All recent comments on applications from Redland City Council, QLD

This is not what the top floor was built for. Already there are parties held there. It would take neighbours' privacy away. The building regulations are again being bent for this development as they built too close to neighbours and on more than 2/3 of the land. This has been reported time and again and the run off as there are no gutters or broken gutters. No I (underscored) have not made a donation or gigt to a councillor or a council employee.

This is horrible, how many more cars will be parked on the street now.
Disgusting, and greedy if the council approves this! 4-8 homes would be more reasonable!

I agree I am looking after my own interests in objecting to the trampling of the LDR1 precinct rules - the ability to build multiple dwellings already exists for properties that are zoned LDR (no precinct), low - medium density, & medium - density.
When you purchase something with assurances of Council by virtue of their unambiguous statements (both written & verbal) as to the general amenity & character of the surrounding area & then find that Council has little regard to honouring & preserving such amenity or character, then yes I will object to the maximum extent possible.
The "logic" of approving such subdivisions by Council is that you can ignore LDR1 requirements if "the resultant development is consistent with the density and character of the surrounding established neighbourhood". But of course to reach this conclusion you have to ignore the existing adjoining 8 out of 10 LDR1 properties. Also how is it equitable that for identical LDR1 blocks of land I could (under Council's "logic") subdivide into 3 of 800sm or 4 of 500sm or 5 of 400sm based solely on looking only at houses across the road - (which were developed at a different time, under different rules & with different community expectations) & ignore the existing adjoining LDR1 properties?
The proposed development is inconsistent with the overall outcomes of the LDR1 precinct, It is not capable of retaining the low residential character or sustaining the natural habitat. It is deficient in achieving acceptable outcomes set down in the Strategic Framework as it applies to the LDR1 precincts.

I am a near neighbour to this proposed development & as with most properties on the southern side of Birdwood Road I am in the LDR1 precinct (large lot). 8 out of 10 houses on the southern side of Birdwood Road were LDR1. One property at 21 Birdwood Rd was recently subdivided into 3 - no one in the Community was aware of this happening until after the event. A review of Council documentation on their web site & telephone queries to their officers leaves you with the unambiguous conclusion that under LDR1 zoning only 1 residence can be placed on the land. The "logic" used by Council is to seek out the lowest land size & apply that land size to a sub division application eg because blocks opposite #21 are 900sm in size it allowed a 3 lot subdivision of 800sm. Because blocks opposite Haig Rd are 500sm the current appln is for a 4 lot subdivision of 500sm.
Such a development does not honour the low density character of the LDR1 precinct which was prepared in consultation with the local community. If the character of such a zoning precinct can be so easily destroyed & with no required public notice why bother having such descriptions explaining the LDR1 - one could easily relate such fine (& ultimately meaningless) words to the care of koalas

it is obvious that Jimmi is not a local. ‘I thought I needed to come here’ - where from Jimmi? Wouldn’t be Cairns and a close relllie of the developer by any chance.

I completely disagree with what’s being said above. These people are obviously looking after their own interests. One needs to understand that we need to make room for coming generations and do so in a timely manner so it’s doesn’t put unnecessary stress on the current infrastructure. We need to keep developing the infrastructure as we go along. Where do these people thing the money will come from? These extra subdivision will bring more houses for people looking to move into this area. These new people are doctors, tradies or other, we need to sustain this community. 4 extra cars on the road twice a day when leaving for work and coming back is not going to change things drastically that it becomes an issue. I just thought I needed to come here and voice my opinion as well

Lovely quiet area many enjoyable hours will be spent on your verandah enjoying the peace and calm you can only find on Russell. The beautiful bird life unique to the island will be sure to fascinate and create a new interest.

We are the owners of the rear adjoining property located at 15 Russell Street Cleveland 4163.
We just wanted to highlight to Redland that water runoff during heavy rain flows into our backyard and floods our pool. Would Council kindly ensure that the developer addresses this issue please.
Yours sincerely
Mr & Mrs M Mazzella

Totally agree with Erin Burrows.
A similar tree was saved when the Whepstead House subdivision happened and it flourishes, thank goodness.

Totally agree with Erin Burrows.
A similar tree was saved when the Whepstead House subdivision happened and it flourishes, thank goodness.

Totally agree with Erin Burrows.
A similar tree was saved when the Whepstead House subdivision happened and it flourishes, thank goodness.

Totally agree with Erin Burrows.
A similar tree was saved when the Whepstead House subdivision happened and it flourishes, thank goodness.

Hi,
Just in response to Erin Burrows comments. I agree with you Erin. The tree is protected. And there are zero thoughts of removing this beautiful piece of nature.
Even if it was not protected by Council the tree would not be removed and the current proposal for subdivision has been designed to ensure it is maintained ‘as is’.

I don’t have an issue with subdividing, however can council please make it a special proviso that the huge tree at the back of this block must be retained due to significance in species, size and age. Considering it also backs onto Vantage Crescent Park, the loss of this tree, the park shade, aesthetic and streetscape from a number of street aspects including Vantage Crescent and Casey Court, will be hugely impacted. Given such development of the area, we should be retaining and protecting established streetscapes and vegetation as much as possible. Therefore council should NOT permit its removal, unless council invest in replanting similar species or established shade trees at the park boundary as a replacement.

What style of dwelling,& when is it appearing?

This is disgusting. Two lots into twelve, common really? So we end up with 12 pathetic size lots where rubbish homes will be built. Council should have an interest in looking after our environment and instead consider 8 lots instead. Allow decent size blocks that bring a certain value and a decent size home can be built, which attracts a certain demographic. STOP being so damn greedy and turning our beautiful suburbs into squashy scum suburbs! Do your jobs council! All this crap continues to get approved and the hospital and roads don’t get upgraded!

It has become clear the Council is ignoring the ones that they suppose to represent with regards to the over developing of the Redlands. Some estates have houses so close together that it would be impossible to put a fence between them,
It is ironic that the koala is used as the councils symbol yet they are stripping all the koalas' habitats in favour of development.
Time for a change.

I am a near neighbour and I cannot believe the continuing approval of subdivisions that violate the Council’s planning scheme. There are low density residential zones and other zones. I strongly believe we should stick with the plan and this block should either not be split or split into two and no more.

The above comments all sum up why this is not a wise decision to put further stress on the local bushlands and their natural inhabitants that are part of the Redlands native ecosystem. Enough is enough!

I agree with the above comments and strongly object to the proposed development as it is of far too high density. It will have a detrimental impact on the nearby Tarradarrapin wetland, through increased traffic, cats and dogs.Part of the Tarradarrapin wetland along Spoonbill St has been replanted by the local Bushcare group years ago and cleared of weeds by myself on request of the Birkdale Bushcare group.

Whilst I understand Council’s decisions are driven by state policy for development, some consideration must surely be given to the capacity of existing infrastructure and the detriment all the development in the Redlands is having on the wildlife (what little there is left) in the area. I agree with all the comments above and strongly object to this proposed.

I am one of the owners of a property (which is a battleaxe block) adjoining this proposed development. At the moment, in general terms, there is a single neighbouring property at each of the four boundaries of my property. That is a reasonable amount of adjoining neighbours given the nature and size of the block. To allow this adjoining development, replacing one low set home on a large block with four closely spaced houses (whether one or two stories) wrecks a serious attack on the amenity and sale value of my property. Whilst the other side of Haig Road has higher density housing, the larger block of which this proposed development site forms part is overwhelmingly lower density and should remain that way, entirely in keeping with the zoning of the block.

When the proposed development site was recently for sale, enquiries made of the council revealed that the block could not be subdivided given the applicable zoning. Had it been disclosed otherwise, I would have taken steps to secure the purchase of the block to ensure that it would not be developed - given the effect of the development on my existing property.

I strongly object to this development proceeding. The applicable zoning (1 house per 2000 square metres) ought be enforced.

The Council is going against what it APPEARS to be doing.....attract residents and business to the Redlands for the amenity it boasts.

Continuing approval of subdivisions that violate the purpose of the Council’s planning scheme, which supports low density residential zones that provide a high level of amenity and a general sense of openness and low density streets capes, will come back to bite us all.

Our Council needs to be in touch with its rate payers being effected by subdividing applications as is the case with new development approvals.

There is a subdivision project going ahead just around the road from my property which I would never have agreed with if I had been asked.

Regards,

Barry Kelly

As a nearby long time resident am completely in agreement with the above comments. It is also obvious our avaricious Council has completely lost the plot and daily is selling out to the highest bidder.

In 2015 we relocated from northern NSW to purchase a home in the Redlands. What attracted us to the area were the Council philosophies in regard to wildlife, roads & development. We chose a property within a LDR1 zoned area in Birkdale where homes are low-set and we could enjoy privacy and had room to move. On the Council’s own website, the planning scheme made it clear that the purpose of the low density residential zone was to provide a high level of amenity and a general sense of openness and low density streetscapes. We subsequently utilised the Council’s Backyard programme to ensure that our garden would be a haven for wildlife including lizards, possums, birds & the occasional snake.

Fast forward to the present and these same philosophies are being being severely eroded. This application by new owners (owners with no apparent links to the Redlands) of an adjoining property that the owners plan to subdivide and build 4 houses on a 2003 sq.m. block in the LDR1 zoning section (bounded by the southern side of Haig Road, western side of Birdwood Road, Collingwood Road and Hardy Road where all blocks are 2000 sq metres plus) is an example of such erosion of zoning codes.

If this subdivision is allowed to proceed, our property with go from having 5 low-set neighbouring houses to 8 (most likely with the 4 new houses being highest), with these 4 new houses all overlooking the living areas of our property. This 4 lot sub-division will have significant impact on us and our neighbours in terms of resale value, traffic, urban amenity, wildlife, lifestyle, noise, scenic amenity, disturbance, changes to natural water course and more. We made a lifestyle choice in purchasing our property and relied on the assurances in the Planning Scheme, but the demolition of an existing home and creation of 4 modest sized lots will significantly impact our lives. More broadly if it is allowed to go ahead, it will be the beginning of the end for this section of LDR1 zone.

I know that, like us, many residents are very concerned about the Redlands and how development processes seem to work against the public interest. There are currently two properties in this section where original owners have sought council advise on subdivision to be told that it is LDR1 and therefore only 1 house per 2000 sq. metres. And yet, developers appear to know that they can effectively get what they want - all they have to do is attend a preliminary meeting and they will get it. Upon hearing of the proposed sub-division of 11-13 Haig Road I spoke with the builder to ask how they would be able to build 4 houses when it was zoned LDR1. He advised me that they had “pre-approval” - his words despite only having had a preliminary meeting with the planning department!

These proposed developments do not have to be advertised, have an environmental impact assessment done nor involve any consultation with community, local Councillors or neighbouring property owners. This development would severely impact the quality of our lives. We ask that it is not allowed to proceed. We ask that Council takes serious the protection of the amenity of the area through the explicit density controls of the Planning Scheme. We think our experience is likely being repeated across the whole City and we ask that council do more to stand up for rights of existing residents.