16 Hunt Road Burpengary QLD 4505

I have reviewed the Landscape Concept Plan submitted in response to Council's Information Request and I wish to raise concern re the proposed fencing along the Hunt Rd frontage. Under the Morayfield South TLPI, where development is proposed adjacent or opposite to the rural residential areas outside of the Morayfield South Emerging Community Area, it is to be designed to reduce potential character and amenity impacts on the traditional rural residential area.

The Landscape Concept Plan indicates that there will be 1.8m colorbond privacy fencing between each townhouse, whilst along the Hunt Rd frontage (at the Rural Residential Interface) there will be a mix of a 1.5m semi permeable pool fence (SE corner) and a 1.8m feature brick and aluminium batten fence from behind the proposed picnic shelter along the (southern) communal open space and part way along the western boundary. The approved plans for the Childcare Centre at 22 Hunt Rd appear to indicate the fencing along the shared boundary with 16 Hunt Rd will be a colorbond fence, whereas the Landscape Concept Plan submitted with this DA indicates a 1.5m semi-permeable pool fence - what is to be installed? I also note that the Landscape Concept Plan does not depict any shade trees along the Hunt Rd frontage directly behind the proposed picnic shelter. The proposed 'open' fencing type is inconsistent with the treatment of the Rural Residential interface of the Sage Development and for continuity I would prefer this townhouse development adopt a similar treatment.

I also note that access to the townhouses will not be via Hunt Rd but via Gumtree St, so I am confused as to why the address shown on the access frontage from Gumtree St is 16 Hunt Rd rather than a Gumtree St address. Won't this cause confusion for postal and other delivery services?

I'm at a complete loss, NO - I find it hard to understand how the MBRC could have complete disregard for the residents of the SAGE Estate mainly Cedar Drive being the only access entrance to this well developed leafy pristine estate. One of the very few estates developers who consider the environment as part of their development by NOT BULLDOZING every tree and bush in their sights. For example - Kinma Valley Estate - Oakey Flat Road, Morayfield/ Narangba - NOT a tree to be seen as the bushland was totally descimated obviously with the Approval of Councilors from the MBRC. WELL DONE!
The concern of the residents of the SAGE estate is the access through to this new development via Cedar Drive off Hunt Road turning into Gumtree Street instead of direct access from HUNT ROAD.
1. The increased traffic is of grave concern to residents with small children and also the number of vehicles that already reside on this estate. This will become a major thoroughfare for this Estate.
2. 38 Dwellings and further development expected for a childcare centre and swimming pool adding additional vehicular traffic to the only access road in and out of this estate.
3. The Council and Developer need to be aware that the properties on the East Side of CEDAR DRIVE are built up with 2.4m to 2.7m of clay fill, making houses near the GUMTREE ROAD extension vulnerable to structural damage.
4. Access to this new development at 16 and 22 Hunt Road Burpengary Qld 4505 ( Lots 1 and 2 on RP856644)
application reference DA/2025/5912 should be from HUNT ROAD, not through SAGE ESTATE.
5. Council need to consider the concerns of the residents of the SAGE ESTATE with extra volume of traffic by extending GUMTREE STREET into the new development. Also consideration should be given to the potential damage that could be caused to existing houses.
6. An explanation as to why building an access road from HUNT ROAD into the new development must be less costly and less disruptive to the residents of the SAGE ESTATE.
6. We have resident bandicoots living at the end of GUMTREE Street was a family of 4, unfortunately a pregnant Bandicoot was run over in Gumtree Street earlier this year and I buried her at the end of Gumtree Street.
7. The trees at the end of Gumtree Steet are home to many native birds - Kookaburras, Magpies, a flock of Rainbow Lorikeets, a variety of honey eaters, and many other species. I guess GREED comes before anything else these days.

I object to the proposed access arrangement for the above development, specifically the plan to route primary access through Cedar Drive and Gumtree Street within the SAGE Estate, rather than directly from Hunt Road. Here are a few points to consider:

1. Conflict with Road Hierarchy and Function (Strategic Framework & Transport Code)
- The Moreton Bay Regional Council Planning Scheme Strategic Framework (Section 3.3 – Settlement Pattern and Transport) emphasises that development should protect the function of the road hierarchy, direct higher traffic volumes to appropriately designed roads and avoid inappropriate through-traffic in local residential streets.
- Cedar Drive and Gumtree Street function as local access streets, intended to service residents only.
- The proposal to route traffic from a new development through these streets conflicts with the intended function of local roads, and the principle of protecting residential amenity and safety.
- Hunt Road, as a higher-order road, is the appropriate location for development access under the Planning Scheme.

2. Non-Compliance with Transport and Access Code Outcomes
- The proposal appears inconsistent with the Transport and Access Code (MBRC Planning Scheme), particularly performance outcomes that require safe and efficient access arrangements, minimisation of conflict between vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists, as well as access points to be located on roads suitable for the expected traffic volume.
- Routing traffic through Cedar Drive and Gumtree Street introduces avoidable safety conflicts, increases traffic within a pedestrian-oriented environment, fails to utilise the most suitable access point (Hunt Road).
- This raises concerns regarding compliance with Performance Outcomes relating to safety, efficiency, and road function.

3. Impact on Residential Amenity (General Residential Zone Code)
- Under the General Residential Zone Code, development must maintain a high level of residential amenity, avoid adverse impacts such as increased noise, traffic, and disturbance.
- The proposed access arrangement would increase traffic volumes significantly, introduce through-traffic into a quiet residential estate, and reduce safety for pedestrians and children.
- This represents a clear and measurable impact on the amenity of existing residents, contrary to the intent of the code.

4. Safety Risks Inconsistent with Planning Scheme Intent
- The Planning Scheme places strong emphasis on safe, walkable neighbourhoods, particularly in residential areas.
- The SAGE Estate has a high number of families with young children and regular pedestrian activity within streets.
- Increased traffic from 38 dwellings, a childcare centre, and recreational facilities (e.g., swimming pool) would significantly elevate risk and undermine the Planning Scheme’s intent to prioritise safe, low-speed residential environments.

5. Infrastructure and Capacity Concerns (Engineering & Design Standards)
- Cedar Drive is currently the sole access point to the estate and already accommodates resident traffic, visitors and deliveries, service and emergency vehicles.
- The Planning Scheme and associated standards require infrastructure to be appropriate for its function, safely accommodate expected traffic volumes.
- The additional demand generated by the proposed development risks exceeding the intended design capacity of the estate’s road network.

6. Request for Justification
- I would like to request that Council provide clear justification for:
+ Why access from Hunt Road is not being prioritised?
+ Whether alternative access options have been fully assessed?
+ How the proposal complies with the Planning Scheme provisions outlined above?

I object to DA/2025/5912 as currently proposed because the development’s primary access arrangement routes traffic through an existing residential estate street network (via Gumtree Street) rather than providing a direct access connection from Hunt Road, despite Hunt Road being the site’s external frontage. The application documentation confirms access via Gumtree Street.
Requested decision:
Council should refuse the application in its current form or require material changes/conditions that deliver a safe, fit for purpose access outcome and emergency resilience.

Concern 1 — Inappropriate access routing through a residential street network (road function / hierarchy)
The development is accessed via Gumtree Street (through the existing estate street environment).
Council’s Integrated Design guidance for “Living Residential” streets expects the carriageway to function in a way that still allows refuse and emergency vehicles to pass unimpeded even with residential kerbside parking conditions.
Routing additional development traffic through an existing residential street system increases conflict points (driveways, pedestrians, on street parking friction) and places a higher traffic function onto streets designed primarily for local access.

What Council should consider :
A Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) and Road Safety Audit assessing the whole access route (not just the site frontage), including pedestrian conflict locations, driveway densities, and emergency/service vehicle passability under typical on street parking conditions consistent with the Living Residential expectations.

Concern 2 — Emergency access / evacuation resilience: single point of failure risk
The access arrangement relies on the Gumtree Street route; Council has raised concerns about turning arrangements at the end of the road and the applicant’s response relies on future extension assumptions.
• The Emerging Community Zone code includes outcomes requiring development to ensure effective and efficient disaster management response and recovery capabilities.
• Queensland bushfire planning guidance defines the asset protection zone (APZ) as an area that “enables emergency access and operational space for fire fighting.”
• The same guidance recognises some land uses/occupants are more difficult to evacuate (“vulnerable uses”) and therefore require careful planning for emergency scenarios.
As a resident at 86 Cedar Drive, my property’s BAL assessment is BAL 12.4, while residences near the top of the Cedar Drive circuit are exposed up to BAL 29 (higher bushfire attack potential). In an area with elevated BAL exposure indicators, development that increases reliance on a single constrained egress path warrants a higher standard of emergency access and evacuation planning to satisfy both Council’s disaster management outcomes and state bushfire planning principles

What Council should consider
• An Emergency Access & Evacuation Statement to be provided demonstrating evacuation capacity, emergency vehicle movements, queuing/clearance, and operational reliability if the access route is obstructed.
• Where bushfire mapping/overlays apply, a Bushfire Hazard Assessment and Bushfire Management Plan addressing APZ/separation, access for firefighting operations, and evacuation planning consistent with the State guidance.

Concern 3 — Cumulative impact with the approved 22 Hunt Road development and childcare adjacency
The approved 22 Hunt Road operational works drawings include Gumtree Street works and depict an interim/temporary truck turnaround arrangement.
The townhouse plans identify a Neighbouring Early Learning Centre adjacent/nearby.
Council must consider whether cumulative traffic, service vehicle movements, and emergency access requirements from both developments place unacceptable pressure on the same constrained estate access route and whether that cumulative outcome is compatible with safe operation near a childcare land use (higher pedestrian activity and vulnerability).

What Council should consider
A cumulative assessment that explicitly addresses: combined service/delivery/refuse movements; emergency access reliability; and operational impacts while interim road arrangements are in place (including turning/turnaround).

Concern 4 — Turning / servicing arrangements rely on future works and “temporary” outcomes
Council required a demonstration of a turnaround area; the applicant’s traffic engineer response suggests a separate turnaround should not be required because the road will be extended in future, describing the interim manoeuvre approach.
Development approvals should demonstrate safe and functional servicing from day one, not rely on uncertain future connections to address turning, refuse collection, or emergency manoeuvring. Council’s own design guidance emphasises the street must function properly for refuse/emergency vehicles.

What Council should Consider:
Condition the approval (or require redesigned plans) so that the development provides permanent, compliant turning/servicing arrangements independent of future network extensions.

Concern 5 — Residential amenity and safety outcomes (pedestrian / vehicle interface)
The Residential Uses Code sets an overall outcome that residential uses must provide safe and clearly defined pedestrian movement and vehicular access and facilitate high residential amenity and safety.
Routing all site traffic through an existing residential street network rather than using the external frontage increases exposure to pedestrian conflict and amenity impacts (noise, disturbance, traffic dominance) that the code is designed to avoid or mitigate.

Proposed Alternatives (Ranked as requested)
Option 1 (Preferred): Provide primary access directly from Hunt Road
Outcome: Remove the estate street network as the primary access route and align access with the external road frontage.
Why this addresses the core risks: It reduces traffic and conflict through residential streets and improves resilience by using the external road network for higher volumes and emergency response. It also reduces reliance on temporary turning arrangements within the estate network.
Request to Council: Require amended plans showing a safe and compliant Hunt Road access, including intersection design and sight distance compliance, plus updated traffic modelling.

Option 2 (Second preference): Reduce density to ~16 dwellings with an internal loop road and Hunt Road access
Outcome: Reduce the development intensity (and therefore traffic generation and servicing demand) and provide a looped internal road that improves emergency manoeuvrability and reduces dead end servicing issues.
Why this is a reasonable planning alternative:
The application is currently for 38 dwellings and the traffic documentation references a high parking provision for the development.
A reduced density form can better protect residential amenity and safety outcomes required by the Residential Uses Code while potentially supporting stronger landscaping/open space and reduced hardstand impacts.
Request to Council: Require the applicant to provide a credible lower density option assessment demonstrating traffic, safety, emergency access, and landscaping improvements relative to the 38 dwelling option.

Conclusion
For the reasons above, I request Council refuse DA/2025/5912 in its current form or require amendments consistent with Option 1 (preferred), then Option 2. These changes are necessary to ensure safe access, protect residential amenity, and satisfy disaster management and bushfire planning principles

I believe that the access to this estate should be via Hunt Road, not Gumtree Street. This will put extra strain on the existing road infrastructure, significantly increase traffic and will be a safety hazard for residents.