All recent comments on applications from Bundaberg Regional Council, QLD

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

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

Peter & Catherine Boes
69 Pleasant Drive
Sharon
Bundaberg
4670
0471559036

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

Sincerely Peter & Catherine Boes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Sir/Madam

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

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

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

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

Please do not approve this development.

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

Dear Sir/Madam

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

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

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

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

Please do not approve this development.

Dear Councillors

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

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

Please do not approve this development.

Ann Jarman

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

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

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

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

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

Should NOT have been approved!

This application at 17 Bocks Road certainly has not meet any Australian standards. The last council would not approve it .It has broken every rule in the book. NO relaxation on the boundary. NO engineering NO termite protection NO drafting NO council fees on construction. It was built before 2010 flood .we have seen the building lean to a degree that we always knew it would have to be pulled down with not having followed the rules for the Building code of Australia.The structure is made of all timber .timber floor timber walls timber ceiling there for its a huge risk to the neighboring property If this outdoor area is ever approved it will be lowering the standards for this council. This outdoor area is approximately 6meters by 8 meters The local Builder has a book of rules to follow ,why shouldn't the Homeowner? Who becomes accountable if this structure burns the neighboring property? As its a BBQ area .with flammable gas .Come on Council please show some accountability and integrity for the safety of our people .This can never be approved.

This application at 17 Bocks Road certainly has not meet any Australian standards. The last council would not approve it .It has broken every rule in the book. NO relaxation on the boundary. NO engineering NO termite protection NO drafting NO council fees on construction. It was built before 2010 flood .we have seen the building lean to a degree that we always knew it would have to be pulled down with not having followed the rules for the Building code of Australia.The structure is made of all timber .timber floor timber walls timber ceiling there for its a huge risk to the neighboring property If this outdoor area is ever approved it will be lowering the standards for this council. This outdoor area is approximately 6meters by 8 meters The local Builder has a book of rules to follow ,why shouldn't the Homeowner? Who becomes accountable if this structure burns the neighboring property? As its a BBQ area .with flammable gas .Come on Council please show some accountability and integrity for the safety of our people .This can never be approved.

This application at 17 Bocks Road certainly has not meet any Australian standards. The last council would not approve it .It has broken every rule in the book. NO relaxation on the boundary. NO engineering NO termite protection NO drafting NO council fees on construction. It was built before 2010 flood .we have seen the building lean to a degree that we always knew it would have to be pulled down with not having followed the rules for the Building code of Australia.The structure is made of all timber .timber floor timber walls timber ceiling there for its a huge risk to the neighboring property If this outdoor area is ever approved it will be lowering the standards for this council. This outdoor area is approximately 6meters by 8 meters The local Builder has a book of rules to follow ,why shouldn't the Homeowner? Who becomes accountable if this structure burns the neighboring property? As its a BBQ area .with flammable gas .Come on Council please show some accountability and integrity for the safety of our people .This can never be approved.