Proposed development of 350 apartments on vacant land fronting both Bloomfield Street and Ross Court in Cleveland will be discussed by Redland City Council on Wednesday.
Ponda Developments Pty Ltd is seeking Council approval under MCU19/0176 for a planning framework to govern the development of 350 apartments in four precincts on land at 219-221 Bloomfield Street.
A fifth precinct (Precinct 5) on this site has already been approved for development of 44 apartments under MCU18/0159.
The proposed planning framework, known as the Bloomfield Street Structure Plan, is described in the officers’ report as “a concept plan which describes the development intent for the land”.
The maximum height for development in this area is 20 metres but the developer wants to have that limit changed to 22 metres.
Communal open space included in proposal
The developer’s draft planning report includes the following statement which explains why the developer is seeking approval for a structure plan to guide development on this site:
“As the proposed Structure Plan demonstrates, the future development of the site seeks to achieve above and beyond the minimum required area for communal open space with the conceptual layout of a central, expansive communal open space area which will support the residential development within Precincts 1-4. Comparatively, if the site were to be developed for the purpose of multiple dwellings, as sought under the site’s current Medium density residential zoning under the Redland City Plan, a significantly reduced communal open space would be able to be provided to make the proposed development financially viable. The proposed development of the site for residential dwellings and mixed use development up to 20m in building height therefore provides opportunity for future development to achieve density that is commensurate with the sites locality immediately adjoining a centre and a state-controlled road, whilst providing expansive communal open space and landscaping thus balancing built form and open space.”
Traffic implications for Bloomfield Street
A traffic impact assessment report provided by the developer considers the traffic from an assumed 350 residential units in precincts 1-4 together with the 44 residential units approved for precinct 5.
Access for precincts 1‐4 is proposed to be via Ross Court but precinct 5 traffic access will be directly onto Bloomfield Street.
Resident car parking will be provided at basement level and some visitor
parking at street level. Car parks will be provided at the rate of one per apartment with visitor car parks provided at the rate of 0.25 car parks per apartment.
It is expected that this development will require installation of traffic lights at the already busy intersection of Ross Court and Bloomfield Street. As Bloomfield Street is a state road this will be a matter for the State Government to deal with.
Public notification just before Easter
The proposal is impact assessable and was advertised in the Redland City Bulletin on Wednesday 8 April, just before the Easter holidays.
Instead of flagging plans to development hundreds of apartments, the advertisement was for;
“Preliminary approval of a structure plan for a mixed use development and Variation Request to vary the effect of the Redlands Planning Scheme V7.2 assessed against a superseded planning scheme.”
The community was not engaged – according to the officers’ report there were no submissions.
More information about 219-221 Bloomfield Street
The proposed development at 219-221 Bloomfield Street is discussed in the officers’ report for item 14.3 on the agenda for Redland City Council’s general meeting on Wednesday 16 September.
More information about this development proposal is available in the Council’s planning information system known as PD On-Line, by accessing the relevant file number which is MCU19/0176.
Redlands2030 – 12 September 2020
Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email thereporter@redlands2030.net
6 Comments
So a bland advert in the days before Easter is an acceptable trigger for community engagement…well pigs might fly. Surely elected representatives have a better understanding of how the lives of real people function. Seems to me Council is more concerned about expediting development (with a nudge like an extra 2m in height, than sustaining community interest and community values.
Here we go again! Who cares why thousands of us chose to live in the Redlands! Some on Council say let’s turn it into a city with no soul just as fast as we can. Block out the breeze, block out the sunlight, block out the wildlife. If these companies wish to develop, let them go develop – away from the coast to where acres roll into the blue yonder. It’s not progress, it’s regression. If Cleveland residents wanted to live in tenements or near, and work in apartments/office blocks, there are plenty of choices elsewhere, but they didn’t choose and they weren’t asked. Council-persons – you are not representing the constituency if you vote yes.
I understand concerns about traffic etc, but really, that’s a pretty poxy area and if you can believe the developers’ drawing, this would be a nice improvement. Certainly better here than as Emily Bee suggested: “If these companies wish to develop, let them go develop – away from the coast to where acres roll into the blue yonder…” Lave the blue yonder alone, thanks. More homes close to facilities is a much better option. People could walk to most essential facilities like doctors etc. Cleveland has a fairly elderly population for which this would be very suitable.
If these companies wish to develop, let them go develop – away from the coast to where acres roll into the blue yonder
I’m sorry have the powers that be not learnt anything from the current, horrendous state of affairs, at Victoria Point and Redland Bay for traffic, you are now going to do this in Cleveland, in a terrible spot. Most of the apartments built in Cleveland are empty and cannot be sold not to mention the extremely high price tags.
Please stop building up an area that just cannot cope, Cleveland is not the future “Fortitude Valley” or “CBD” location, it is Cleveland, allow some of the charm to remain for the residence that pay the high price to live here.
Another example of failure to ensure the community was effectively consulted. Atrocious!
Traffic with 350 apartments and new residents would be horrendous!!! The IGA at Bloomfield is already a bottle neck and heavy traffic with Department of Transport testing and shopping centre. The roads were not built for that volume of traffic and are not updated!!!