Rushwood residents raise traffic and odour questions about Ausbuild’s development plans

Area of proposed development of concern to Rushwood Estate residents (click to enlarge)

Area of proposed development of concern to Rushwood Estate residents (click to enlarge)

Concerns about Ausbuild’s proposed development in Wrightson Road Thornlands were voiced at the last Redland City Council meeting.

Spokesperson Daniel Kohler addressed the Council and mentioned a number of concerns including traffic impacts on Rushwood Estate residents.

He also pointed out that the proposed new housing estate was a mere 220m from the closest poultry operation, This is 280m less than the distance required by Council’s policy .

Daniel Kohler with other residents protewsting outside the Redland City Council chambers (photo by Judith Kerr,  Redland City Bulletin)

Daniel Kohler with other residents protesting outside the Redland City Council chambers (from the Redland City Bulletin report)

Ausbuild’s proposal (ROL005873) is for a reconfiguration of one lot into 43 lots, over two stages. The property address is 34-41 Wrightson Road, Thornlands. Information is available at PD Online.

Here is a link to a report on this issue in the Redland City Bulletin.

The text of Daniel Kohler’s address to Council is reproduced below with the kind permission of Mr Kohler

Address by Daniel Kohler to Redland City Council

Extract from development plan by place design group (click to enlarge)

Extract from development plan by place design group (click to enlarge)

We the residents of Rushwood Estate are not against development per se, especially for land zoned for its purpose such as the subject site.

However…Rushwood residents can ALL vouch that through “Due Diligence” prior to purchasing dwellings in this estate, information was verified that through Council sources whether it be through phone calls, enquiries at front desk, or furthermore through meetings with Councillors at the time, that Rushwood residents are hugely concerned about property values, children safety, noise, congestion and current infrastructure to accommodate any future expansion.

To our understanding the Kinross Master Plan approved in 2012 by Minister Paul Lucas, along with approx 70 recommendations stated that if Goddard Rd was an unsuitable entry and exit point, then the only other suitable entry/exit point was to be South of Millner Place. Although Rushwood Estate is part of the Kinross Master Plan it is cross hatched out of the Kinross Development Plan, and as such should not be used as an access point to an estate that is not in accordance with proposed sequential development planning. We question the unraveling of Ministerial processes. If this is the case surely this could not constitute a code assessable application.

The residents of Rushwood Estate have engaged their own independent consultants to provide legal, odour and traffic responses to the applicants reports.

We remind Council as we did in Monday’s meeting that the acceptance of this proposal in its current format would question the weight of the current reports. The Rushwood community are prepared to invest into appropriate resources to review the integrity of each and every report that is submitted.

We commend Council on instructing the peer review for the reverse amenity study. However as discussed at the Council meeting on Monday, we highly recommend a peer review on traffic management also. Furthermore we also hope that if future development applications facing west to Kinross Road are ever lodged, they are reviewed and evaluated using QLD based best practices for odour analysis, which would indicate a full 12 months of odour sampling, a large sample of residents surveyed and the use of industry based respected and acknowledge practices and papers. Evidently Council did allocate a lot of resources into defending agricultural and residential setbacks in a case “Fiteni V Redland Council” only some time ago.

The boundary of the subject site lies a mere 220m from the closest poultry operation. This is 280m shy from Council’s own policy on agricultural and setback recommendations without the appropriate studies in place.

Council would have to answer how they could stop the future potential “rat running” which this development, and subsequent future developments would link into through the use of Caldwell Close and Whitby Place. Not to mention once development connects to Kinross Rd, the now existing estates would also have access to this thoroughfare.

Any smart master planning would give consideration and foresight into well engineered and well planned sequential land development throughout the Masterplan Kinross Estate.

We will be seeking public decision in relation to this matter at Council’s general meeting on the 17th June.

Should it be determined that Council has not applied diligent process to this matter, residents will be seeking to provide wider community and public interest.

Daniel Kohler – 3 June 2015


Report by Redlands2030 – 10 June 2015

Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email

4 thoughts on “Rushwood residents raise traffic and odour questions about Ausbuild’s development plans

  1. The residents are not standing in the way of the actual development, rather using exit and entry points through Rushwood as the only access to the next stage of Kinross. Rushwood is not part of the Kinross development. This extra traffic will cause even more problems on the Panorama Drive and Carlingford Drive intersection. It is a bingle every secound week as it is. Drivers that cross this intersection will wait longer and get even more frustrated, including people trying to get onto Panorama Drive from Ziegenfusz Rd. This traffic report needs to been done on a normal school week at peak hour not in the Ekka public holiday week

    Interestingly enough the developer has had contractors prematurely completing tree suryeys at Whitby Place again possibly endangering the Koala habitat., Additionally Ausbuild contractors are digging holes looking for water mains on public land, despite this DA not being approved. If anyone else dare do this we would be charged. Protest signs in the area have been ripped down; however signs about garage sales and other what not are left untouched, one rule for one and another one for others.

    The odour report on the nearby chicken has been Peer Reviewed and failed as it should have. The developer wants to build within the 400-500m zone of the chicken sheds, pity anyone that buys there. This is outside goverment guidlines at best. The Developer doesn’t care about this or any residents that they effect, its all $$$$.

  2. another example of Council failing to provide “smart” planning. Councul used to be able to negotiate with developers and the community to come up with a good, practical outcome. Now that the plannners, ecologists and engineers trying to assess these sort of development proposals have either been sacked, sidelined or ignored, Council now just ticks the boxes and says it complies / State Government rules over ride. Pathetic ! Do some smart planning and start championing the communities’ legitemate concerns rather than fighting it.

  3. Ron Loney, Ausbuild, has prospered greatly in the development industry remembering back to 1983 on purchasing house I still live in and he, real estate agent with Ray White, Capalaba, living further down the street. Drove with friend to see his Kinross Rd development, shocked seeing almost wall to wall houses end of it. Understand anger of existing home owners in Rushwod Estate having to share their local streets with new home owners that destroys quality of life faced with a totally changed environment that can devalue existing properties having to endure increased traffic, pollution, air & noise, and social unrest that follows. I believe it’s called ‘progress’. I see the results with non-stop traffic on Finucane Rd Capalaba mid-day on a week day!

  4. This is a good example where something has to give…do we want farming at any cost and risk the health of residients or allow rezoning and the farmer to move to more productive appropriate land. That is the conundrum.

    There is other land suitable for development in the Redlands where such conflict does not exist, but will with encroaching development.

Comments are closed.