Fear and distrust … the outcomes of BCC “planning” policies?

Recent decisions and current processes of “planning” by BCC pit resident against resident, neighbours against neighbours … hardly an outcome which residents would choose. Yet this is the logical outcome of current BCC “planning” processes for the future of our suburbs. Because BCC gives “developers” so many incentives through “relaxations”, development is rife. What of the expectations if not “rights” of residents who like where they are … as it is? The neighbours and residents appear to count for NOTHING.

Some examples may help explain. Perhaps the most onerous is the recent trend by local authorities to extend “relaxations” way beyond the intended use to the point where “relaxations” are no longer “relaxations”, they are “expectations”, at least in the minds of the developers.

BCC has a long history of giving extensive “relaxations”. Once there is a pattern which the developers recognise, why would anyone bother doing a standard “complying” development? This practice of excessive relaxations led to many of the “old” three storey “six-packs” being in the wrong place, having reduced setbacks, reduced car parking or excessive height or storeys. This is a form of “corruption” in that not only is the process corrupted but some developers gain benefits not available to others.

This trend now extends to the situation where neighbours contemplating extensions to their house “expect” their neighbours to agree with “relaxed” ie often severely reduced side boundary clearances and/or maximum height. This process has led to a number of very stressed relationships between neighbours.

Boundary clearances and heights are meant to be reciprocal ie the “desirable” distance between two buildings is determined by planning principles related to breeze, light, shade, privacy, outlook, density etc. One neighbour should quite rightly expect to provide half that distance or more with the “right” to build to the minimum. What “right” has a neighbour to ask for less than that and why should the neighbour be prepared, let alone expected, to agree with a reduced setback or greater height on his neighbours site?

There are two very interesting examples and extreme precedents of this principle in Indooroopilly.

The first is a large redevelopment site adjoining Sandy Creek and the St Lucia Golf Course on Indooroopilly Road. The neighbours opposite presumably expected the town plan to apply and to control the height of buildings to 8.5m. However in an interesting twist, BCC has approved the site to be filled with up to 4-5m of fill on top of which are the two storey houses! What happened to the 8.5m maximum height measured above “natural” ground level? Relaxed? Surely not 4-5m in height!

The second is a current application for approval on the site of the former Rectory for St Andrew’s Church. The site is on the north-western corner of Lambert Road and Central Avenue. Along Lambert Road is a series of “old” Queenslanders that “should” be retained under Council’s character protection policies! To the north of the site is a “six-pack” which by definition is 3 storeys and has a 5-6m setback from the boundaries. People who bought these units would have done so with an expectation that any development on the adjoining site(s) would have similar setback and height (as above, the reciprocal principle). The application however proposes development virtually to the boundary… creating a three-storey space that is around 6m rather than 12m between the buildings. Not only this but the building is proposed to have a front setback (ie from the street) of 3-4m whereas the rest of the street has 6m.

Granting of “relaxations” such as these not only threatens amenity and quality of life of residents. Arguably it lowers quality or “character” of the area and sets new precedents or “expectations” for developers.

It appears Council is deliberately encouraging development by granting extensive “relaxations” without requiring sufficient merit as grounds for the relaxation. Relaxations have become expectations by precedent! With “local residents” excluded from the review process, all that current residents have to look forward to is indeed fear and distrust … fear of excessive development and distrust of neighbours.

Neighbours are potentially empowered if not given the expectation or arguably perhaps, even the “right” by BCC to utilise processes which in effect “bully” neighbours into agreeing with “relaxations”. To not do so is to insist on one’s own rights, and to decide not to extend those of your neighbour! Hardly conducive to confidence, community, neighbourliness, conviviality, security and the “livable city” we hear so much about.

Back to YeatesIT.biz and True Resources