right on our back fence-line seeking shade from the trees, rather than parking in the centre of the block.
    5) It is quite likely that some patrons will park in Winston Court and walk through to the venue along our side fence or park in Azure Court below. There is no fence preventing this.
    6) We are concerned also about reverse amenity. We have two dogs which are likely to bark with the noise and disturbance created by numerous cars and people coming and going. Our shed also backs on close to the proposed site, at times the radio is playing, motor bikes are serviced in the shed, power tools and garden tools used in the yard, all of which may impact on the “photographic sessions” and we are genuinely concerned that our normal weekend activities could ruin somebodies day.
    7) No toilet facilities are available.
    8) We believe that the change of zoning would set a precedent for future commercial development. We believe it is possible that any future plans to add a venue to hold wedding ceremonies would be easier to pass through council, once the change from Low Density Residential to the proposed zoning was in place.
    9) Finally, whilst this has been proposed as a home business proposal, it is clearly a much larger scale commercial venture. The owners have already conducted several weddings, advertised on a website, in Wedding Magazines and through a dedicated Facebook site. Although they have changed their application, the intention to run a business to cater for weddings remains unchanged. A sign displaying Bumble Bee Gardens has already been erected at the front of the property.
    10) We urge council to refuse approval of this undesirable development, protect the interest of its constituents and ensure that the neighbourhood of Dundowran Beach remains the quiet, safe and highly sort after residential address that it currently is. Clearly this development does not have the local residential amenity that is required for a home business proposal.
    Should, however, this proposal be approved then I seek council support to impose the following management conditions: -
    • The proposed car park is moved to the opposite side of the property, away from our fence line.
    • The surface of the car park and access easement is truly non-dust emitting and quiet – that being concrete or bitumen.
    • Suitable storm-water drainage plans be submitted and examined for approval once the access easement and car-parking surface has been confirmed.
    • Acoustic fencing be erected along my back fence line and those of other adjoining properties to mitigate noise both from the proposed development site and from adjoining properties to the photographic site. This is also required to ensure visual privacy to adjoining properties and prevent wedding guests accessing the site from Winston Court and Azure Court.
    • No business to be conducted on Sundays or public holidays.
    • Hours of operation to be strictly 9am – 5pm.
    • The number of photographic sessions is limited to no more than 40 in a given year.
    • Maximum customers are limited to 2 at any one time and no more than 8 in any one-day.

    Furthermore, we again wish to draw attention to the fact that a home business already appears to be operating from this residence without council approval. Clearly the occupants have little regard for council regulations. We are concerned that any approval would require constant supervision to ensure that they comply with any restrictions imposed by council.

    Yours sincerely,

    Kim Burns-Atkinson & Craig Atkinson

  23. In Dundowran Beach QLD on “Code Assess - Material...” at 58B Waterview Drive, Dundowran Beach, QLD:

    Keith and Laraine Eaton commented

    My wife and I object to this application based on the following:

    1 Weddings are being conducted on the premises even though the application to council for such activities was withdraw. This demonstrates a clear disregard for council approvals and for respect and consideration of neighbours.

    2 The application does not meet the home based business based on:

    2.1 It does not meet criteria for hours of operation ie. not on Sundays or public holidays etc.

    2.2 It convenes the criteria of clients on premises at any one time ie. two clients at any one time and no more than 8 per day

    2.3 Parking for clients and guests ( supposedly up to 10) would immediately impact on neighbours through unsealed surfaces, undefined parking areas, dust and noise impact, experienced when illegal trading has already been been conducted

    2.4 Photographic backdrops have been installed but no provision of established trees for the mitigation of intrusion by activities to be conducted under this application, raising serious doubts over the sincerity of the applicant to conform to council requirements.

  24. In Yengarie QLD on “Combined Impact Assessment...” at 45 Watson Road, Yengarie, QLD:

    Justin Laughton commented

    I am a resident of Maryborough-Biggenden road who will be directly affected by the proposed Air Park, I wish to advise that following the flight demonstrations held on Saturday 11 and Sunday 12 July, I strongly oppose the development of the Air Park, I found the noise of the aircraft loud with noise recordings exceeding 70dba and was constant and very disruptive to family and pets and livestock, it completely ruins peaceful country style living, I also have concerns for the safety of people and property with these low flying aircraft, there are sure to be accidents with the intended high number of aircraft using the park, this will also increase local vehicle traffic to unwanted levels.

  25. In Yengarie QLD on “Combined Impact Assessment...” at 45 Watson Road, Yengarie, QLD:

    Laughton family commented

    I have concerns about the increase in traffic in the area entering and leaving watsons rd if this project were to go ahead. Being a close neighbour not only will the continued noise be frustrating, but so will the constant and increased number of vehicles to and from the park. The planners have underestimated the noise to local residents from both planes and traffic. Watkins road is cal so access to state forestry where our family walks, horse rides, mountain bikes and increased traffic will increase the dangers and affect our quality of lifestyle. I strongly oppose the development.

  26. In Yengarie QLD on “Combined Impact Assessment...” at 45 Watson Road, Yengarie, QLD:

    Kate laughton commented

    I live directly across the road from this proposed air park development and listened to the test flights run on Saturday to demonstrate how loud the noise would be to neighbours. I moved here 7 years ago and run a business from home. I have horses. The noise on Saturday reached over 70decibals and spooked my horses whilst I was working with them. I strongly oppose this development as I do not want to listen to planes constantly circling around my property, and although their proposal stated they would not fly over properties, they flew over my home and horse paddocks. There was a constant annoying noise whilst they flew and it destroyed the peace and tranquility that was why I purchased my property. I do not support their application and want to be kept informed of any further progress of this application.

  27. In Dundowran Beach QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 58B Waterview Drive, Dundowran Beach, QLD:

    Mark and Suzanne Rosenberger commented

    We recently purchased the land at 54 Waterview Drive and are currently building our new home. The easement (dirt road to 58b Waterview Drive) borders our property. We were approached by one of the applicants who indicated that the application was going to be for wedding photos in there gardens. My assumption from this conversation was that the traffic from this was going to be no more than a dozen cars at the most. From reading the above comments from other neighbours we are concerned that the application is actually for photos or wedding ceremonies with up to 100 people attending. The traffic along the one way dirt road up to the venue to cater for the suggested 100 people would greatly effect us with dust and even more so the neighbours who border the road on the eastern side. Our neighbours homes are built within metres of this unsealed road and we feel the dust and noise from this traffic could possibly effect their lifestyles. We are also concerned about the impact that rezoning may have on the neighbourhood. From all reports that we have heard from others, we understand that these gardens are beautiful and we can appreciate that they are wanting to share them with everyone. Perhaps if the application was just for photographs only with limits on the number of vehicles accessing via the unsealed road and there was no rezoning of the land we would feel the impact would be less. We feel the current application as it stands is unacceptable for our neighbourhood and we think it should not be approved.

  28. In Dundowran Beach QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 58B Waterview Drive, Dundowran Beach, QLD:

    Ingeborg Boettcher commented

    I wish to object strongly to the development application before council. Material change of Use – Undefined Use (Wedding Ceremony and Photographic Location Service). 58B Waterview Dve, Dundowran Beach QLD 4655. Application No:- MCU-151010

    I bought my property in Waterview Drive, Dundowran Beach 11 month ago as this area is zoned 'residential' with the understanding that it would remain a quiet, residential, family area. I have moved up here for a quiet retirement place with oceanview, which would be all but destroyed.

    My concerns are as follows:

    1. A marked increase in traffic flow, especially on weekends ,up and down Waterview Drive .

    2. Noise increase from wedding ceremony crowds and partying till late in the evening.

    3. Parking and vehicle activity will markedly increase.

    4. No assurance that this application will not in the future be extended to include wedding receptions, which could involve over 100 cars and their occupants.

    5. Unruly behaviour from such big crowds which also will include drunkenness behaviour. This is not very family oriented and does not belong into a quiet residential area.

    6. Dust issues for the immediate properties - as the immediate access road to 58B is gravel/dirt.

    7.The setting of a precedent, should this application be approved as the area would no longer be totally residential. The argument for the establishment of other businesses in the immediate vicinity would be strengthened.

    8. Decreases in property values - a certain consequence if this application is successful.

    9. This application is clearly not for a small, home business and therefore not suitable for a low density residential area.

    10. Development of this category, will change our quiet residential lifestyle,

    11. Health and plumbing concerns. This area is septic only.

    12. The change from 'low density resedential' to "UNDEFINED USE" of the venue is very concerning.

  29. In Dundowran Beach QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 58B Waterview Drive, Dundowran Beach, QLD:

    Kim Burns & Craig Atkinson commented

    I wish to object to the development application before council. Material change of Use – Undefined Use (Wedding Ceremony and Photographic Location Service). 58B Waterview Dve, Dundowran Beach QLD 4655. Application No:- MCU-151010
    My property at 8 Winston Court Dundowran Beach adjoins the development and the development will have a very undesirable impact on my lifestyle and property. Having read the development application I would like to draw your attention to the following facts.
    1. The application states that all surrounding property owners have been consulted (Paragraph 2- Planning Report -Pg5). "The applicant has discussed the proposal with all adjoining property owners and has not had negative responses or feedback."

    This statement is false. Council has been misled to believe that residents are not concerned about this development. I definitely was not consulted and my discussion with my neighbours revealed that they have not been consulted either. There has been absolutely no discussion or correspondence between myself and the proposed developers, other than the obligatory letter via Urban Planet Town Planning Consultants.

    2. I also note that in IDAS form 1 table K – no. 8 the developer has indicated that there is no existing easements on the premises. Yet ( page 2 paragraph 2 –Planning Report) The site has an existing road frontage via an access easement to Waterview Drive, the access being constructed to gravel standard. This is also a concern, from my investigations with council, the easement provides access for the vacant block in front of the proposal and is also an additional access point for the adjoining property fronting Sempfs Rd. It is unclear who is ultimately responsible for the upkeep of this easement.

    3.The application does not clearly outline the nature of the parking allotment that will be adjacent to the back of my house and is in breach of PO16 (pg 31) Development ensures that on-site vehicle access, manoeuvring and parking facilities do not have adverse impacts on people, properties or activities, with regard to light, noise, emissions or stormwater run-off. Whilst the plan shows a significant number of parking spaces,(I have counted 26 on the plan) it is unclear if this is to be a grassed, gravelled or bitumen area. I am also concerned that 26 parking spaces would not be sufficient for 100 wedding guests, given that the majority of people would be likely to travel in pairs, the required parking should be estimated at 50 spaces. At present there is no parking in this area. Should this area be grassed or gravelled, it could well become a dust bowl over time, particularly during dry weather, with dust blowing into my yard, dirtying my house, dirtying washing hanging on my clothesline and dirtying my swimming pool. I note (Pg 30 - PO12) “Parking will be provided with a dust free surface.” Clearly grass or gravel are not dust free, and so one can only assume this would therefore be bitumen or concrete. This then also raises the issue of potential drainage issues, which I do not believe have been addressed by the applicant.

    4. This development could bring and allows for 200 or more people to this residential area on both Saturday and Sunday between the hours of 8am and 6pm. These people will have to travel to and from the venue in private vehicles, thus bring noise and increased traffic flow to this quiet residential area. This would Impact on myself and other residents along Sempfs Rd and Waterview Drive. It is quite likely that some guests will scramble for parking at larger weddings, and park in Winston Court and walk through to the venue along my side fence or park in Azure Court below. There is no fence preventing this. Furthermore, I have regularly seen children and adults walking dogs and riding bikes, scooters and skateboards on these roads. The top of Waterview Drive is a crest which goes down into a bend, residents accessing driveways, and pedestrians, are at increased risk of vehicular accidents with the increased traffic that would inevitably come as a result of this venture.
    It goes on to state that:- "Time limitations will be strictly enforced on the length of use of the site for wedding services and larger groups of patrons."

    I am wondering who is going to enforce these strict time restraints and how that would be done?

    5. My privacy, peace and serenity will be impacted by the noise of vehicles coming and going, doors opening and closing and guests mingling in the car parking area, which is in very close proximity to my house. I am greatly concerned that these vehicles will be parked just a few metres from my back fence, veranda and swimming pool, in the proposed parking area. My yard is clearly visible from both the proposed parking area and the rose gardens. We are often out in the garden, swimming and sunbathing in the pool, eating on the veranda, meeting and socializing with family and friends, hanging washing on the clothes line, cleaning cars and motorbikes in the back yard area.
    My bedroom is at the back corner of my house, the window of my bedroom and bathroom is in clear view from this proposed parking area. My partner is a nurse and often works late shifts or night shifts and regularly requires sleep during the day. Again, the noise from cars coming and going, doors closing and mingling guests would disturb his sleep.
    Whilst trees have been proposed as a screen, it would not prevent the noise and would also block my view of the bay from my veranda. The leaves from the trees will blow into my swimming pool. I think that this is at best a poor solution to what the developers can clearly see is going impact on neighbouring properties. Whilst after a number of years the trees may grow to provide some screening, they will have little impact on reducing the noise that clearly is expected. I find this solution completely unsatisfactory.

    6. I do not believe it complies with PO10 – AO10.2 (Pg 19) Access to reticulated water and sewerage is available. Sewerage is not available in Dundowran Beach. No toilet facilities are available and port-a-loos are proposed as the solution. (3.6 Infrastructure & Services - Pg 10) “The applicant will provide portable ablution facilities that will be maintained at their costs.” There is no mention of where these will be positioned and how often trucks will be coming and going to empty these facilities. I am also concerned about the smell that may result.

    7. I believe that the change of zoning would set a precedent for future commercial development. I note that the owner appears to be doing some earthworks on the lower part of the block, and wonder what future plans are about to unfold. I believe it is possible that any future plans to add a venue to hold wedding receptions would be easier to pass through council, once the change from Low Density Residential to the proposed zoning was in place.

    8. I am concerned also about reverse amenity. I have two dogs which are likely to bark with the noise and disturbance created by the large number of cars and people coming and going close to my boundary. My shed also backs on close to the proposed site of the ceremonies, at times motor bikes are serviced in the shed; and blower vacs, chainsaws, pressure cleaners and lawnmowers used in the yard, all of which may impact on the wedding ceremonies. I can clearly see the rose garden proposed for weddings from my front driveway, I can hear what is going on and they too can see and hear anything happening in my yard. I feel I should not have to tip toe around my own backyard or go indoors during a ceremony and I am genuinely concerned that our normal weekend activities could unintentionally ruin somebodies wedding day.

    9. Nor does it comply with hours of operation PO4 - AO4 (pg42) “ Not at all on Sunday’s or public holidays.” The application clearly states that:- “Most demand will be expected to be on weekends.”

    10. I also believe it is clearly in breach of PO2 – AO2-1 (b) – Pg 38 “No more than 2 customers or clients are present at any one time and no more than 8 customers or clients are present in any one day.” (Pg 50). The application clearly states that ceremony services will likely attract larger numbers. It in fact allows for up to 100 guests rotating through ceremonies, for periods of 2-3hrs per day between the hours of 8am and 6pm. In future years this could amount to several hundred guests in any given day. Even in its infancy, I think it would be fair to expect that weddings of 50 guests could easily be held every morning and afternoon on most weekends. This equates to 200 people coming and going from the site every weekend, and over the course of a year (200x50weeks) over 10 000 people. The suggestion that “It is likely that on average over a calendar year, numbers will be compliant” is a poor attempt to make this proposal seem suitable and non-imposing to neighbouring properties. If we were to apply the rule of averages, my calculations still place them clearly in breach of PO2 and well in excess of 8 customers in a day.

    11. Clearly, this application is not simply for a small, home business and therefore not suitable for a low density residential area.
    I do not believe that PO4 (Pg 17) “The development maintains a high level of residential amenity and avoids or mitigates potential adverse impacts, having regards to such matters as hours of operation, generation of odours, noise, waste products, traffic, electrical interference, lighting visual and privacy “ has or will be met in this location, or that the proposed conditions set out to manage these impacts will be effective.

    11. Finally, whilst this has been proposed as change of land use proposal, it is clearly a much larger scale commercial venture. The owners stand to make several thousand dollars each week as a result. I, on the other hand, stand to have my property devalued by this intrusion. I have lived in my home for 12 years and was attracted to this property because of its privacy, ocean views and quiet location. I deliberately bought into a Low Density Residential Area for these benefits – all of which will be destroyed by this development.

    I urge council to refuse approval of this undesirable development, protect the interest of its constituents and ensure that the neighbourhood of Dundowran Beach remains the quiet, safe and highly sort after residential address that it currently is. Clearly this development does not have the local residential amenity that is required for a home business proposal.

    Should, however, this proposal be approved then I seek council support to impose the following management conditions:-
    • The proposed car park be expanded to accommodate at least 50 spaces to prevent guests parking in adjoining streets (Should 100 guests be permitted).
    • The surface of the car park be truly non-dust emitting and quiet – that being concrete or bitumen.
    • The surface of the access easement be truly non-dust emitting and quiet - that being either bitumen or concrete.
    • Suitable storm-water drainage plans be submitted and examined for approval once the access easement and car parking surface has been confirmed.
    • Acoustic fencing be erected along my back fence line and those of other adjoining properties to mitigate noise both from the proposed development site and from adjoining properties to the wedding ceremony site. This is also required to ensure visual privacy to adjoining properties and prevent wedding guests accessing the site from Winston Court.
    • No wedding ceremonies to be held on Sundays or public holidays.
    • Hours of operation to be strictly 9am – 5pm.
    • The number of ceremonies limited to no more than 40 in a given year.
    • Maximum guests at wedding ceremonies to be limited to 30 guests or less (car parking spaces adjusted accordingly).

  30. In Dundowran Beach QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 58B Waterview Drive, Dundowran Beach, QLD:

    Paul and Lesley Magnussen commented

    We would like to object to the application for a wedding ceremony and photographic service at 58B Waterview Drive, Dundowran Beach.

    Our concerns are as follows:

    1. Waterview Drive is not a through road so traffic which travels up Waterview Drive will need to return the same way,

    2. Waterview Drive is a very narrow, hilly and winding road, and parked and merging traffic is not always immediately visible due to the terrain and is a very real contributing possibility to accidents,

    3. Development of this category, will change our quiet residential lifestyle,

    4. A proposed change from 'residential' to 'undefined use' is very wide open and does not clearly state or define the extent,

    5. Health and plumbing concerns. This area is septic only.

    6. Unlimited noise and disturbance of peace,

    7. Additional traffic and noise and pollution,

    8. Supply liquor and catering concern,

    9. Any future constructions, cabling or units to the location in the proposed application.

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