Sherwood/Graceville diStrict Draft NeighbourhooD PlaN ... · placement of garages increases the...

Sherwood/Graceville diStrict Draft NeighbourhooD PlaN

SubmiSSioNS rePort

Sherwood/Graceville District Draft Neighbourhood Plan Submissions Report 1

Table of Contents

Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

General ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9

Administrative ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Development Control Precinct/ Character ................................................................................................................................................... 12

Community.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 21

Environment................................................................................................................................................................................................ 22

Infrastructure............................................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Land Use .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26

Lot Configuration......................................................................................................................................................................................... 36

Statutory Text ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 37

Active Transportation .................................................................................................................................................................................. 46

Traffic and Roads........................................................................................................................................................................................ 49

Corinda........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52

Character .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52

Transport and Traffic................................................................................................................................................................................... 55

Corinda Precinct ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 57

Heritage ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57

Proposed MP3 ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 58

Transport and Traffic................................................................................................................................................................................... 63


Urban Design.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 67

Corinda & Sherwood Precincts ....................................................................................................................................................................... 76

Character .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 76

Land Use .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 77

Statutory Requirement ................................................................................................................................................................................ 78

Traffic.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 79

Urban Design.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 81

Sherwood ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 99

Character .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 99

Land Use .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 102

Traffic/Transportation................................................................................................................................................................................ 103

Urban Design............................................................................................................................................................................................ 104

Sherwood Precinct ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 106

Character .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 106

Land Use .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 107

Traffic/Transportation................................................................................................................................................................................ 108

Urban Design............................................................................................................................................................................................ 110

St Aidan’s - School ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 115

Administrative ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 115

Area Classification .................................................................................................................................................................................... 118


Future Growth of School ........................................................................................................................................................................... 120

General ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 122

Transport and Traffic................................................................................................................................................................................. 125

Urban Design............................................................................................................................................................................................ 130

St Aidan’s - Ambiwerra ................................................................................................................................................................................. 131


Environment.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 132

Land Use .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 132

Statutory Requirement .............................................................................................................................................................................. 135

Transport and Traffic................................................................................................................................................................................. 136

Alan Fletcher Research Station .................................................................................................................................................................... 137

Environment.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 137

Land Use .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 138

Character .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 144

General ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 145

Community Hub Precinct .............................................................................................................................................................................. 145

General ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 145

Land Use .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 147

Statutory Requirements ............................................................................................................................................................................ 149

West Side Character Precinct....................................................................................................................................................................... 150


General ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 150

Light Industry Precinct .................................................................................................................................................................................. 154


Environment.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 156

Land Use .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 157

Transport &Traffic ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 159

Sport and Recreation Precinct ..................................................................................................................................................................... 160


Statutory Requirements ............................................................................................................................................................................ 165

Transport &Traffic ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 165

Graceville ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 167


Character .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 170

General ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 172

Public Transportation ................................................................................................................................................................................ 173

Oxley Creek.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 174

Oxley Rd ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 175

St Joseph’s Sporting Ground........................................................................................................................................................................ 176

Montrose ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 177

General ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 182


Consultation.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 184

Objective 1 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 184

Support ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 184

Object ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 185

Objective 2 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 186

Support ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 186

Objective 3 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 187

Active transportation ................................................................................................................................................................................. 187

Safety ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 189

Speed Limits ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 190

Objective 4 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 191

Active Travel ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 191

Parking ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 193

Rail ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 194

Roads ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 195

Safety ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 196

Traffic Congestion..................................................................................................................................................................................... 200

Objective 5 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 203

Public Transportation ................................................................................................................................................................................ 203

Objective 6 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 205


General ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 205

Ecologically Sustainable Development...................................................................................................................................................... 206

Traffic........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 210

Trees & Landscape Values ....................................................................................................................................................................... 211

Vegetation Protection................................................................................................................................................................................ 212

Objective 7 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 213

Objective 8 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 213


Introduction

This report documents the consideration of submissions made during the public notif ication of the Sherwood/Graceville District

Neighbourhood Plan from 17 May 2010 to 2 July 2010. 605 Submissions were received about the Neighbourhood Plan. Of these,

23 were entered late and 44 were incorrectly made, leaving 561 correctly made valid submissions.

The breakdown for the submissions is as follows:

Unique and Modified Proforma

Submissions

Number of

Submissions

Proforma Submissions Number of

Submissions

General 160 St Aidan’s proforma 1 49

Chapel Gardens Retirement Village 5 St Aidan’s proforma 2 76

Councillor Proforma 16 Councillor Proforma 84

Corinda and Sherwood Centres Precincts 8 Corinda Centre Proforma 159

Hassall Street DCP 3 Corinda and Sherwood Centres Precincts Proforma 1 21

St Aidan’s proforma 3 1 Corinda and Sherwood Centres Precincts Proforma 2 2

Sherwood Centre 2 Corinda and Sherwood Centres Precincts Proforma 3 2

Family Submissions 5 417 Honour Ave DCP addition Proforma 4

417 Honour Ave DCP addition 1 Duplicate Submissions 7


The following table summarises the issues raised in submissions and how input has been incorporated into the Plan. In keeping

with the commitment to community engagement that is a key aspect of Neighbourhood Planning, suggested changes have been

incorporated wherever possible and appropriate. These suggested changes may be subject to change by the State Government

during the second State interest check.

The key issues that were raised by submitters were:

Location/Topic Support Object

Corinda and Sherwood Growth Precincts 9 198

Corinda Precinct 129 165

Character Retention 169 6

Alan Fletcher: Use for residential purposes 0 161

Sport and Recreation Precinct 154 2

St. Aidan’s School expansion 7 146

Character extend protection 114 0

Alan Fletcher: Retention of bushland and access along river 58 0

Community hub precinct 47 3


Issue Response Changes to the Plan Submitter ID

General

Administrative

Council is urged to explain to residents in responding to objections on development applications why their concerns could not be accommodated rather than announcing briefly that the final decision is that the application has been approved. Reference is made to a development application for demolition of a pre-1946 Queenslander at 12 Hedges Street where over 20 submissions were made and Council responded with a generic response.

It is proposed that submitters will be notified of Council's final responses to submissions and that information will be available on the Neighbourhood Planning website for all residents to view.

no SGD594



Vocal residents at community consultation sessions who expressed their objection to the Plan (and to the proposed increase in densities) on the basis that no one in the area was supportive. Whilst the views of these residents are respected, it is important to clarify that their views are not necessarily representative of the community. The Council is urged to consider that the submissions are unlikely to reflect the community’s complete feelings toward the plan as with most public consultation processes there is always a very vocal minority. Please consider that there are many in the community who will not feel the need to make a submission because they share the same vision as Council and are looking forward to the changes.

Support for the draft Plan is acknowledged. no SGD219

Energex claim they were not consulted during the first State interest review either in 2010 or at the time of the previous State interest review and would like to be included in all future State interest reviews in order to guarantee that Energex has the opportunity to provide confidential comments regarding future intentions and demand requirements for the area.

State interests reviews are managed by the Queensland State Government, under a process set out in the Integrated Planning Act which continues to apply to the preparation of this Neighbourhood Plan. The submitter's concern will be passed on to the Department of Infrastructure & Planning at the second State interest check stage.

no SGD538



Submitter concerned that the public consultation process has not been as comprehensive and complete as the Council has suggested.

The Neighbourhood Planning community engagement process has been extensive. The program has included

• 4 themed public meetings/workshops for urban design, transport and traffic, heritage and character and community and facilities and open space • 5 Community Planning Team Meetings with a smaller reference group of community members

• 2 ‘Get to Know Your Neighbourhood Plan’ Workshops where the community was able to discuss the Plan with a town planner

• Letters were sent out to announce the launch of the Plan, and the launch of the formal notification period

• a discussion forum also available through Council’s website during the early stages of the plan and

• Surveys and targeted engagement occurred at this stage as well. Whilst some members of the community may not be aware of the Neighbourhood Plan, every effort has been made to consult widely during its preparation.

Additional details of the engagement program is available on page 6 of the Neighbourhood Plan.

no SGD071



Rename the Plan to the Chelmer/Corinda District Neighbourhood Plan.

The plan name reflects the district including these suburbs.

no SGD117

Development Control Precinct/ Character

The desire to protect the more special of the pre-1946 houses is understood but it is considered important to ensure that it is still possible to renovate these houses at a reasonable cost. The list of prescriptive requirements such as only raising a house 750mm or retaining all visible original windows may conflict with other requirements such as minimising the built area or achieving a 6 star energy rating. Proposed alterations and extensions of these houses should be carefully reviewed on an individual basis and design objectives discussed with the owners rather than creating a tick list.

The character controls proposed in the Plan allow for a range of improvements to dwellings, including internal renovations or extensions to the side or rear of the property.

The submission relates to Acceptable Solutions, which are one (but not the only way) to demonstrate that a particular proposed development meets the Performance Criteria and other higher provisions of the Code. Other methods may also be possible and these can be discussed with applicants as part of the development assessment process.

A Heritage and Character booklet has been produced as part of the Enhancement Program for the Sherwood Graceville district. The booklet contains information and examples of landscaping, style, materials and locations for fences, garages and driveways to help owners renovate houses in character areas.

no SGD489



Objection to A3.5 (Acceptable Solution for pre-1946 homes, page 32): “Driveways and parking areas use a minimum of 50% permeable materials including car tracks, sleepers, pavers, gravels interspersed with soft landscaping. Large expanses of bitumen and/or solid concrete are not supported.” The submitter who has lived in the area and undertaken small lot developments, advises that the sub grade for the area is unsuitable for supporting car tracks or similar 50% permeable materials. The sub grade is highly reactive clay and any moisture penetration will cause substantial movement and heaving to the sub grade with shrinkage in dry periods. Clay becomes mud when wet, termites are prolific in the area concrete car tracks move in extreme wet conditions, The submitter suggests all driveways are made from a 100% monolithic structure to repel water off the driveway and away to suitable drainage.

Concrete driveways can detract from the traditional character of an area, particularly where large expanses are proposed and where more traditional materials, such as gravel, are prevalent. Over time, reducing the extent of concrete driveways in an area can make a significant contribution to the appearance of an area as a green, leafy street.

The submission refers to Acceptable Solutions, which are one (but not the only way) to demonstrate that a particular proposed development meets the Performance Criteria and other higher provisions of the Code. Other methods may also be possible and these can be discussed with applicants as part of the development assessment process.

no SGD179



With regard to the Character Housing regulations in the Neighbourhood Plan, the submitter is concerned with the requirement that garages be situated under or behind the house rather than in front. Specific concerns are: the safety of children around reversing cars, the placement of garages increases the length of driveways possibly reducing the visibility of the entire driveway.

In character residential areas, the preferred location for garages is the rear of a property, in order to reduce visual impacts on the streetscape and to avoid detracting from the traditional character of the house. The need to ensure that garages are safe is important regardless of the location of the garage.

The submission relates to Acceptable Solutions, which are one (but not the only way) to demonstrate that a particular proposed development meets the Performance Criteria and other higher provisions of the Code. Other methods may also be possible and these can be discussed with applicants as part of the development assessment process.

no SGD184

The submitter supports the protection of pre-1946 character homes, and wishes that this overlay include all streets with intact character homes.

Local character surveys are conducted for each Neighbourhood Plan to determine which streets should be retained, removed or added to the list of Development Control Precincts maintained in the Brisbane City Plan, based on their remaining character.

no SGD154, SGD188



Pre-1946 houses do not compare to the liveability of a 2001 house and are small and cannot be expanded to improve liveability by virtue of “character” house restraints. Property owners should be able to have the choice to remove their property from the DCP.

The character controls proposed in the Plan allow for a range of improvements to dwellings, including internal renovations or extensions to the side or rear of the property.

A Heritage and Character booklet has been produced as part of the enhancement program for Sherwood Graceville district. This booklet contains information and examples of landscaping, style, materials and locations for fences, garages and driveways to help owners renovate houses in character areas.

no SGD216

The extension of the character precincts and demolition control precincts is supported; however, the plan must go further to preserve the character of this area which is one of the few relatively intact character areas remaining in the City. An extensive tract of timber and tin houses should be retained. It is noted that there are numerous proposed Demolition Control Precincts also being removed which should be restored.

Local character surveys are conducted for each Neighbourhood Plan to determine which streets should be retained, removed or added to the list of Development Control Precincts maintained in the Brisbane City Plan, based on their remaining character.

The Neighbourhood Plan proposes the retention of extensive areas of existing Development Control Precincts and introduces more comprehensive character protection for many of these areas.

no SGD549, SGD135, SGD019, SGD112, SGD177, SGD176, SGD178, SGD207, SGD208, SGD210, SGD261, SGD292, SGD293, SGD302, SGD309, SGD310, SGD329, SGD311, SGD333, SGD334, SGD342, SGD352, SGD378, SGD392, SGD396, SGD413, SGD418, SGD419, SGD442, SGD443, SGD444, SGD450, SGD451, SGD464,



SGD474, SGD481, SGD490, SGD501, SGD506,SGD507 SGD525,SGD527, SDG528,SGD529, SGD533,SGD540, SGD550,SGD554, SGD572,SGD573, SGD583,SGD584, SGD588,SGD590, SGD602,SGD489, SGD100,SGD248, SGD255, SGD460, SGD488, SGD528, SGD575, SDG192 SGD149, SGD600



The Neighbourhood Plan should preserve the unique character, amenity and lifestyle of the local area. It is one of the most intact low density areas in Brisbane, with significant heritage buildings, and tin and timber houses. The current character and amenity of the area is what Brisbane is known and loved for around the world.

The Neighbourhood Plan proposes to retain most residential areas as ‘Low-density Residential Areas’ with separate (detached) houses up to two storeys in height. It also aims to better protect character housing in many of these areas, including new provisions for areas with strong traditional character.

no SGD023, SGD027, SGD035, SGD041, SGD042, SGD043, SGD044, SGD045, SGD046, SGD047, SGD048, SGD049, SGD052, SGD053, SGD054, SGD055, SGD056, SGD057, SGD058, SGD059, SGD060, SGD062, SGD064, SGD067, SGD068, SGD069, SGD070, SGD075, SGD077, SGD078, SGD081, SGD082, SGD084, SGD085, SGD086, SGD091, SGD092, SGD094, SGD095, SGD096, SGD097, SGD098, SGD100, SGD107, SGD108, SGD109, SGD110, SGD111, SGD114, SGD118, SGD131, SGD167, SGD168, SGD170, SDG193, SGD194, SGD196, SGD197, SGD198, SGD199,



SGD200, SGD202, SGD209, SGD213, SGD225, SGD226, SGD227, SGD232, SGD244, SGD250, SGD256, SGD285, SGD294, SGD304, SGD332, SGD380, SGD387,SGD390, SGD393, SGD398, SGD399, SGD401, SGD403, SGD404, SGD412, SGD426, SGD435, SGD437, SGD441, SGD446, SGD454, SGD472, SGD482, SGD501, SGD519, SGD523, SGD532, SGD545, SGD549, SGD561, SGD562, SGD563, SGD570, SGD573, SGD587, SGD594, SGD604, SGD134



The district is unique in many ways but every suburb changes over time and these suburbs should be no different. They cannot stay the same as some locals think they should. The plan must provide for development within its 10 to 20 year life. If necessary development precincts can be timed - e.g. those currently in the plan can proceed when the plan is approved and others such as at Graceville could be started in 5 – 7 years. The plan does not go far enough in proposing change and development required in these suburbs. Council has tried to satisfy the “no change at all” groups but hard political decisions need to be made.

The Neighbourhood Plan proposes to retain most residential areas as ‘Low-density Residential Areas’ and introduces better character control for many areas.

In addition, population growth in the area is provided for by allowing development to occur in existing commercial centres. This is a balanced approach to managing population growth in South East Queensland whilst retaining Brisbane's unique and valued local character.

no SGD216



Support the proposed DCP precinct removal in the area bounded by Consort Street, Menin Road and Ardoyne Road and that the Montrose and Hopetoun land is being retained for community purposes. Supports the removal of the DCP from the southern portion of the plan area on Oxley Road given that the properties are a mix of Low to Low-medium Density Residential, no original character is retained between Hughes Lane and Cliveden Avenue, there are a wide variety of housing styles within the area, and not just ‘timber and tin’, and existing approvals at 838 Oxley Road and other developments which have no character considerations incorporated within the development.

Support for the draft Plan is acknowledged. no SGD156, SGD558,

Strengthen building codes in the plan to protect character housing which is so strong in the area. Many recent housing developments do not fit in with the character streetscapes. Include stronger enforcement provisions within the Plan to ensure the character intentions of the Plan are actually implemented. Residents have seen regulations intended to protect character housing in the past which have then been contravened.

Local character surveys are conducted for each Neighbourhood Plan. The Neighbourhood Plan proposes the retention of extensive areas of existing Development Control Precincts and introduces more comprehensive character protection for many of these areas.

The proposed controls are designed to maintain local character whilst avoiding being overly restrictive for home owners and avoiding duplicating building regulations.

no SGD533, SGD549, SGD557, SGD188, SGD510, SGD594, SGD177, SGD093



Support the continued protection of local heritage sites and structures from demolition.

Support for the draft Plan is acknowledged. no SGD329, SGD352

Community

In relation to Development Principles 2.13, development of a socially inclusive area and community, safety, employment diversity and accessibility are supported.

Support for the draft Plan is acknowledged. no SGD598, SGD112, SGD176, SGD177, SGD178, SGD207, SGD208, SGD261, SGD292, SGD293, SGD302, SGD309, SGD310, SGD311, SGD342, SGD378, SGD392, SGD396, SGD419, SGD442, SGD443, SGD444, SGD450, SGD464, SGD474, SGD481, SGD489, SGD490, SGD506, SGD527, SGD529, SGD550, SGD554, SGD583, SGD584, SGD588, SGD590, SGD602



Environment

Strengthen the importance of environmentally sensitive and sustainable development within the area including conserving vegetation, parklands and the riverbank, sustainable building design, water saving and recycling. “Encouraging environmentally sensitive development” is not strong enough. Refer to sustainable development and sub-tropical design as set out in the Subtropical Values and Principles of Subtropical Design for South East Queensland issued by the Centre for Subtropical Design. In particular, it should be a necessity for all new multi-storey development – not just ‘encouraged’. Detailed comments and recommendations are provided.

Most new development under this draft Plan would occur in the existing commercial centres. Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) is a matter regulated generally in the Brisbane City Plan including through the Centres Design Code and Residential Design Codes. There are also provisions under the Building Act. It is likely that citywide provisions for ESD will be considered as part of the Brisbane City Plan review.

This draft Neighbourhood Plan contains a number of environmentally responsive measures including character measures, requirements for landscaping and replacement trees, deep planting, and maintenance of adequate green spaces within the area generally.

no SGD598, SGD451, SGD177, SGD099, SGD210

The draft Plan needs to include measures to reduce energy demand including using solar lights in the street.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan introduces area-specific provisions that work with general, citywide provisions in the Brisbane City Plan, including requirements for energy efficiency. It is considered that energy efficiency in general should continue to be managed on a city-wide basis. It should be noted that the specific design of street lighting lies outside the scope of the draft Neighbourhood Plan

no SGD177



Concerned that the flood planning maps distributed during the consultation process do not show historical flood levels but rather a computer modelled prediction based on a set of best case scenarios assuming Wivenhoe levels are managed and the 100 year rain event follows the expected pattern and duration. The Q100 mark should be shown by all means but the historical levels of the 1974, 1931 and 1893 levels should also be shown.

Changes to how the Brisbane City Plan depicts flood risks is outside the scope of the draft Neighbourhood Plan but 50 and 100 year ARI events are depicted, which is the current standard required by the state government.

no SGD112, SGD261



Infrastructure

Council should not be planning for population growth without the concurrent development of infrastructure. The Council needs to explain how the needs of the increased population will be met and how any infrastructure upgrade will be funded. Specific comments are raised in relation to capacity of the following infrastructure: Oxley Road is at capacity; not in favour of widening Oxley Road or providing a second river crossing which would increase traffic; there are opportunities to upgrade Sherwood Road; Council should work with Queensland Rail to develop the rail link from Corinda, through Tennyson and on to Yeerongpilly; an upgrade to existing services is needed; increased density is supported where commitment regarding upgrades to rail services is provided,

In addition to the Brisbane City Plan and the proposed draft Neighbourhood Plan, Council is also preparing a Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP) that identifies trunk infrastructure investments that are required to support the land use outcomes described in the draft Plan. These include roads, stormwater, parkland and land for community facilities. Under the PIP, new development pays a proportionate share of the cost of new infrastructure and Council funds the remainder.

Brisbane City Council identified the need to conduct a multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026. Whilst the precise scope of the exercise is currently being determined, it is proposed that the short, medium and long-term transport network needs will be identified, focusing on the north-south routes of Oxley Road, Honour Ave and linkages to Indooroopilly in the north and the Ipswich Motorway to the south. Once completed the outcomes of the corridor planning exercise will form the basis for any future network upgrades.

no SGD210



Energex supports the development of the Neighbourhood Plans, particularly in respect to the coordination of infrastructure networks supporting sequenced urban growth. It is essential that the location of electricity infrastructure be considered at this early stage and identified in the planning framework for each Neighbourhood Plan to ensure timely supply of electricity. There is currently an Energex substation within the Sherwood/Graceville District Neighbourhood Plan Area at 51-59 Bute Street and 20-22 Lockwood Road, Sherwood described as Lots 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 on RP29454 and Lot 13 and 14 on RP29454. Energex currently owns properties at 14-18 Lockwood Street, Sherwood described as Lots 15-17 on RP29454 which are currently included in the Low Density Residential Area. Energex requests that these properties are included in the Community Use Area – Utility Installation (CU8) under the proposed draft Neighbourhood Plan.

Support for the draft Plan is acknowledged. Properties will be re-classified to reflect the current land use.

yes, properties will be re-classified to reflect the current use as a utility site

SGD538



Land Use

Both the original Brisbane City Plan and the current draft Neighbourhood Plan are flawed by the assumption that it is necessary to ‘infill’ to meet anticipated population/housing demands. These are created because town and country planning authorities have not made available alternatives areas and supporting infrastructure outside Brisbane for suburban development. Nor have these planner/city authorities attempted to put a cap on population growth in existing suburban areas. It is appreciated that this is a combined BCC and State problem but Brisbane City should not be dictated to in this regard by State authorities. It is therefore strongly recommended and requested that action be taken in this regard. To decrease urban sprawl, infill development must be significant and well planned; however, it should not destroy existing character precincts but rather complement existing lifestyle/liveability options with enhanced infrastructure and dwelling opportunities.

South East Queensland's population has consistently grown over time requiring more efficient use of available land and infrastructure. A compact, rather than dispersed, urban form is strongly encouraged in the Queensland Government South East Queensland Regional Plan.

The Neighbourhood Plan manages future growth by allowing minor residential development to occur in and near the existing commercial centres of Corinda and Sherwood. These areas are well served by public transport and benefit from existing shops and services and existing apartment developments.

The majority of land in the draft Neighbourhood Plan area is proposed to remain as low density residential or open space.

no SGD116 , SGD464, SGD205, SGD501, SGD248



The submission raises concerns and seeks clarification in relation to 70 Laurel Avenue (post war house on 544m2 and not a small lot) included in the precinct and summarised as follows: Clarification is sought that the draft Neighbourhood Plan does not make it impossible to demolish the existing post war house or does not make it impractical to build on the property? The adjoining properties have been extended/moved closer to the boundaries of 70 Laurel Ave in previous years. Given the fact extensions have brought adjoining properties closer to the boundaries of 70 Laurel Avenue, any complaint that might be made in future based on proximity to any building work undertaken on 70 Laurel Avenue should not be a relevant factor in the exercise of discretions. Is this accepted as common ground? If not, it is submitted that it would not be reasonable and would be bad administrative practice. In relation to the adjoining properties having different roof heights and rooflines, if this would affect the height to which a new residence could be built, it should be explicit that the height of any new home is not limited by the fact that one of the adjoining houses is lower than the other. Otherwise the draft Plan

The Brisbane City Plan does not prohibit the demolition of this house, but would require its demolition to be assessed.

The draft Plan does not necessarily prevent building closer to the boundary; this depends on the average setback of neighbouring properties.

The maximum height of a house is not prescriptive due to different height levels in different areas and to address topography. This is to ensure there is no detraction from the streetscape for the house height.

The draft Plan will be implemented principally through the development approvals process.

The effect of the draft Neighbourhood Plan will be to introduce requirements for some developments that are in addition to or instead of existing Brisbane City Plan requirements.

no SGD478



should be made less prescriptive. Any application of rules that are too rigid, especially made in combination with the proposed rule with regarding the size of the back yard that would result in a house of odd proportions should be guarded against.

Broad support for the draft Neighbourhood Plan is expressed on the basis of the following specific comments: The need to increase housing in existing suburbs rather than creating more sprawl is important. There isn’t enough housing for smaller households in the area and the shortage of dwellings is causing high prices currently experienced. The potential and priorities for transit oriented development is recognised given the districts access to a quad track railway and reasonable proximity to the CBD. The land in Corinda between the station and Oxley Road is largely nondescript single storey shops and expanses of car parking that has huge potential to become a multi use area with the library as a centrepiece of an open space area at the centre of development. The submitter recognises the district does have areas of high quality character housing but disagrees the shift to higher density housing would damage the

Support for the draft Plan is acknowledged. no SGD220, SGD539, SGD025, SDG219



character of the area. The areas identified for 5 storeys have little character anyway and would benefit from renewal and new buildings of high architectural merit. Detailed photos are provided. New buildings in the centres should not try and emulate the features of Queenslanders. Supports the draft Neighbourhood Plan for the following reasons: Besides the financial benefits this will bring the area, the higher density living will support more local businesses, restaurants and public facilities. It will also encourage established businesses to renovate or increase in size which could only be an improvement for existing residents. It also provides affordable new living for young families to enter the housing market. It gives families with elderly parents the option of downsizing without the need to leave the area they know.



Objection to the intent of the draft Plan to encourage more housing options. Retain the majority of the area as separate houses to preserve the established character. There was an expectation that 5 storey buildings would only be found in the shopping precincts of Sherwood and Corinda.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan proposes to retain most residential areas as ‘Low-density Residential Areas’, where development is generally envisaged to be separate (detached) houses up to two storeys in height. The draft Neighbourhood Plan also aims to better protect character housing in many of these areas, including new provisions for areas with strong traditional character.

Under the draft Plan, population growth is focussed into existing commercial centres, rather than dispersed generally. This helps retain Sherwood-Graceville District's character whilst still allowing for some future growth. These areas are well served by public transport and benefit from existing shops and services and existing apartment developments.

Whilst the amount of growth is not significant, focussing new growth into centres is consistent with the South East Queensland Regional Plan.

no SGD002



What type of housing is to be built over the railway stations and what is the Council’s plan to do with all the homes in the area?

The draft Plan proposes minor residential growth in or close to existing centres, near existing public transportation, with most areas retained for low density residential activities. There are no provisions regarding the air space of the rail station in the draft Plan.

no SGD011

Confirm that a larger sized supermarket like the existing Coles will remain within the area.

The submission refers to a commercial operating decision which is outside the scope of the draft Plan to control.

no SGD133, SGD132

Council has not reviewed how the suburb will connect spatially with other suburbs, both with regards to the proposed built form and existing infrastructure.

There are three draft Neighbourhood Plans currently being prepared in this locality, for the Sherwood/Graceville District, Indooroopilly Centre and Oxley Darra. Outputs from each Plan will inform the others at relevant stages as they develop.

The proposed Oxley Road Corridor Study is an example of infrastructure planning that crosses boundaries and will address traffic issues relevant to the three Neighbourhood Plans.

no SGD093



Comments on the draft Neighbourhood Plan highlighted in the Community Newsletter (“Summary of the draft Neighbourhood Plan”): Encouraging environmentally sensitive development is supported; Improving the range of housing options available is supported – particularly around Railway Stations and bus routes;

Supporting Local Shopping Areas is supported – and give them the opportunity to expand without the bureaucracy involved;

Improving public access to the river is not considered necessary – there is plenty of access now;

Protecting shade trees on public and private land planting more trees is laudable but common sense must prevail in issues where there are conflicts with services or local houses or safety issues;

Reduce traffic congestion – perhaps Council should consider a congestion tax, Enhancing waterways, parks and habitat areas is supported;

Expanding and connecting walking and cycling networks is supported – where combined cycle walking paths are provided

Support for the draft Neighbourhood Plan is acknowledged.

no SGD215



the path should have significant extra width, Improve public transport is supported however, people need to change their ways and use it;

Protecting employment areas is supported, Protecting sport and recreation facilities is supported;

Fostering community spirit etc is supported.

Property at 834 Oxley, Corinda (title area of 1,631m2) is currently in the LR Area. Propose that the property be rezoned to LMR in keeping with the intensity of surrounding development and the additional impacts of density and traffic in the area which make it no longer suitable for low density residential use.

This site is surrounded by low density uses and would be inconsistent with a Low-medium Residential area classification. The site does not have convenient access to public transport.

834 Oxley Rd is proposed to be retained in the Low Density residential classification.

no SGD190



Concerned that the a privately owned tennis court at 48 Chelmer Street East has been included in the Sport and Recreation Precinct and will continue to be subject to the provisions for the sport and recreation precinct if sold. The submitter understands from advice provided by Council that the professional use of the court is not permitted and that it is not able to be rented out to the general public. The submitter objects to the impacts of the tennis court on neighbours due to noise, frequency and length of use, nuisances (e.g. tennis balls into neighbouring properties), commercial use of the courts (i.e. casual renting of the court), parking and traffic around the site, availability of other public tennis courts in the area and the non-heritage nature of the use and type of concrete court. The submitter objects to public use of private tennis courts and objects to such land being included in the Sport and Recreation Precinct or becoming sport and recreation facilities. The response from the church to neighbour’s concerns to try to ensure the court is only used socially has been partially successful.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan does not propose a change to the existing area classification of this lot, which is Low Density Residential.

The operation of the tennis courts may need to be investigated if there are persistent community concerns, however that is a separate process to the draft Neighbourhood Plan.

no SGD572



The submitter is concerned that adequate space will not be retained for sport and recreational purposes within the area and objects specifically to sections 3.9, 2.8, 2.10 and 2.11 of the draft Neighbourhood Plan. The following specific comments are made: Would like to see provisions for new parks and the expansion of existing parks and open spaces. An increase in population also requires an increase in green space.

The area is known for its unique parklands, and these need to remain at a decent size and have additional land added.

Protected flora and fauna live in the area and will be affected by increased density.

The submitter suggests the acquisition of large areas of land to give back to the community as parkland.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan proposes to retain extensive areas of open space and parkland and maintain a level of service in excess of Council's desired standards of service.

no SGD093



Lot Configuration

Object to Small Lots and “block splitting” and requested that the small lot option is removed from the draft Neighbourhood Plan. Small lot development is incompatible with Development Principles, creates buildings too close to one another and no backyard and creates a fire danger. The Council is requested to include explicit provisions which prescribe vehicle access for small lot development. The submitter is concerned about on-street parking from small lots and townhouses in front of other properties with wider frontages.

Small lots are located throughout the district and appropriate provisions manage development such as defining appropriate building envelopes through setbacks to manage amenity impacts on neighbours.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan does not introduce any specific new provisions that relate specifically to Small Lots and existing Brisbane City Plan provisions apply.

Future developments will require that applicants meet the proposed off-street parking rates as set down in the Brisbane City Plan. Provision of regulated on-street parking for uses will be managed by Brisbane City Council Road Use Management as demand warrants.

no SGD071, SGD135, SGD210



Statutory Text

Section 5.1, P3.2 – There needs to be consideration of whether it’s appropriate to retain/replace significant landscape trees in the current context of the adjacent properties. Other considerations are the costs for mature replacement stock and that it is understood to be more successful to plant smaller trees that are more likely to establish themselves well.

Section 5.1, P6 & A6.4 – it is not appropriate in all cases to provide trees of such large size. Adjacent infrastructure such as power lines and neighbours houses close to boundaries plus nuisances such as trees over swimming pools or parking areas need to be considered and consulted with neighbours.

Section 5.1, A8.1 – The requirement for a pavilion adjacent to the original house is not supported in all cases. This does not suit all properties and would take up more room on the block and increase heating and cooling energy requirements due to increasing the facade area. Rather than a prescriptive approach, application for extensions/additions should be assessed

A number of issues are raised in this submission. Community feedback generally supports the retention of mature trees for their contribution to the District's green, leafy character. Removal and replacement of significant trees involves a qualified arborist assessment, taking into account the risk of injury or damage. Work may also be carried out to already listed trees to ensure future safety. Council encourages mature tree stock and requires larger replacement trees if significant trees cannot be retained to ensure the net loss of canopy is minimal.

Infrastructure constraints, such as power lines, are taken into consideration when planting or replacing trees.

An extension to a character house in the West Side Character Precinct is not required to be in the form of a pavilion, but should be smaller in scale and bulk than the existing dwelling.

Fences up to 1.8m high may not trigger the need for assessment under the Brisbane City Plan or the draft Neighbourhood Plan. If a fence triggers the need for assessment, the 20% transparency requirement can be offset with landscaping such as shrubs or vines, contributing to the District's green, leafy character.

In character residential areas, the preferred

no SGD489, SGD216



on their merits.

Section 5.1, P11 & A11 – the requirement for 1.2m fences at least 20% transparent is not supported. There are already many higher fences which are necessary on main roads to reduce noise, for people with larger/active dogs that can jump 1.2 fences and the need for a private front garden at the discretion of the land owner. Use of traditional material is supported but people should be able to choose the preferred height and level of transparency.

Section 5.1, P12 – encouraging backyard garages is not supported as they are a safety hazard for dogs and children, a nuisance for neighbours (noise and light), and have increased hardstand requirements due to increasing the driveway length. 50% permeable driveways are also not supported as they are more expensive, harder to maintain and not practical (i.e. to access a double garage from a single vehicle crossover)

location for garages is the rear of a property, in order to reduce visual impacts on the streetscape and to avoid detracting from the traditional character of the house. The need to ensure that garages are safe is important regardless of the location of the garage.

Non permeable driveways, such as those constructed of concrete, can detract from the traditional character of an area, particularly where large expanses are proposed and where more traditional materials, such as gravel, are prevalent. Over time, reducing the extent of concrete driveways in an area can make a significant contribution to the appearance of an area as a green, leafy street.



The Council is requested to actively enforce the provisions of the draft Plan once it is approved. It is not enough to only apply the relevant codes during the design and construction phases of a new development.

The draft Plan will be implemented principally through the development approvals process. The effect of the draft Neighbourhood Plan will be to introduce requirements for some developments that are in addition to or instead of existing Brisbane City Plan requirements.

no SGD210, SGD423, SGD424,

The performance criteria lack prescribed solutions and the criteria themselves are subjective, as such the code offers no guarantee that the intentions of the draft Plan will be delivered. For performance criteria that include no acceptable solutions, the performance criteria should be strengthened by including objective criteria.

Where developments are unable to deliver performance criteria despite best design then compensating offsets should be mandated. For example, where heritage trees are lost, additional green space should be required, where water management is not achievable then offset treatments of existing community or public buildings should be provided to conserve/manage equivalent volumes.

Situations where an Acceptable Solution is not prescribed indicates that the Performance criteria may be met by a number of possible solutions. Performance Criteria are supported by Precinct Intents or Development Principles.

The Integrated Planning Act 1997, which continues to apply to this draft Neighbourhood Plan, does not provide a sufficiently clear framework for the introduction of mandatory development offsets in this draft Neighbourhood Plan.

no SGD071



Detailed comments and general support provided in relation to the draft Neighbourhood Plan development principles and code.


no SGD113

The level of assessment provisions at item 4 of the draft Neighbourhood Plan are not easily understood and should be explained for laypersons so that they can understand the implications.

Level of Assessment Tables follow a prescribed statutory format set out in the Brisbane City Plan and relevant legislation. However, Brisbane City Council can investigate supplementary guidance that may assist the public in understanding the draft Plan in general and Assessment Tables in particular.

no SGD216

The maps attached to the draft Neighbourhood Plan do not show the full details of the draft plan, rather the maps show only proposed changes and should be overlaid with existing zoning plans. As such, inconsistencies between the previous draft plan and current draft Plan are not considered.

The maps are designed to highlight the proposed changes to area classifications, precincts (including Development Control Precincts) and other matters. A full copy of the current Brisbane City Plan maps can be viewed online at www.brisbane.qld.gov.au and following the links to Brisbane City Plan Online

no SGD071



The dimensional limits placed on properties and the requirement that limits the building footprint to not exceed 50% of the site area are already covered by the Residential Design Code and are unnecessary and add confusion.

P6 seeks to maintain a traditional backyard pattern and character in low density residential areas. The clause of the residential design code applies to multi unit dwellings. Proposed Acceptable Solution A6.1 reflects local character issues and is one way to meet Performance Criteria.

Where a proposal does not comply with this requirement it can be assessed against the more general performance criteria referring to maintaining traditional backyard pattern and character.

no SGD190

Recommends that the following is added to Development Principle 2.11: to ensure... “it is retained as open green space and to ensure” the ongoing provision of... The principle as proposed does not protect green spaces. It would allow construction of large buildings and similar intrusions which provide sporting “facilities”. Classrooms, parking areas, support and maintenance workshops, grandstands, large multi-use buildings for indoor sport. Little protection from such development.

The purpose of the sport and recreation precinct is to provide for a range of sport and recreation facilities. Principle 2.11 states that privately owned sport and recreation land is to be retained for this purpose.

The current wording is considered to adequately convey the need for the ongoing provision of sport and recreation opportunities within the District

no SDG071



Amend development principle 2.12 to include the following: where cycle ways and walkways are combined, adequate width should be allowed for safety of pedestrians; cycling and pedestrian enhancements are safe and constructed off road.

Cycleway design, including widths, are network planning matters that are beyond the scope of the draft Neighbourhood Plan. The draft Plan does not seek to duplicate sections of the Brisbane Transport Plan or The Active Transport Strategy which may guide these matters on a citywide basis.

no SGD216, SGD192

Add the following to development principle 2.14 – Local schools that have been in place before being surrounded by housing should not be restricted in growth by local residents. Amend 2.14 to include a specific requirement for schools, both private and public to incorporate designated on-site drop off and parking plans, and on street traffic management plans as part of any future developments.

The draft Plan supports the existing school uses on St Aidan’s site by allowing for Code Assessable expansion within a defined area, and subject to a range of matters being satisfactorily addressed. These include the need for additional off-street car parking, including for staff and an extension of pick-up and set-down zones to be provided.

no SGD216

Amend Development Principle 2.1 to state the community’s desire for the retention of existing LR and LMR residential zonings.

The draft Plan retains existing area classifications on the majority of lots within the District.

Development principle 2.1 states "Development in the District will reflect its unique character and the area's relationship to the Brisbane River. This is characterised by predominately low density housing".

no SGD192



The wording adequately reflects the intention to preserve the majority of low density areas as they are.

Amend Development Principle 2.2 to require stricter retention and recognition of DCP protections to save character housing

Development Principle 2.2 currently states:

“Streets and areas will present strong traditional

building character and will retain pre-1946

houses. New houses and extensions will be built

in keeping with the pre-1946 streetscape characteristics”

The wording is considered to adequately reflect the intention to retain character houses and streetscape.

no SGD192

Modify Development Principle 2.4 to reflect that the current residential zoning already allows for a mix of housing density types and sizes.

In the Sherwood/Graceville District, more than 90 percent of homes are separate houses, much higher than the Brisbane average of 67 percent. This is an indicator of a lack of housing choice and a need for a more diverse range of dwelling types and sizes in the district.

A better mix of dwelling types and sizes provide more opportunities to meet the diverse needs of the community as they change over time. The current wording of Principle 2.4 will help to ensure a more diverse housing mix occurs during the lifetime of this draft Neighbourhood Plan.

no SGD192



Development Principle 2.7 is now redundant as Council ignored the Community’s desire to rezone the bus depot site at this location to light/future industry. The bus depot is a general industry use and is invasive. Development Principle 2.7 does not reflect the current or future use by Council as one of the major land owners of this site and it is misleading.

Council notes the objection to the proposed bus depot.

The decision by Council to locate the bus depot in the area was not as a result of the proposed area classification change from General Industry to Light Industry.

The bus depot is being considered in the context of the current Brisbane City Plan general industry zoning, rather than the proposed light industry zoning of the draft Plan. The draft Plan is not a consideration in any assessment of the bus depot until such time as the draft Plan is finalised.

Development Principle 2.7 reflects the intention that industrial land should be used for employment purposes and for low impact uses. Use as a bus depot is consistent with both intents and would be likely to be less intrusive than many land uses that could have established under the current General Industry area classification.

no SGD192

Include a new development principle to ensure that neighbourhood traffic, access and parking requirements are taken into account as part of the development assessment process.

The following wording is proposed to be included as a new Development Principle: ‘Development avoids causing traffic impacts by adequately providing for car parking, access and the free flow of vehicular traffic’.

Yes, an additional development principle has been added to the draft Plan

SGD192



Change Page 16 of the draft Plan that refers to include: “Resident’s in the Sherwood/Graceville District love the area’s waterways, areas of bushland, many green spaces and parks and want them protected”

Page 16 of the document is the explanatory text and not the content of the draft Neighbourhood Plan. This text is intended to highlight the key provisions of the draft Plan.

The suggested wording does not significantly vary from the current wording which states:

'Residents in the Sherwood/Graceville District love the area's many parks, green spaces,

patches of bushland and waterways and want

them protected'

no SGD185

Delete reference to pony clubs on page 17 of the draft Plan as there are no privately owned pony clubs within the area. Mentioning of “Corinda Pony Club” could be made in paragraph 3 of objective 6 (page 64) as an area of highly valued open space.

The existence of the Corinda Horse and Pony Club supports retaining the reference.

no SGD185



Active Transportation

Support the strategies to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety and connectivity with the centres and surrounding parklands, schools, rail stations and residential areas. Include off road and shared pathways along Oxley and Sherwood Roads, particularly given the impact of the Sherwood Bus depot.

Support for the draft Plan is acknowledged.

no SDG192



There needs to be better provision of infrastructure for pedestrians and ageing residents in the precinct.

Development Principle 2.7 highlights the need in particular to provide appropriate housing choices for the ageing population.

In the Sherwood/Graceville District, more than 90 percent of homes are separate houses, much higher than the Brisbane average of 67 per cent. This is an indicator of a lack of housing choice and a need for a more diverse range of dwelling types and sizes in the district. A more diverse housing mix, particularly smaller houses and houses near services, including health care and public transportation is intended to occur through the strengthened Centres provided for in the draft Plan.

The community hub precinct in Thallon St encourages additional community uses to be located within easy access of local services and public transportation options.

The draft Plan also identifies a network of cycle/footpaths that will improve facilities for pedestrians.

no SGD130



Development principle 2.12 requires development that encourages public and active transport. Clarify in the intent how this is to be achieved considering the following: Higher density near train stations? Cycle parking and showers in developments? More bike lanes? Discouraging car use?

The development principle is given effect by the provisions of the draft plan that focus new development into existing centres, increase residential densities in these locations, require the provision of bicycle/changing facilities and promote new pedestrian and cycle links throughout the district.

no SGD113



Traffic and Roads

Urban speed limits in residential streets are far too high to encourage active transport. Council’s hopes that higher density and higher population will come with a significant reduction of car dependence will not be realised unless this problem is addressed. Fundamental change is needed such as calming residential streets to below 40kph to ensure active transport is perceived as safe by the community. There has been an increase in congestion in recent times, particularly at peak times and weekends. Any proposed solution for reducing traffic congestion must include: An upgrade to of Oxley Rd from two to four lanes from Oxley roundabout to the Indooroopilly roundabout including duplication of the Walter Taylor Bridge; Sherwood Road must be widened to four lanes from its intersection with Oxley Road to the Rocklea Markets to cater for additional traffic that will be generated by the new bus depot. All existing and proposed new traffic signals on Oxley and Sherwood Roads must be coordinated to minimise disruption to through traffic.


no SGD066, SGD534, SGD536, SGD537, SGD425, SGD542, SGD071, SGD460, SGD304, SGD063, SGD600



The area has road access limitations due to its geography. The traffic problems arising from an increased population would be considerable, and the extra population cannot and will not use rail transport alone. Objects to any development in the draft Neighbourhood Plan area due to current traffic congestion and lack of supporting infrastructure to meet current needs. There is sufficient capacity for the immediate future within the railway but this is not sufficient by itself to support the development planned.

The Plan results in less than 200 dwellings in addition to what is currently provided for in the current Brisbane City Plan. This level of growth is not anticipated to significantly exacerbate traffic issues.

In addition, most of the new growth is located in the Corinda and Sherwood centres, which are well served by public transport. Residents in these centres will also benefit from having services within walking distance, reducing their private vehicle trip generation.


no SGD207, SGD135, SGD462, SGD487

Increased densities will magnify existing on-street car parking and congestion problems.

The draft Plan results in less than 200 dwellings above what the current Brisbane City Plan allows for. This level of growth will not exacerbate local

no SGD093



traffic issues.



On-street car parking problems can be investigated by Council's Road Use Management section as they arise.



Corinda

Character

Retain DCP controls in Nelson Street between Clara Street and Hall Avenue. There are some fine houses in this area, and even those from post 1946 are in keeping with the style and setting of the older pre-1946 homes. Development on the southern side of Nelson Street that is inconsistent with homes across the road would spoil the character of this part of the Neighbourhood. Do not remove the DCP from properties in other parts of the draft Neighbourhood Plan area so as to maintain the lovely features and atmosphere of these suburbs.

These properties meet the criteria for DCP and are not intended to be removed from the current DCP that applies to them. It is proposed to correct the map to reflect and continue to apply the current status of the dwellings within a DCP.

yes SGD573, SGD237

Objection to the inclusion of 92/94, 96 and 100 Hassall Street, Corinda in the DCP on the grounds that the building: were constructed post-1946, have been substantially altered and do not have the appearance of being constructed in or prior to 1946; do not represent “traditional building character”; do not contribute to visual character or amenity of the street; and are not located in a part of Hassall St with traditional character.

Heritage and character surveys were conducted during the preparation of the draft Neighbourhood Plan. Particular properties were re-surveyed following public submissions about them. Heritage section does not support including these subject properties within Development Control Precinct. The relevant properties are not proposed to be included in the Demolition Control Precinct

yes SGD008, SGD051, SGD089



Support the character housing protection provisions in the draft Neighbourhood Plan, particularly where they apply to properties east of Oxley Road between Clewley Street and Lynne Grove Road.

Support for the draft Plan is acknowledged. no SGD016, SGD203

Concern that many old pre-1946 homes in Corinda, particularly Hall Street, have no character protection and recommends that all the areas east of Oxley Road need to be protected from developers.

Heritage and character surveys were conducted during the preparation of the draft Neighbourhood Plan. Areas suitable for inclusion within Development Control Precincts (DCPs) were identified, and in this draft Neighbourhood Plan area, these areas are extensive.

Character precincts were also introduced in a number of areas, including west of Oxley Road. This level of character protection on the eastern side of Oxley Rd was not proposed by Heritage section, based on the character survey work.

no SDG038



The removal of the DCP from houses in the area between the Montrose Access site, Consort Street, Menin Street and railway line is not supported as it implies that the area from the railway line through Walker to Consort and Menin Streets may be subject to medium density 3 to 5 storey development. Any development in this area must be limited to no more than 3 storeys.

As part of each draft Neighbourhood Plan, local character surveys are conducted to determine which streets have retained their character, and which sites should be retained, removed or added to the list of DCPs maintained in the Brisbane City Plan. The current area classification is low density residential and is not proposed to change through the draft Plan. The removal of DCP in this area is in accordance with the results from the Heritage survey.

no SGD393, SGD237

Recommend that the area immediately west of the proposed DCP additions between Oxley Terrace and Cliveden Avenue in included in the DCP. Unless the DCP is extended, development in this area could be unsympathetic to the heritage values of the street.

Heritage and character surveys were conducted during the preparation of the draft Neighbourhood Plan. Particular properties were re-surveyed following public submissions about them. Heritage section does not support including the subject properties within the Development Control Precinct. The relevant properties are not proposed to be included in the Demolition Control Precinct

no SGD549

List the Corinda Library as a local heritage sites as it was the original School of Art building built in 1895.

The Corinda library is currently heritage listed and no change is proposed in the draft Plan.

no SGD329, SGD352



Transport and Traffic

Concerned about growth planned for the centre and the subsequent increase in traffic and on-street parking impacts (particularly in residential streets near the train station and St Aidan’s School). The submitters has calculated the number of residents in the area and calculated the extra 800 dwelling proposed represents an increase of about 27% in the area (with a concomitant increase in traffic) which is significant.

Council estimates that the draft Neighbourhood Plan provides for less than 200 dwellings in addition to what is currently allowed under the current Brisbane City Plan.

Traffic and its impacts are proposed to be further examined by the Council. Brisbane City Council identified the need to conduct a multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026. Whilst the precise scope of the exercise is currently being determined, it is proposed that the short, medium and long-term transport network needs will be identified, focusing on the north-south routes of Oxley Road, Honour Ave and linkages to Indooroopilly in the north and the Ipswich Motorway to the south. Once completed the outcomes of the corridor planning exercise will form the basis for any future network upgrades.

no SGD460, SGD600



Provide a drop off zone for St Aidan’s school students is provided in Browne Street in the Corinda Precinct. This will reduce traffic congestion around the school and increase the local street safety.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan provides for code assessable expansion of the school, where within a defined area. Performance Criteria P2 of the Code requires that safe and convenient access be provided, including car parking, pick up and set down areas and bicycle facilities. Such facilities would be required to be provided on the school's land.

no SGD050

Council should exert all due pressure on Queensland Rail to retain the commuter car parking at Corinda Station and expand if possible (multi-storey would be okay).

Council is in regular contact with the state government on transport matters in Brisbane and continues to advocate for public transportation improvements. However Queensland Rail's management of its parking resources is outside the scope of the draft Neighbourhood Plan.

no SGD132

Agrees with enhanced access and sufficient car parking for the Corinda Library in the precinct.




Concerned that if the existing Coles supermarket is demolished there will be insufficient parking for people attending church services across the road at the Catholic Church. There is simply not enough on-street parking to accommodate them all.

It is not known whether the supermarket is proposed to be redeveloped, however, if the Coles site was to be redeveloped, it is unreasonable to require that the developer provide car parking to serve a separate land use.

Car parking problems associated with the church would have to be managed separately. Unless associated with a development application, the management of car parking associated with church services is outside the scope of the draft Neighbourhood Plan.

no SGD132

Corinda Precinct

Supports the amended draft Neighbourhood Plan for the Corinda Precinct.


Heritage

Add the following to Section 3.2 of the draft Plan: “The heritage listed building and

environs currently operating as the Corinda library will be retained”. Recommends that the following statement on page 54 in relation to the library is removed: “Prepare a Master Plan for the Corinda library and

park behind. The master plan will:

...consider the possibility of new buildings

on the site”.

Corinda library is heritage listed and proposed to be retained.

New buildings or development in or adjoining the site would be required to comply with the Heritage Place Code and the requirements of the Burra Charter.

The current wording is considered to adequately

no SGD071



The draft Plan appears to be contemplating the replacement of the heritage listed building which is not supported. A clear statement in the Plan stating the building is to be retained would dispel this.

convey the intention for this site.

Proposed MP3

Extend the Corinda Centre from the southern side of Lynne Grove Avenue west of Oxley Road through to Cliveden Avenue. The area already has substantial townhouse development and limited character and is appropriate for 5 storey development close to schools, shops and public transport.

The draft Plan provides for minor expansion of the Corinda and Sherwood centres. This adequately provides for the District's projected growth. It is not necessary to further extend Corinda centre into the areas suggested.

no SGD249

Disappointed that the precinct has been reduced in size from that originally proposed. The precinct should be extended eastwards to Clara Street and with the extended area taking effect in five years time. The extended area could also be a three storey limit if necessary but affordable housing must be made available.

Reductions in the extent of this precinct were made in order to respond to a number of submissions expressing concern about loss of residential character in these areas.

The proposed extent provides a reasonable balance between the need to protect local character, whilst also meeting the need for additional, public accessible employment and services that respond to residential growth in the draft Neighbourhood Plan area.

no SGD216



The draft Plan includes a Development Principle promoting a wider mix of apartments and houses within the area which can assist housing affordability in the area.

Support the intention to create an urban village in the Corinda Centre. And the reduction of the Corinda centre to protect character housing in the area originally designated for 5 storey housing.


no SGD119, SGD124, SGD128, SGD129, SGD137, SGD138, SGD139, SGD140, SGD141, SGD142, SGD143, SGD144, SGD145, SGD146, SGD147, SGD159, SGD160, SGD161, SGD162, SGD163, SGD164, SGD165, SGD166, SGD174, SGD175, SGD206, SGD222, SGD223, SGD224, SGD234, SGD235, SGD236, SGD260, SGD267, SGD268, SGD269, SGD270, SGD271, SGD272, SGD273, SGD274, SGD275, SGD276, SGD277, SGD278, SGD279, SGD280, SGD281, SGD282, SGD283,



SGD284, SGD286, SGD287, SGD288, SGD289, SGD290, SGD291, SGD295, SGD296, SGD297, SGD298, SGD305, SGD306, SGD307, SGD308, SGD312, SGD313, SDG314, SGD315, SGD316, SGD318, SGD320, SGD321, SGD322, SGD323, SGD324, SGD325, SGD326, SGD327, SGD328, SGD330, SGD331, SGD335, SGD336, SGD337, SGD338, SGD339, SGD340, SGD341, SGD343, SGD344, SGD345, SGD346, SGD347, SGD348, SGD349, SGD350, SGD351, SGD353, SGD355, SGD356, SGD357, SGD358, SGD359, SGD360, SGD362, SGD363, SGD364, SGD365, SGD366,



SGD367, SGD368, SGD369, SGD370, SGD372, SGD373, SGD374, SGD375, SGD376, SGD377, SGD389, SGD414, SGD420, SGD421, SGD422, SGD428, SGD429, SGD427, SGD430, SGD431, SGD432, SGD434, SGD436, SGD440, SGD461, SGD484, SGD491, SGD492, SGD493, SGD494, SGD495, SGD496, SGD502, SGD511, SGD512, SGD513, SGD514, SGD515, SGD516, SGD517, SGD520, SGD552, SGD553, SGD555, SGD560, SGD565, SGD567, SGD205

Development in the Corinda Centre needs to provide for basic human needs such as seating and toilets.

It is anticipated that future growth in Corinda is likely to support the provision of these public amenities.

no SGD217

Most residents are concerned that an increase in population will see Corinda

The draft Neighbourhood Plan proposes to retain most residential areas as ‘Low-density

no SGD116



facing potential challenges including traffic congestion, (particularly Oxley Road), liveability, housing affordability, sustainability, and infrastructure constraints.

Residential Areas’ where development is generally envisaged to be separate (detached) houses up to two storeys in height.

New growth is focussed into existing commercial centres, rather than dispersed generally. This helps retain Sherwood-Graceville District's character whilst still allowing for some future growth. These areas are well served by public transport and benefit from existing shops and services and existing apartment developments. Whilst the amount of growth is not significant, focussing new growth into centres is consistent with advice contained in the South East Queensland Regional Plan.




Objection to the proposed draft plan for the Corinda Centre Precinct due to there being no requirements for the provision of extra amenity for unit residents on this land for passive and active recreation, inadequate shopping facilities to cater for an increased population, and space for community use.

Land for passive and active recreation in this area exceeds Council's desired standards of service and future population increases are catered for. The provision of open space is a requirement of relevant Brisbane City Plan codes. Multi-unit dwelling development will be required to meet the requirements for open space and communal areas included in the Brisbane City Plan.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan contains deep planting provisions, landscaping provisions and requirements for retention of significant trees to ensure adequate green space is maintained in the area.

no SGD130


The pedestrian path to be provided from the Corinda Railway Station to the library as required by the draft Neighbourhood Plan Code should be shown on Map B. This path should provide a wide, well-lit path, with active uses adjacent providing casual surveillance opportunities.

It is proposed to modify Map B to reflect the location of the proposed pedestrian path.

yes SGD113



Redevelopment of the Sherwood Services Club and the surrounding shopping precinct in the area bounded by Clewley Street, Browne Street, Nelson Street and Oxley Road incorporates design to improve pedestrian flow from the railway station to Oxley Road. Development in this area should be designed for people who would give preference to the use of public transport options and the Corinda Library should be retained.

The draft Plan identified upgrades for pedestrian connectivity through Map B: in Corinda Centre in the draft Neighbourhood Plan. Corinda library is heritage listed and proposed to be retained.

no SGD116

New developments should provide lesser parking (due to the proximity to the train station) and that only underground car parking is provided to address the current unsightly expanse of car parks facing the train station.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan requires that development meets the rates applicable under the Brisbane City Plan. Under the Brisbane City Plan, areas close to public transport can benefit from lower parking rates.

no SGD113



The proposed draft Plan for the Corinda Centre Precinct will result in increased traffic and pedestrian movement with no expansion of infrastructure for mobility proposed (with existing facilities already at peak use). Speed limits should be reduced to 50kmph through the Corinda and Sherwood shopping centres.

It is estimated that the draft Plan results in less than 200 dwellings in addition to what is provided for in the current Brisbane City Plan.


no SGD130



The draft Plan (in relation to the Corinda Centre) will encourage development in the area and if the issues of car parking and traffic congestion are able to be controlled or addressed then ultimately local residents will benefit.

It is estimated that the draft Plan results in less than 200 dwellings in addition to what is provided for in the current Brisbane City Plan. Brisbane City Council identified the need to conduct a multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026. Whilst the precise scope of the exercise is currently being determined, it is proposed that the short, medium and long-term transport network needs will be identified, focusing on the north-south routes of Oxley Road, Honour Ave and linkages to Indooroopilly in the north and the Ipswich Motorway to the south. Once completed the outcomes of the corridor planning exercise will form the basis for any future network upgrades.

no SGD132



Council should address traffic and congestion of local streets with the following suggestions provided: An enlarged parking station should be built on the existing rail park adjacent to Browne Street; and “residents’ only between certain hours’ parking lines should be looked at in some streets so that residents’ visitors can park in front of their properties.

Localised issues relating to commuter parking can be addressed through the Brisbane City Council Contact Centre or through investigation by Road Use Management.

Future expansion of the park and ride facility adjacent to Brown Street is the responsibility of Translink and Queensland Rail. Council advocates for improved public transportation services through the Enhancement Program.

Future developments will require applicants meet the proposed off-street parking rates as set down in the Brisbane City Plan and draft Neighbourhood Plan. Provision of regulated on-street parking for uses will be managed by Brisbane City Council Road Use Management as demand warrants.

no SGD333, SGD540

Urban Design

Do not support 5 storeys in the Corinda Centre Precinct as increased population will require major redevelopment of the road system and believes three storey units would be sufficient at this stage. Disagree with 5 storey heights in the residential areas of the Corinda Centre Precinct between Oxley Road and the railway line between Hassall Street and

The draft Neighbourhood Plan proposes to retain most residential areas as ‘Low-density Residential Areas’ where development is generally envisaged to comprise separate (detached) houses up to two storeys in height. The draft Neighbourhood Plan aims to better protect character housing in many of these areas, including new and enhanced provisions for areas with strong traditional character.

no SGD266, SGD458, SGD083, SGD119, SGD124, SGD128, SGD129, SGD136, SGD137, SGD138, SGD139, SGD140, SGD141, SGD142, SGD143, SGD144, SGD145, SGD146,



Lynne Grove Avenue. Five storey buildings is far too high for what is primarily a residential neighbourhood. Do not support RSL developing to 10 stories, Residents feel five storey development is out of scale with the features of traditional streetscapes and therefore five storey development on the eastern side of Oxley Road is not supported. The proposed height of buildings adjoining character residences is out of scale with those residences and adjustments need to be made to ensure suitable integration.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan proposes area classification changes in some parts of the Sherwood - Graceville District, particularly around the Corinda and Sherwood Shopping areas. Focussing growth into existing commercial centres, rather than dispersing it generally has a number of benefits, including:

• helping to retain Sherwood-Graceville District's character, whilst still allowing for projected population growth.

• benefiting from the availability of public transport and shops and services in these areas

• consistency with State government planning advice contained in the South East Queensland Regional Plan.

• in the Sherwood/Graceville District, more than 90 percent of homes are separate houses, much higher than the Brisbane average of 67 per cent. This is an indicator of a lack of housing choice and a need for a more diverse range of dwelling types and sizes in the district. A better mix of dwelling types and sizes provides more opportunities to meet the diverse needs of the community as they change over time.

- existing Brisbane City Plan provisions currently support development up to three storeys in the Low-Medium Density Residential Area at these

SGD147, SGD159, SGD160, SGD161, SGD162, SGD163, SGD164, SGD165, SGD166, SGD174, SGD175, SGD206, SGD312, SGD313, SDG314, SGD315, SGD316, SGD318, SGD320, SGD321, SGD322, SGD323, SGD324, SGD325, SGD326, SGD327, SGD328, SGD330, SGD331, SGD335, SGD336, SGD337, SGD338, SGD339, SGD340, SGD341, SGD343, SGD344, SGD345, SGD346, SGD347, SGD348, SGD349, SGD350, SGD351, SGD353, SGD355, SGD356, SGD357, SGD358, SGD359, SGD360, SGD362, SGD363, SGD364, SGD365, SGD366, SGD367, SGD368, SGD369,



locations. The proposed Medium Density Residential Area classification would allow development up to five storeys, which would be compatible in scale and bulk with what can currently occur under the Brisbane City Plan.

SGD370, SGD372, SGD373, SGD374, SGD375, SGD376, SGD377, SGD389, SGD414, SGD420, SGD421, SGD422, SGD428, SGD429, SGD427, SGD430, SGD431, SGD432, SGD434, SGD436, SGD440, SGD461, SGD484, SGD491, SGD492, SGD493, SGD494, SGD495, SGD496, SGD502, SGD511, SGD512, SGD513, SGD514, SGD515, SGD516, SGD517, SGD520, SGD552, SGD553, SGD555, SGD560, SGD565, SGD567, SGD568, SGD116, SGD531



The Sherwood Services Club supports the draft Neighbourhood Plan’s aspirations to create an urban village in the Corinda Centre; however, the Corinda Centre is consider an appropriate site for a density greater than proposed including a plot ratio of up to 2.5 times the site area and a maximum height of 9 storeys at locations that are well separated from existing detached residential dwellings. The detailed rationale for increased height and density is contained in the submission including a community consultation report and story boards illustrating the preferred centre extent and height envisaged. In summary the following rationale for increased height and density is provided: Higher densities will allow public transport in the western suburbs to become more viable transport alternatives promoting sustainable development through reduce car usage; The Corinda Centre satisfies the criteria for Transit Orientated Development established within the SEQ Regional Plan which intends for transit oriented development principles, such as those pertaining to the intent for higher density residential uses, to be applied in new communities where transit nodes

Support for the draft Neighbourhood Plan acknowledged.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan proposes to retain most residential areas as ‘Low-density Residential Areas’ where development is generally envisaged to comprise separate (detached) houses up to two storeys in height. The draft Neighbourhood Plan aims to better protect character housing in many of these areas, including new and enhanced provisions for areas with strong traditional character.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan proposes area classification changes in some parts of the Sherwood - Graceville District, particularly around the Corinda and Sherwood Shopping areas. Focussing growth into existing commercial centres, rather than dispersing it generally has a number of benefits, including:

• helping to retain Sherwood-Graceville District's character, whilst still allowing for projected population growth.

• benefiting from the availability of public transport and shops and services in these areas

• consistency with State government planning advice contained in the South East Queensland Regional Plan.




exist; While it is understood some infrastructure issues exist for expansion of the Corinda Centre, making the proposed extend of the Centre lesser and providing a more compact form (as illustrated in the story boards provided with the submission) will enable the achievement of similar population densities with a lesser land requirement. This will also provide for protection of a larger component of the character residential areas which are important to retaining the existing character of residential areas supporting the centre.

Supports the proposal for 5 storey multi-unit dwellings in the Corinda Centre Precinct provided that Council regulates new residential buildings to provide a minimum of 2 parking spaces per dwelling to avoid any on-street parking. Supports the proposal for 5 storey multi-unit dwellings in the Corinda Centre Precinct but recommends that any mixed use developments provide ample car parking to ensure they succeed. Businesses like restaurants, doctors and small retailers cannot run a business solely from patrons within walking distance.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan does not alter current parking rates as set out in the Brisbane City Plan.

no SGD132



Support for Corinda Centre as there is staggered approach to heights with taller 5 storey buildings stepping down to 2 or 3 storey dwellings, there is pedestrian and cyclist permeability (“no dingy, dark alleys”) for safety and accessibility, to allow for the needed apartments without affecting less suitable areas, support as long as streetscapes are welcoming and active ensuring the strip shopping ambience of the area is retained



Plan Corinda Centre as a “destination” centre that creates a sense of community rather than a place designed to extract maximum value from passing foot traffic.

The draft Plan aims to create vibrant mixed use centres in the existing Corinda and Sherwood Centres. Development in these areas will be subject to Brisbane City Plan Codes that aim to provide high quality urban design.

no SGD501



Supports 5 storey heights in the Corinda Centre between Oxley Road and the railway line and between Hassall Street and Clewley Streets (i.e. the area predominantly comprising the existing MP3 Centre) for the following reasons: This part of Corinda Centre is well separated from existing residential areas The area needs more diversity and an increase in apartments to cater for residents who want to downsize. Corinda Centre is the best location to achieve this; To allow for increased patronage and improved public transport services, more housing needs to be concentrated around the train and bus station at Corinda Centre; Additional building height allowing a scale of development that is viable would assist in creating a well designed and safe centre with underground car parking. The draft Plan adequately provides for the growth of the Corinda and Sherwood centres. It is not considered necessary to further extend Sherwood centre into these areas.


no SGD119, SGD124, SGD128, SGD129, SGD137, SGD138, SGD139, SGD140, SGD141, SGD142, SGD143, SGD144, SGD145, SGD146, SGD147, SGD159, SGD160, SGD161, SGD162, SGD163, SGD164, SGD165, SGD166, SGD174, SGD175, SGD206, SGD222, SGD223, SGD224, SGD234, SGD235, SGD236, SGD260, SGD267, SGD268, SGD269, SGD270, SGD271, SGD272, SGD273, SGD274, SGD275, SGD276, SGD277, SGD278, SGD279, SGD280, SGD281, SGD282, SGD283, SGD284, SGD286, SGD287, SGD288, SGD289, SGD290, SGD291, SGD295, SGD296, SGD297,



SGD298, SGD305, SGD306, SGD307, SGD308, SGD312, SGD313, SDG314, SGD315, SGD316, SGD318, SGD320, SGD321, SGD322, SGD323, SGD324, SGD325, SGD326, SGD327, SGD328, SGD330, SGD331, SGD335, SGD336, SGD337, SGD338, SGD339, SGD340, SGD341, SGD343, SGD344, SGD345, SGD346, SGD347, SGD348, SGD349, SGD350, SGD351, SGD353, SGD355, SGD356, SGD357, SGD358, SGD359, SGD360, SGD362, SGD363, SGD364, SGD365, SGD366, SGD367, SGD368, SGD369, SGD370, SGD372, SGD373, SGD374, SGD567 SGD375, SGD376,



SGD377, SGD389, SGD414, SGD420, SGD421, SGD422, SGD428, SGD429, SGD427, SGD430, SGD431, SGD432, SGD434, SGD436, SGD440, SGD461, SGD484, SGD491, SGD492, SGD493, SGD494, SGD495, SGD496, SGD502, SGD511, SGD512, SGD513, SGD514, SGD515, SGD516, SGD517, SGD520, SGD552, SGD553, SGD555, SGD560, SGD565,



Corinda & Sherwood Precincts

Character

Objection to the removal of some properties from the DCP in the Sherwood and Corinda Centre Precincts to allow increased building heights due to the loss of the character and appeal of the area. The character aspects of homes in these areas are not of lesser value than others in the district.

The draft Plan generally avoids large scale loss of character in low density residential areas, by focussing most new growth into the centres of Corinda and Sherwood. The publicly notified draft Neighbourhood Plan included a reduction in the extent of the original centre precinct in order to reduce impacts on Development Control Precincts east of the Corinda centre. Development that has occurred in the Sherwood and Corinda Centres has resulted in fragmentation and loss of traditional character. The adjoining uses are not considered to be in keeping with traditional character values.




Land Use

The development of medium density dwellings at both Corinda and Sherwood Centres is supported with the following specific comments made: Affordable accommodation is supported. Accessible accommodation, commercial and service outlets to accommodate people are supported. A range of centre activities is supported but a balance of activity in favour of community and residential uses rather than business is preferred.


The land use mix within centres is not prescribed by the draft Plan, but would typically comprise commercial activities on ground floors with residential uses located on upper floors. This likely to result in a residential, rather than business dominated character in these areas.

no SGD598, SGD099

There is a lack of commercial, social, policy or planning imperative to support the reclassification from LMR to MR. If the MR zoning will result in only 124 more dwellings and 200 people, there remains no compelling population imperative to rezone. The SEQ Regional Plan does not specifically establish policy or planning criteria for rezoning in the area. The vast majority of the community supports the retention of the current LR and LMR zoning. Re-zonings are inconsistently applied by Council across Brisbane.

The submission correctly states that the draft Neighbourhood Plan provides for minor growth, principally in existing centres. The draft Plan responds to advice in the Queensland Government’s South East Queensland Regional Plan which encourages compact urban forms, with increased densities in areas well served by public transport, shops and services.

Area classification changes take into consideration the unique character of an area and the need for growth. It is not possible to apply a blanket approach for the whole city.

no SDG192, SGD391



Of the two centres, the Sherwood Centre Precinct is by far the busier and is anchored by banks, a supermarket and the like. It seems that there can only be one vibrant community centre in an area as small as that covered by the draft Neighbourhood Plan and the most sensible area to focus commercial development is in Sherwood.

New residential uses proposed for each Centre in the draft Plan will provide further support for existing shops and services in both centres.

no SGD549

Statutory Requirement

The draft Plan says that the MP3 area will not be extended however the maps show that it will be in the Corinda Centre. Concerned that the development principle do not accurately reflect the expansion of the MP3 are on Map B. Affected property owners need to be consulted.

Precinct Intent 3.2 states that centre activities will only be supported in the defined MP3 area and expansion of the Centre beyond this area is not supported.

The submission may be referring to changes that were made to the extent of the centre area during the formation of the draft Plan. Public consultation on the draft Plan has been extensive and has included mail drops to properties within the area.

no SDG192



Traffic

Traffic management concerns associated with changes in the Corinda and Sherwood Centres Precincts include the following: There are no clear objectives, strategies, statements or timelines as to how traffic congestion might be managed and reduced. Increased development around the “urban villages” might be fine in theory but the suggestion that more people will use public transport and not cars is ill founded. There is limited parking around stations at Sherwood and Graceville and trains are full at peak times so cannot cope with large increases in commuters. There are a number of current bottlenecks and unsafe congested areas including: Walter Taylor Bridge; Oxley Road (Graceville “Five ways” unsafe for pedestrians accessing retail hub); and Sherwood Road through the Sherwood shopping precinct (including off-street parking problems). Suggestions such as using trains, walking, biking or car pooling have their limitations and Council needs to consider some more imaginative and practical solutions (e.g. underpasses for pedestrians such as in Singapore)

The Neighbourhood Enhancement Program includes a number of measures to address traffic congestion and influence active transport patronage including: • Expanding and connecting walking and cycling networks • Working with Translink to improve public transport services and facilities.

The draft Plan can’t compel residents to take advantage of public transport and improved pedestrian and cycle facilities but it can plan for the availability of these services and provide the best opportunities for residents to benefit from them.

In terms of traffic congestion, Brisbane City Council has identified the need to conduct a multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026. This study is likely to include investigation of the capacity of the Walter Taylor Bridge and the optimum long term strategy to reduce congestion on this route.

no SGD004, SGD131, SGD454, SGD557, SGD102, SGD103, SGD486



Support for the creation of the Corinda and Sherwood Centre Precincts with the following comments made: Increased density at transport hubs is consistent with environmentally sustainable population growth. However, increased density requires a significant change of resident behaviour regarding use of motor cars, namely a significant reduction in car usage. Reduction of car-dependence becomes more possible the better the provision of public transport and access to safe routes for walking and cycling. Promote sustainable transport and to encourage use of the Oxley Common, safe pedestrian and bikeway access should be provided along Sherwood Road from Oxley Road from both the Sherwood and Corinda Residential Suburban Precincts.

Support for the draft Plan is acknowledged. The draft Plan cannot in itself mandate more sustainable transport choices but can facilitate the provision of a wider range of transport options. The draft Plan includes measures to increase public transport patronage as well as new cycle and pedestrian networks. The Neighbourhood Enhancement Program includes a number of measures to address active transport including expanding and connecting walking and cycling networks.




Urban Design

Five storey development does not necessarily facilitate housing choice for the aged. Older residents have indicated that they do not prefer to live in multi-story unit developments that either feature stairs or elevators. Older people prefer single storey ground floor dwelling to support safe and easy mobility close to public transport.

In the Sherwood/Graceville District, more than 90 percent of homes are separate houses, much higher than the Brisbane average of 67 per cent. Many homes are larger than required by many older, single person households.

The draft Plan generally seeks to ensure that a more diverse housing mix is provided, and specifically mentions the needs to cater for the needs of an older population. Providing a range of housing types in areas close to centres will benefit many older households, with improved accessibility to shops and services, including medical facilities.

no SDG192



A wider choice of housing types within walkable proximity to the community services in Precinct 2 and 3 is supported but development should allow for diversity e.g. inclusive of people on low incomes, people with disabilities, the elderly and others. Environmentally sensitive development should also be designed to facilitate ease of social interaction and sharing of resources (e.g. shared courtyards, gardens, water and facilities e.g. plumbing).

Support for the draft Plan is acknowledged. The draft Plan includes a Development Principle seeking to provide a range of housing types in the District, and diversify the predominantly larger, detached housing stock that exists currently.

Existing Brisbane City Plan provisions for environmentally responsive design continue to apply in addition to this draft Neighbourhood Plan.

no SGD099

Supportive of 5 storey heights in Sherwood and Corinda provided the bottleneck at Walter Taylor Bridge is addressed and developers provide undercover car parking.


The draft Plan does not modify car parking requirements set out in the Brisbane City Plan, off-street parking to be provided.

Brisbane City Council identified the need to conduct a multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026.

no SGD148 SGD025, SGD132, SGD104

Development in Precincts 2 and 3 must take into account scenic amenity to include the use of natural or “earth” colours for all buildings. This will allow buildings to blend together and be harmonious. Development that uses primary colours is opposed and

Building colour is not regulated in the draft Plan and is not typically prescribed through the Brisbane City Plan although subtropical building design, energy efficiency and solar orientation are matters that are generally regulated by Brisbane City Plan and are not proposed to be

no SGD099



detracts from scenic amenity. restated in the draft Plan.

Submitters object to increasing building heights to five storeys in the Sherwood and Corinda Centres Precincts given that evidence provided by Council shows that this will not significantly address the population growth concerns of Brisbane. Growth over that predicted in the original Brisbane City Plan PIP and attributable to the Sherwood and Corinda Centre Precincts is a population of 202 and an additional 124 dwellings. The small increase does not justify the loss of character and amenity due to 5 storey buildings. Council’s justification for increasing height limits is flawed.

The submission correctly states that the Neighbourhood draft Plan provides for minor growth, principally in the existing centres of Corinda and Sherwood. Development in the existing centres may currently reach three storeys in height, the proposed additional two storeys is not a major expansion of these areas, is compatible in scale with what is currently possible and will allow the centres to meet the demand for more diverse housing in close proximity to shops, services and public transport. The draft Plan is consistent with advice in the Queensland Government’s South East Queensland Regional Plan which encourages compact urban forms, with increased densities in areas well served by public transport, shops and services.

no SGD205, SGD207, SGD208, SGD292, SGD293, SGD302, SGD309, SGD334, SGD342, SGD371, SGD378, SGD392, SGD396, SGD413, SGD423, SGD424, SGD442, SGD443, SGD444, SGD450, SGD451, SGD460, SGD464, SGD474, SGD481, SGD488, SGD506, SGD526, SGD527, SGD534, SGD537, SGD550, SGD554, SGD579, SGD583, SGD584, SGD588, SGD590, SGD602, SDG192 SGD112, SGD261, SGD600, SGD102, SGD103, SGD391



Submitters object to the allowable building heights in the Medium Density Area classification in the Sherwood and Corinda Centres Precincts as the nature and size of the investment required and the land value inherent in the development proposals will not result in housing that is any more affordable than existing stock. The current LMR Area classification allowing up to three storey is not fully utilised indicating limited demand for increased height. The supposition that multistorey buildings are for elderly people is totally erroneous and not a reflection of current occupation on recently erected multistorey buildings. Units are not ideal accommodation for people with young children and certainly not for the elderly. In addition, many recent unit developments in the area are selling for between $600,000 - $800,000 which is a huge price for a unit.

Provision of an additional two storeys may provide sufficient incentive for the redevelopment of these areas. Whilst not all developments will be suitable for the elderly, some development in centres, where shops, services and community facilities are within walking distance, will provide significant benefits to this group.

The draft Plan cannot control house prices directly, but does encourage the provision of a range of housing products, which will contribute towards housing affordability.

no SGD112, SGD261, SGD023, SGD027, SGD028, SGD035, SGD041, SGD042, SGD043, SGD044, SGD045, SGD046, SGD047, SGD048, SGD049, SGD052, SGD053, SGD054, SGD055, SGD056, SGD057, SGD058, SGD059, SGD060, SGD061, SGD062, SGD064, SGD067, SGD068, SGD069, SGD070, SGD075, SGD076, SGD077, SGD078, SGD079, SGD080, SGD081, SGD082, SGD084, SGD085, SGD086, SGD091, SGD092, SGD094, SGD095, SGD096, SGD097, SGD098, SGD099, SGD101, SGD107, SGD108, SGD109, SGD110, SGD111, SGD114, SGD116 SGD118, SGD120,



SGD123, SGD131, SGD167, SGD168, SGD170, SGD193, SGD194, SGD196, SGD197, SGD198, SGD199, SGD200, SGD202, SGD209, SGD213, SGD225, SGD226, SGD227, SGD232, SGD244, SGD248, SGD255, SGD250, SGD256, SGD266, SGD285, SGD294, SGD304, SGD310, SGD311, SGD332, SGD334, SGD380, SGD385, SGD387, SGD388, SGD390, SGD393, SGD398, SGD399, SGD401, SGD403, SGD404, SGD412, SGD419, SGD423, SGD424, SGD441, SGD446, SGD451, SGD472, SGD482, SGD490, SGD501, SGD519, SGD523, SGD532, SGD533, SGD545, SGD549,



SGD557, SGD562, SGD563, SGD570, SGD579, SGD587, SGD188, SGD510, SGD134, SGD508, SGD093, SGD177, SGD178,

Submitters object to increasing building heights to five storeys in the residential areas of the Sherwood and Corinda Centres Precincts due to the following impacts/issues: Such development will place additional pressure on local services and utilities such as roads, public transport, water, electricity, parks and schools etc, Such development is not feasible due to the current state of existing infrastructure, There aren’t adequate plans to upgrade existing infrastructure, 38 of the submitters universally object to increased heights in any part of the draft Neighbourhood Plan area for the same reasons. Two of the submissions are in relation to the whole of the Corinda Centre Precinct only. Submitters object to five storey development in the Corinda and Sherwood Centre Precincts as this would ruin the

The draft Plan provides for less than 200 dwellings in addition to what is currently provided for in the Brisbane City Plan. This level of growth is considered unlikely to place undue pressure on local roads and infrastructure. New development is generally located away from the extensive low density and character residential areas found in the District. Brisbane City Council has identified the need to conduct a multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026. This study will consider local traffic issues in further detail. In addition, Council is preparing a Priority Infrastructure Plan that requires new development to partially meet the costs of the provision of trunk infrastructure for roads,

no SGD570, SGD023, SGD027, SGD028, SGD035, SGD041, SGD042, SGD043, SGD044, SGD045, SGD046, SGD047, SGD048, SGD049, SGD052, SGD053, SGD054, SGD055, SGD056, SGD057, SGD058, SGD059, SGD060, SGD061, SGD062, SGD064, SGD067, SGD068, SGD069, SGD070, SGD075, SGD076, SGD077, SGD078, SGD081, SGD082, SGD084, SGD085, SGD086, SGD091,



village character and atmosphere. Submitters object to five storey development in the Corinda and Sherwood Centre Precincts as this would adversely impact on the existing overall low-density residential character and amenity and would be out of scale with the traditional streetscapes of the area with such buildings towering over surrounding homes. Adverse amenity impacts, impact of large unit blocks on low density housing, loss of open space and backyards to unit development, additional traffic congestion, additional stress on utilities and community services, lack of adequate and safe public transport.

stormwater and land for parks and community facilities.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan seeks to maintain an appropriate balance between the need to provide for local population growth and additional infrastructure and services whilst maintaining valued local character and interest.

SGD092, SGD094, SGD095, SGD096, SGD097, SGD098, SGD099, SGD101, SGD107, SGD108, SGD109, SGD110, SGD111, SGD112, SGD114, SGD118, SGD120, SGD123, SGD130, SGD131, SGD156, SGD168, SGD170, SGD176, SGD178, SGD188, SDG193, SGD194, SGD196, SGD197, SGD198, SGD199, SGD200, SGD202, SGD205, SGD207, SGD208, SGD209, SGD213, SGD221, SGD225, SGD226, SGD227, SGD232, SGD244, SGD248, SGD250, SGD255, SGD256, SGD261, SGD285, SGD292, SGD293, SGD294, SGD302, SGD304, SGD309, SGD310, SGD311, SGD329,



SGD583, SGD584, SGD587, SGD588, SGD590, SGD599, SGD602, SDG192 SGD501, SGD579, SGD080, SGD134, SGD149, SGD150, SGD167, SGD426, SGD435, SGD454, SGD549, SGD079, SGD508, SGD594, SGD265, SGD371, SGD437, SGD600, SGD102, SGD103, SGD391



Submitter objects to five storey development in the Corinda and Sherwood Centre Precincts as local facilities such as schools, childcare, healthcare, playgroups, library, swimming pools and parks will not increase in proportion to the number of residents causing decreased quality of life.

The draft Plan locates the majority of future growth around existing centres. Whilst the actual provision of these services is outside the scope of the draft Neighbourhood Plan, the MP3 (multi-purpose centre suburban centre) area classification supports a wide range of centre activities including childcare, healthcare, playgroups, libraries and so on.

New developments are required to pay contributions towards the cost of servicing development (such as for water, sewer, transport, waterways and community purposes infrastructure) which ensures Council, and Queensland Urban Utilities can continue to deliver and maintain appropriate infrastructure in the area as required. The draft Plan meets Council’s desired standards for access to community facilities, open space and infrastructure.

It should be noted that the provision of schools is the responsibility of the Queensland State Government.

no SGD061, SGD130, SGD248, SGD255,



Submitters object to increasing building heights to five storeys in the residential areas of the Sherwood and Corinda Centres Precincts due to the following traffic impacts/issues: Traffic impacts on already heavily congested streets (particular concerns raised in many of the submissions are in relation to Oxley Road, Sherwood Road, Honour Avenue and Walter Taylor Bridge), Concerns with pedestrian safety and the safety of children around local schools arising from increased traffic, Increased parking, congestion, The Oxley Road underpass at Corinda is inadequate if traffic is going to increase (large vehicles have been stuck in the past causing traffic problems) Increases in localised air pollution, Five of the submitters object to increased heights in the Corinda and Sherwood Centre Precincts generally (not just the residential areas) for the same reasons, One of the submissions is in relation to the whole of the Corinda Centre only.

The draft Plan results in less than 200 dwellings in addition to what is currently provided for in the current Brisbane City Plan. This level of growth is not anticipated to significantly exacerbate traffic issues.



On-street car parking issues can be referred to Council’s Road Use Management for




investigation if required.

Signs are in place to warn motorists of low bridges and to advise motorists of detour routes. Council will be implementing height gantries for the low rail bridge on Oxley Rd in the near future.

SGD194, SGD196, SGD197, SGD198, SGD199, SGD200, SGD202, SGD209, SGD213, SGD221, SGD225, SGD226, SGD227, SGD232, SGD244, SGD250, SGD256, SGD294, SGD304, SGD329, SGD332, SGD333, SGD352, SGD380, SGD387, SGD390, SGD393, SGD398, SGD399, SGD401, SGD403, SGD404, SGD412, SGD435, SGD437, SGD441, SGD446, SGD451, SGD454, SGD472, SGD481, SGD482, SGD501, SGD509, SGD519, SGD523, SGD532, SGD545, SGD549, SGD561, SGD562, SGD563, SGD570, SGD573, SGD575, SGD587 SGD599, SDG192 SGD016, SGD150,



SGD079, SGD112, SGD176, SGD178, SGD205, SGD207, SGD208, SGD261, SGD292, SGD293, SGD302, SGD309, SGD310, SGD311, SGD334, SGD342, SGD378, SGD392, SGD396, SGD413, SGD419, SGD442, SGD443, SGD444, SGD450, SGD460, SGD464, SGD474, SGD488, SGD490, SGD506, SGD526, SGD527, SGD528, SGD533, SGD534, SGD537, SGD550, SGD554, SGD583, SGD584, SGD588, SGD590, SGD602, SGD508, SGD524, SGD600



Objection to the introduction of 5 storey heights in the draft Neighbourhood Plan (Corinda and Sherwood Centre Precincts). Suggestion to move the planned 5 storey unit blocks further to the west along the Ipswich train line so that the increased population has more traffic routes (e.g. Centenary Highway, Ipswich Road, and the new tunnel) thereby bypassing the Indooroopilly Bridge. Another alternative for increased density is suggested in parts of Oxley which has many areas of post 1946 housing and housing commission stock that can be subdivided. These areas are not only within walking distance of Oxley railway station but much closer to the Ipswich Motorway meaning that Oxley Road south of Corinda will not have to handle additional cars heading for the Motorway.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan aims to protect the District’s low density and character housing areas by focusing most new residential growth in and around existing commercial centres. These areas are well served by public transport which will reduce local traffic impacts.

Locating growth in the character areas suggested in this submission would involve loss of residential character that would be contrary to the intent of the draft Plan and would likely generate significant local opposition.

The number of additional dwellings, which is approximately 200 dwellings more than currently envisaged in the Brisbane City Plan, is not likely to significantly impact on local road networks.


no SGD150, SGD501



The submitter acknowledges that Sherwood and Corinda will benefit from urban renewal but objects to rezoning to five storeys unless there are vast improvements to car parking areas, pedestrian and cyclist amenities and safe zones. Other general concerns raised include: Putting a five storey block next to a single or two storey house is unfair and unattractive; There is no evidence to indicate that people living locally work locally, five storey block next to a single or two storey house is unfair and unattractive. The Submitter objects to five storey development in the Corinda and Sherwood Centre Precincts given that building heights up to 17m, are higher than provisions for deep planting to a height of 15m. Higher storeys should be kept back from road frontages so as not to loom over streets and areas for outdoor dining (not directly on pavements adjacent to busy roads). Opposed to increased population and dark passages between buildings likely to increase local crime rates with the railway acting as a conduit for the fast movement of criminals

Development in the centres will be subject to a number of generic Brisbane City Plan Codes, including the residential and centres codes. These operate in addition to the requirements of the draft Plan. The residential and centres codes require appropriate boundary setbacks, open space provision, the maintenance of light and breezes to adjoining properties, avoidance of development that results in overbearing visual impacts, building articulation (incorporating recesses and projections such as balconies and floor plan variations, or architectural detailing and treatments such as screens and variation of building materials, colours and textures) and other provisions to mitigate adverse visual impacts arising the height and bulk of buildings. Other requirements include deep tree planting, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles including building design and layout that includes features such as opportunities for casual surveillance (e.g. windows overlooking parking and communal areas), adequate lighting, minimisation of predictable routes and entrapment locations, and a range of other measures designed to improve safety.




These requirements continue to apply to new developments in centres and will lead to renewal of both precincts which the submission supports.



Submitters object to increasing building heights to five storeys in the residential areas of the Sherwood and Corinda Centres Precincts due to existing road infrastructure already severely hampering access at the following locations: North – Oxley Road and Honour Avenue merging to 2 lanes at the Walter Taylor Bridge; South – Oxley Road constrained by the 2 lane low level rail bridge at the boundary between Sherwood and Oxley; East – Graceville Avenue leading past the very large development at the Tennyson; Sherwood Road leading past the large Pradella Development, busy Rocklea Markets, and soon the Sherwood bus depot. All easterly exits are also very vulnerable to flooding; West – limited by Brisbane River. Submitters call for duplication and replacement of the Walter Taylor Bridge. One of the submissions objects to increased height in any part of the Centres precincts for the same reasons.

The number of additional dwellings proposed under the draft Plan, which is approximately 200 more than currently envisaged in the Brisbane City Plan, is not likely to significantly impact on local road networks.

A multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley is proposed in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026. Whilst the precise scope of the exercise is currently being determined, it is proposed that the short, medium and long-term transport network needs will be identified, focusing on the north-south routes of Oxley Road, Honour Ave and linkages to Indooroopilly in the north and the Ipswich Motorway to the south. Once completed the outcomes of the corridor planning exercise will form the basis for any future network upgrades.

no SGD069, SGD079, SGD038, SGD112, SGD176, SGD178, SGD207, SGD208, SGD261, SGD292, SGD293, SGD294, SGD302, SGD309, SGD310, SGD311, SGD334, SGD342, SGD378, SGD392, SGD396, SGD413, SGD419, SGD435, SGD442, SGD443, SGD444, SGD450, SGD451, SGD460, SGD464, SGD474, SGD481, SGD488, SGD490, SGD506, SGD524, SGD526, SGD527, SGD528, SGD533, SGD534, SGD537, SGD550, SGD554, SGD561, SGD573, SGD583, SGD584, SGD588, SGD590, SGD602, SGD248, SGD255



Objection to the Medium Density Area classification (five storey heights) in the Sherwood and Corinda Centres Precincts as this will encourage developers to “land bank” by buying up land but not developing this land until Council extends the height limit in a future plan. This will put further pressure for even higher development.

The draft Plan is unable to directly control whether development is implemented in the short or longer term. However, Neighbourhood Plans are revisited every ten years or so by Council, which could be a disincentive for developers to wait for building heights to be increased further.

SGD112, SGD261, SGD600

The submitter strongly objects to five storey buildings in the residential areas of Corinda and Sherwood as it would be noisy so that animals would be displaced if the trees were knocked down to make way for development. No plan for extra green space, better integration of vegetation is needed, poor environmental practices through insufficient grassed areas, less trees and increased hard space areas, resource intensive building materials

Development in the centres will continue to be subject to the residential and centres codes in the Brisbane City Plan, including requirements for open space to be provided. These requirements are in addition to the draft Plan which encourages the retention of greenspace. Trees and landscaping that has to be removed for whatever reason is also to be replaced. The draft Plan does not significantly intensify land uses in sensitive locations, locating most new growth around the existing centres and away from areas \where native fauna are likely to be found in numbers.




Sherwood

Character

Do not support the inclusion of 15 Turner Street, Sherwood in the DCP as: Dwelling is not the original house that was built at the site. Turner Street has been not been selected for streetscape protection as no other dwellings are included in the DCP.

Local character surveys are conducted for each draft Neighbourhood Plan to determine which streets should be retained, removed or added to the list of Development Control Precincts maintained in the Brisbane City Plan, based on their remaining character.

This property has been reviewed by the Heritage section and is not recommended for inclusion in the Demolition Control Precinct.

Yes, remove property from the proposed Development Control Precincts

SGD127

Include 2 Kitchener Street, Sherwood in the DCP. This is a pre-1946 house and all other adjoining houses are included in the DCP.

As part of each draft Neighbourhood Plan, local character surveys are conducted to determine which streets have retained their character, and which sites should be retained, removed or added to the list of DCP’s maintained in the Brisbane City Plan.

This property has been reviewed by the Heritage section and is not considered to meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the Development Control Precinct.

no SGD248, SGD255



Remove 55 Skew Street, Sherwood from the DCP and include in the MP3 Centre as: There is already a large number of unit development and post war houses in the street. A proposed five storey development at 61 and 57 Skew Street will mean a loss of light, shade and air, as it will be overshadowed by a large unit development on over 3000m2.

As part of each draft Neighbourhood Plan, local character surveys are conducted to determine which streets have retained their character, and which sites should be retained, removed or added to the list of DCP’s maintained in the Brisbane City Plan.

This property has been reviewed by the Heritage section. The property is considered to make an important contribution to the streetscape and is recommended to be retained in the DCP.

Existing Brisbane City Plan provisions currently support development up to three storeys in the Low-Medium Density Residential Area at these locations. The proposed Medium Density Residential Area classification would allow development up to five storeys. Development at this height would relate well to existing development in these areas whilst also providing for more housing options in proximity to shops, services and public transport.

no SGD479

Supports the protection of pre-1946 character homes, and wishes this overlay to include all streets with intact character homes.

Support for the character protection measures of the draft Neighbourhood Plan is noted.

no SGD154



Objection to removal of the demolition control precinct over houses in Primrose Street. Recommend that 57 & 61 Primrose Street remain in the DCP.

As part of each draft Neighbourhood Plan, local character surveys are conducted to determine which streets have retained their character, and which sites should be retained, removed or added to the list of DCPs maintained in the Brisbane City Plan.

The development that has occurred in the Sherwood and Corinda Centres has resulted in fragmentation and loss of traditional character.

The demolition controls have been removed in the growth precincts to facilitate the redevelopment of the centres.


Oppose the de-listing of DCP protection at 25 Mayhew Street and 28 Mayhew Street, Sherwood as: 25 Mayhew Street is a classic pre WW1 residence (original farm house in the area) renovated in classic style and in very good condition, 28 Mayhew Street was built in the early 1900s, Why would Council encourage the demolition of these houses by delisting them and then state that they are strengthening character housing protection?


The development that has occurred in the Sherwood and Corinda Centres has resulted in fragmentation and loss of traditional character. Proposed medium density area classifications are inconsistent with the retention of traditional low density character values in this location.

no SGD019, SGD026



Land Use

The submitter supports the proposed MP3 zoning near the train line and shopping centre at the northern end of Skew Street, Sherwood as this will allow LMR and MP3 sites to be utilised for development and res A sites to be retained for Single Unit Dwellings.


no SGD479

Sherwood Arboretum should be retained as a natural history asset. The submitter recommends closing the Arboretum’s use to scheduled “cross-country” running events which leads to irreversible soil compactions amongst other detrimental effects. There are other circuits available for such events.

The Sherwood Arboretum is currently on the Queensland State Heritage Register. The use of the Arboretum may need to be investigated if there are persistent community concerns, however that is a separate process to the draft Neighbourhood Plan, which proposes no change to area classifications over the subject site

no SGD083

The submitter proposes greater heights at key locations within the Sherwood Precinct of up to 7 storeys on the Sherwood Central Shopping Centre. There is a strong urge to reconsider plot ratio, maximum gross floor area and to minimise deep tree planting requirements to facilitate better development outcomes.

The proposed extent of the centres provides a reasonable balance between the need to protect local character, whilst also meeting the need for additional dwellings, public accessible employment and services that respond to residential growth in the draft Neighbourhood Plan area.

no SGD063



Traffic/Transportation

How will developers create the pedestrian and cycle networks with permeability as discussed in the Precinct Intent for the Sherwood Centre Precinct section 3.3 of the draft Neighbourhood Plan. Show the links and proposed pedestrian cycle networks on a plan. Submitter requests pedestrian and cyclist access along Sherwood Road to Oxley Common.

New pedestrian links will be formed through infrastructure investments by the Council as identified in the enhancement program (which outlines locations for investigation and construction of active transport infrastructure) or a Priority Infrastructure Plan. Upgrades to street frontages achieved incrementally through conditions applied to development approvals (DA) in particular areas

Council or DA upgrades to active transport networks will improve pedestrian accessibility within centres and lead to better definition between street and pavement.

Brisbane City Council has identified the need to conduct a multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026. Whilst the precise scope of the exercise is currently being determined, it is proposed that cycle routes could form part of the study. Once completed the outcomes of the corridor planning exercise will form the basis for any future network upgrades.




Urban Design

While the region east of Oxley Road in Sherwood is not an especially attractive part of the area (degraded the most through previous unsympathetic development), height restrictions must be maintained otherwise the buildings in that area will dominate the entire area. Request that planning for the area include buildings of low level building scale. No more high rise buildings in this area.

The proposed Medium Density Residential Area classification east of Oxley Road in Sherwood centre would allow development up to five storeys. Where fronting Jerrold Street, this is reduced to three storeys.

The current Low-medium Density residential area classification permits development up to three storeys.

The proposed building height increases are relatively minor and are of a compatible scale with existing development entitlements and will contribute to the revitalisation of Sherwood centre and its visual appearance, which the submission notes, could be improved.

no SGD549, SGD074

Objection to five storey heights in Sherwood and feels this not consistent with 2.1 that ‘Development in the district will reflect its unique character’. Primary concerns are: • existing traffic congestion (including safety) • parking problems will be exacerbated; and

• existing character (including pre-1946 houses) and amenity will be lost.

Development Principle 2.1 refers to the desirability of maintaining the existing predominantly low density character of the District. The draft Neighbourhood Plan achieves this by proposing to retain most residential areas as ‘Low-density Residential Areas’ and introducing better character control for many areas. Population growth is accommodated by limited consolidation and expansion of existing commercial centres.

no SGD 093



This is a balanced approach to accommodating the need for additional housing whilst limiting urban sprawl and retaining Brisbane's unique and valued local character.

Development that has occurred in the Sherwood and Corinda Centres has resulted in fragmentation and loss of traditional character. Some adjoining uses are not in keeping with traditional character values.

The number of additional dwellings proposed by the draft Plan is relatively minor and is unlikely to significantly worsen traffic conditions. Brisbane City Council identified the need to conduct a multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026. Once completed the outcomes of the corridor planning exercise will form the basis for any future network upgrades.

Submitter raises concerns over the loss of gardens and backyards as a result of multi-unit dwellings. Suggestions include: Trees, Garden rooms, internal pedestrian and cycle paths.

The majority of lots in the District are proposed to be retained with their current area classifications intact, including Development Control Precincts. Character precincts are introduced for many new areas where additional controls are proposed to ensure elements such as building form, extensions, fences and the location of parking structures and driveways are in keeping with local character.

no SGD117



The impacts of multi unit dwellings (MUD's) under this draft Plan, is limited, with Mud’s proposed in limited locations only. In these areas, the draft Plan operates alongside generic Brisbane City Plan residential and centre design codes which seek to provide for high quality urban form and public domain.

Sherwood Precinct

Character

Objection to removal of the demolition control precinct over houses in Primrose Street, 57 & 61 Primrose Street remain in the DCP. Oppose the de-listing of DCP protection at 25 Mayhew Street and 28 Mayhew Street, Sherwood as: 25 Mayhew Street is a classic pre WW1 residence (original farm house in the area) renovated in classic style and in very good condition, 28 Mayhew Street was built in the early 1900s,


The development that has occurred in the Sherwood and Corinda Centres has resulted in fragmentation and loss of traditional character. Proposed medium density area classifications are inconsistent with the retention of traditional low density character values in this location.

no SGD088, SGD245, SGD251, SGD405, SGD457, SGD601, SGD603, SGD019, SGD026



Land Use

Supports the Sherwood shopping area being encouraged as the major shopping precinct in the area because: The centre is focussed on Sherwood Road with lower traffic volumes than Oxley Road with potential for expansion to side streets. It does not impact on the main thoroughfare (Oxley Rd) as do the Corinda and Graceville strip centres. Further development in these other centres will exacerbate parking and traffic issues. It has potential to provide a much safer and more pleasant shopping environment. To this end the Sherwood Rail Crossing could be closed to vehicles or traffic calming provided. Supports Council’s decision to reduce the Corinda 5 storey precinct and increase the Sherwood 5 storey precinct. Extend the 5 storey precinct in the Sherwood Centre to Bute Street for the following reasons: Accommodate more residents in the area to support the Sherwood shopping precinct; There is very little character housing in the area (i.e. in Bute St and Skew St); The area is within walking distance to rail transports, shops,

The draft Neighbourhood Plan proposes to retain most residential areas as ‘Low-density Residential Areas’ where development is generally envisaged to be separate (detached) houses up to two storeys in height. The draft Neighbourhood Plan also aims to better protect character housing in many of these areas, including new provisions for areas with strong traditional character. New growth is focussed into existing commercial centres, rather than dispersed generally. This helps retain Sherwood-Graceville District's character whilst still allowing for some future growth.

Corinda Centre is proposed to continue to provide for a range of centre activities, the draft Neighbourhood Plan does not prevent existing land uses from continuing. Both Sherwood and Corinda Centres are intended to develop as vibrant, community and services hubs.

no SGD216, SGD007



services etc (i.e. an ideal location to increase heights); The current northern boundary of the centre occurs mid-block between Sherwood Rd ad Skew St creating impacts on adjoining land fronting Skew Street whereas a street buffer would be more desirable; The area would benefit from redevelopment; and There are very few houses that would be impacted visually or otherwise by any development (north side of Bute Street only). Expand northwards to include the area between the railway and Oxley Road for as far as Bute Street to provide more housing within walking distance of public transport.

Traffic/Transportation

Opposition to increased population density in the areas around Sherwood Road due to traffic impacts. Increased Density will substantially aggravate existing traffic problems in the Sherwood shopping area. Significant delays already occur at the boom gates on Sherwood Road due to train frequency which will increase. Rat running along Quarry Road and Primrose Street to avoid Sherwood Road and Oxley Road intersection. Traffic delays at intersection of Quarry Road and

Brisbane City Council has identified the need to conduct a multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026. Whilst the precise scope of the exercise is currently being determined, it is proposed that the short, medium and long-term transport network needs will be identified, focusing on the north-south routes of Oxley Road, Honour Ave and linkages to Indooroopilly in the north and the Ipswich Motorway to the south. Once completed the outcomes of the corridor planning exercise will form the basis for any future network upgrades,

no SGD003, SGD088, SGD245, SGD251, SGD405, SGD457, SGD601, SGD603, SGD113, SGD216, SGD007, SGD486



Oxley Road. Concerns with ill-defined off-street parking areas in front of shops which conflict with pedestrians. Cycle way along Primrose St would be ineffective and further disrupt traffic flow along the road.

including possible traffic calming.

Redevelopment in the commercial centres will result in street upgrades and improved definition between road and pavements, leading to improved pedestrian accessibility within the centre.


The proposed multi-modal corridor planning exercise may provide a further opportunity to consider further any required cycling improvements.



Urban Design

Objects to change to existing zoning in the Sherwood Centre Precinct to allow 5 storey development as the area is at the “tipping point” where further higher density housing development will change it into another more noisy, more crowded, more congested, more impersonal, 5 storey development next to existing houses creating overshadowing, much busier suburb and will absolutely negatively impact on the lifestyle values of the area.

Existing Brisbane City Plan provisions currently support development up to three storeys in the Low-Medium Density Residential Area at these locations. The proposed Medium Density Residential Area classification would allow development up to five storeys. The amount of growth proposed is relatively minor, particularly as the draft Neighbourhood Plan proposes to retain most areas for low-density residential purposes.

Development in the centres will be guided by existing Brisbane City Plan provisions that aim to create high quality urban design and public domain. These include requirements for appropriate boundary setbacks, provision of open space, access to light and breezes, avoidance of overbearing development and the creation of dark narrow spaces between buildings are among the many design issues that are addressed in the codes.

The level of growth proposed in the draft Plan is consistent with the need to provide for local population increase, is relatively minor and the existing character of the majority of the District is retained.

no SGD019, SGD026, SGD528, SGD533



Do not support five storey buildings at the following locations: Sherwood Road between Oxley Road and the railway level crossing, Sherwood Road between Quarry Road and Skew Street, Primrose Street The submitter is concerned about substantial increases in vehicular traffic with the above areas identified as particular problem areas. The submitter notes the planning grounds that more residents will be able to walk, ride bikes and use public transport but asserts that no reasonable person would accept that this is more than just a part truth. Three and four level development is favoured for the Sherwood Centre Precinct. Concerns with on-street parking and traffic congestion. Roads are at capacity now and cannot handle any increase in traffic.

Existing Brisbane City Plan provisions currently support development up to three storeys in the Low-Medium Density Residential Area at these locations. The proposed Medium Density Residential Area classification would allow development up to five storeys. The amount of growth proposed is relatively minor, particularly as the draft Neighbourhood Plan proposes to retain most areas for low-density residential purposes.

It is calculated that the draft Plan results in an additional less than 200 new dwellings above what is currently envisaged by the Brisbane City Plan. This amount of growth is unlikely to have the traffic impacts referred to in the submission.

It is proposed to further study traffic in the area as part of a corridor study along Oxley Road and its surrounds.

no SGD204, SGD019, SGD026, SGD317, SGD088, SGD245, SGD251, SGD405, SGD457, SGD601, SGD603



Do not support the change to existing zoning in the Sherwood Centre Precinct to allow 5 storey development due to placing pressure on existing Council and State infrastructure. There is limited capacity at the school and the educational infrastructure needed to support the increase in school aged children created by 5 storey development has not been considered.

It should be noted that schools are a State Government responsibility. The draft Plan allows for the limited expansion of the school, where within a defined area and where traffic and other impacts, as set out in the draft Plan, are addressed.

Funding for required infrastructure items includes through development contributions under a Priority Infrastructure Plan. Under the PIP, new developments are required to pay contributions towards the cost of servicing development (such as for water, sewer, transport, waterways and community purposes infrastructure) which ensures Council, and Queensland Urban Utilities can continue to deliver and maintain appropriate infrastructure in the area as required.

no SGD019, SGD026, SGD533, SGD088, SGD245, SGD251, SGD405, SGD457, SGD601, SGD603



Objection to the high rise development as: New development adjoining the existing single level Chapel Gardens Retirement Village will block access to sun in winter and breezes in summer; Parking problems in the street will worsen; residents chose to reside at the retirement village for the convenience and peace and quiet and do not want that ruined with an influx of people; want no change to the atmosphere of Primrose Street; Primrose Street is great for elderly people due to access to shops and the planning for the area has forgotten elderly people; and impacts from overlooking of private open space and visual impacts of the future five storey “concrete jungle”;

The draft Plan provides for less than 200 dwellings in addition to what is currently provided for in the Brisbane City Plan. This level of growth is considered unlikely to place undue pressure on local roads and infrastructure.

New development is generally located away from the extensive low density and character residential areas found in the District.

The current Low-medium Density residential area classification permits development up to three storeys. The proposed building height increases are relatively minor and are of a compatible scale with existing development entitlements.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan seeks to maintain an appropriate balance between the need to provide for local population growth and additional infrastructure and services whilst maintaining values local character and interest.




Generally supports the proposal for 5 storey multi-unit dwellings in the Sherwood Centre Precinct and supports ensuring there is pedestrian and cyclist permeability (“no dingy, dark alleys”) for safety and accessibility and recommends that any mixed use developments provide ample car parking to ensure they succeed. Businesses like restaurants, doctors and small retailers cannot run a business solely from patrons within walking distance.


Proposals should incorporate crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles including building design and layout that includes features such as opportunities for casual surveillance (e.g. windows overlooking parking and communal areas), adequate lighting, minimisation of predictable routes and entrapment locations, and a range of other measures designed to improve safety.

Future developments will require applicants meet the proposed off-street parking rates as set down in the City Plan and draft Neighbourhood Plan. Provision of regulated on-street parking for uses will be managed by Brisbane City Council Road Use Management as demand warrants.

no SGD 132



St Aidan’s - School

Administrative

There are concerns that Council will assess the submissions in relation to the school from those submitters who live outside the draft Neighbourhood Plan area with the same weight as those from local residents. Council is requested to give more weight to those persons living within the community than those with a temporary or distant connection through the school. As many of the families making submissions do not live in the area, it would appear they are not fully aware of the impact these draft Plans have on the residents of the area.

The public notification period as required under the Integrated Planning Act provides an opportunity for individuals affected by the draft Plan to put forth a submission. It is not a requirement that a submitter resides within the draft Neighbourhood Plan boundary.

Each submission is treated consistently and with similar regard.

It is proposed that submitters will be notified of Council's final responses to submissions and that information will be available on the Neighbourhood Planning website for all residents to view.

no SGD090, SGD105, SGD106, SGD121, SGD122, SGD125, SGD126, SGD151, SGD152, SGD153, SGD155, SGD157, SGD158, SGD169, SGD171, SGD172, SGD173, SGD188, SGD189, SGD228, SGD229, SGD230, SGD231, SGD233, SGD239, SGD240, SGD241, SGD242, SGD243, SGD247, SGD252, SGD253, SGD254, SGD257, SGD258, SGD259, SGD262, SGD354, SGD379, SGD381, SGD386, SGD394, SGD400, SGD406, SGD409, SGD410, SGD411, SGD415, SGD416, SGD417, SGD423, SGD424,



SGD425, SGD433, SGD447, SGD449, SGD451, SGD455, SGD456, SGD458, SGD463, SGD465, SGD466, SGD467, SGD468, SGD469, SGD470, SGD475, SGD480, SGD497, SGD503, SGD504, SGD505, SGD518, SGD522, SGD530, SGD542, SGD543, SGD544, SDG546, SGD547, SGD566, SGD579, SGD585, SGD589, SGD592, SGD154



The submitters are concerned that have not been consulted by the school in relation to the school’s Master Plan and are completely in the dark in relation to the school’s intentions to expand. The submitter’s believe the consultative process should not occur just between Council and the School and should include the home owner’s living in the St Aidan’s precinct to ensure those affected have the rightful opportunity to make informed decisions that affect their future lives.

The Brisbane City Plan currently provides that development for ‘Education purposes’ are code assessable where located in the Community Use-Education Purposes area classification and involving building work. Code assessable applications do not generally require public notification The proposed level of assessment at the St Aidan’s School site is consistent with the existing provisions of the Brisbane City Plan as applied elsewhere in the city.

no SGD299, SGD300, SGD301, SGD303, SGD402, SGD408, SGD453, SGD448, SGD498, SGD556, SGD576, SGD577, SGD578



Area Classification

The draft Plan recognises that all land owned by St Aidan’s forms part of the school campus and operations, and is to be used for Education Purposes. In order to ensure consistency between the draft Neighbourhood Plan’s intent for the St Aidan’s School Precinct and the proposed precinct boundary and area classification the following changes are recommended: 26 Kathleen Street (Lot 11 on SP152919) – include entire lot in CU4 Area; 18 Ruthven Street (Lot 1 on RP163033) – as per current draft Neighbourhood Plan; 10 Ruthven Street (Lot 2 on RP29582) – include in CU4 Area; 39 Ruthven Street (Lot 64 on RP29566) – include in CU4 Area; 15 Scott Street (Lot 25 on RP29556) – include in CU4 Area; 21 Scott Street (Lot 2 on RP99023) – include in CU4 Area; 15 Watt Street (Lot 2 RP84324) – Lot 2 on RP84324 – Include in St Aidan’s School Precinct and in CU4 Area

A number of the identified properties are existing pre-1946 houses in the Low Density Residential Area and in the Demolition Control Precinct. Future school use on these allotments is proposed to be assessed on its merits through an impact assessable development application.

It is not proposed to remove these properties from the LR Area classification or the Demolition Control Precinct which would compromise the character of the area. Impact assessment of any proposed school expansion on these sites provides an opportunity to:

Assess possible impacts on the character of the area, and in particular pre-1946 dwellings, are retained (with new development reflecting pre-1946 architecture Assess the impacts of the school’s expansion on surrounding residents such as noise, traffic/parking and visual impacts and to ensure these are appropriately managed; and Allow the community (including neighbouring residents) an opportunity to make a submission about the development identifying support or otherwise for the school’s expansion

no SGD012, SGD013, SGD014, SGD017, SGD018, SGD020, SGD021, SGD022, SGD024, SGD029, SGD030, SGD031, SGD032, SGD033, SGD034, SGD036, SGD039, SGD040, SGD065, SGD072, SGD073, SGD180, SGD181, SGD182, SGD183, SGD186, SGD187, SGD237, SGD238, SGD264, SGD395, SGD397, SGD407, SGD452, SGD471, SGD472, SGD485, SGD521, SGD541, SGD548, SGD569, SGD571, SGD574, SGD580, SGD581, SGD595, SGD596, SGD597, SGD605, SGD050



Submitters are aware that the St Aidan’s administration is rallying their school community to lodge submissions in support of the draft Plan and further to propose more changes to the zoning of surrounding areas. Submitters are concerned the school population of 900 is a substantial voice but the vast majority of submitters are not residents in the school precinct and not living with the changes. The submitters therefore object to any rezoning to community use for the properties raised in the above submissions and urge Council to dismiss those submissions as disingenuous and irrelevant as the vast majority of those parents live outside the draft Neighbourhood Plan area and have no sincere interest in or understanding of the neighbourhood. Oppose the rezoning of residential properties in both Ruthven and Scott Street to CU4 and oppose possible multi-storey development. The school has negatively impacted on Ruthven and Kathleen Streets by using their property in Scott Street as a thoroughfare for staff and parking.

Education purposes developments are code assessable where located in the Community Use- Education Purposes area classification and involving building work. The proposed level of assessment at the St Aidan’s School site is in accordance with the existing provisions of the Brisbane City Plan.

A number of the identified properties are existing pre-1946 houses in the Low Density Residential Area and in the Demolition Control Precinct. It is not proposed to remove these properties from the LR Area classification or the Demolition Control Precinct which would compromise the character of the area. Impact assessment of any proposed school expansion on these sites provides an opportunity to:

Assess possible impacts on the character of the area, and in particular pre-1946 dwellings, are retained (with new development reflecting pre-1946 architecture Assess the impacts of the school’s expansion on surrounding residents such as noise, traffic/parking and visual impacts and to ensure these are appropriately managed; and Allow the community (including neighbouring residents) an opportunity to make a submission about the development identifying support or otherwise for the school’s expansion.

no SGD299, SGD300, SGD301, SGD303, SGD402, SGD408, SGD453, SGD448, SGD481, SGD498, SGD556, SGD576, SGD577, SGD578, SGD329, SGD333, SGD352, SGD540



The submitter supports the retention of 15 and 21 Scott Street, and 15 Watt Street within the Low Density Residential zoning given the sites’ current uses for rental property and janitor’s residence.


no SDG050

The submitter requests all future development applications at the main school site be impact assessable so all community members have a right to express their views about future development.

Education purposes developments are code assessable where located in the Community Use- Education Purposes area classification and involving building work. The draft Plan provides for Code Assessment for St Aidan’s school where within a defined area. The proposed level of assessment at the St Aidan’s School site is in accordance with the existing provisions of the Brisbane City Plan.

no

Future Growth of School

Do not support the expansion of St Aidan’s as the level of growth is inappropriate in a residential area with character significance. The submitter is aware that the school is buying up more adjoining properties and believes the Council needs to act now to limit the school’s continued expansion. Any future building/renovations to be done at St Aidan’s are not supported without more off-street car parking to be provided

Future expansion of the school, within a defined area is code assessable, and the impacts on local character and traffic can be assessed. The school is required by the Code to manage its traffic impacts The school’s ongoing operation fulfils a wider community need, and its existence in the area would have been known at the time when many local residents moved into the surrounding areas.

no SGD216, SGD419, SGD490, SGD438, SGD176, SGD299, SGD300, SGD301, SGD302, SGD303, SGD112, SGD116 SGD255, SGD261, SGD285, SGD310, SGD311, SGD329, SGD352, SGD413, SGD464, SGD488,



by the school for their large staff body and visitors. Further encroachment by St Aidan’s into the residential area would have enormous impact on these residing in the area through increased noise, traffic (particularly on-street parking which is already a significant problem) and amenity impacts and would not be sympathetic to the character houses in surrounding streets. Submitters object to 5, 4, or 3 storey buildings at St Aidan’s due to the privacy impacts on neighbours. The school is not a townhouse, unit or apartments but a very large school consisting of around 900 students. This important distinction should be recognised as 4 or 5 storey classrooms per level with 20 to 25 students in each raises a matter of serious invasion of privacy with hundreds of eyes looking into private homes and yards. A few trees or 3m setback does not solve this concern.

It is necessary to find an appropriate balance between allowing for the reasonable growth of the school, to meet local demand, and the property rights of nearby and affected landowners. The draft Plan applies a level of assessment to future development on the school site that is consistent with the way schools are regulated elsewhere in the city under the Brisbane City Plan. otherwise for the school’s expansion.

Building height on St Aidan’s site is proposed to transition down to 2 storeys where adjoining existing low density residential. 5 Storey development would be acceptable where facing towards the rail line where no overshadowing to properties north if the site would occur due to orientation and separation by road. Overshadowing to properties south are minimised due to road separation and building setback from property line.

SGD501, SGD528, SGD533, SGD534, SGD537, SGD524, SGD333, SGD540, SGD418, SGD525, SGD445, SGD481, SGD543, SGD402, SGD408, SGD453, SGD448, SGD498, SGD556, SGD576, SGD577, SGD578,



The submitter notes community concerns about the school’s expansion but does not share these concerns. The submitter believes there is enough room for the school to expand up a bit and grow sideways a bit to the west and south and even across the railway line into new higher rise Browne Street property. For the school to expand, the school should increase the height on the current site by demolishing existing buildings rather than building over existing residential sites. Building heights to five storeys are supported for the school where immediately opposite the train station at the bottom of the hill.


no SDG050, SGD204, SGD248, SGD486

General

Submitter has highlighted that the school is a ‘good neighbour’ by their provision of the following: air conditioning on timers, reduced school bell times, improved driveway and servicing arrangements to local street network. The school has also conducted recent community meetings as a result of the proposed draft Neighbourhood Plan.


no SGD050



The submitter is concerned that the draft Neighbourhood Plan is being undertaken with inadequate consideration of both significant features and requirements of adjoining areas, particularly to the east and south of the site; Oxley Creek Common and facilities at Tennyson have been mentioned but more would be relevant. These considerations would affect the St Aidan’s School Precinct and the Sport and Recreation Precinct particularly where adjoining open space.

A full review of the draft Plan area was undertaken over the past 3 years with input from various departments in Council including open space and water resources. Where development is proposed on sensitive sites, and this is not an outcome that is encouraged in the draft Plan, each application will be assessed on its merits having regard to the likely impacts of the proposal.

no SGD185

The submitter is a resident of Scott Street and is concerned about the school acquiring post-1946 properties in the street and their intentions for the use of these properties. Particular concerns are that residents are not being consulted on future development plans for the school and that the school will use these properties for access despite previous assurances from the school that they have no plans for this. For this reason, residents are concerned that they will have no control over and input into future school development and urge Council to ensure that future school development is subject to impact assessment to provide certainty for continued amenity for local residents.

Education purposes developments are code assessable where located in the Community Use- Education Purposes area classification and involving building work. The draft Plan provides for Code Assessment for St Aidan’s school where within a defined area. The proposed level of assessment at the St Aidan’s School site is in accordance with the existing provisions of the Brisbane City Plan.

no SGD093, SGD190, SGD299, SGD300, SGD301, SGD303, SGD402, SGD408, SGD423, SGD424, SGD453, SGD448, SGD498, SGD556, SGD576, SGD577, SGD578, SGD579, SGD529



The submitter, St Aidan’s School, is concerned that the proposed draft Neighbourhood Plan does not have sufficient provisions for Educational Facilities within the draft Plan based on their previous comments. They feel each year level should be acknowledged by Council for their proposed zoning review of the school sites, to allow additional facilities onsite and allow for the improved and more modernised teaching facilities they hope to have.

It is considered that the draft Plan achieves a balance between acknowledging the needs of the school to respond to increasing demands whilst also providing for reasonable protection of amenities of surrounding properties. This is achieved by defining an area within which Code Assessable development may occur. Within this area, traffic and other impacts will be assessed by council officers, although public notification will not be required. Development outside the defined area will require impact assessment and public submissions may be considered.

SGD050

Section 5.6, P2 of the draft Neighbourhood Plan Code should include the provision of facilities for pedestrians to ensure safe access for those entering the school from adjacent streets and the railway station.

Redevelopment, whether code or impact assessable, would take pedestrian safety into account.

no SGD489




Submitters believe it is unacceptable that there are no acceptable solutions to performance criteria P2 and claim that this reflects the ongoing attitude of the school to this problem. Recommended acceptable solutions are as follows: 1. St Aidan’s be required to provide off street parking to cater for its several hundred car spaces to meet the parking needs of teachers, teacher aids, admin staff, grounds staff, visitors etc 2. St Aidan’s provide for a minimum set down and pick-up at various locations around the school precinct of sufficient length and breadth to accommodate up to 10 cars in both directions comfortably. Highlights parking problems at Kathleen, Harrowby, Scott and Watt Streets from teachers and students. Concerned that no allowances for traffic movements and off street parking has been included within the draft Neighbourhood Plan; There is a lack of public parking for those commuting into the city.

Acceptable Solutions are one (but not the only way) to demonstrate that a particular proposed development meets the Performance Criteria and other higher provisions of the Code. Other ways to achieve the performance Criteria may also be possible and these can be discussed with applicants as part of the development assessment process.

Under the draft Plan, the school is required to manage impacts of redevelopment including providing additional off-street car parking, for staff and students/parents/visitors and pick-up and set-down zones are to be provided.

The draft Plan works with other provisions of the Brisbane City Plan to ensure parking is provided at the required minimum rates. It should be noted that traffic problems on local roads associated with the school may be referred to Council’s Road Use Management unit for investigation.

no SGD299, SGD300, SGD301, SGD303, SGD402, SGD408, SGD453, SGD448, SGD498, SGD556, SGD576, SGD577, SGD578, SGD177, SGD190, SGD154, SGD090, SGD105, SGD106, SGD121, SGD122, SGD125, SGD126, SGD151, SGD152, SGD153, SGD155, SGD157, SGD158, SGD169, SGD171, SGD172, SGD173, SGD189, SGD228, SGD229, SGD230, SGD231, SGD233, SGD239, SGD240, SGD241, SGD242, SGD243, SGD247, SGD252, SGD253, SGD254, SGD257, SGD258, SGD259, SGD262, SGD354, SGD379, SGD381, SGD386, SGD394, SGD406,



SGD409, SGD410, SGD411, SGD415, SGD416, SGD417, SGD433, SGD447, SGD449, SGD455, SGD456, SGD463, SGD465, SGD466, SGD467, SGD468, SGD469, SGD470, SGD475, SGD480, SGD497, SGD503, SGD504, SGD505, SGD518, SGD522, SGD530, SGD544, SDG546, SGD547, SGD566, SGD585, SGD589, SGD592, SGD188, SGD050



The submitter is concerned that the development principles have not been sufficiently addressed within the current draft Plan to encourage public transport usage. The Council is encouraged to take steps to encourage the school to support public transport usage for its staff and students and to ensure the draft Plan incorporates more stringent requirements about better off-street parking and pick-up arrangements.

The draft Plan already includes code assessable requirements for car parking and pick up facilities to be provided on the St Aidan’s site, in event of future expansion. The school is required by these provisions to avoid causing increased traffic congestion on ensure local streets.

The school is encouraged to promote active and public transport options as alternatives for its staff and students wherever possible, although the draft Neighbourhood Plan is limited in its ability to enforce such a requirement. The provision of new bus stops or services is a responsibility TransLink.

no SGD154, SGD423, SGD424, SGD579, SGD188, SGD190

Submitter supports encouraging public and active transport at St Aidan’s school (in development principle 3.6) and states that additional car parking should be discouraged as any expansion of car parking will increase congestion and decrease safety.


no SGD113



As part of the draft Neighbourhood Plan, Council has requested St Aidan’s to prepare a masterplan showing how the school will grow to give certainty to the community about the schools plans. Traffic impacts on the surrounding streets remain the most significant issue. Future development should include on-site parking for staff and students, on site setdown area and a traffic management plan. Objection to the school’s expansion because traffic congestion around the school is already excessive and no consideration appears to have been given to local residents. Council needs to ensure there is priority to adequately provide for off-street parking which includes drop-off parking in the school to limit the disruption to residents.

If St Aidan’s School is to redevelop the development assessment process would require additional off-street car parking, including for staff and an extension of pick-up and set-down zones be provided.


no SDG192, SGD419, SGD458, SGD490, SGD400, SGD408, SGD329, SGD352, SGD221, SGD118, SGD168, SGD423, SGD424, SGD579, SGD156, SGD558, SGD066, SGD536



The submitter requests improvements to the existing transport arrangements for the school through the provision of: a 2 min drop off/pickup zone in Dewar Terrace and Harrowby Street. footpaths in these streets and also Ruthven and Kathleen Streets.

The school’s existing operations are outside the scope of the draft Neighbourhood Plan to regulate or control.

The draft Plan includes code assessable requirements for car parking and pick up facilities to be provided on the St Aidan’s site, which would be applicable for future redevelopment/expansion. These provisions will require the school to manage traffic impacts and avoid increased traffic congestion on local streets.

Residents can contact Council’s Contact Centre on 3403 8888 or their local councillor to request new footpaths or report damage to existing footpaths.

no SDG050



Urban Design

Five storey heights are not supported as such development is not consistent with the current nature of the street containing many pre-war and earlier homes. Allowing five storey buildings in this character residential environment seems at odds with the draft plan’s objectives. Objection to the continued building of modern buildings so close the boundary which affects the amenity of adjoining residential houses by overshadowing, blocking breezes and noise impacts (such as from music lessons). There is also very little open space on the site and 3 metre setbacks mean not many trees can be grown. These impacts would be exacerbated if 5 storey buildings are allowed.

The draft Plan indicated two five storey buildings on the St Aidan’s site, both of which are located on the St Aidan’s Way frontage, which overlooks the rail line. A residential road separates the campus from nearby residential property, minimising any overshadowing impacts. Performance Criteria P4 protects the reasonable amenities of nearby residential properties, including ten Acceptable Solutions addressing noise generation, landscaping buffers, screen fencing, lighting, location of air conditioning equipment, and location of public car parks. The draft Plan seeks to achieve a balance between the protection of reasonable residential amenities, whilst not unreasonably preventing the school’s ongoing and continued operation.

no SGD439, SGD299, SGD300, SGD301, SGD303, SGD402, SGD408, SGD423, SGD424, SGD453, SGD448, SGD498, SGD556, SGD576, SGD577, SGD578, SGD579, SGD400, SGD418, SGD525, SGD419, SGD490, SGD112, SGD261, SGD302, SGD413, SGD488, SGD464, SGD481, SGD528, SGD533, SGD534, SGD537, SGD524, SGD559, SDG136, SGD188, SGD190, SGD080, SGD093, SGD154, SGD575, SGD118, SGD083,



St Aidan’s - Ambiwerra

Area Classification

Requests the school sporting facility land located at 30 Thalia Court, Sherwood (Ambiwerra) be rezoned to Community Use – Education Purposes. St Joseph’s Gregory Terrace site is zoned as CU –EP, and given the close proximity and similarities for the sites usage, feel 30 Thalia Court should also be zoned CU-EP. The facilities are not used for weekend sports which would attract large numbers of participants and parents. The facilities are just used for tennis, cricket, athletics, cross country and run for only 8 months of the year. No traffic/parking problems onsite as students are dropped off/picked up by parents.

The submission refers to a change which is proposed in the draft Neighbourhood Plan. Support for the draft Neighbourhood Plan is noted.

no SDG050



Environment

No filling can be permitted on the Ambiwerra site for new residential development as this exacerbates flooding by pushing rising waters onto others.

The proposed area classification for the “Ambiwerra” site aims to reflect its ongoing use for outdoor sport and recreation not residential activities. The site is currently zoned for rural purposes under the Brisbane City Plan, which inappropriately reflects the use and intent for this land. The Brisbane City Plan allows development not requiring building works in the Community Use – CU4 area classification to be self assessable. The draft Plan overrides the Brisbane City Plan to make development involving building work impact assessable, in order to allow the impacts of any proposed building work to be assessed for its impacts on the character of the area. In addition to the draft Neighbourhood Plan, the Community Use Code will also apply to future development on the site. As much of the land is located below the 100 ARI flood level, the possible impacts of activities such as earthworks will require to be assessed.

no SGD508

Land Use

Multistorey development on the Ambiwerra site is not supported.

The reason for including the land within the community purpose area classification instead of the current rural area classification is to better reflect the intent that the land is used for

no SGD508



purposes ancillary to the operation of the school and not for any form of residential development, including multi-storey residential development.

The implications of the proposal for Ambiwerra are not clear. The land at Ambiwerra should be dedicated to sporting activities only. The small area of land classified as Low Density Residential Area flagged as suitable for residential purposes in the draft Neighbourhood Plan is not supported. This is a sport and recreation area and should be retained for such. Submitters object to the zoning of the ‘Ambiwerra’ site as Community Use as this will allow buildings such as Child Care or Schools on parts of the site above Q100 flood level. In addition, in future it will allow the owners to apply for material change of use on parcels of land for subsequent sale for housing as a source of funding. Submitters request that the ‘Ambiwerra’ site is included in the Sport and Recreation Precinct so that it remains for these purposes.

The community use area classification allows for activities that are ancillary to the operation of the school. Any new buildings are impact assessable under the draft Plan. Much of the site is located below the 100 year ARI. Any new buildings may therefore have an unacceptable environmental impact.

The purpose of the area classification change is to allow for the continuation of existing informal sporting activities associated with the school.

Residential land uses are not supported.

The draft Plan notes the existence of land already zoned for residential purposes within the precinct and does not seek to remove or alter that area classification.

no SGD266, SGD185, SGD113, SGD248, SGD255, SGD176, SGD178, SGD524, SGD112, SGD207, SGD208, SGD261, SGD292, SGD293, SGD294, SGD302, SGD309, SGD342, SGD378, SGD392, SGD396, SGD413, SGD442, SGD443, SGD444, SGD450, SGD451, SGD460, SGD464, SGD474, SGD488, SGD506, SGD526, SGD527, SGD528, SGD533, SGD534, SGD537, SGD550, SGD551, SGD554, SGD583, SGD584, SGD588, SGD590, SGD602 SGD304, SGD425, SGD542, SGD177, SGD419, SGD490,



SGD012, SGD013, SGD014, SGD017, SGD018, SGD020, SGD021, SGD022, SGD024, SGD029, SGD030, SGD031, SGD032, SGD033, SGD034, SGD036, SGD039, SGD040, SGD065, SGD072, SGD073, SGD180, SGD181, SGD182, SGD183, SGD186, SGD187, SGD237, SGD238, SGD264, SGD395, SGD397, SGD407, SGD452, SGD471, SGD472, SGD485, SGD521, SGD541, SGD548, SGD569, SGD571 SGD574, SGD580, SGD581, SGD595, SGD596, SGD597, SGD605, SGD329, SGD352, SGD600



Statutory Requirement

Submitter questions why development at the “Ambiwerra” site is subject to impact assessment and only code assessment applies at the main school site at Kathleen Street/ Ruthven Street. The draft Plan clearly discriminates and removes the rights of residents. Submitter requests that development at the Kathleen Street/ Ruthven Street site be impact assessable to ensure consistency between the two sites.

The higher level of assessment for the “Ambiwerra” site reflects its sensitive location, in an area currently identified for rural purposes, near the river. Education purposes developments are code assessable where located in the Community Use- Education Purposes area classification and involving building work. The proposed level of assessment at the St Aidan’s School site is in accordance with the existing provisions of the Brisbane City Plan.

no SGD489,




The rezoning to community use to allow the school to expand on the site is not supported due to traffic impacts on surrounding residents. If the zoning is to be changed from Rural it should become open space or sport only to preclude school buildings, commercial or residential development. The submitter is concerned about the ongoing operation of the Ambiwerra site which has been subject to a significant increase in sporting activities and associated commercial activities such as tennis coaching and physiotherapist services which has impacted on the amenity of residents by way of traffic and noise. Traffic in Erinvale Street has reached a point where it is dangerous and Council is urged to consider traffic management in the area. Proposals that are likely to further increase traffic to this local area should not be adopted.

The proposed Community Use – CU4 area classification for the “Ambiwerra” site aims to reflect its ongoing use for informal outdoor sport and recreation activities that are ancillary to the school. Higher intensity land uses are not envisaged because of the rural character, nearby sensitive environmental values and local flooding characteristics. The draft Plan makes development involving building work (new buildings) impact assessable in order to allow the Council to assess the impacts of development on the area.

The draft Plan aims to maintain the school’s ability to use the grounds for sporting purposes, whilst avoiding unreasonable impacts on local residential amenities or environmental values.

no SGD599, SGD304, SGD087, SGD154, SGD266, SGD551, SGD483, SGD599



Alan Fletcher Research Station

Environment

Support the protection of waterways and waterway corridors from being overdeveloped, needed for the future environmental health of the area and needed also for the wellbeing of the increasing number of residents within a higher density environment.

Protection of waterways and waterway corridors is provided by the Brisbane City Plan. The draft Neighbourhood Plan requires that open space be provided along the riverfront with native vegetation retained and rehabilitated. Building or earthwork activities on the site would be impact assessable and be required to be assessed against vegetation protection measures in the draft Plan as well as the Waterway Code.

no SGD185



The submitter supports the following for redevelopment of the site: Retention of riparian vegetation corridor along the river; Retention of a sizable area for public open space, Public education of the site’s historical significance (not only as a research facility but also for ammunition storage during WWI and for sugar cane growing and use as a sugar mill prior to this in the 1860s – 1880s); If any part of the site is developed for housing, blocks no smaller than 600 – 800m2 are supported, Resumption of private land for access to arboretum is not supported.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan requires that open space be provided along the riverfront with native vegetation retained and rehabilitated. The Brisbane City Plan also protects riparian vegetation within the Brisbane River corridor.

It is considered unlikely that the site would be acquired by the council as parkland due to its proximity to the Sherwood arboretum and due to the District already meeting or exceeding Council's desired standards of services for parkland and open space.

The minimum lot provisions if the land is to be converted to residential are proposed to be greater than 450m2 and is in keeping with the character and size of surrounding residential dwellings.

The precinct intent includes a provision of a public space to be incorporated into the site design to commemorate the site's historically significant use.

no SGD319, SGD061

Land Use

Submitters believe the land should be set aside for community use and parkland to complement the nearby Sherwood Arboretum. Setting aside additional parklands is import for a growing population. Submitter requests that the

The State government owns the land and ultimately has the final decision about its future use, subject to the provisions of the Brisbane City Plan.

The precinct intent in section 3.9 of the draft

Yes SGD112, SGD207, SGD208, SGD248, SGD255, SGD261, SGD292, SGD293, SGD294, SGD302, SGD309, SGD342,



Research Station is protected from development. The submitter opposes changes to the Alan Fletcher Research station, due to possible traffic congestion, lack of infrastructure, and removal of character housing areas.

Neighbourhood Plan states that the preferred use of the site is to continue to be community purposes, although should residential development be proposed, this should be in accordance with a masterplan and should address conservation of riparian vegetation along the river’s edge, provision of open space, traffic impacts. It is understood that the land is unlikely to be purchased by the Council as open space. The area meets current Desired Standards of Service for parkland. Preventing any form of residential development of the land, as requested in this submission, could be seen as unreasonable, particularly where there is no intention to acquire the land for parkland or other open space. It is proposed to make a change to the draft Plan to clarify that if future residential use is proposed for this site, it is to be predominantly low –density residential and of a bulk and scale that is consistent with the generally two storey housing surrounding the site.

SGD378, SGD392, SGD396, SGD413, SGD442, SGD443, SGD444, SGD450, SGD460, SGD464, SGD474, SGD481, SGD488, SGD501, SGD506, SGD526, SGD527, SGD528, SGD533, SGD534, SGD537, SGD550, SGD554, SGD583, SGD584, SGD588, SGD590, SGD602, SGD192, SGD426, SGD508, SGD575, SGD038, SGD083, SGD113, SGD135, SGD188, SGD586, SGD004, SGD419, SGD490, SGD524, SGD435, SGD489, SGD210, SGD600, SGD582,



The submitter supports the recommendation that the site is used for community purposes, and that the bushland area is retained along the Brisbane River area. The provisions for the protection and rehabilitation of native vegetation along the river are supported. Strong support for the future retention of the bushland along the Brisbane River as part of the Brisbane River Corridor, and the remainder of the site for open space and green space.

Support for the draft Neighbourhood Plan is noted.

no SGD176, SGD178, SGD112, SGD207, SGD208, SGD210, SGD261, SGD292, SGD293, SGD294, SGD302, SGD309, SGD342, SGD378, SGD392, SGD396, SGD413, SGD442, SGD443, SGD444, SGD450, SGD460, SGD464, SGD474, SGD481, SGD488, SGD501, SGD506, SGD524, SGD526, SGD527, SGD528, SGD533, SGD534, SGD537, SGD550, SGD554, SGD561, SGD583, SGD584, SGD588, SGD590, SGD602, SGD185, SGD188, SGD600



When the research station closes the land should be developed as medium high rise up to 5 storeys to provide significant affordable housing without disturbing local residents. The site is within easy walking distance of Honour Avenue bus services and the Sherwood Railway Station. A section of land along the river could provide commemoration and public education of the site’s significance.

The residential area surrounding the land is predominantly low density, two storey character housing. Five storey apartments in this location would be in conflict with surrounding character and could lead to unacceptable traffic impacts.


Submitters object to splitting the Alan Fletcher Research Station into small blocks for residential development or sporting purposes. Surrounding streets (such as Magazine Street) are extremely narrow and quiet residential streets that will not cope with increase traffic and population. Blocks should be no smaller than 820m2 (not 450m2). The Council and State Government are called upon to protect the majority of this significant waterfront land for community use and parkland including providing greater connectivity to the Sherwood Arboretum.

Lot reconfiguration creating lots less than 450m2 is impact assessable under the draft Plan. 450m2 is generally consistent with lot sizes found in the area. Preventing any form of residential development of the land would severely restrict the landowner's options for use of the site and could be seen as unreasonable, particularly where there is no intention to acquire the land for parkland or other open space.

The draft Plan requires that vegetation on land along the Brisbane River be maintained and protected, and seeks to maintain an area of open space within the site.

no SGD023, SGD027, SGD035, SGD041, SGD042, SGD043, SGD044, SGD045, SGD046, SGD047, SGD048, SGD049, SGD052, SGD053, SGD054, SGD055, SGD056, SGD057, SGD058, SGD059, SGD060, SGD062 SGD064, SGD067, SGD069, SGD070, SGD075, SGD077, SGD078, SGD081, SGD082, SGD084, SGD085, SGD088, SGD091, SGD092, SGD094, SGD095,



SGD413, SGD423, SGD424, SGD441, SGD442, SGD443, SGD444, SGD446, SGD450, SGD460, SGD464, SGD472, SGD474, SGD477, SGD481, SGD482, SGD488, SGD489, SGD506, SGD519, SGD523, SGD524, SGD526, SGD527, SGD528, SGD532, SGD533, SGD534, SGD537, SGD545, SGD550, SGD554, SGD562, SGD563, SGD570, SGD573, SGD579, SGD582, SGD583, SGD584, SGD587, SGD588, SGD590, SGD599, SGD601, SGD602, SGD451, SGD561, SGD192, SGD248, SGD255, SGD501, SGD508, SGD575, SGD600, SGD102, SGD103



The submitter highlights that the Sherwood Arboretum is heavily used due to its size and the Alan Fletcher site should be used as an extension to the Arboretum. Smaller parks are underutilised due to poor facilities and there is a need for additional larger parks. Current picnic tables and BBQ sites in the Sherwood Arboretum are oversubscribed. The precinct provides an opportunity to have additional picnic sites, playground, fitness stations, walking tracks and boardwalk.

It is considered unlikely that the site would be acquired by the council as parkland due to its proximity to the Sherwood arboretum and due to the District already meeting or exceeding Council's desired standards of services for parkland and open space.


Character

The submitter requests recognition of the area’s historical importance be provided. The submitter believed researchers used a building at Berry St and Magazine Street in the 1930s to research the ‘cactoblastis insects’ which were the saviour of QLD and Aus from cactus weeds.

This location was included in a heritage survey. The research station was in operation during the 1930s and is attributed with a number of significant scientific contributions. However, none of the original buildings exist and it is not proposed to preserve the existing buildings.

If the Alan Fletcher site is to be redeveloped, the draft Plan requires that a public space is to be incorporated into the site design to commemorate the site's historically significant use. Nominations of potential heritage sites by the public are welcomed where a specific address is supplied.




General

The submitter supports any future development of Precinct 8 be controlled by a Master Plan (or where no approved master plan is impact assessable) supported by local residents and stakeholders. Preference for the future use of the site is in accordance with the draft Plan recommendations, retaining the site for its heritage values and community use.


no SGD185

Community Hub Precinct

General

Support for the creation of community hubs focussed around existing community facilities.


no SGD132, SGD177, SGD210, SGD217, SGD248, SGD255, SGD575, SGD217, SGD116

Extend the community hubs so that the provision of some government services is catered for in or near these locations.

The extent of the proposed community hub is considered adequate to meet the need for additional community facilities serving the area.

Government services would be capable of locating in the nearby MP3 centre as ‘centre activities’ under the Brisbane City Plan.

no SGD210



There is an inconsistency that requires clarification between the summary document on page 12 and the development criteria outlined in page 37. Clarify that the requirement for housing developments to include 50% community use on the ground floor has been removed.

The inconsistency is noted. The summary document will be updated. The draft Statutory Neighbourhood plan is correct.

no SDG192



Land Use

The protection of the community uses and parkland in Thallon Street is well supported by the community. The precinct intent however fails to recognise the complementary nature of private and public housing located in Thallon Street. The rights of these residents to continue home ownership and the quiet enjoyment of their homes is important. The residential nature of the street should be reflected in the precinct intent. Objects to the inclusion of existing LMR Area in Community Hub Precinct. There is not sufficient justification or community support for the expansion or introduction of new community uses on privately owned land not zoned for community use. Continuation of community uses surrounding the Corinda Train Station is supported and is adequate to serve the area. Include the community uses in the Corinda Centre Precinct or secondly in the MR Area or thirdly retained in the LMR Area on the basis of the location adjoining the Corinda Centre, bounded by the rail line and public transport access.

The need for community facilities is assessed during the formation of all Neighbourhood Plans. In this case, a need was identified and the location selected because of its central accessibility. The community hub is capable of integrating with surrounding residential uses and the draft Neighbourhood Plan cannot require existing residential uses to vacate against their wishes.

The community hub serves an important local function and is proposed to remain in the draft Plan.

no SDG192, SGD071



The submitter opposes inclusion within the community hub precinct and suggests alternative uses for the site. The submitter requests a change in area classification from low-medium density residential to Centre (MP3) or Medium Density Residential based on: • SEQ Regional plan supports higher

density residential uses in centrally located areas

• Transit Oriented Development principles

• Insufficient justification that new community facilities are required in this location

Alternatively, the submitter requests exclusion from the community hub precinct and the retention of low-density residential classification.

The proposed Community Hub precinct for Corinda comprises 6 lots including an existing church (2000m2) which is proposed to be reclassified under the draft Plan as community use. Of the remaining lots, 46&47 RP 29573 are each 508m2 in area. Council has identified the need for a community hub through a Gap Analysis consistent with the draft Community Facilities Network Plan and Council’s desired standards of service. The community hub precinct supports the establishment of community facilities whilst continuing to allow for residential uses. This community hub satisfies the requirements of accessibility and co-location near existing community facilities and will ensure adequate community services are available to cater for the potential increase in population. Significant community opposition to expanding the MP3 or medium density residential resulted in the formation of a tight boundary. The current LMR classification is proposed to be retained, and provides for impact assessment of multi unit dwellings.

no SGD001



Statutory Requirements

Amend Development Principle 2.6 to replace “promote the continuation of” with “continue” community uses throughout the area and “promote additional uses”.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan seeks to ensure that the continuation of the community uses is provided for, but it cannot guarantee that these community uses will continue. That is a matter that the providers of these services can address. It is proposed to retain the current wording.

no SGD071

Requests that a covenant be put on each building so that the use should be at most only a nominal fee charged to the community and/or not-for-profit groups chargeable in perpetuity regardless of ownership of the building/property.

Covenants regarding future use are outside the scope of the draft Neighbourhood Plan.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan seeks to ensure that the continuation of the community uses is provided for.

no SGD117

Volunteer groups need to be better incorporated into the draft Plan. Suggestions for the Community Hub in Thallon Street/Hives Park to house a Big Co-Ed Shed as they feel the thrift shop and refuge centre is not the same for older residents in particular aged males.

The provision of the community hub makes it easier for volunteer groups to establish a location for use in this area.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan seeks to ensure that the continuation of the community uses is provided for.

no SGD093



West Side Character Precinct

General

Objection to the Westside Character Precinct being singled out as worthy of preservation where other areas are ignored. The submitter does not agree that Laurel Avenue is one of the most striking examples of character streets in Brisbane and lists the following observations: Many other streets within the area are just as attractive yet not protected, Camphor Laurel Tree’s are a pest – refer to Councils own publication ‘Wipe out weeds, Many of the dwellings within the street are not pre-1946 nor contain much character elements.

Character and heritage surveys carried out for this draft Neighbourhood Plan identified the high quality of remaining character housing in many areas in the north and western portion of the District. The West Side Character Precinct identifies the contribution made to this character by the typically larger blocks, larger houses, mature trees and intact local character along certain streets. Council’s arborist has specifically identified the Camphor Laurels referred to in the submission as worthy of mention for their contribution to the streetscape character. Demolition Control Precincts in these areas will help to preserve character areas for future generations and a number of submissions in favour of character protection generally have been received.

Yes, refer to the contribution to streetscape made by existing stands of mature Camphor Laurels in this precinct

SGD216, SDG133, SGD477, SGD579

The DCP should be extended to the area east of Oxley Road – Hall Street, Corinda, and in the corridor area for example Kenilworth Street, Sherwood. Submitter

Local character surveys are conducted for each draft Neighbourhood Plan to determine which streets should be retained, removed or added to the list of Development Control Precincts

no SGD188, SGD393, SGD438, SGD458, SGD104, SDG192 SGD080, SGD023,



requests the precinct be applied to entire area of Sherwood and Graceville, west of Honour Avenue. Apply the Westside Character Precinct protections to other areas including the corridor between Oxley Road and the railway line, and the eastern side of Oxley Road.

maintained in the Brisbane City Plan, based on their remaining character.

Areas east of Oxley Road, whilst containing existing Development Control Precincts were not recommended as requiring additional character controls by Council’s Heritage section.

SGD027, SGD035, SGD041, SGD042, SGD043, SGD044, SGD045, SGD046, SGD047, SGD048, SGD049, SGD052, SGD053, SGD054, SGD055, SGD056, SGD057, SGD058, SGD059, SGD060, SGD061, SGD062, SGD064, SGD067, SGD068, SGD070, SGD075, SGD076, SGD077, SGD078, SGD081, SGD082, SGD084, SGD085, SGD086, SGD088, SGD091, SGD092, SGD094, SGD095, SGD096, SGD097, SGD098, SGD099, SGD107, SGD108, SGD109, SGD110, SGD111, SGD114, SGD118, SGD131, SGD167, SGD168, SGD170, SDG193, SGD194, SGD196, SGD197, SGD198,



SGD199, SGD200, SGD202, SGD209, SGD210, SGD213, SGD225, SGD226, SGD227, SGD232, SGD244, SGD245, SGD250, SGD251, SGD256, SGD266, SGD285, SGD294, SGD304, SGD332, SGD380, SGD387, SGD390, SGD398, SGD399, SGD400, SGD401, SGD403, SGD404, SGD405, SGD412, SGD423, SGD424, SGD435, SGD441, SGD446, SGD472, SGD482, SGD519, SGD523, SGD532, SGD545, SGD549, SGD562, SGD563, SGD570, SGD587 SGD599, SGD601, SGD102, SGD103



Many houses which are ‘gems’ are not listed under the Westside Character Precinct. All pre-1946 houses should be preserved.


Some properties, whilst of high individual merit, may not qualify for inclusion within Development Control Precincts due to surrounding streetscape character values.

no SGD176

The maintenance of character areas is focusing solely on the West Side Precinct. Require a 20 year plan for the retention of character houses.


Other areas, including areas east of Oxley Road, containing existing Development Control Precincts but were not recommended by Council’s Heritage section as requiring additional character controls provided by inclusion within a character precinct. Neighbourhood Plans generally plan for a twenty year timeframe, which is reviewed approximately every ten years.

no SGD176



Light Industry Precinct

Area Classification

The retention of the industrial areas of Sherwood is supported. The submitter supports the creation of this precinct and the change of zone to Light Industrial.



Rezoning the precinct to light industry area was a community led initiative to lessen the impact on general industries. Community do not support the bus depot in this precinct. Lord Mayor proceeded with the bus depot despite objection from the community. Revise the objectives of the precinct to reflect the actual impact of the bus depot and consider rezoning the area as parkland particularly along the creek bank. Rezone the bus depot to residential when the site is decommissioned in the future.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan identifies areas along Railway Parade as a Light Industry and Employment Precinct. This precinct is envisaged to continue to provide local industrial and employment opportunities and is suitable for appropriate low impact industrial uses (new or expansion of existing).

Council notes the objection to the proposed bus depot. The decision by Council to locate the bus depot in the area was not caused by the proposed area classification change from general industry to light industry. The location of the Sherwood Bus Depot is intended to enhance bus operations on Brisbane's Southside.

Future uses of the bus depot following decommissioning are outside the scope of the draft Neighbourhood Plan.

no SDG192, SGD207, SGD208, SGD292, SGD293, SGD302, SGD309, SGD342, SGD378, SGD392, SGD396, SGD413, SGD442, SGD443, SGD444, SGD450, SGD464, SGD474, SGD488, SGD506, SGD526, SGD527, SGD528, SGD533, SGD534, SGD537, SGD550, SGD554, SGD561, SGD583, SGD584, SGD588, SGD590, SGD602., SGD176, SGD178, SGD248, SGD255, SGD524, SGD016



Submitters have concerns that the Sherwood Bus Depot will take up a significant proportion of the land set aside for Light Industry in the precinct depriving the community of sufficient space for local industries and services. The development of a bus depot in the proposed Light Industry area is opposed.

Objection to a proposed bus depot on the site is noted. The draft Plan proposes an area classification change from General Industry to Light Industry in order to reduce impacts from some industries that could otherwise locate in the precinct. The decision by Council to locate the bus depot in the area was not motivated by the area classification change. The Sherwood Bus Depot is intended to enhance bus operations on Brisbane's Southside.

The bus depot use is considered an equally appropriate use of either general or light industrial land, generating employment and being an activity that would be difficult to locate in a commercial zoned area. It is likely that the bus depot, which will not be a publicly accessible facility, will have fewer potential amenity impacts than many industrial activities that could have relocated to the current general industry area.

no SGD207, SGD208, SGD248, SGD255, SGD292, SGD293, SGD302, SGD309, SGD334, SGD342, SGD378, SGD392, SGD396, SGD413, SGD442, SGD443, SGD444, SGD450, SGD464, SGD474, SGD488, SGD506, SGD524, SGD526, SGD527, SGD528, SGD533, SGD534, SGD537, SGD550, SGD554, SGD583, SGD584, SGD588, SGD590, SGD602, SGD176, SGD178, SGD205,



Submitters would like the bus depot site in the precinct “flagged” as potential Low Density Residential for when the bus depot is decommissioned in future. Following decommissioning of the bus depot all industrial development should be located east of Oxley Creek to provide employment options.

Future decommissioning of the bus depot site would be likely to occur outside the ten year review period for the draft Neighbourhood Plan.

no SGD176, SGD178, SGD207, SGD208, SGD292, SGD293, SGD302, SGD309, SGD342, SGD378, SGD392, SGD396, SGD442, SGD443, SGD444, SGD450, SGD464, SGD474, SGD488, SGD506, SGD526, SGD527, SGD528, SGD533, SGD534, SGD537, SGD550, SGD554, SGD583, SGD584, SGD588, SGD590, SGD602, SGD524

Environment

The submitter stresses the need for the Integrated Water Cycle Management regime, especially with regards to the management of toxic materials that many businesses may use in pursuit of their businesses.

Development in the Light Industry Precinct would be subject to the Brisbane City Plan Industry Code. The draft Neighbourhood Plan requires integrated water cycle management to be incorporated into urban form to reduce impacts on the environment and minimise energy consumption.

no SGD185



The submitter highlights that the Precinct Intent for this area fails to mention the adjacent riparian zone, and the west bank of the Oxley Creek. This bank requires extensive revegetation to ensure;

• bank stability • continuous vegetation

• biodiversity corridor

• buffer, and

• positive aesthetic reasons

Development in the Light Industry Precinct would be subject to the Brisbane City Plan Industry Code. The Brisbane City Plan provides for the protection of riparian zone, waterways and waterway corridors through its Waterway Code. This Code aims to protect and enhance the water flow, water quality, ecology, open space, recreational and amenity values of the city’s waterways and their corridors in an ecologically sustainable way.

The enhancement program encourages increased protection and enhancement of waterways, parks and natural habitat areas.

no SGD185

Land Use

The retention of the Light Industry and Employment Precinct is not supported. If there is a strong desire to introduce further residential development into the area this appears to be an appropriate place to do so and certainly more appropriate that the proposal for a bus depot. There is ample industrial land immediately to the east.

This land is currently identified as ‘General Industry’ in the Brisbane City Plan and proposed as ‘Light Industry’ in the draft Neighbourhood Plan The change will reduce the impacts that some industrial activities could have on residential amenities and environmental values whilst ensuring a supply of employment generating land within the area. Land suitable for employment is considered to be in lesser supply than residential land in the District.

no SGD549



The change from General Industry to Light Industry is considered to represent a more compatible option given the site surroundings than General Industry and is a separate matter to whether the bus depot should be located on the site or not.

The submitter wishes volunteer groups were better incorporated into the draft Plan. Also suggests using an area of the BCC bus depot for such purposes.

Thallon St is a central location that is highly accessible for additional community uses. The extent of the community use precinct in Thallon St is considered an adequate hub to meet community needs.

no SGD093

The submitter is against the continuation of the industrial area due to Greenhouses gases that will be released and impacts on climate change.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan identifies areas along Railway Parade as a Light Industry and Employment Precinct. This precinct is envisaged to continue to provide local industrial and employment opportunities and is suitable for appropriate low impact industrial uses (new or expansion of existing).

The re-classification of this site encourages less intensive, noisy or environmentally harmful uses than the existing general industry classification allows.

no SGD177



Transport &Traffic

Submitter comments on Development Principle 2.7: Delete “and adjoining the railway line at Railway Terrace”. Add “vestigial industrial development accessed from Railway Terrace will be retained but future/continuing industrial use will be discouraged in favour of residential or commercial developments”. Delete last section of Section 3.7 of the draft Plan. The provision of industrial access, parking and commercial traffic through Railway Terrace is unsafe, undesirable and destructive of residential amenity, this activity should be restricted and the draft Plan extended to prohibit further industrial development in this area.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan identifies areas along Railway Parade as a Light Industry and Employment Precinct. This precinct is envisaged to continue to provide local industrial and employment opportunities and is suitable for appropriate low impact industrial uses (new or expansion of existing). The provision of additional residential and commercial centres are located in Sherwood and Corinda Centres and are not envisaged for this location. Section 3.7 is not proposed to change as the current wording is considered adequate to relay the intent of the precinct.

no SGD071



Sport and Recreation Precinct

Area Classification

The Graceville Bowls Club Inc. objects to the inclusion of their land in the Sport and Recreation Precinct as this will deny them the opportunity to maximise the potential value of their property on disposal under the proposed area classification. In addition, the club has paid significant rates to Council over its 90 year existence and now under the draft Neighbourhood Plan they would continue to pay high rates as the Valour General would not recognise the reduced land value through the proposed area classification. While the club has no present intention of selling its property or ceasing operations, it is not possible to predict the long term.

The Sport & Recreation Precinct supports the continued operation of the facilities located within it. It is noted that the Bowls Club has no current intention to relocate from its current premises. Redevelopment of the site for another purpose would be Impact Assessable under the draft Plan, providing an opportunity for public input on the merits or impacts of the proposal on the character of the precinct and the wider predominantly low density character residential area.

no SGD564



Supports existing sporting grounds/facilities (such as privately owned sport and recreation areas like the bowls clubs) retaining their sport and recreation area classification even if sold. Support the proposed regulations that ensure sport and recreation land will continue to be used for the same purpose even if the land is sold; however, the submitters are disappointed that so few areas are being included in the precinct. Existing local clubs and recreational facilities have been lost in recent years. All sport and recreation areas should be identified and protected.


no SGD564, SGD248, SGD255, SGD524, SGD558, SGD451, SGD112, SGD156, SGD176, SGD178, SGD207, SGD208, SGD261, SGD292, SGD293, SGD294, SGD302, SGD304, SGD309, SGD342, SGD378, SGD392, SGD396, SGD413, SGD419, SGD442, SGD443, SGD444, SGD450, SGD460, SGD464, SGD474, SGD488, SGD490, SGD506, SGD526, SGD527, SGD528, SGD533, SGD534, SGD537, SGD550, SGD551, SGD554, SGD583, SGD584, SGD588, SGD590, SGD602., SGD216, SGD023, SGD027, SGD035, SGD041, SGD042, SGD043, SGD044, SGD045, SGD046, SGD047,



SGD245, SGD250, SGD251, SGD256, SGD332, SGD387, SGD390, SGD398, SGD399, SGD401, SGD403, SGD404, SGD405, SGD412, SGD441, SGD446, SGD472, SGD477, SGD482, SGD519, SGD523, SGD532, SGD545, SGD561, SGD562, SGD563, SGD570, SGD573, SGD575, SGD587, SGD601, SGD080, SGD149, SGD600, SGD102, SGD103

Supports the precinct intent to retain areas for sport and recreation however suggests that to dedicate an entire area for such uses may not necessarily be desirable in the future.

The area is well served by sport and recreation facilities, however, it is important to provide for the protection of such facilities in order to meet future need and because once lost, it can be difficult to reinstate these types of land uses

no SGD192, SGD113



There is strong community support to increase protection of parkland and provide more sport and recreation land in the area. There are a number of discrepancies however between the summary document and the draft Plan itself regarding sporting land within the private schools

The summary booklet will be reviewed prior to finalisation of the draft Plan. If a discrepancy exists between the draft Plan and newsletter, the draft Plan is to be taken as correct. The privately owned sporting facilities are proposed to be retained for that purpose under the draft Plan.

no SGD192

Concern that the sports and recreation precincts are being reduced and believes these should be retained.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan does not propose any reduction to the sport and recreation facilities in the area. There is no net loss of sport and recreation facilities.

The study area is well serviced by sport and recreational facilities, existing facilities meet Council's desired standards of service, but it is important to protect existing facilities to meet future demands.

no SGD205, SGD391



Statutory Requirements

Strengthen Development Principle 3.9 by requiring sites to remain as open air sport facilities. The precinct should be extended to ensure Oxley reserve remains as green space and the privately owned sporting fields currently zoned as educational facilities should be classified as sport and recreation precincts.

The privately owned sporting facilities are proposed to be retained for that purpose under the draft Plan. The current wording of development Principle 3.9 states 'should these uses discontinue or the sites be sold they will continue to be used for sport and recreation purposes', without a requirement that they be only used for outdoor sporting and recreation purposes.

no SGD071

Transport &Traffic

The draft Neighbourhood Plan area has many sport and recreation facilities that are causing significant traffic congestion and parking issues on surrounding streets. Specific reference is made to Chelmer Street East which seems to be at maximum capacity as far as use for sport and recreation is concerned. Additional sport and recreation facilities are not supported. Suggestions to rectify the traffic and parking problems include: Move out sporting clubs that don’t have a direct major affiliation with the area; Ensure other neighbourhoods have sufficient sport and recreation facilities so that their needs are met locally;

The emphasis of the draft Plan is the maintenance of existing sport and recreation facilities, rather than creation of additional facilities. The submission includes a number of suggestions for managing traffic impacts associated with existing sporting facilities. Brisbane City Council has identified the need to investigate a multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026. Whilst the precise scope of the exercise is currently being determined, it is proposed that short, medium and long-term transport network needs will be identified, focusing on the north-south routes of Oxley Road, Honour Ave and linkages

no SGD572



Analyse the needs of the area to ensure facilities only address local needs and don’t attract people from outside the area; Investigate where traffic on Oxley Road is coming from and what other options drivers have; Discourage parents from driving children to schools; Encourage University of Queensland students to use public transport; Use the existing cycle and pedestrian bridge at Indooroopilly for bus travel as well; The main problems at the Indooroopilly Bridge seem to stem from congestion around Indooroopilly railway station and the roundabout at Indooroopilly on Moggill Road. Attracting non-locals into the area to sport and recreation facilities exacerbates this problem.

to Indooroopilly in the north and the Ipswich Motorway to the south. Once completed the outcomes of the corridor planning investigation will form the basis for any future network upgrades.



Graceville

Area Classification

Include Lot 18 on RP68574 in the MP3 area, as the neighbouring property (Lot 20 on RP68574) will be given this new area classification. The MP3 area classification is appropriate given the reduced residential amenity of the property due to the: • relationship with the adjacent shopping centre; • proximity to the Five ways intersection; and

• Other surrounding properties across Oxley Road are long standing commercial businesses.

• A residential properties directly adjoining the Graceville Five ways who have applied for MCU applications have been successful.

The building has been resurveyed following public notification of the draft Plan. Heritage Section advises that the building meets the criteria for inclusion within the Development Control Precinct. The retention of a residential area classification on this site and inclusion within DCP use avoids the unnecessary extension of the MP3 area and a proliferation of commercial land uses in this locality.

no SGD218, SGD361



The Graceville Physiotherapy and Sports Injuries Clinic site at 10 Park Terrace, Sherwood should be included in the MP3 Centre at the Graceville Five ways business area. This will allow the business to have more visibility for its clients and provide a feeling of commercial integration with the business next door and across the road.

An existing commercial use exists in this building, however, the building retains the appearance of a character residential dwelling and the site is located outside the logical extent of the MP3 area.

The building has been resurveyed following public notification of the draft Plan. Heritage Section advises that the building meets the criteria for inclusion within the Development Control Precinct (DCP). The retention of a residential area classification on this site and inclusion within DCP use avoids the unnecessary extension of the MP3 area and a proliferation of commercial land uses in this locality

no SGD476

Request for 286 Oxley Road, Graceville be included in the MP3 Centre. The site provides affordable retail space for local businesses and supports the local community by providing car parking.

The draft Plan encourages the formation of compact commercial centres and seeks to avoid the proliferation of commercial uses along busy roads. This proposal extends the centre identified in the draft Plan. However the provides a retail use which reclassifying the site to MP3 would formally recognise. The site does not meet the criteria for inclusion within a Development Control Precinct.

Yes, change to MP3 SGD593



The draft Neighbourhood Plan should address the five-way intersection in Graceville (corner of Oxley Road, Long Street East, and Park Terrace) and also the shops along Graceville Avenue which are small neighbourhood centres of commerce. Perhaps densities could be increased around these areas.

Most of the future growth needs of the district are likely to be met from development opportunities that are provided in the existing centres of Sherwood and Corinda, which benefit from better public transport and more discernible existing centre characteristics.

The draft Plan has provided a Suburban Centre Improvement Project opportunity though the enhancement program for the Graceville 5 ways which was initiated in 2010.

no SGD113

Supports the inclusion of Lot 20 on RP68574 within the new Multi-Purpose Centre 3 Area Classification, as the current Low Density Residential Area Classification has been an anomaly for many years given its continual use as a car park.


no SGD218, SGD361



Character

Objects to the demolition of an existing house and construction of a new modern house at 21 Austral Avenue. The street contains mostly Queenslanders and the new house is completely out of character with the streetscape. Detailed photos are provided. Need to protect the green neighbourhoods in order to protect the character for generations to come.

Local character surveys were conducted to determine which streets should be retained, removed or added to the list of Development Control Precincts (DCP) maintained, based on their remaining character.

The site is not currently located within a DCP under the Brisbane City Plan and does not have to adhere to the Character Code.

no SGD214

Objects to the inclusion of 417 Honour Ave, Graceville in the DCP as: future development should not be subject to DCP restrictions or the scrutiny of the Walter Taylor South Action Group who are opposed to any development that is not a replica Queenslander. The house is not particularly significant or a good example of a pre-1946 house and has been altered and used for flats for more than 30 years. Many of the features of the house are post-war features (details and photographs provided in the submissions). The house is not part of a pre-1946 streetscape and does not contribute pre-1946 character to the street. Nearby pre-1946 houses either are not in the DCP or the DCP is proposed to be removed from these properties

The property has been reviewed by Council’s Heritage Division and does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Development Control Precinct. It is proposed to be removed from the Demolition Control Precinct.

yes, this property is proposed to be removed from the DCP map

SGD195, SGD211, SGD212, SGD382, SGD383



(details and photos provided in the submissions) The demolition of the property would comply with the demolition code. The imposition of the DCP creates significant undue financial burden on the landowners due to the restrictions in the Brisbane City Plan on future development, The closing date for submission was before the release of the Brisbane City Plan 2012 Demolition and Character Codes and as such it is unreasonable for the property to be included in the DCP where the submitters are unable to ascertain the implications future requirements will impose on the property.

Retain 50 Dan Street, Graceville in the DCP. The house is a post-1946 house and therefore can be demolished but if it remains in the DCP then the replacement building will need to meet the character code.

The property has been reviewed by Heritage section and meets the criteria for inclusion in Development Control Precinct. It is proposed to be retained in the Demolition Control Precinct.

yes, this property will be retained in the DCP

SGD248, SGD255



General

An additional precinct is needed in the draft Neighbourhood Plan – The Graceville Centre Precinct preferably between the Railway and Oxley Road. This location is suitable for medium density high rise similar to Sherwood and Corinda. The location has easy access to public transport by both bus and rail and the great majority of houses are no longer character houses.

Most of the future growth needs of the district are likely to be met from development opportunities that are provided in the existing centres of Sherwood and Corinda, which benefit from better public transport and existing centre characteristics.

It is not proposed to modify the draft Plan to locate a new centre or residential intensification in this location.


The property on the corner of Long Street and Oxley Road, Graceville is proposed to be included in the MP3 Centre. The potential increase to three storey height and the bulk of new development would be inconsistent with that of surrounding houses in the DCP and the change is therefore not supported. A change to MP4 would ensure development is consistent with existing houses.

The draft Plan identifies the subject property within the MP3 area classification, in order to reflect current centre activities on the site. It is proposed to retain this area classification.

no SGD248, SGD255



Public Transportation

The change in zoning from Zone 2 to Zone 3 at Graceville (Translink zoning) does not promote local travel from this area to Indooroopilly. Sherwood to Indooroopilly (just three stations) for a family is around $12 return. No one is going to get out of their cars at this price.

Ticket pricing for public transport is the responsibility of Translink and is outside the scope of the draft Neighbourhood Plan.

no SGD501



Oxley Creek

Concern that the draft Neighbourhood Plan does not include a Conservation Precinct for Oxley Creek. Objective six in the enhancement program identifies that waterways and habitat are protected under Brisbane City Plan; however section 1 of the draft Neighbourhood Plan identifies that in any conflict with the Brisbane City Plan the draft Neighbourhood Plan prevails. Endangered, rare or uncommon wildlife should be protected under the draft Plan and included in a conservation precinct from Nosworthy Park to Pennywort Creek, Corinda and include the Wetlands located at the Corinda Horse and Pony club. Detailed comments are provided in relation to provisions for the suggested precinct and endangered flora and fauna in the area.

The Brisbane City Plan provides for the protection of riparian zones, waterways and waterway corridors through the Waterway Code. This Code aims to protect and enhance the water flow, water quality, ecology, open space, recreational and amenity values of the city’s waterways and their corridors in an ecologically sustainable way.

The draft Enhancement Program also promotes increased protection and enhancement of waterways, parks and natural habitat areas.

no SGD524



There is a crucial omission from the draft Neighbourhood Plan in that the area subject to land slippage in the region of Oxley Terrace and Cliveden Avenue and extending (outside the plan area) to Hederson Street, Oxley is not identified as subject to this land constraint. This situation ought to be addressed.

There is insufficient data available about geological stability in the District, these issues may be addressed through existing provisions in the Brisbane City Plan dealing with unstable land

no SGD549

Oxley Rd

Traffic calming devices along the local streets surrounding Oxley Road should be removed, as they are causing a funnelling effect onto Oxley Road. The submitter also believes the increased traffic is a safety concern with an increase in traffic accidents occurring at the front of their property on Oxley Road in recent years.

Brisbane City Council has identified the need to conduct a multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026. Whilst the precise scope of the exercise is currently being determined, it is proposed that short, medium and long-term transport network needs will be identified, focusing on the north-south routes of Oxley Road, Honour Ave and linkages to Indooroopilly in the north and the Ipswich Motorway to the south. Once completed the outcomes of this corridor planning exercise will form the basis for any future network upgrades.

no SGD190



The ever increasing traffic congestion along Oxley Roads and Honour Avenue is significantly reducing the amenity of the area. The draft Neighbourhood Plan needs to give consideration to easing congestion particularly along these roads and where congestion is associated with the new bus depot.

Brisbane City Council has identified the need to conduct a multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026. Whilst the precise scope of the exercise is currently being determined, it is proposed that the short, medium and long-term transport network needs will be identified, focusing on the north-south routes of Oxley Road, Honour Ave and linkages to Indooroopilly in the north and the Ipswich Motorway to the south. Once completed the outcomes of the corridor planning exercise will form the basis for any future network upgrades.

It Is envisaged that the bus depot’s peak bus movements will be outside the morning and afternoon traffic peak periods, reducing impacts on general traffic.

no SGD304

St Joseph’s Sporting Ground

Submitter has interest in the St Joseph’s College Gregory Terrace (as owners of land at Vivian Street, Tennyson). Submitter supports the draft Plan as it relates to the holdings.


no SGD115, SGD499



Oppose the excision of the St Joseph’s Christian Brothers Sportsground from the draft Neighbourhood Plan. Even though the land is privately owned it provides visual amenity. To exclude the land from public access and use in the future is to deprive the public of recreational options in quality open spaces.

The land is privately owned with existing use rights and Council cannot require public access. Where the land continues to be used by the school for sporting purposes for the foreseeable future it is expected to continue to contribute to visual amenity.

no SGD113

Montrose

Protect Hopetoun and Montrose Access as both are facilities providing care to the most vulnerable community residents including the aged and those with physical disabilities. Suggest that both facilities are included within a precinct of the draft Plan.

Hopetoun and Montrose Access are both proposed to be included in an area classification that reflects their current uses and in a precinct that requires any future redevelopment to be compatible with low density surrounding areas and in accordance with a masterplan.

no SGD177



Montrose Access (located at 50 Consort Street, Corinda) are currently reviewing options for the future business of Montrose Access, including the current operations onsite and whether there is an ongoing need for use of all or some of the existing facilities. Part of this process is a review of the potential for urban development of the site in conjunction with the Montrose Access use, which would provide an opportunity for ongoing financing for the Montrose Access not-for-profit organisation. The draft Neighbourhood Plan is recommended to be updated to reflect the Montrose Access site’s ultimate intended use, including the identification of future objectives for the Montrose Access facility and new residential development. Specific recommendations and supporting grounds are as follows: • Recognise the opportunity for redevelopment of the site for residential uses in the development principles (suggested wording for 2.4 provided) • Additional provisions in the draft Neighbourhood Plan code to support

If the current activities cease on the Montrose Access site, the preferred future use is another community use. Where another community use is not possible, redevelopment should be of a height, scale and intensity that is consistent with the surrounding residential area, and does not detrimentally impact on local traffic and roads. It is proposed to amend the draft Plan to include the Montrose in a precinct which requires any future residential (or other) redevelopment to be in accordance with an approved master plan.

Yes, modify the Precinct Intent for the Alan Fletcher Research Station and include the Montrose Access site

SGD384



redevelopment of the site are recommended: • Include the site (50 Consort St, described as Lot 93 on RP29540) in a new Precinct: “Montrose Access” Precinct. The precinct intent would recognise the redevelopment potential for residential and community uses should the current use cease (detailed suggested wording for the intent statement provided) • The level of assessment should support low-medium density residential uses and supporting ROL as code assessable (detailed suggestions for the level of assessment table provided) • Development to be in accordance with a masterplan (as per Alan Fletcher site) • Provisions that focus development intensity at the centre of the site (max height of 4 storeys) with a lower scale of development provided fronting established residential streets and the river (detailed suggestions for performance criteria and acceptable solutions provided) • Amend Map A to identify the precinct (“Montrose Access Precinct”). • The proposed area classification change to CU6 is supported where the above recommendations are adopted.



Honour Avenue Precinct

Supports the protection of the heritage character of the Honour Avenue Precinct and that development is consistent with pre-1946 buildings. Supports the aims of Honour Avenue Centre Precinct which allow expansion of the area while retaining the character which is pleasant for walking and shopping in proximity to public transport


no SGD419, SGD490 SGD080, SGD248, SGD255, SGD558, SGD575, SGD216

The minimisation of parking and access along Honour Ave will put undue pressure on neighbouring, predominantly residential side streets.

There is no proposed reduction of parking along Honour Avenue proposed in the draft Neighbourhood Plan. If re-development occurs, parking will be located to reduce domination of the streetscape and driveway access will shared.

no SDG192

Does not support the protection of commercial buildings in the precinct when they have reached their used by date. They are commercial buildings and should be rebuilt to suit the commercial requirement as the suburb changes.

Commercial character buildings retain the evidence of early commercial endeavours, typically presenting traditional timber shopfronts and awnings reflecting local character and interest.

The Brisbane City Plan provides for their re-use for a range of commercial activities, without the need for a development application in many cases.

Buildings may be added to at the rear provided the overall building form is maintained. Demolition of a commercial character building is

no SGD216



permitted where it can be demonstrated that the building is structurally unsound.


Issue Response Changes to the Enhancement Program

Submitter ID

General

All aspects of the Neighbourhood Enhancement Program are supported, particularly the following: Extension of the bikeway network from Corinda to Yeerongpilly – the bridge is urged to link with the Yeerongpilly bikeway; Rehabilitate Oxley Creek and catchment – council is urged to achieve a balance between sporting and recreational uses and bushland preservation; Purchase of Oxley Creek Common – Council is urged to work with the Qld Govt. To finalise the purchase and/or manage the Oxley Creek Common so that people can use it to its full potential for a community garden, bushland regeneration and open space use.

Support for the Enhancement Program is noted.

no SGD599

More bins required in key pedestrian areas around the shopping centres and railway stations and along heavily trafficked pedestrian routes

Rubbish collection services are coordinated by Council’s Local Asset Services. Requests or complaints can be raised via Council’s Call Centre on 3403 8888.

no SGD192



Submitter ID

Many improvements to the areas have flowed from Council’s regulations such as dog’s on leads, noise from pool pumps and parties is regulated, backyard fires banned etc. And it is hoped a more vigorous implementation of these regulations will follow the encouragement of an increased local population.

Support for the draft Enhancement Program is acknowledged.

no SGD217

Parking in Thalia Court during the Ambiwerra Festival needs to be controlled to one side of the street. The current traffic management system during the festival involves parking on both sides of the street making the street into a single lane access which blocks access to residents’ properties during this period of significant traffic increases.

Vehicles parked contrary to parking regulations may be reported to Council’s Road Use Management team via the Call Centre on 3403 8888. The police may also be contacted where an infringement matter is considered urgent.

no SGD425, SGD542

Concern that the school on Cliveden Street is leasing out the tennis courts as a private business which is a breach of its land use agreement with the State Government, and land’s zoning as an educational establishment.

The operation of the tennis courts may need to be investigated if there are persistent community concerns, however that is a separate process to the draft Neighbourhood Plan, which proposes no change to area classifications over the subject site

no SGD191



Submitter ID

Consultation

Why did Council waste taxpayers money on such a beautiful booklet where the money would have been better spent filling in some pot holes in the roads around Brisbane?

The booklet which includes the draft Statutory Plan and the draft Enhancement Program is needed to inform members of the public about these important documents during public notification

no SGD011

Objective 1

Support

Objective one is strongly supported. Support for the draft Enhancement Program is acknowledged.

no SGD192



Submitter ID

Object

Oppose Objective 1. The Council is solely responsible for approving the building and design plans for maintenance of the area’s character. If the traditional character is being lost it is due to Council’s disregard. People have the right to make their homes theirs, and feel if character is being lost its Council’s fault. Larger blocks can be bought and retained by those who wish for their preservation.

House alterations frequently don’t require Council’s approval. Incremental changes to individual houses can cause the loss of character within the streetscape. The draft Neighbourhood Plan proposes the retention of extensive areas of existing Development Control Precincts and introduces more comprehensive character protection for many areas. This provides the additional ability for Council to assess the impacts of the demolition of houses, or their alteration. A heritage guide to maintaining character properties was prepared using Enhancement Program funds to assist owners. Development Control Precincts (DCPs) are a means to retain the values and interest of many of Brisbane's older, character areas. Demolition of houses built before 1947 in these streets is managed to ensure that new development is complementary to the streetscape and precinct as a whole. These controls can at times extend to houses built post-1947.

no SGD191



Submitter ID

Objective 2

Support

Objective two is supported. The Lord Mayor must honour his promise to upgrade the Graceville shopping precinct.


The draft Plan has provided a Suburban Centre Improvement Project opportunity though the enhancement program for the Graceville 5 ways which was initiated in 2010.

no SGD192 SGD191

Plans to upgrade the Corinda Library and Browne Street Park are supported. The upgrade should include the extension of the Library service to 5 or 7 days per week and include a public meeting space or activity space for Council events and low cost community use.

The library upgrade is understood to include a review of its possible operating hours.

no SGD192



Submitter ID

Objective 3

Active transportation

A bike and foot bridge across the Oxley Creek adjacent to Nosworthy Park, Corinda is recommended to be built by Council. This will allow residents ready access to the beautiful walkways in the Oxley Common.

Council plans to investigate constructing a pedestrian and cycle bridge over Oxley Creek to Oxley Creek Common in the longer term (i.e. outside the 10 year timeframe of this plan). Detailed feasibility studies would be conducted as part of this project to determine the best location for a bridge.

no SGD016, SGD549

The draft Enhancement Program identifies that Council plans to build a pedestrian bridge over Oxley Creek to Oxley Common outside the 10 year time frame of the draft Plan, but a bridge from Kennard Street to Oxley common was announced in the local paper last month. This bridge would be more useful from Corinda High School To Oxley common.


no SGD524



Submitter ID

Supports walking and cycling networks (objective three) with specific comments/recommendations made in relation to the following locations: Honour Avenue, Chelmer – Supports the provision of a cycle lane at this location but questions why this is also necessary along Victoria Ave and Laurel Ave given their proximity to one another. Honour Avenue, Graceville - Supports the provision of a cycle lane. Sherwood – Supports proposed links but suggests commuters tend to use Johnstone and Plumer Streets because its quicker and providing connections here would be useful. Corinda – supports proposed links but also suggests a cycle land on Clara Street providing an important connection to Corinda High School and the underpass to Jerrold Street, between Jerrold Street and Railway Terrace due to its narrow width and restricted sight lines.


Brisbane City Council identified the need to conduct a multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026. Whilst the precise scope of the exercise is currently being determined, it is proposed that the short, medium and long-term transport network needs will be identified, focusing on the north-south routes of Oxley Road, Honour Ave and linkages to Indooroopilly in the north and the Ipswich Motorway to the south. Once completed the outcomes of the corridor planning exercise will form the basis for any future network upgrades. The additional locations suggested will be added to a list of items that may be investigated through the corridor study.

no SGD191, SGD016, SGD549, SGD524, SGD104, SGD113, SGD066, SGD536, SGD217, SGD133



Submitter ID

Safety

The safety access of any proposed bike lane along Oxley Road needs to be carefully considered.

Brisbane City Council has identified the need to conduct a multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026. Whilst the precise scope of the exercise is currently being determined, it is proposed that the short, medium and long-term transport network needs will be identified, focusing on the north-south routes of Oxley Road, Honour Ave and linkages to Indooroopilly in the north and the Ipswich Motorway to the south. Once completed the outcomes of the corridor planning exercise will form the basis for any future network upgrades.

no SGG192



Submitter ID

Speed Limits

In order to reduce car dependence, pedestrians and cyclists must perceive that residential streets area safe. In particular the speed limit on Oxley Road remains at 60kph making permeability for pedestrians and cyclists problematic. Until the whole of Oxley Rd between Clewley Street and Nelson Street is severely calmed the shopping centre will remain divided by Oxley Road.


no SGD066, SGD536



Submitter ID

Objective 4

Active Travel

Community strongly support the expansion of the local footpath and cycling network. Priority should be given to the construction of off-road shared pathways to ensure pedestrian safety. Priorities for improvement have been previously supplied by the Sherwood Neighbourhood Watch group and include: Graceville State School to Graceville Memorial Oval. Sherwood State School to adjacent residential areas in Sherwood and Corinda. Upgrade of the footpath between the Sherwood Shops and Rocklea Markets. Installation of a pedestrian refuge at the intersection of Jerrold Street and Sherwood Road. Better connectivity between school, shops and parks in Corinda. Clarify the best route to link Oxley Creek Common to the Rocklea Markets. Create an east-west shared pathway connection through Rocklea to the Tarragindi Bikeway.

Support for the draft Enhancement Program is acknowledged. Suggestions can be taken into account in a multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley proposed in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026. Whilst the precise scope of the exercise is currently being determined, it is proposed that the short, medium and long-term transport network needs will be identified, focusing on the north-south routes of Oxley Road, Honour Ave and linkages to Indooroopilly in the north and the Ipswich Motorway to the south. Once completed the outcomes of the corridor planning exercise will form the basis for any future network upgrades.

no SGD192 SGD113



Submitter ID

The pathway proposed from Strickland Terrace to the Oxley Creek Common across the rail line is not supported due to safety, flooding and other concerns. An alternative route is needed.

The future construction of a pathway from Strickland Terrace to Oxley Creek Common has been identified for investigation in the medium term future. The investigation is complete and identified that the suggested route was not suitable to create.

no SGD192

Noise concerns in relation to use of the River Loop Bicycle Circuit (bikeway from Longman, Laurel Avenue, Verney Rd West, Bank, Mollonga, Magazine, Berry then on to Oxley Road to Nadine and Queenscroft Streets etc.) Signs should be erected to: Identify cyclists are welcome but they need to respect residents and keep yelling and screaming to a minimum. Assist riders with directions. BCC should contact various bicycle clubs to raise awareness of this issue. If the above measures are ineffectual: identify cycling is prohibited prior to 6am in the morning. The loop could be changed to non-residential areas.

The noise levels may need to be investigated if there are persistent community concerns, however that is a separate process to the draft Neighbourhood Plan. Complaints can be referred to the relevant Council unit visit the Council’s Call centre on 3403 8888 or if considered sufficiently urgent, to the Police.

no SGD006



Submitter ID

Parking

There is insufficient car parking provided for the local primary school on Cliveden Avenue, and that its patrons are instead using the parking facilities at Dunlop Park. Request that Council and State Government fund/build a car park for this school as per the ‘original plan’. This will reduce the local traffic in Hughes Lane.

Provision of a car parking structure is outside the scope of a draft Neighbourhood Enhancement Program Brisbane City Council identified the need to conduct a multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026. Whilst the precise scope of the exercise is currently being determined, it is proposed that the short, medium and long-term transport network needs will be identified, focusing on the north-south routes of Oxley Road, Honour Ave and linkages to Indooroopilly in the north and the Ipswich Motorway to the south. Once completed the outcomes of the corridor planning exercise will form the basis for any future network upgrades funded by either the Council, by development contributions or through the Priority Infrastructure Plan. New development in this area is required to provide car parking at the appropriate Brisbane City Plan rates. Complaints about parking infringements on roads may be referred to Brisbane City Council Road Use Management section via Council’s Call Centre on 3403 8888.

no SGD191



Submitter ID

Rail

Safety and noise concerns expressed in relation to the Sherwood Road rail crossing and operation of station which will be exacerbated by higher density housing in the area. Train drivers blow their horns 24 hrs a day on approach to the crossing (the existing barrier system is inadequate where necessitating trains to blow their horns on approach). Public address system is noisy. A disabled access ramp is needed at Sherwood. Better solutions are needed. Queensland Rail’s responsibility for these issues is acknowledged but Queensland Rail is considered dysfunctional. Safety, noise pollution and disabled access are concerns for local authorities and Council should press for changes.

Rail operations are managed by Translink and Queensland Rail. To request improved services at rail stations, contact Translink by visiting www.transinfo.qld.gov.au or calling 131230.

no SGD005, SGD011



Submitter ID

Roads

The submitter highlights the following poor road infrastructure for Council’s attention: Oxley Rd and Honour Av at Walter Taylor Bridge; Oxley Road – lower rail bridge at boundary between Sherwood and Oxley; Graceville Ave; and Sherwood Road.


no SGD178



Submitter ID

Safety

Submitter raises general traffic safety issues particularly around schools and congestion on Oxley Road. Also has concerns with the number of buses travelling from the Bus Depot on Sherwood Road.


It Is envisaged that the peak bus movements from the depot site will occur outside the morning and afternoon peak periods, reducing impacts on general traffic in the area.

no



Submitter ID

The corner of Verney Road East and Park Road is near the Graceville State Primary School. Cars race around that corner and signs are needed to slow vehicles down and to identify children crossing. It will take for someone to be killed before anything gets done.

The corner of Berney Road East and Park Road requires a traffic investigation to verify traffic flow characteristics and future improvements to enhance safety. If there is a need, measures such as median splitter islands and slow points to deter corner cutting and speeding could be considered.

no SGD011

The pedestrian crossing at Sherwood (outside Woolworths) is unsafe as pedestrians are obscured to drivers by vegetation plantings surrounding the crossing.

Trimming or removing vegetation is a routine maintenance job for Local Assets Management and is outside the scope of the draft Enhancement Program.

no SGD004

Supports action to improve pedestrian safety at corner of Primrose Street and Sherwood Road, Sherwood in Objective 4.





Submitter ID

Does not support providing a better link from Regatta Street to Walter Taylor Bridge (objective four) as it will only encourage rat-running through Chelmer. If anything, the link should be downgraded.


no SGD113

In order to reduce car dependence, pedestrians and cyclists must perceive that residential streets are safe. In particular Bank Street between Honour Avenue and Fraser Street is already a low speed environment that could be formalised into a shared zone to improve the perception of safety and encourage local people to leave their cars at home.

Shared zones are regulatory facilities. They are appropriate where all the following conditions exist: 1. the road is not a through road, 2. pedestrian movement predominates, 3. reasonable vehicle movement is required, and 4. it is desired to clearly establish the priority of pedestrian movement.

Bank street clearly does not meet the above conditions currently. A shared zone could be implemented provided measures could be implemented on the road to satisfy the Shared Zone conditions.

no SGD066, SGD536



Submitter ID

Opposes objective four. The speed limits of Oxley Road and Sherwood Road need to be reduced and traffic calming put in place. The addition of local traffic calming devices on surrounding streets has forced additional traffic onto Oxley Road. Safety concerns for land owners, pedestrians and children.


no SGD191



Submitter ID

Traffic Congestion

Community concerned about road congestion. Council needs to undertake corridor studies. With the extra 180-200 buses per day, a study needs to undertaken in the short term with a focus on the intersection of Sherwood and Oxley Roads. Improvements could include: Creation of a 40km zone between Dewar Terrace and Oxley Road, 40 km zone along Laurel Ave, Creation of a drop off zone in McCulla Street for Sherwood State School, Installation of a scatter crossing at the Sherwood/Oxley Road intersection Investigate ways to improve safety at the Five ways, Sherwood/Oxley Road intersection, Clewley/Oxley Road intersection and Cliveden Ave/Oxley Road intersection

It Is envisaged that the depots peak bus movements will occur outside the morning and afternoon peak periods, reducing impacts on general traffic.


no SGD192



Submitter ID

All heavy/high vehicles from the markets should be directed east. This would alleviate the high number of high vehicles that get stuck under the rail bridge. Low rail bridges present significant bottlenecks and the high vehicle detour places strain on quiet residential streets such as Lilly Street. Council needs to work with the State Government to raise and widen the rail bridge. State Government have failed to address rail infrastructure in the area and should urgently invest in the Oxley Road bridge and the Long Street East bridge at Graceville. Council to lobby State to address the inadequacies to ensure the road network can operate effectively and safely.

Signs are in place to warn motorists of low bridges and to advise motorists of detour routes. Council will be implementing height gantries for the low rail bridge on Oxley Rd in the near future.

no SGD192



Submitter ID

With reference to Objective 4 of the draft Enhancement Program, widening Oxley Road and Walter Taylor Bridge to four lanes will not solve congestion. Building more roads will only encourage people to use their cars all the more resulting in more pollution, accidents, noise which is clearly not sustainable. Active transport solutions are needed to address health issues in both individuals and the environment. Access across the Brisbane River at Indooroopilly is required not only now but is essential in future years.


no SGD586, SGD130

Many people choose to divert from Oxley Road due to congestion creating a hazard with people turning into side streets where few turning lanes are provided. Improvements to Oxley Road are needed, particularly at Corinda if increased density near the train station is proposed.


no SGD217



Submitter ID

Objective 5

Public Transportation

Community support additional public transport services, including rail and bus services, particularly on weekends. Advocate to the State Government Translink for additional weekend services on a trial basis on popular routes and fund a local loop bus services to connect to the railway stations in the area. A simple improvement would be to provide additional bus stops along the bus route 104. There is a lack of public transport options in the area with only one of the railway stations providing universal access. Queensland Rail survey reports that in peak AM and PM periods rail services on the Ipswich line are 20% overcrowded. There are limited bus services that do not run after 6:30pm and limited Saturday and no services on Sunday. The draft Neighbourhood Plan lacks improvements to the public transport network.

The comment is noted, however addressing the concern is outside the scope of the draft Enhancement Program. The provision of public transport, such as bus and rail, is the responsibility of Translink, including the planning of service frequency, routes and physical infrastructure and rolling stock. Translink is aware of the minor growth proposed within this draft Neighbourhood Plan through the various consultations that have occurred during the preparation of the draft Plan, including State Program Partner meetings and the formal State Interests Checking processes, one of which has occurred and a second will occur in the next stage in the process. Brisbane City Council identified the need to conduct a multi-modal corridor planning exercise from Indooroopilly to Oxley in the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026. Whilst the precise scope of the exercise is currently being determined, it is proposed that the short, medium and long-term transport network needs

no SGD192



Submitter ID

will be identified, focusing on the north-south routes of Oxley Road, Honour Ave and linkages to Indooroopilly in the north and the Ipswich Motorway to the south. Once completed the outcomes of the corridor planning exercise will form the basis for any future network upgrades.

The submitter supports Objective 5 as it will help to reduce congestion on the roads and improve the environment. Supports Objective Five to plant more trees near railway stations.


no SGD113, SGD191



Submitter ID

Objective 6

General

Improve access to the well developed Oxley Creek Common as existing walking and cycling facilities are unsafe.


no SGD133

Concerned with the existing operations of the swimming pool located at Dunlop Park in relation to the following:

• Excessive noise • Parking issues and

• Lighting into residential properties

The operation of the pool may need to be investigated if there are persistent community concerns, however that is a separate process to the draft Neighbourhood Plan, which proposes no change to area classifications over the subject site

no SGD191



Submitter ID

Ecologically Sustainable Development

Oxley Creek Catchment Association supports the general intent of the draft plan and particularly the intent to ‘encourage’ environmentally sensitive development.


no SGD185

General

Opposes Objective Six –‘Protect and enhance waterways, parks and natural habitat areas and plant more trees’. Council cannot manage the parkland they currently have in ownership. Concerned that clubs that currently lease Dunlop Park are in breach of leasing agreements (parking vehicles on the parkland, and hours of use).

The community highly values the District's green spaces and waterways. Environmental groups such as the Oxley Creek Catchment Association work with Council to restore bushland areas and local waterways. The current lease arrangement on Dunlop Park may need to be investigated if there are persistent community concerns. This is separate to the Enhancement Program process.

no SGD191

With increased pressure from population density, preserving habitats such as connecting land for corridors for wild-life movements and their food attainment, maintaining habitats for diverse species’ needs (both plant and animal) becomes even more important and is a responsibility that needs to be inherent in any development plans.

The locations intended for further intensification are existing urban centres. The draft Neighbourhood Plan and existing Brisbane City Plan provisions aim to create pleasant living conditions in these locations, including requirements for landscaping and replacement trees. The Brisbane City Plan provides for the protection of riparian zone, waterways and

no SGD573



Submitter ID

waterway corridors through its Waterway Code. This Code aims to protect and enhance the water flow, water quality, ecology, open space, recreational and amenity values of the city’s waterways and their corridors in an ecologically sustainable way.

The draft Enhancement Program also provides initiative for increased protection and enhancement of waterways, parks and natural habitat areas. The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to maintain an appropriate balance between providing for local population growth and the need to maintain valued local character and environmental interest.

Sherwood and Corinda Centre Precincts are intended to receive the majority of future growth, being locations where the community can most benefit from a more diversified housing stock, and better public transport and shop/services availability.

Council did not undertake an environmental impact study for the new heated pool facilities at Dunlop Park, therefore, the submitter objects to these facilities.

The operation of the pool may need to be investigated if there are persistent community concerns, however that is a separate process to the draft Neighbourhood Plan, which proposes no change to area classifications over the subject site

no SGD191



Submitter ID

It is disingenuous to suggest that the new tennis centre provides a park or open space (objective six).

Planning for parks includes both formal and informal recreation. In this case tennis courts have been identified as a formal recreation option to meet a need identified in the wider area.

no SGD113

Problems need addressing in Sherwood Forest Park include: • Creek dirty with litter and junk • Part of the cement is dangerous

• Not enough parking (full on a Sunday morning)

• Spiders in toilets indicating they had not been cleaned for some time.

Council manages the creek through its Local Assets Services team who can be contacted via the Call Centre on 3403 8888 where there are community concerns. This is separate to the Neighbourhood Planning process.

no SGD011

Submitter suggests rewording Objective 6 to “Protect and enhance waterways, natural habitat areas, parks and plant more trees”.

The wording has been considered and no change is proposed. The current wording is considered to adequately express the need to protect and enhance waterways and habitat areas.




Submitter ID

Concern that the Neighbourhood Plan is being undertaken with inadequate consideration of both significant features and requirements of adjoining areas, particularly to the east and south of the site; Oxley Creek Common and facilities at Tennyson have been mentioned but more would be relevant. These considerations would affect the St Aidan’s School Precinct and the Sport and Recreation Precinct particularly where adjoining open space. The submitter opposes any further development in close proximity to the river and waterways, in particular Oxley Creek.

The Brisbane City Plan provides for the protection of riparian zone, waterways and waterway corridors through its Waterway Code. This Code aims to protect and enhance the water flow, water quality, ecology, open space, recreational and amenity values of the city’s waterways and their corridors in an ecologically sustainable way.

The draft Enhancement Program also promotes increased protection and enhancement of waterways, parks and natural habitat areas.

no SGD185

Supports the protection of the Brisbane River and Oxley Creek catchment areas. Noise abatement measures that have been implemented at the Sherwood Arboretum are appreciated.





Submitter ID

Traffic

Concern about the capacity of Faulkner park in Graceville and the traffic and parking impacts on surrounding streets arising from use of the park. Specific reference is made to heavy use of the netball courts and use by business operating out of 66 Waratah Street, bringing significant traffic and parking into the area and limiting the use of the park for passive recreation. Concern about the community garden that was established further encroaching on the parkland despite community objection. Council is urged not to allow further encroachment on the parkland.

Land for passive and active recreation in this area exceeds Council's desired standards of service and future population increases are catered for.

The Provision of regulated on-street parking for uses will be managed by Brisbane City Council Road Use Management as demand warrants.

Vehicles parked contrary to parking provisions may be reported to the Brisbane City Council contact centre for appropriate action to be taken. Alternatively this is an enforcement matter for the police.

no SGD263



Submitter ID

Trees & Landscape Values

Concern about planting of trees in Dunlop Park. Residents had previously requested BCC plant tree planting to block the parkland lighting entering the residential property (emphasises a lighting report has never been provided by Council); however, the trees have now been planted next to the submitter’s pool. The submitter is concerned that the planted trees will damage the submitter’s pool base, cause leaf matter to enter the pool, and affect the amount of chemicals they need to use in their pool.

The community highly values the District's green spaces and leafy feel. Council will partner with community members in the District to plant more trees, particularly in parks and areas that residents use the most.

Local Asset Services are responsible for the maintenance of trees and parks in public ownership.

no SGD191

Supports the protection of large open spaces and mature trees within the area. Additionally supports the protection of local heritage sites, and the integration of more street trees and new walking and cycling paths.


no SGD177



Submitter ID

Objects to the investigation of planting additional Bunya species along the perimeter of Graceville Memorial Park, as Bunyas pose a public risk of falling seed cones, presenting an on-going management or maintenance issue. The submitter suggests the planting of Hoop Pines rather than Bunyas, as they have the same height and shape without the safety concern. (The memorial park is not located within a precinct).

Additional planting of Bunya species in Graceville memorial park will be used to replace existing Bunyas if required, in order to maintain the historical qualities of the park as per the conservation management plan. The maintenance program for the Bunya trees currently includes removal of seeds for community safety reasons.

no SGD185

Vegetation Protection

The community strongly support the enhancement of gullies, bushland and parks as well as retention of significant vegetation in the area. This includes the protection of deemed weed species such as the Camphor Laurel trees.

Support for the draft Enhancement Program is noted. The Camphor Laurel trees are considered significant vegetation along Laurel Ave and the draft Neighbourhood Plan will seek to replace existing Camphor Laurels with new Camphor Laurels if a tree requires removal.

no SGD192

Council should continue to support, encourage and fund the range of local groups in the area that undertake work in the environmental and parkland areas.

The draft Enhancement Program provided funding to revegetate along Oxley Creek in Sherwood. Over 400 trees and shrubs were planted with the help of the community.

no SGD192



Submitter ID

Objective 7

Consultation

Objective 7 is supported in principle, however it should only be undertaken in consultation with local residents in the affected areas. Greatest opportunity to create more access to the river is on the site of the Alan Fletcher Research Station. In the short term support capital works programs at the Pamphlet Sea Scouts Jetty.

The draft Enhancement Program will investigate locations to provide better access to the Brisbane River.

no SGD192 SGD191

Objective 8

Support

Community strongly supports additional activities, events and festivals for residents. Continuing Council funding for activities at the Sherwood Community Centre is strongly supported.


no SGD192



Submitter ID

Objects to Objective 8. The residents have not had a good recent experience with the fostering of community spirit, as the ‘movies in the park’ causes them great distress. This event was undertaken in the Corinda Primary School Grounds with no notification being undertaken with local residents. The movies caused noise impacts. The resident feels the ‘movies in the park’ is undertaken without any regard to local residents, and will destroy the reason people purchased in the area.

The 'movies in the park' events are supported by the general community and an initiative of the local Councillor.

These events lie outside the Neighbourhood Planning process and should be brought to the attention of the local Councillor.

no SGD191

Sherwood/Graceville diStrict Draft NeighbourhooD PlaN ... · placement of garages increases the...

Documents

Transcript of Sherwood/Graceville diStrict Draft NeighbourhooD PlaN ... · placement of garages increases the...