Recent comments on applications from Redland City Council, QLD

  1. In Redland Bay QLD on “Building Format Multiple...” at 21-43 Salisbury Street, Redland Bay, QLD:

    Jill Fox commented

    This development in Salisbury street park was slipped thru I did not see any signs informing the community about this. Council is selling off our public land without letting residents know

  2. In Redland Bay QLD on “1 into 9 community...” at 97 - 101 Unwin Road, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    Lynn Adams commented

    When will the plans be online to view for consideration and comment? What does 'Community Management Development' involve?

  3. In Redland Bay QLD on “Swimming Pool and Fence” at 26 Wilkie Street, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    Nivedita commented

    Disappointing to receive this notification from RCC after work has already commenced. Also not able to see actual site plan on PD online.
    Noise/chatter travelling from the property (from long periods out on back deck) is already an issue for surrounding neighbours as not able to spend
    quiet time to relax in their own properties (homes and yards) daily as voices are loud and sound carries over existing low fencing.
    The pool, filter size and increase of visitors/kids during summer will further exacerbate a very sensitive situation.
    Property or pool fencing at side and back should be maximum height and sound proofing options implemented to minimise daily noise eminating from outdoor living, entertainment, and work vehicles.

  4. In Thornlands QLD on “Standard Format - 1 into 50...” at 67 - 85 Kinross Road, Thornlands QLD 4164:

    Benjamin Wheatley commented

    What is Redlands council planning to tell all the people that work on Kinross road at the mentioned address when they lose their jobs for another housing development? I will be one of them, you are taking away a business that has been there for 40+ years, another family Australian owned business that will go down the tubes along with its employees, for what? Another housing development with infrastructure that can't cope already? Many of our employees have been there for more than 10 years, I moved my whole family to the Redlands over 7 years ago, what are we supposed to do now? There is very little work in my industry in the Redlands now as many others I will have to leave, you continue to take industry away from the Redlands, there is more to life than hospitality, like us that supply the hospitality industry

  5. In Thornlands QLD on “Change to Development...” at 88 - 90 Kinross Road, Thornlands QLD 4164:

    Rod Bickford commented

    I also believe the comments above are very correct. The Victoria Point / Thornlands area is becoming so congested due to over population and over development of high density housing it has created many access and infrastructure hazards that are being overlooked. Its a traffic nightmare to move about the area or park due to the lack of satisfactory roads. Emergency services must have serious issues???.

  6. In Thornlands QLD on “Change to Development...” at 88 - 90 Kinross Road, Thornlands QLD 4164:

    S bedford commented

    Needs another road through here to dangerous at the moment if you have a fire and the traffic is to heavy when this estate was planned it was suppose to have large green spaces between housing estates this is not happening

  7. In Thornlands QLD on “Change to Development...” at 88 - 90 Kinross Road, Thornlands QLD 4164:

    S bedford commented

    Needs another road through here to dangerous at the moment if you have a fire and the traffic is to heavy when this estate was planned it was suppose to have large green spaces between housing estates this is not happening

  8. In Thornlands QLD on “Change to Development...” at 88 - 90 Kinross Road, Thornlands QLD 4164:

    Rodney Clarke commented

    Has an appropriate level of risk assessment been performed considering the density of the population in this area currently, and planned population, compared to the lack of multiple egress points should a disaster befall this area and evacuation is required?

  9. In Thornlands QLD on “Dwelling” at 1 Seawater Street, Thornlands QLD 4164:

    katharine Boddy commented

    Hi, could confirm if proposed dwelling is two storey and if the drive enters Seawater St or Freshwater st, thank you

  10. In Redland Bay QLD on “Dwelling” at 8 - 12 School Of Arts Road, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    Leonora commented

    Isn't this land currently deemed Koala Conservation or a Koala Corridor? How can consideration for clearing the land and erecting a dwelling in this location even be considered? The City Plan and the State Government have clear guidelines as to Koala Protection and this development falls completely outside these regulations.

    If this development is approved, it would see the end of any Koala activity i.e. extinction. If this doesn't happen during construction it would still happen if the home owners keep a dog or any other domestic animal.

    It is now time Council lives up to its edict of caring for the Koala population. Come on Council, put your money where your mouth is!

  11. In Redland Bay QLD on “Inground Pool and Pool Fence” at 7 Westburn Court, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    ray kennedy commented

    sorry got wrong house number problem is with no 12 westburn ct

  12. In Redland Bay QLD on “Inground Pool and Pool Fence” at 7 Westburn Court, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    ray kennedy commented

    sorry got wrong house number problem is with no 12 westburn ct

  13. In Redland Bay QLD on “Inground Pool and Pool Fence” at 7 Westburn Court, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    ray kennedy commented

    They are working on a sunday with an excavator date 5/4/20 commenced 8am still working 9am this is against council regulations not allowed to work on a sunday

  14. In Redland Bay QLD on “Dwelling” at 124 - 134 Broadwater Terrace, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    LUCY ATKINS commented

    This is such an ugly development. The new owners will also have to back out on to the main road from their small lot houses, as there is no room to turn around in their driveways.

  15. In Birkdale QLD on “Other Change to Approval...” at 20 - 28 Burbank Road, Birkdale QLD 4159:

    Leisa Sutton commented

    I would like to strongly object to the removal of the covenant on Lot 1, 20 -28 Burbank Rd Birkdale 4159. The removal of this covenant would be detrimental to the wildlife in the Redlands and Birkdale in particular. Koalas are active in the area and are known to use this particular area for breeding and food. With the devastation of the bushfires though Australia this past summer it is important to maintain these areas for our wildlife as we lost so many in the fires.
    We don’t need any more high density housing but we do need more areas for our wildlife, koalas are in need of safe areas to walk and feed in.
    I urge the Redland City Council to reject this application.

  16. In Birkdale QLD on “Other Change to Approval...” at 20 - 28 Burbank Road, Birkdale QLD 4159:

    Jenny Woodward commented

    I would like to strongly object to the removal of the covenant on Lot 1, 20 -28 Burbank Rd Birkdale 4159. The removal of this covenant would be detrimental to the wildlife in the Redlands and Birkdale in particular. Koalas are active in the area and are known to use this particular area for breeding and food. With the devastation of the bushfires though Australia this past summer it is important to maintain these areas for our wildlife as we lost so many in the fires.
    We don’t need any more high density housing but we do need more areas for our wildlife, koalas are in need of safe areas to walk and feed in.
    I urge the Redland City Council to reject this application.

  17. In Birkdale QLD on “Other Change to Approval...” at 20 - 28 Burbank Road, Birkdale QLD 4159:

    Erica Siegel commented

    re: Removal of Covenant from Lot 1 20-28 Burbank Rd Birkdale 4159
    RAL19/0103 Change to an existing Approval SB473201

    I strongly object to the application to remove the covenant from Lot 1 20-28 Burbank Rd Birkdale 4159

    The covenant had been placed on said land for the specific purpose to protect the vegetation, wildlife and 90 year old dam in perpetuity, the covenant was in place at the point of sale.
    The purchaser accepted the covenant and restrictions.
    The sales price reflected the restrictions of the covenant.
    Removing the covenant will affect the value of the land in favour of the applicant.

    The removal of the covenant can lead to the keeping of dog(s) on the land which is detrimental to all wildlife on said land.

    The removal of the covenant can lead to the clearing of trees and other vegetation which are habitat for many species of wildlife.

    This land is part of a wildlife corridor connecting with Tarradarrapin Wetland in the east, it is used by Koalas during mating season.

    The trees/vegetation contribute to the aesthetics of the environment, improve air quality, enhance biodiversity, and perform water retention functions.

    The removal of the covenant will lead to the loss of amenities to the local community and will impact on nearby residents if the land is cleared.

    The adjoining streets and pathways are much used by many walkers with children and dogs.

    I urge Redland City Council to reject this application

  18. In Birkdale QLD on “Change to Development...” at 167 - 173 Collingwood Road, Birkdale QLD 4159:

    Aniejune commented

    I think the move to turn this land into an estate creating what was a peaceful and safe environment for wildlife and children will ruin this area. I have lived in the Redlands my whole life and watched land slowly chopped up into housing estates, re zoning of rural land split in two and high sets put beside what was predominantly acreage in Wellington Point. The Redlands is expanding with no thought of the future and how this impacts the roads near local housing and more importantly schools. This area has four schools and the traffic and parking is already a problem, the round about needs attention and speed bumps put in for hooning.

  19. In Redland Bay QLD on “Standard Format - 1 into 2...” at 37 Mill Street, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    Lucy Atkins commented

    Another decent block with advanced tress being split, the beauty of Redland bay is fast disappearing, the houses in the banana block are plain ugly.

  20. In Wellington Point QLD on “Standard Format - 1 into 6...” at 41 Mindarie Crescent, Wellington Point QLD 4160:

    Isn commented

    I concur with the previous posters concerns. Where was the consultation process with residents before this was approved? Volume of traffic and disruption during the construction of six small units/rentals and inherent demographic that these type of properties attract. Very poor on councils behalf but nothing new there

  21. In Birkdale QLD on “Other Change to Approval...” at 20 - 28 Burbank Road, Birkdale QLD 4159:

    Anita Graham commented

    Anita Graham commented 1 day ago
    We would like to strongly object to this application based on the following
    1. Potential destruction of bush land and koala corridor application sb004732 reconfiguration - 1-7 lots . Rezoning and subdivision of this lot into 7 will lead to further development and buildings on the land from which a commercial business currently operating out of 17-19 Honeygem Place.
    2. Increased traffic noise in a relatively small road with chicanes as is . Directly facing property driveways with no ample parking .
    3. 24/7 business operating in a neighbourhood right next to a small park hence children crossing near increased traffic.
    4. Decreased property value as business running in a residential estate.
    5. This is a direct contradiction to the material change of use MCU 19/0134 in which the applicant make no changes to the existing layout of the land will be made. It should not be revoked .
    delivered to the planning authorityreport comment

  22. In Birkdale QLD on “Other Change to Approval...” at 20 - 28 Burbank Road, Birkdale QLD 4159:

    Lisa Mayer commented

    I object to the application for material change of use (MCU19/0134), change the covenant:RAL19/0103 SB004732 Reconfiguration - 1 into 7 lots based on the following.
    We have lived in the area for 20 years and have seen some changes of which have always taken in to consideration the environment and allowing the koala corridor, bushland and wildlife reserves to all remain and exist in harmony. The idea of running a business in these small streets will become dangerous for the all who use them including families with small children and wildlife.
    It would greatly impact the lifestyle of 1000's of residents in the area for the benefit of the applicant only.
    With schools close by many small children walk past this area on there commute to and from school, again their safety would be under threat with the increase of traffic, parking and loss of safe pathways. Will also be distressing for small children to observe this type of facility.
    This is a residential area for homes and families, who enjoy the surrounding bush environment and that is why we all bought and live here including the applicant originally. If the applicant doesn’t appreciate this environment, they can find a more suitable area which will not be as costly to the all who are affected.
    The applicant clearly does not have the best interest for the area in mind.

  23. In Birkdale QLD on “Standard Format 1 into 2” at 21 Birdwood Road, Birkdale QLD 4159:

    Anita Graham commented

    We would like to strongly object to this application based on the following
    1. Potential destruction of bush land and koala corridor application sb004732 reconfiguration - 1-7 lots . Rezoning and subdivision of this lot into 7 will lead to further development and buildings on the land from which a commercial business currently operating out of 17-19 Honeygem Place.
    2. Increased traffic noise in a relatively small road with chicanes as is . Directly facing property driveways with no ample parking .
    3. 24/7 business operating in a neighbourhood right next to a small park hence children crossing near increased traffic.
    4. Decreased property value as business running in a residential estate.
    5. This is a direct contradiction to the material change of use MCU 19/0134 in which the applicant make no changes to the existing layout of the land will be made. It should not be revoked .

  24. In Birkdale QLD on “Other Change to Approval...” at 20 - 28 Burbank Road, Birkdale QLD 4159:

    Eric Allart commented

    Dear Jack,
    I strongly object to your line of thinking. If you follow your thought through, you are suggesting that every tree in a koala corridor, backyard or forest should be removed because it is a potential fire hazard. Where do you expect our nature to reside? This is ridiculous.
    We have lived here for over 20 years and apart from the property mentioned burning off illegally, have had no fire issues. You can probably go back 100 years and find the same.

    I’ll finish off by objecting to the above proposal to change the covenant:
    RAL19/0103
    SB004732
    Eric

  25. In Birkdale QLD on “Other Change to Approval...” at 20 - 28 Burbank Road, Birkdale QLD 4159:

    Chris Quarmby commented

    I have a couple of comments, I would first like to ask Jack if he is ‘Jack’ the son of the owner of the property in question? I would also like to comment on Jacks post.. ‘possibly cause bush fire which could cause more health damage’ so ‘rezoning should go ahead’ the owner doesn’t seem to share the same concerns as there has been numerous burn offs to get rid of the waste on the property over the years which has caused unpleasant toxic smoke for everyone in the immediate area, even to the point that the fire brigade were called... so what concerns for Bush fire hazard does the owner have then?? Obviously none..

  26. In Birkdale QLD on “Other Change to Approval...” at 20 - 28 Burbank Road, Birkdale QLD 4159:

    Robert Weismantel commented

    Jack's comment "this could possibly to cause bushfires etc which would cause more health damage" is quite far fetched. It is a large dam. The covenant was placed in good faith with legal advice and Mr Colville was assured at the time that it was binding.
    The rezoning should not go ahead and should not breach the long standing covenant. If this covenant is ignored, then a "wedge" effect could be used against neighboring properties or properties elsewhere in the Redlands. .

  27. In Birkdale QLD on “Other Change to Approval...” at 20 - 28 Burbank Road, Birkdale QLD 4159:

    Kaitlyn Morton commented

    We would like to strongly object to this application, based on the following:

    1. Impact to native wildlife and bush land. I note the description of this application is 'Other Change to Approval SB004732 Reconfiguration - 1 into 7 lots.' Rezoning and subdivision of this lot into 7 will inevitably lead to further development and buildings on the land from which to run the commercial business currently operating out of 17-19 Honeygem Place. This development will lead to noise pollution and disruption of native wildlife which all surrounding streets currently enjoy. I do not believe our native wildlife should be disturbed or pushed out of their natural habitat to line the pockets of a business. The current owner of this land has already breached council regulations by introducing horses and dogs onto this land, which had a negative impact on the local wildlife. On several occasions in the past I have had to return a dog to the property as it was let wander the streets and bushland corridor between Honeygem Place and Seeana Lane, home to many birds and other animals. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the historic environment or our local wildlife to allow this application to be approved. The applicant knew when purchasing the residence that the Covenant was in place and that this was a quiet residential area home to a variety of birdlife and other small animals - it should not be revoked.

    2. Future developments. As mentioned above, if this application is approved it can only lead to further development on the land. This is in direct contradiction to the application for material change of use (MCU19/0134) in which the applicant states no changes to the existing layout of the land will be made. Forgive me for not believing that an individual paying thousands of dollars to have this land rezoned and subdivided would not then go on to further expand their business (which has seemingly been operating under the council's radar for several years). I understand that public notification of this application was not required, however I feel that the material change of use application is somewhat of a smoke and mirrors when also taking into account this application to subdivide. It is clear from the two concurrent applications that a lot of future development is planned and I feel as though residents have not been fully informed due to this not requiring public notification. As residents we have not been given the full picture as to what the plans for the lot are, just as we were never given notification that a business would be running from the lot in the first place.

    I urge you to consider the impact this will have on our local wildlife and environment if this application is approved, as well as what impact the expanding business will have on residents.

    I would like to implore you to decline both applications currently active and retain the Covenant on the land to protect the environment, wildlife, and residents of the area.

    Kaitlyn and Tania Morton

  28. In Birkdale QLD on “Other Change to Approval...” at 20 - 28 Burbank Road, Birkdale QLD 4159:

    Ray Covill commented

    As the previous owner of Lot 1, 20 - 28 Burbank Rd, I would like to give the history of the property. The Redland City Council Mayor and his Senior Council officers approached me and convinced me to place a Covenant on the land in question. It was recognized that Lot 1 was the Link in an environmentally sensitive Koala/Wildlife Corridor, linking the tree line and Five dams together. A Covenant was put in place to protect the environment, the wishes of myself and my family, and the Council under clear condition that the land was never to be developed and it remained bush land. I was assured by all members present at the time along with the Lawyers that the Covenant COULD NOT BE REVOKED, no matter who purchased the land. It is a Legal Binding Agreement. The property was purchased by the Applicant knowing that the Covenant was in place. The dam is 90 years old and was built with the help of prisoner labour. It is said that the soil taken from the area was then used as road base for some of the streets in Cleveland. This Covenant should stay for all time and be a benefit to all Wildlife/birdlife and the well being of everyone who visits and lives in this area. Any Development of this bushland would only benefit the Applicant while negatively impacting many people. Please leave the Covenant on as it was agreed to so many years ago.
    Ray Covill and Family

  29. In Redland Bay QLD on “Demolition Of Building -...” at 149 Esplanade, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    ROBERT MILLER commented

    Is council going to create a park or open space for the residents to enjoy? Or perhaps a single large house to enjoy the view and maintain the existing feel of the area? Or is this being cleared for another block of ugly dog boxes?

  30. In Birkdale QLD on “Change to Development...” at 167 - 173 Collingwood Road, Birkdale QLD 4159:

    Michelle Hardwick commented

    Since 1992 when we moved in off Tulloch road I have seen the Tarradarrapin wetlands slowly die as the housing population has increased. It is clear already that the development surrounding this area is already having a detrimental effect and I would strongly ask that a reconsideration be considered in the restructuring of this and any further development encroaching on these wetlands. The butterfly colonies have dropped off to be almost nonexistent, where as there had been quite a substantial colony of butterflies inside the swamp. The thickness of the swamp has become quite sparse allowing more sunshine in allowing weeds to slowly overrun. This I believe is as a direct result of polluted runoff into the drainage system from the surrounding estates. The fig trees that line that strip of Collingwood Road are a long time landmark and should not under any circumstances be put under stress through developing around them.
    Flooding across Pitt Street (beside the wetlands) would no doubt be an even bigger problem than it is now in heavy rain events, where water is even pushed up Tulloch Drive and Nelson Road. An even larger collection of rain water being diverted into a specific area, without allowing it to spread out, would create an even larger flood. I would strongly object to this development being allowed to progress.

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