Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a resident of Gran Paradiso way / The Reserve, with direct access via Grand Paradiso Way / Sovereign Drive, and I am writing to formally object to the proposed development located adjacent to our estate, specifically regarding the proposed vehicle access connections to Grand Paradiso Way and Sovereign Drive.
While I understand the need for residential growth in the region, I have significant concerns about the proposed access strategy and its impact on existing communities.
1. Inappropriate Use of Local Residential Streets
Grand Paradiso Way and Sovereign Drive are local access streets designed to service existing residential communities. The proposal effectively upgrades these streets into through-roads or collector routes for a separate development.
This is inconsistent with the intended road hierarchy and will result in traffic volumes far beyond what these streets were designed to accommodate.
1A. Loss of Cul-de-Sac Function and Design Intent
Grand Paradiso Way and sections of Sovereign Drive currently function as low-traffic residential streets, with Grand Paradiso Way terminating in a cul-de-sac. This design is intentional, aiming to limit traffic volumes, eliminate through traffic, and provide a safe and quiet residential environment.
The proposed connections would fundamentally alter this design by converting these streets into through-routes servicing a separate development. This represents a significant and inappropriate change to the function and character of the street network.
Residents who purchased in these areas reasonably relied on this low-traffic, cul-de-sac style design as part of the established amenity. The proposal would remove these benefits and introduce traffic volumes and movement patterns that are inconsistent with the original design intent.
2. Amenity and Safety Impacts
The proposed connections will introduce substantial additional traffic into quiet residential areas, including:
• Increased daily vehicle movements
• Construction traffic and heavy vehicles
• Service and delivery vehicles
This will negatively impact the amenity, safety, and character of the neighbourhood, particularly for families, pedestrians, and children.
3. Availability of More Appropriate Access
The development site has the ability to connect directly to Goombungee–Meringandan Road, which is a more appropriate arterial road designed to accommodate higher traffic volumes.
It is unreasonable for the proposal to rely on existing residential streets when a more suitable primary access option exists.
4. Cumulative Impact on Multiple Estates
The proposal does not just impact one street or one estate. By connecting to both Grand Paradiso Way and Sovereign Drive, it distributes additional traffic across multiple established residential communities.
This creates a cumulative impact that has not been adequately justified and is inconsistent with sound planning outcomes.
5. Requested Outcome
I respectfully request that Council:
• Refuse any development design that includes through-traffic connections via Grand Paradiso Way and/or Sovereign Drive; OR
• Require the developer to redesign the access arrangement so that primary and majority access is provided via Goombungee–Meringandan Road;
• Consider restricting any connection to existing estates to emergency-only access where appropriate.
6. Inappropriate Access Strategy Contrary to Planning Principles
The applicant’s Planning Report confirms that the site has approximately 520 metres of frontage to Goombungee–Meringandan Road, which is identified as a sub-arterial road within the Planning Scheme. Despite this, the proposal provides no direct access to this road and instead relies entirely on access via the extension of Grand Paradiso Way and Sovereign Drive.
The report further confirms that all proposed lots will be accessed via these existing residential streets, which are currently designed as low-traffic local roads, including a cul-de-sac.
This represents a clear inversion of the intended road hierarchy, where a development with direct access to a higher-order road is instead routing all traffic through lower-order residential streets.
Furthermore, the proposal relies on a Variation Request to alter the effect of the Planning Scheme, indicating that the development outcome does not fully align with the existing planning framework.
In this context, the proposed access arrangement is not considered to represent a logical or orderly planning outcome, particularly given that a more appropriate and direct access option exists via Goombungee–Meringandan Road.
Conclusion
This objection is not to development itself, but to the proposed access arrangement, which places an unreasonable burden on existing residents and infrastructure.
I ask that Council carefully consider the long-term implications of allowing local residential streets to function as access routes for new developments, and ensure that appropriate road hierarchy, safety, and community amenity are maintained.
