WELLINGTON Point residents are up in arms over a unit development application that they say is almost double the medium density criteria.
The applicant seeks to build one unit for every 103 square metres instead of one per 200 square metres.
Residents are urging people concerned about the scale of residential developments occurring in the Redlands to oppose the application, saying it will set a nasty precedent if approved.
The five storey, 41-unit development is proposed for Fernbourne Road, not far from the Wellington Point railway station.
Resident Michael Bailey said the application found there would be negligible traffic impact and, surprisingly, there appeared to be no allowance for on-street parking.
“With two townhouse complexes directly opposite the proposed development, this impact on traffic flow and safety cannot be ignored,’’ he said.
Most trees on the development’s three blocks of land would be cleared and there appeared to be no attention paid to tree protection orders or koala habitat overlay.
“The development application appears more aligned with inner city Brisbane expectations,’’ he said.
Wellington Point councillor Wendy Boglary said she regarded the proposal as over-development and had alerted residents when the application came to council.
“I have met with residents to discuss the issues and (will) have a meeting with (council) officers,’’ she said.
Cr Boglary said she would meet with residents after receiving advice from council staff.
The contentious application comes on the heels of a similar development at Thorneside which was approved by councillors because it “predominantly’’ met planning obligations.
Wellington Point resident Graham Carter said the latest development proposal was outrageous because it made a mockery of the apartment building code.
Mr Carter said there was an urgent need for people to get objections in, with the consultation period closing on December 14.
A letter to residents from protestors says squeezing ever more houses and units on to small plots was impacting on quality of life through increased traffic, noise and loss of aesthetic amenity.
The 4224 square metre development site currently had three low-set homes but these would be replaced with two blocks containing mostly three-bedroom flats.
“Well over 100 people will soon live where seven people live now,’’ the letter says.
The proposal was for a semi-rural area and did not conform to the apartment building code which states that the development “should complement the character of the surrounding area’’.
“Five storey blocks fronting straight on to the road is totally out of keeping with the area,’’ Mr Bailey said.
The project also would see 75-year-old cypress trees felled because they impacted on the design of the building.
Mr Bailey said the opposite should have occurred, with building design amended to keep the trees.