Yet ‘another stupid development’

Replacing a nursery and cafe with a petrol station. Really?

Cr Fiona Cunningham is councillor for the ward and head of the Chair of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee.

Five easy questions that Cr Cunningham should be able to find the answers to (if she doesn’t already know):

1) Who is the current owner of the land upon which the Cottage Garden and the Smug Fig businesses operate?

2) Who own the businesses?

3) Who has put in the DA application i.e. is it a third party that does not own the property (yet)?

4) Is there a right of appeal on this DA application?

5) Should the appeal go to court are costs awarded against the objector(s)? [I ask because there was a time when there were no costs awarded against DA objections].

Thanks to Jonathan Sri for the post below about yet another mad development, this time in the Coorparoo Ward.

Here’s a rather stupid development proposal in East Brisbane. It’s outside the new boundaries of the Gabba Ward but I am still encouraging residents to object to it because it’s likely to have significant negative environmental impacts.

I’m hoping Coorparoo Ward’s Councillor Fiona Cunningham will also publicly oppose the project as it’s in her area, and I’ve already called her office to alert her to it.Many of you will know The Smug Fig nursery and café down on the corner of Edgar St and Stanley St East.

An application has been lodged to knock it all down and replace it with a 7-Eleven petrol station, even though there’s already another petrol station literally 50m further down the road.

My view is that the community needs a local nursery much more than we need a second petrol station so close to the existing BP. But there are a long list of other concerns with this proposal…

In particular, it’s within the City Plan flood zone mapping, and quite close to the ecologically sensitive Norman Creek, which is home to a flying fox colony and provides important habitat for a wide range of fish, reptiles, insects, mammals and birds.

Even if the design includes a lot of measures to minimise flood impacts, it’s inevitable that when a petrol station floods, or simply gets a lot of heavy rain, heaps of oil and other contaminants are going to be washed into the creek. BCC simply should not be allowing new petrol stations to be built within the creek flood overlay area. (I note that the existing petrol station 50m up the road is OUTSIDE the creek flood overlay).

The development is also going to undermine cyclist and pedestrian safety and convenience by adding an additional high-volume driveway to the Stanley St corridor. Having lots of fast-moving cars turning quickly across the path of pedestrians and cyclists to get into the petrol station increases the risk and makes the footpaths feel less safe for people.

The proposal will also remove trees and greenery, creating a hotter, concrete-dominated built environment.And it’s not an efficient land use for inner-city neighbourhoods where land is in short supply.This petrol station would predominantly cater for motorists who are driving into the inner-city from further out.

So it would make more sense to locate petrol stations further away, where there’s more space available and where most of the cars are coming from, in order to prioritise sites like this for the land uses that serve the needs of the local community.Because this is a code assessable development application, residents don’t have any legal objection rights (this highlights the broader problem with council and state government planning frameworks). But you can still submit a comment via this link:…/development…

If East Brisbane residents are concerned about this DA, phoning or emailing your local councillor to ask her to oppose it is probably a worthwhile step too.

You can also email and mention development application A005591790 or just use the street address – 999 Stanley St East, East Brisbane.


Jonathan Sri
Councillor for the Gabba Ward
16 Nov 2020

3 thoughts on “Yet ‘another stupid development’

  1. Anonymous says:

    The whole site is owned by the nursery owners, husbands and wife team.

  2. Council response says:

    Council notes the following concerns you raised in the petition.

    • Access to Edgar Street is removed to mitigate the introduction of industrial traffic into a residential street.
    • Install traffic lights at the intersection of Stanley Street East and Edgar Street.
    • Ensure there is no loss in the number of kerbside parking spaces.
    • Fill the site to minimise contamination of runoff from the site during a flood event into Norman Creek.
    • Restrict the operating hours until 8pm.
    • Restrict access by the refuelling vehicle on the site to before 10pm.
    • Manage noise, odour (fuel vents) and light including vehicle headlight impacts on nearby residences.
    • Increase landscaping around the entire site boundary to a minimum of three metres.
    • Reduce fencing heights to maintain access to light and breezes.

    On 10 November 2020, Council received a code assessable development application for a Material Change of Use for a service station over the site. The application was properly made on 13 November 2020.

    The area surrounding the site can be characterised as a mix of low density residential, commercial, light industrial, and retail uses. Directly adjacent to the southern boundary is a low density residential dwelling with commercial and retail uses located west along Stanley Street East. The site is included within the Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan, with an underlying Low impact industry zone.

    In addressing the assessment benchmarks in Brisbane City Plan 2014, the application included technical reports addressing traffic, noise and air quality impacts.

    Council’s Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, sent the applicant an Information Request, dated 11 December 2020, which raised concerns about:

    • traffic impacts on surrounding streets
    • site access
    • onsite servicing
    • protection of a poinciana tree
    • landscaping
    • air quality
    • stormwater runoff and acoustic attenuation.

    Although no public notification was carried out, a total of 297 submissions on the development application were received.

    Following assessment of the response to the Information Request and submissions received, officers from Development Services met with the applicant and the developer on 1 February 2021 to outline concerns with the proposed development. In response to this meeting, the applicant stopped the assessment process on 5 February 2021 for 20 business days pursuant to section 32 of the Development Assessment Rules to address the issues raised by Council.

    A copy of the development application, including any additional information, can be accessed by visiting Council’s Development.i. website at and searching for application reference number A005591790.

Please comment down below