Developer baffled by council stance
12:00a.m. 20th August 2008
Developer Matt Stanley is perplexed by the council's attitude towards the development of larger suburban blocks. Photo: Nicholas Falconer/177755
A Sunshine Coast property developer has been left mystified by a council decision which has stopped him building two luxury homes in a street but will allow him to erect a “fairly standard” set of duplexes on the same site.
Matt Stanley, of Property Focus Developments, said he had tried to tell Brentwood Avenue residents opposing his Mooloolaba plan that the alternative was far less attractive.
He has even gone door-knocking in the area, but was unable to sway opinion.
While residents could be forgiven for not fully understanding the implications, Mr Stanley said the attitude of council staff and councillors had left him mystified.
“My question to them is simple: Would you prefer to live next door to a set of duplexes or two luxury homes?” he said.
“My plan was for two homes valued at $1 million each but that got knocked back.
“Under the current laws I can now build a duplex ‘as of right’ and code assessable on the same land with no worries.
“There will be no need for it to go before a council meeting and no avenue for public objections, yet the impact on the area will be the same except there will be duplexes there instead of two luxury homes.
“I don’t understand their logic.”
The regional council received 38 public submissions on the proposal – 28 of them opposing it.
Mr Stanley said the main concerns from neighbours appeared to be increased traffic and parking problems creating a potential road danger.
“But a duplex will create the same number of residents, has the same car parking issues, the same density issues and the same effect on traffic.
“Everything is the same except for the quality of the buildings, and under the duplex plan there will be just got one common driveway (instead of two).
“It is a really bad outcome for this street of really beautiful homes.
“Duplexes create tenants, they create investors and sometimes they attract an element (of people) you don’t want in a beautiful street such as Brentwood.”
A council spokesman said Mr Stanley had wanted to subdivide the site into two 480sq m blocks but the planning scheme dictated a minimum lot size of 600sq m in the area.
She confirmed the former Maroochy council had approved a small lot subdivision just two doors down for blocks of 446sq m and 449sq m.
At that stage, public consultation was not required and the small lots were approved because of their closeness to open space.
Mr Stanley’s plan also called for street frontage widths of 8.8 metres and 6.7 metres on the two proposed lots – well below the minimum frontage width of 15 metres required in the area.
He said the regional council was guilty of sticking to the letter of its planning laws instead of taking a common sense approach.
A number of similar projects had been rejected on the same grounds and affected developers were either going to build “as of right and code assessable” duplexes to avoid public objections or fight the council decision in court.
“What the current council is doing is taking a real prescriptive approach to the Maroochy Plan and saying my plans do not comply with the performance criteria of the code when, at the end of the day, the plan should only be a guide,” he said.
“If they keep going this way we will end up with duplex city.”
He said he believed he would have his duplexes built on the Brentwood Avenue site within 12 months, and expects to make the same profit as under his original plan.
Recent Comments
as Councilk sows, so shall it reap, ( bloody burueacrats again!)
as objectors sow, so too shall they reap!
Go for it Matt Stanley! I'm with you, if people won't listen for the sake of not listening, the deserve the end result!
Will this reduction of block sizes continue until houses are being built to house several families wth comunal living areas.Get bac to the quarter acre block where kids can have a garden to play in and where you are not constantly overlooked by your neighbours.
Some people just cant be reasoned with. Its really too bad there cant be some justified reason. I am sure the submissions obtained would have valid reasons, we just are not aware of them.
"the regional council was guilty of sticking to the letter of its planning laws "
and councils before this one didn't? so how did developers get previous councils to step away from the letter of the law?
The law is the law Mr. Developer. we all have to follow the law.
And thankfully you do to.
There is nothing worse than the money grab by those claiming to "develop" an area by creating urban infill. The absolute greed of some people who cut off their vegie garden to sell as a house block astounds me (that happened with a famous charity house won on the coast recently)
the house blocks are the size they are because people wanted them that size, in fact I'm sure that there are some who want 300 and 400 sqaure metre blocks being offered at driftwood estate - not many are buying yet, but some will.... not every suburb or every neighbourhood wants what this bloke is trying to do.
go somewhere else to feed your greed
Mr Stanley snobbery re: tenants and investors speaks for itself.
$5 or $600.000 per unit.
Now do you get it.
It is about the profit.
Just because you “ don’t understand their logic”, it does not mean they are wrong.
Give them their duplex - or go elsewhere.
Congratulations to council for supporting the residents wishes.
And, for enforcing planning laws.
The planning laws are just that, LAW .
480 sq m with two lots , one with a 6.7 metre frontage makes it about about 30 metres long.
Sounds like what you'd find in Redfern to me.
For too long the Planning laws have been flaunted.
Why not choose which way to go on each development application by the flip of a coin or draw straws on which one can break the law.
The community can absorb some relaxations where appropriate, but not when it comes to patently bad outcomes.
"He said he believed he would have his duplexes built on the Brentwood Avenue site within 12 months, and expects to make the same profit as under his original plan"
Yeah ! Pull the other one !
So then Matt comes along and, being the entrepenuer he is, sees the opportunity to split the block into 2 pissy little 480 sq metre blocks so he can "be a developer" and build 2 houses. Sure the town plan allows large blocks to be split into strata titles in residential area provided you meet certain criteria. Matt being a the savvy developer can now build duplexes which have a different appeal and are not ideal for family living however do fill a market need.
Yet now Matt is complaining because he wants to push the Town Plan boundaries (regardless of what the majority of neighbours wants) and now build 2 full sized family homes on these little blocks. Small blocks that are unnecessary in this area, that leave no room for the family to grow, and probably needing all sorts of boundary relaxations as well therefore impacting heavily on any neighbouring properties.
And for what? Is he going to live there himself? Is he going to raise his family in those small blocks? No I doubt it. It's all to create more profit.
Here is a better idea matt. Why don't you just build 1 single home on the original 960sq metre block as originally intended for the street. Now that would make the neighbouring resident happy.
But no. You're a developer so you need to develop. Well Matt, you've been given your boundaries. Build the Duplexes, sell them and make your money and go away. Don't come to the paper whinging about how Council is limiting your profit making abilities when you are the one trying to push the boundaries with little or no care about the long term impacts on the neighbours.
You call that develoment, I call it selfish greed.
Golfito would you consider a 450m2 dwelling to be a luxury home that would fit a family? The planning rules state a maximum 50% footprint; therefore you could build a 2 storey dwelling with a ground floor of a maximum of 240m2. I have 2 small boys & we had more than enough room in a 220m2 house (admittedly we had a 650m2 block) & the boys spent most of their play time in the front yard or nearby park.
Residential areas are planned very differently to allow for smaller lot sizes - yes profit for developers is part of it - however they have to include more parks & green space. In this instance Matt says the profit margin would be similar for him either way - I say Matt build the duplex, sell them both & let the residents live with their small minded consequences.
I am sure that the amenity would be the same and the profit would also be the same...
Duplex buildings have a bad rap with the old shoe box built as cheap as possible and filled with tenants intent of putting an old commodore out the front on blocks of timber for aesthetics.. But there is nothing wrong .. as a developer ... to raise the bar and make something worthwhile and still be within the "guidelines".
Residents don't want the duplex, nor do they want two houses.. they want a single house on a large block... but if you are acting within the boundaries of the legislation then in reality they have to suck it up.
You can always play both sides of the fence and show yourself to be a worthy developer and build your name in high esteem on the coast! but that is purely your own decision.
why should anyone be allowed to subdivide their property to make a quick buck and ruin the immediate area? I have never seen anywhere where urban infill has beautified a suburb or improved the amenity. It's all down to greed.
with subdivision comes more people, more traffic, less trees, less birds, less mammals....
the subrurbs were designed the way they are because the people who bought the land in the first instane wanted the blocks that size. unless everyone has moved out of the suburb it is wrong to impose the "developers" new image of the suburb
will someone please come up with a term which actually describes what they do rather than develper? because one thing they don't do is develop - -
“What the current council is doing is taking a real prescriptive approach to the Maroochy Plan and saying my plans do not comply with the performance criteria of the code when, at the end of the day, the plan should only be a guide,” he said.
He misses the point. He obviously thinks that the town plan is up for horse-trading.
I can sight many examples of horse-trading that was undertaken by the previous Maroochy Council that corrupted the Maroochy 2000 Plan. Thats why most councillors were voted out.
Have your say
We welcome comments on our stories and blogs - after all it's your site. Please note comments should be on-topic and not abusive. Comments are checked before publication.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts
Your comments will be checked, for legal reasons, before being posted live.
Thanks again for contributing to the Daily's online community.
We value your views.
Comment again