Residents urge council to stand firm on decision to refuse development application

A group of north Brisbane residents is calling on Council to stand firm on its decision to refuse a development application for 32 units in what they say is a flood-prone area.

A group of Nundah residents have put up signs protesting against a proposed townhouse development at 77 Walkers Way.

A GROUP of Nundah residents is calling on Brisbane City Council to stand firm on its decision to refuse a development application for 32 units in what they say is a flood-prone area.

The application for land at 77 Walkers Way was refused by the council in April, but the decision has been appealed and has gone to the Planning and Environment Court.

SUBSCRIPTION DEAL: $1 A WEEK FOR THE FIRST 12 WEEKS

Development plans on waterway ‘defies logic’

Twenty-five residents made submissions objecting to the proposal, however they believe they must continue to make their objections heard to ensure the council “strongly defends” its decision in court.

An image showing the Kedron Brook elevation for a proposed townhouse development at 77 Walkers Way, Nundah. Image: Brisbane City Council pdonline

However Cr Adam Allan (Northgate) said applications were not refused unless there was strong grounds to do so and the council was prepared to defend its decision on appeal.

Lenore Rodrigues, who lives about 200m from Walkers Way, is just one resident prepared to continue putting pressure on council.

“Quite a few people in the community had expressed a lot of concern against the proposal, including myself, and I feel council really heard that and acted on it,” she said.

MORE NORTH BRISBANE NEWS:

Virginia United FC launches walking football

Concierge helps drivers with their coffee orders

New technology helps golfers monitor their game

“My concern in the appeal process is that if council doesn’t feel the public are still against the development they may not defend their stance as strongly in court as they would if they felt there was a lot of public concern if the decision was overturned.”

Cr Allan said, “When refusing applications Council are prepared to strongly defend their decision in the Planning and Environment Court and will do so in this case”.

“I have had some contact with residents on this application and have conveyed similar feedback to them.”

An image showing the communal open space for a proposed townhouse development at 77 Walkers Way, Nundah. Image: Brisbane City Council pdonline

Mrs Rodrigues said the group had started online and paper petitions and a few residents were also writing to council and state representatives.

“My main concern is flooding in the area,” she said.

“I’m also concerned about the environmental impacts and how that would be protected, and increased traffic volume. I already feel there is a lot of traffic and safety issues.”

Another resident Sebastian Keim said this was the first time he’d had an issue with a development proposal in Nundah.

“I’m quite concerned about the development and I don’t think the community in Nundah is a ‘not in my back yard community’.

“There are a lot of townhouses going up in Nundah and people aren’t concerned about them.

“This proposal doesn’t meet community standards. It’s in rural zoned land and if you go up and down Kedron Brook you don’t find houses that close to the waterway. Everyone knows how Kedron Brook floods; that area sometimes floods on two sides and there’s only one exit.”

Nundah residents have put up signs protesting against a proposed townhouse development at 77 Walkers Way.

Mr Keim said he was “really keen” to see council defend its decision strongly in court.

The Walkers Way proposal includes a mix of two and three-storey townhouses on a 7069sqm corner lot with frontages to Walkers Way and Hedley Ave.

Council rejected the application stating it conflicted with a number of provisions of the Brisbane City Plan 2014, the Nundah district neighbourhood plan code, rural zone code, multiple dwelling code, streetscape hierarchy overlay code, flood overlay code and biodiversity area code, and was also inconsistent with the strategic framework.

In its notice of appeal to Council, DFC (Project Management) stated the decision to refuse the development application was “erroneous, unreasonable and unlawful”.

It further states there is a strong level of community and economic need for the proposed development, which “will result in an improved amenity outcome for residents in the locality”.