A Refusal Motion with planning grounds was supported!
This morning a Special meeting was called to decide on the proposed application for 10 units on a 800.3 lot in Wellington Point as I called the application to come before Council in a meeting rather than have officers decide due to my concerns, which are also reflective of the community’s concerns
I have had grave concerns with this proposal since it was lodged and was relieved today when the alternative Refusal motion I put up was supported by Councillors.
It was a 7/4 vote and I thank , Cr Paul Golle, Cr Lance Hewlett, Cr Murray Elliott, Cr Tracey Huges, Cr Paul Gleeson and Cr Paul Bishop.
Councillors understand there is a need for a variety of housing types but livability and location have to be considered. As I said today I wanted to send a strong message about achieving a Redlands standard which is best design practice.
I had to declare a “perceived conflict of interest” as yesterday I learnt that Todd Reinke, who declared his proposal to stand as a candidate in Division 1 in the March Local Government election is a business partner with “go2youroom” and associated with this development. Councillors voted I could stay in the room to partake in the meeting.
I moved the alternative Refusal motion as I believe there are sufficient planning grounds to refuse the application.
I have included the motion below which clearly demonstrates the grounds and I have also included the speech I gave that clarifies the City Plan planning points.
Points I made today highlighted how the changes in the new City Plan adopted by the majority of Councillors last October have impacted what can be proposed in this zone…
This area in various previous City Plans has been zoned medium density since 1988 so it has been said to me residents should have expected such a proposal…. however, there were changes in the new City Plan which now allow greater site coverage, reduced setbacks, reduced open space and no density limits, so the neighbours in this area could never have expected such a proposal. Proposed developments such as this one will be submitted now under the new City Plan which in my opinion push every boundary. So I am glad today a stand was taken for better designs.
The City Plan and council’s intent should be to deliver best community outcomes while accommodating growth and is not for developer yield.
For Wednesday’s Special Meeting
Today councillors are making a decision on a proposal for 10 units on a 800.3 m2 lot in a quiet residential street of Wellington Point. 800 m2 is the minimal preferred lot size in this zone so this one just scrapes through by .3 of a metre.
To demonstrate the size of the current proposed “studio” units approx. 2 would fit into these Council Chambers….please see post it notes I placed earlier to illustrate the size of the units. 10 units on 800.3m2.
Density, it is said is not a planning concern, a point I could debate, however I will agree that density might not be a concern if the other planning elements in the City Plan such as setbacks, car parking, landscaping all complied. If these standards placed in to act as constraints and the tools to achieve better design outcomes are also not complied with then the root cause, the density or yield of the development, does become a problem.
This development, if approved as is, will greatly impact the local residents and has caused a great deal of anxiety, many residents have sent emails to Council and or have phoned me regarding their concerns.
In MDR as well as the City Plan’s performance Outcomes and Acceptable Outcomes there is a new Multiple Dwelling Design Guide to accompany the City Plan. The aim of the Multiple Dwelling Design Guide is to achieve high standard design outcomes for multiple dwellings with Redlands City. The guide provides design advice for applicants when preparing and submitting applications for approval.
This proposed development does not include or meet the Design Principles in the Guide and as shown in the motion does not comply with the desired outcomes of the City Plan.
It is due to this squeezing in of 10 units on this size allotment that I have called this application in and now seek support for this motion so we can stand by the Strategic intent of the City Plan to support the community’s vision of a well-designed, vibrant city renowned for its natural, scenic and cultural values.
The reasons for refusal for this application are: –
1. The designed car parking does not meet performance outcomes of the City Plan (please put up the attachment of the swept paths) as the proposal does not
• provide on-site car parking that is easily negotiated
• easily accessible by vehicles, unpacking groceries would be an issue when car are parked beside you
• the design also doesn’t optimise the safety and security of users.
• The layout is not functional.
• The swept path analysis demonstrates that the access to the car parking spaces is extremely tight and reliant on numerous precise movements.
• Car park 9 is non-compliant and the column may have to be moved to achieve this. Performance outcome is that car parks are to be easily assessable therefore the current design car park does not meet the Performance Outcomes listed.
2. The proposal does not provide a waste storage location that provides :-
• a high level of on-site amenity for occupants,
• Minimises the impact to surrounding residential amenity and minimises nuisance to adjoining properties.
• The current location of the bins, (please point out on a map) minimum 20 bins, is within close proximity to the adjoining neighbour to the north and located either side of one of the pedestrian entries to the units.
• Therefore, the proposal doesn’t comply with PO20 in regard to odour, noise, PO23 in relation to location.
3. In regards to private open space the proposal doesn’t provide:-
Adequate private open space that is useable in size, shape, functional or a sufficient level of privacy for residents therefore the proposal does not comply with Performance Outcome PO5 of the MDR zone code.
The development isn’t required to supply communal open space which would have been a probable solution in the previous City Plan so it is vital all open space is useable and complies with the City plans outcomes.
4. The proposed development current setbacks do not allow:-
• an appropriate level of amenity for the existing northern property
• plus the setbacks do not provide space for landscaping to complement building mass and
• to screen the northern side of the building or
• Provide adequate space for service functions such as the washing of a car, cloths drying or the washing out of the bins.
• There are actually two street frontages and two side setback….no side is actually the rear which would require a 4m setback.
In the new City Plan the street frontage was reduced to 6 m from 4 m and the side set backs are 3m the same as the RPS…the rear set back was kept at the same distance of 4m so with reduced setbacks and an increase of allowable site coverage it is again important this planning constraint is complaint.
5. The current proposal does not provide on-site landscaping which is sufficient to comply with performance outcome PO19 or be in line with Medium Density Design code.
This is probably as there simply isn’t sufficient space on the lot to facilitate the retaining wall, pathway, water tanks and landscaping.
There are discrepancies between the various provided plans in relation to the landscaping, retaining walls plans and the engineering and architectural plans.
There is also an existing street tree that the proposal has not demonstrated will not be impacted. As this tree adds to the charm and identity of this location and according to the City Plan and the MD Design Guide should be protected this is another concern that doesn’t comply with Performance Outcome 16 of the landscape code.
A Variety of housing is required within a City and the sign on this property states go2yourroom.com, which I understand allows investors to buy the studios, and people can use an app to find an available room in an area and use these studios as medium to long term “affordable” accommodation. If they want to use for short term the applicant will need to apply to council again.
As with any form of housing, location is the key and these small studios are not in the right location.
Yes , walking distance to the train however I know young people who travel for work and they move closer to Brisbane City due to the cost of train travel and the time of the trip. If they work elsewhere they would more than likely need to use a car as the public transport in the area has limited range so location is not attractive to young people.
Though the Village might be a 10 minute walk to actually buy groceries it is a distance of over 3 kilometres so again the need for a car trip.
8 of the 10 units are on the second floor which isn’t appealing to the aged or less ability people, though the development doesn’t supply a disability parking anyway.
Other councils City Plan actually smaller designated areas with zones such as medium density residential. Studio apartments are preferable in the higher density/service areas such as south bank etc. , in Cleveland where people don’t spend a lot of time in the studio and can easily go out to eat, work and play.
I am asking for your support today to refuse this application as Council has done previously on application to achieve a better community outcome as per the City Plan and the medium Density Design Code.
That the application for a material change of use for the purposes of a Multiple Dwelling (10 units) on the land known as 18 Chermside Street, Wellington Point and described as Lots 43 and 44 on RP 14168 be issued a refusal based on the grounds below:
1. The proposal does not provide on-site car parking that is easily negotiated and easily accessible by vehicles, nor does it optimise the safety and security of users. The proposed development does not comply with the following provisions of the City Plan:
a) Performance outcome PO8 of the transport, servicing, access and parking code;
b) Performance outcome PO9 of the transport, servicing, access and parking code; and
c) Performance outcome PO14 of the infrastructure works code.
2. The proposal does not provide a waste storage location that provides a high level of on-site amenity for occupants, minimises the impact to surrounding residential amenity, and minimises nuisance to adjoining properties. The proposed development does not comply with the following provisions of the City Plan:
a) Performance outcome PO20 of the medium density residential zone code;
b) Performance outcome PO23 of the medium density residential zone code; and
c) Performance outcome PO14 of the infrastructure works code.
Private open space
3. The proposal does not provide adequate private open space that is useable in size and shape, functional, or which provides for a high level of privacy for residents. The proposed development does not comply with the following provisions of the City Plan:
a) Performance outcome PO5 of the medium density residential zone code.
4. The proposed building setbacks do not maintain appropriate levels of amenity for the existing property to the north. The development setbacks do not provide space for landscaping to complement building massing and to screen the northern side of the building, nor is there adequate space for service functions. The proposed development does not comply with the following provisions of the City Plan:
a) Performance outcome PO11 of the medium density residential zone code.
5. The proposal does not provide on-site landscaping which is sufficient to enhance the appearance of the development, provide privacy between dwellings or screen unsightly components. The proposed development does not comply with the following provisions of the City Plan:
a) Performance outcome PO19 of the medium density residential zone code.