All recent comments on applications from Redland City Council, QLD

Ridiculous how many more junk food McDonald's do we need in this country

Bit late for a ‘ planning alert’ given construction is well underway. I no longer shop here as the parking situation is diabolical. Agree with previous comment, one thing we don’t need is yet another takeaway

That block was said to have been put aside as part of the original development for a small shopping centre to serve the surrounding houses of the development - now it is changed to an aged care facility!!

None of the locals want this here and have indicated such previously. It also completely ruins the parking of Birkdale fair and they have already destroyed the homes of dozens of lorikeets.

The waterfront Modernist home at #92 would be considered well worth preservation in an enlightened world. Many original features remain, and the design makes fantastic use of its site.

The waterfront Modernist home at #92 would be considered well worth preservation in an enlightened world. Many original features remain, and the design makes fantastic use of its site.

No way (literally), there are so many cars parked in the street already, ridiculous...

Nereid is cross street from where I live on Sutphin St. Received call from LJHooker yesterday to advise of their having sold 18 Tremont St. On a personal note, have lived at same address since 1986 and saddens me, and I tried hard, to save our specially protected wetland site on Coolnwynpin Creek from development but in an instant, zoning was changed from 'special protection' to 'commercial'...so the area is today a no go zone for this residential area where I live. At one time you could use walkway entering at 19 Crotona Rd units through to a boardwalk connecting under Moreton Bay Rd bridge built by work-for-the-dole young men, but no longer used by locals. Too risky.

I have strong concerns about the type of dwellings that will replace the former single storey dwelling on this block.
Our ability to use our backyard with privacy maintained will be severely impacted should any dwelling other than single storey be allowed to be constructed on these sites.
Consideration must be given to the concerns of long term rate paying residents that will be impacted by any construction other than a single storey.

No gifts have been made to any Councillor or Council employee.

The owner has stated they intend to have a protected tree that is on council land removed to allow for a second driveway to their new house when it’s constructed with the approval of a sub division. Due to recent progress and tree removal with increasing developments thoroughout this area we now have increased noise and increased traffic and this has destroyed the integrity and tranquility the property owners of this area have previously enjoyed and invested in. This subdivision will further impact on what is essentially a small laneway only with minimal access. Small children and disabled members of the local community regularly use this lane way/ street as parkland access for recreational use. Increasing the vehicle access creates a hazard to them and their carers.

The application is strongly opposed:
-The Redland City Plan (Table9.3.4.2.1) limits street frontages in this area to 10m whereas the application proposes 6.8m for each of the two blocks in the submission.
-The property in question is located on the outside curve of the road into the court and street parking at this property at this time poses safety issues for traffic traversing the street. When vehicles are parked at the corner on both sides of the street, the situation becomes chaotic with little or no view towards oncoming traffic. This development application proposes potential increase in parking and traffic flow at this point in the street, hence decreasing safety at that location. This unsatisfactory situation will be significantly exacerbated for many months during demolition and building construction should this application be approved.

We strongly object to this development proposal for the following reasons:
- as the proposed development is on the outside elbow of the street and has minimal street frontage any additional on-street parking will further impact traffic congestion and chaos to an already hectic corner. There is already minimal on-street parking and it is a blind corner which is always littered with cars.
- the appeal of Aquatic Paradise has been large blocks, this lifestyle will be compromised if blocks are divided and vehicle and marine traffic is increased.
- This would set a precedent for other similar developments on wet blocks in Aquatic Paradise and accordingly, the very reason people moved here will be eroded.

Another mid century home in the Bayside bites the dust. :( Shame these new owners didn't have vision and style. This Era of home has followers, website and Instagram accounts finding them and sell for ALOT of money fully renovated due to the rarity.

What a shame RCC haven't thought to protect this style of home.
My parents have lived around the corner in Eric Street for over 50 years (still there).

This home at No 26 is one of the older ones like theirs, the Redlands Coast should update the age of homes protected, how about that idea council?

It has flow on affects like MORE trees for Koalas, their natural habitat not destroyed. There has been a mating pair that always came to my parents backyard right up till about 6 years ago.

Anyway nothing can be done, I lately feel like RCC is a toothless tiger.
Enter McDonalds down the road for us.
I wonder if council would say 'whoops, that was a loop hole' if it was going ahead in downtown Cleveland? Probably not, more would be done to stop it.

where is location of pole for osprey nest? I consider this a caring gesture for birdlife.

More small lot houses, these do not fit in with Redland bay lifestyle, is there no end to this over development of Redland bay?

I live next door to this proposed development and would like all the information needed to know how badly this is going to impact on myself and my way of living. Both houses that are to be demolished to make way for these units are full of asbestos. The removal of this is of great concern to me, as I am currently watching a house being demolished in Base street, and a man holding a hose on the asbestos sheets being torn down doesn't seem to be a safe way to remove it. I would appreciate all the appropriate information needed, being right next door to this unappealing development in our sleepy little cul de sac. hoping to hear from someone very soon, Lynda Smith

Please can you install the type of drinking fountain that is compatible to filling up drinking bottles, cycle bottles, cups from. With the type that have just the sipping from area at the top, so much water is wasted as you try to catch the water to fill up a bottle. Also in the days of COVID it is not hygienic to use the sipping area where so many other peoples mouths have being near.
With the type that have a lower tap and catching bowl below for dogs to drink from is not hygienic to fill a water bottle or cup from.
Thank you

Point needs more housing. Locals cannot find accommodation

Point needs more housing. Locals cannot find accommodation

Please can you install a water bubbler of the type that you can fill up an actual water bottle/cycling drinks bottle/cup from. For example the water bubblers at The Thornlands Community Park 278 Cleveland-Redland Bay Rd are brilliant. (The type that you can only sip water from the top of the bubbler and dogs can drink from the tap & water collection bowl below are not suitable for topping up drinks bottles or drinking cups from. 1) it is really unhygienic for a drinks bottle to be filled from the tap that dogs drink from. 2) When trying to top a drinks bottle up from the top sipping section of the bubbler so much water is wasted as the water can not be aimed in to the bottle. 3) In times of Covid it is not ideal to only have a sipping water section that so many others have had their mouths near. A drinks bottle tap is more hygienic). Thank you from a regular user of the water bubblers in the area.

There is already a bubbler inside the off leash area and another less than 2m outside the leash area as well as yet another at the playground by the boardwalk entrance. Where abouts is this proposed for please? It would be better placed near the open space where the path leads on to George Thorn Drive. Many people access this area also and further housing development is planned at 124 Thornlands Rd. Thank you

What is a studio? Why is the information below, i.e. name, email and street address, required?

I disagree with turning single blocks into subdivided lots each with a separate dwelling. Infrastructure is already lacking in the area for denser housing to be considered... with respect

I think you are right Stacey. My mistake.

It would appear that Sandra Jehan's comments relate to the proposed development below the Redland Bay pub, not the Bay House development that has commenced construction at 143-149 Esplanade.