All recent comments on applications from Bundaberg Regional Council, QLD

I disagree. The water pressure has significantly reduced in the past year. I believe the owners of this property should not be exempt from upgrading the water infrastructure for their subdivision. .

Upon reading the development application in detail, I note there are numerous positive steps taken by the developer. The add in of a sealed walk way to the Turtle Trail is a big gain for the community and has been long awaited.
Light restrictions for potential buyers to have outside louvers on all windows to control light for the turtles is all positive. All light will be directed downward to control light out at sea for the turtles. The developer has actually put a lot of emphasis on control of light, more than any previous building development in the region.
Homes are all to be constructed out of non reflective materials. That would put surfmist/shale grey roofs out of the equation as they are very reflective at night. Once again there has not been any restrictions of this strength on new home builds along the sea front before and a positive move by the developer. This restriction would make Monument and Charcoal high on the list of suitable colours especially at night. Both have become popular colours in recent years for their ability to blend into the environment especially along our charcoal rock sea front.

Given the traffic dust that already floats across this development from the unsealed Shelley Street and that dust always shows up badly on dark colours, potential owners will need to be aware that they will have ongoing problems keeping their homes clean from dust especially in the dry season when the traffic dust in this region does become unbearable. Windows on the side that the dust comes from can seldom we left open because of traffic dust. The restrictions of outside louvers will be a help to residents within this development. If potential owners have respiratory problems they should also be aware that traffic dust in this area is extremely bad and always been a major problem. The popularity of Mon Repos Beach, the Turtle Trail for exercise, fishing etc, the increase in population to the area, and a privately owned caravan camping site on Shelley Street has increased traffic dust considerably. Current residents have had to control dust through constant watering (water bills are high) and the planting of thick vegetation which unfortunately takes time to mature and do there intended role. Dust is also very hard on wear and tear of building products. Painting is a regular expense. Council to date has not offered any resolutions for residents and the sealing of this road is not listed in their future road works plans. These current elements should be taken into consideration by potential buyers.

The developer has also placed high emphasis on drainage. I note a grassed 4m wide drain will be constructed at the back of lots 5 & 6 along the side of a current residents home. The current resident to date has been mowing and keeping this area very clean. I'm assuming to keep snakes away from his home and assist with drainage also. I'm assuming this drainage works will become the responsibility of the new owners of lots 5 & 6 to control overgrowth of grass so it sufficiently alows water to drain smoothly. Will Council be monitoring that this does happen so the drain does not become a nuisance to the current resident who currently maintains this area. Current grass drains in the region constructed by Council to control drainage issues are mostly maintained by current residents as council do not have the resources to maintain them sufficiently. Without constant maintenance they are a haven for snakes. It is a concern to me that potential development and growth in the region will over load this already lack of resources even further.
In moving forward the developer seems to have added to this development more kerb and channelling than is required for Rural Residential blocks by Council. I feel his doing his upmost to control drainage through kerb and channelling on the 7 lots he is developing by directing run off toward the sea front. However, I did not read in the development application a works plan that shows how Councils existing drainage system on the Shelley Street frontage of this development will be managed.
There are as always negatives about any development but I have positivity about it happening and I am looking forward to watching this development take shape and welcome it eventuating.

Potential Impacts
1. Poor drainage already an issue in streets behind the development, where is the drainage to this development going?
2. Wildlife already in the area, kangaroos, birds, echidnas, snakes, lizards, the corridor for their habitat is getting smaller & smaller
3. So many developments in the area already, Boat Harbour estate, Gateway Marina, Kinch St, 63 Sea Park road just sold hopefully not to a developer, where is the infrastructure to sustain the amount of people coming to live in the area, Hospital already at crisis point, 10,000 aged care packages on waiting list for services
4. Development between two known Sea turtle nesting sites, Oak Beach & Mon Repos, the light from potentially 2-3 story buildings will impact an already fragile ecosystem
This is a world renowned area for the most significant loggerhead nesting turtle population in the South Pacific region
5. Dust from Shelley Street the unsealed section already impacts houses in the area an increase in traffic from an extra 7 lots will increase dust in the area

Potential impacts from this development are as listed below:
1. This allotment is currently home to wildlife such as kangaroos, echidna, birds, snakes etc. Turtles will be affected by, street, traffic house lights. There environment will be disturbed.
2. Dust from traffic coming off of the unsealed Shelley Street is already an issue for current residents. How will the increased traffic of future residents living on the seven blocks be managed so it doesn't impact current residents further?
3. Poor drainage is already an issue for the neighbourhood. How will the run off from the homes in the seven new blocks be managed?
4. Light coming from traffic out of these blocks will impact residents living at 137 - 131 Shelley Street.

I have a property in George Street across the road from 2 disability units and find these units have impacted on the area with staff parking on the street coming and going at all hours of night and early mornings as they did not provide adequate off street parking so feel that the Child Care Center with staff coming before 6am who will also probably park on street will have even more impact on this quiet residential area. There is already 2 schools within a block and a half and child care center also within a few blocks and at peak times the increased traffic will make the traffic worse. Most of the footpaths are not accessible to pushing a pram, are rough and uneven especially over driveways and the road verges are not regularly maintained so parents are unlikely to walk their children to school or child care. This is a lovely residential area but the 1 park in the area is a disgrace, dirty with no improvements for many years, no toilets. There are some lovely old homes in this area and it's a shame if it is removed for commercial reasons.

Please place a covenant back on Heritage Park, Childers 4660 regarding the quality of homes built or placed in this area. The standard needs to be lifted with the relocated houses.
Lately, we have had three new homes built suitable to the existing area and four relocated homes placed.
The new homes complement this area, and one relocated home does as well, but
the standard of three of the four relocated homes has downgraded the value of the remaining homes in Heritage Park. I believe another has approval to be placed in Heritage Drive.

I also strongly support Maureen Schmitt. It is devastating to see the rapid vegetation loss in this area. Only 5 years ago council did not allow me to subdivide 1 of my families 20+ acres into a private residential block for myself, in this very suburb. The justification was that Branyan is an 'emerging suburb' hence no subdivisions would be approved until sufficient amenities and service infrastructure was able to be constructed to support a growing population. In that time we've seen the Habitat estate, the Ridge and now clearing has started further down the road for 'Branvale'. Yet I've seen no real improvement to local infrastructure. Not only is the aesthetic value of the area declining because subdivisions are approved for smaller town blocks, the destruction of well established vegetation is very concerning.

Is there going to be any park or recreational areas within this development. I believe there should be somewhere for children to frequent on a recreational basis..

Dear CEO, I am concerned that the above application, if approved, will lead to the further loss of vegetation and aesthetics of Branyan Drive. Sadly Branyan Drive is being loved to death and its wonderful appeal will be its downfall.

As you are aware this block was only very recently sold.

I therefore urge you to please consider the motives and the final outcome behind this application.

Yours sincerely, Maureen Schmitt

What is meant by a prefabricated building please? Do you mean like an ATCO modular industrial type unit? We need to stop these kinds of ugly buildings being allowed in our beautiful historic village. There is already two on John Street which look appalling. Has Council approved them? Thanks.

A person's name shouldn't be visible on here

This is proposal is concern on many levels, particularly in relation to Kalkie State School students’ safety and welfare as the school is situated only 210 meters from the proposed development site.

Traffic Congestion Issues
As highlighted by the abovementioned public submissions, Kalkie State School is a growing primary school (one of Bundaberg's little gems) with student numbers increasing each year due to traffic congestion at peak school times is concerning. The school and P&C are doing all they can to lobby for better traffic related fixes through Government agencies, especially relating to the immediate vicinity of the school grounds, but to-date no such solution has been reached. I believe that additional congestion in this area caused by the proposal will further negatively impact on student safety.

Hazardous and Flammable Materials
Service stations store and handle large amounts of hazardous chemicals which present unique hazards, due to the flammability of their products. This proposal being so close to Kalkie State School and the children and staff that attend this school (7 hours a day, 5 days a week) is concerning. Let alone through the fact that a natural gas pipeline runs under the parking area along Zielke Avenue in front of the school’s main entrance adds further concern to the proposal's validity. Personally, (as mum of students that attend this wonderful school) this concerns me considerable, because if there were some unfortunate gas leak or situation at the proposed service station, these children would be in the middle of a dire situation.

Please consider my thoughts and my objection to this proposal. As decisions are made about this proposal, please keep me informed.

The concept plan ( Fig 2.2 on Develop Proposal 1 of 3) is not clear on how the exiting lanes from the development will merge back into 2 lanes in front of the school on Bargara Rd ? Can BRC and/or the developer please provide more clarfication on this.?
Will there be parking spaces lost because of this.?
How will an exit lane like that not become a bottle-neck at 40km/h school zone times..?
Also, the boundary maps show the vegetation area along the creek to be inside ( part of) the development. Will there be an obligation on the developer to maintain this native vegegation area and not let it degrade ?
Thanks

Kalkie State School has grown significantly over the last few years, always welcoming so many new families to the school.

The school is located on Bargara Road, very close to the proposed neighbourhood centre.

The school's location on a main road, which is very busy particularly at peek times, still has very limited parking for families who attend the school.
Despite having a main entrance to the school on Zielke Avenue, and not too long ago upgrading the parking spaces in front of the school, there is still simply not a lot of parking to accommodate the large number of families picking up and dropping off their children every day.
This forces families to park further down from the school and walk to the school entrance, and encourages more families to use the very busy Bargara Road entrance at peek times to avoid trying to find a park on Zielke Avenue.
- There are so many families with young children using the Bargara main road as pedestrians every day. Students and families safely use the school crossing, however this is within an already very busy school zone on Bargara Road.

The Bargara Road and Zielke Avenue intersection is not controlled by lights, and is extremely congested at peek times, so once students are dropped off or collected from school on Zielke Avenue, getting back onto that main road (Bargara Road) is near impossible.
- Not only for parents travelling in cars but also for a number of childcare centre staff and children travelling in buses, who find it very difficult to enter back onto Bargara Road as there is simply no break in traffic.

I would describe this area of Bargara Road as sometimes 'chaotic' at peek times.

There is a huge flow of traffic entering the area from Bargara each day; families who are travelling into town to drop off or collect students from all other schools in Bundaberg not just Kalkie school, and people heading to and from work.
This continuous flow of traffic going to and from Bargara (and its surrounding areas) causes very litte break in traffic for those trying to enter onto Bargara Road.

The back way to and from the school - along Zielke Ave, Sauers Road and Gahans Road, is regularly used by the transport trucks in this area, as well as many farmers/tractors/work trucks and regular on road cyclists, which at times has proven to be just as built up and busy at school times as the main road.
- The more families choosing to travel this back way to avoid trying to get back onto Bargara Road, the more built up and unsafe it becomes along this 80km/hr road. (Sauers Rd).
I have often times found myself travelling behind a large group of cyclists, who are travelling behind a slower tractor or work vehicle, with large transport trucks travelling 80km/hr passing in the opposite direction. It is not an ideal detour for any big increase of traffic.

The roads surrounding the school, particularly Bargara Road, is always so built up and so busy that attracting more traffic flow or making any big changes to this little area will potentionally have a big impact on the school itself and the safety of the families.

Please consider ways to improve or reduce the traffic on Bargara Road and the areas surrounding the school when considering a neighbourhood centre so close.

Please consider ways to reduce the impact in all other ways that this may have on the school and the school community.

Thank you

I strongly believe that a service station so close to the a school or even next to a school is extremely unhealthy for the still growing young personalities due to the fumes of the fluids. Apart from the potential traffic congestions and the increased noise impact, it is highly unethical to propose building shops right next to a primary school where 4 to 12 year old children attend on a daily basis.

Is this sub for residential blocks?
Thankyou.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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