Paradise Point planning battle compared to plot of The Castle as locals object to proposed duplex development
Residents of a quiet street are fighting a proposed development they say will forever change their slice of Paradise, with warnings it’s ‘the thin end of the wedge’ for their suburb. FULL DETAILS
Council
Don't miss out on the headlines from Council. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Residents of a tight-knit suburban community who hold an annual Christmas street party and are “forever in and out of one another’s houses” have united to fight a proposed development described as “the thin end of the wedge” for the area.
Locals in tranquil Lakefield Crescent in Paradise Point said they were engaged in a “David versus Goliath” battle to halt a planned three-storey duplex development on their street, with one likening their fight to the plot line of The Castle.
Council has received 64 formal objections to the application which would see the two-home duplex built on a 651 sqm corner block at 19 Lakefield Crescent. Opponents object to the scale of the proposed building, which plans show would include entertaining areas with bars on its “partial” third levels and setbacks smaller than normally allowed.
Protest signs now line Lakefield Crescent, while a petition against the proposal has been signed by more than 150 people – including residents of nearby Sundown Dr, Tradewinds Ave, Seabreeze St and Seaspray St.
Tamsin Jackson, whose home faces the proposed development, said locals were engaged in a “David versus Goliath” battle to stop it going ahead.
“The block size is too small for what they want – three storeys in a residential area,” Ms Jackson said.
“Every block (on this street) has a single dwelling, whether single storey or double.
“Families, retirees, we all chose to buy here rather than the more crowded sides of Paradise Point and Biggera Waters.”
In planning documents consultants for the proponents Samuel Mark Verheul Butson and Sarah Van Der Spuy say the proposed building is “sympathetic to neighbours”, “appropriately set back from all property boundaries” and “ensures privacy and amenity is protected for all exiting and future residents”.
However Jason and Alexandra Boultonat, whose single-level home borders the proposed development and would see a garage wall built within 20cm of their property, said they feared their house would be “completely blocked in shade” if it went ahead, while they were also concerned about privacy issues and potential noise from its rooftop entertaining areas.
“There will be no more sun,” Ms Boultonat said.
“There’s six windows on that side and one of the villas that they propose to put in there looks straight through two of our bedroom windows, straight into our lounge room, straight down the side of our house. We’ll have no privacy at all in our own home.
“The other one looks straight over our pool.”
Mr Boultonat said the couple were shocked when they first learned of the application, and feared it would spoil the tranquil lifestyle they enjoyed in their “forever home”.
“It took us a year searching to find this house,” Mr Boultonat said.
“This was supposed to be our forever house. We never had any plans on moving. But then if this happens, who would buy it?”
Former elite swimming coach and Order of Australia recipient Bill Sweetenham is also among those objecting.
In a letter to council he said he feared he was “witnessing the destruction in the name of progress of our suburb”.
“My concerns (are) for Paradise Point becoming Paradise Lost,” he said.
Tradewinds Ave resident Michael Shankey said that in his opinion, allowing the development would “set a precedent” for the area and was “the thin end of the wedge”.
“There would be extra traffic, more street parking, and the likelihood of investors and tenants affecting the quiet lifestyle which we enjoy,” Mr Shankey said.
In the planning application proponents put forward a different view, saying the proposed development “will deliver attractive and contemporary residences”.
“The dwellings will comprise of Ground Level living, kitchen, dining and a fourth bedroom; Level 1 will contain two bedrooms, bathroom, second living and a master bedroom with balcony, walk-in robe and ensuite; and Level 2 is proposed to comprise an entertaining space with powder room, bar and outdoor roof terrace,” the application states.
“Each unit will contain dedicated pedestrian access from street and lifts will access all levels of the building.”
While at a proposed height of 8.99m the building would be within the allowed limit of 9m for the area, the consultants concede it would not be compliant with setback and site coverage guidlines, making it an Impact Assessable application.
“Despite minor non-compliances with side boundary setbacks, these are limited to garages and an architectural feature and will not impact on neighbouring amenity,” the application states.
“The proposed development presents a subtropical, light weight and high-quality design which makes a positive contribution to streetscape character for both frontages, despite the minor relaxations sought.”
At a meeting at Lakefield Crescent on Monday attended by about 50 local residents, Division 4 councillor Cameron Caldwell said “no decision” had been made as yet, and the development was still being assessed by city officers.
However he cautioned that dual occupancy was typically allowed at corner blocks in low density residential areas, although rules said such sites should be 800 sqm.
“I don’t want anyone to be under a misapprehension that it is a straight no,” Cr Caldwell said.
“If someone was going to put a nuclear power plant there, that would be a straight no. But it is possible for someone to apply for a dual occupancy in a low density residential area.”
However Cr Caldwell said there were also other criteria council officers would use to consider the merits of the proposal.
“The thing that I’m most concerned about is the built form and the bulky appearance and the overbearing nature of the design,” Cr Caldwell said.
“That is the second part of the criteria (council consider), which is (for) a low intensity, low rise outcome.”
Residents at the sometimes fiery meeting suggested they would take the fight to the Planning and Environment Court should the development be approved.
Concerned locals have until Thursday December 15 to lodge their objections with council. A decision on the application is expected early in the New Year.
More Coverage
New height limit for Palm Beach after tower’s green light
Palm Beach will see a new height limit for buildings after council’s planning committee approved a big tower in the coastal suburb’s commercial heart.
Pearl Jam pileup: Transport ‘sh** show’ prompts action
Gold Coast City Council has been forced to take action after last night's Pearl Jam concert ended on a sour note for fans. Read what happened.