Red Hill locals fear uni parties, traffic will plague their street if units go ahead

Long-term residents of a little inner-city street where police have been called out to control student parties are at loggerheads over plans for a 41-unit project.

Plans for a “build-to-rent’’ unit block in a narrow, dead-end Red Hill street have stirred up a hornet’s nest, with claims the project would worsen diabolic street parking and noisy parties.

But the owner of the 32-34 Upper Clifton Tce property, in Brisbane’s inner-north, said in a long submission to neighbours that they were known as “exemplars’’ in providing affordable rentals, as well as working with tenants to ensure they behaved.

They said that as residents of the street themselves for many years, they did not want to cause their neighbours problems and said such projects were desperately needed to address a lack of affordable rental accommodation.

One neighbour said they counted 21 parking fines slipped under car windscreen wipers in a single day and said the steep street was often parked out because it was near QUT’s Kelvin Grove campus.

Artist's impression of the original design.

Others said police had been called multiple times over the years because of out-of-control parties at existing rented unit properties.

Public notification for the three-four storey complex, which would have 41 mostly-studio apartments (bed and bathroom only, with communal kitchen/common areas) began last week.

Town planners Urbis recently lodged revised plans, cutting site cover from 70 per cent to 47 per cent after Council officers raised a number of concerns.

Urbis said the build-to-rent model sweeping the development industry in recent times was so new Council did not have specific rules for such projects.

In build-to-rent schemes the developer does not sell a property once it is finished, but instead rents out units.

Approved, very narrow separation between two other properties on the street. The 32-34 Upper Clifton Tce owners say they have increased the separation between their proposal and other properties.

Urbis said that meant the owner could control whether tenants were allowed to have cars, while also pointing out that there were frequent bus services on Kelvin Grove Rd.

“The proposed development has been revised to incorporate an increased side setback and provide a height transition to adjoining residential uses,’’ it said.

“The proposed redesign has significantly reduced the site cover, by 23 per cent, to ensure it is now proportionate and commensurate of the site area and frontage width for the site.

Traffic consultants TTM said in its report that there was growing demand in the area for affordable housing, which build-to-rent (BTR) could address.

The revised design with greatly reduced site cover.

“The market for (this) BTR project is specifically targeted at a demographic that are sensitive to affordability and sustainability,’’ it said.

“That is, residents that generally do not want to pay for a parking space and/or are attracted to

using alternative modes of transport from either a cost saving or sustainability perspective.’’

But one neighbour said the project, which had only 20 resident parking spaces, would cause a 25 per cent increase in the present population of about 120-130 people.

“The traffic management report has underestimated the demand on-street parking,’’ they said in a submission.

“I recently counted 21 parking fines imposed on illegally parked vehicles in the street, mostly

relating to students.’’

Street view of the original proposal.

Another neighbour said police had been called out many times because of littering, noise and fights at existing nearby student accommodation.

Others wrote that it already took up to five minutes for just one car to turn right from Upper Clifton Tce into Musgrave Rd in peak periods.

The property owner wrote a lengthy submission to their neighbours to allay their concerns.

“We understand and appreciate the concerns raised. Our family are long-term owners in the street and in the local area,’’ they said.

“It is our intention to continue to own our existing property, even post-development,

for the long-term rather than strata individual units for sale.

“As a long-term owner, we know many of the local residents personally.’’

An existing unit block in the area. Urbis says there are at least half a dozen nearby unit blocks as high, or higher, than the 32-34 Upper Clifton Tce proposal.

They said they had no immediate plans to build on the site because of difficult market conditions.

“The alternative is that our family no longer own the property and the property will at

some stage be redeveloped for apartments on the site by a third party with no understanding or long-term commitment to the area,’’ they wrote.

“If our intention was solely for profit our best option would be to simply sell the property

as is, or build and sell the individual apartments to multiple unrelated property owners.

“The units would ultimately be let to unrelated tenants, with no centralised management controls over ongoing impacts to the local community.

“Our tenancies all undergo a strict application and selection process and sign up to

clear and enforceable rules around what it means to be a good tenant.’’

More details, including the full submission from the property owner, are on Council’s development application portal, developmenti. Search for application A005975016