CLEARFELLED: Douglas Council questioned over controversial luxury apartment approval with no trees or other tropical foliage retained

BARE OUTLOOK

David Gardiner

Journalist

Email David
Last updated:
The ‘tropical rainforest’ view is now gone, to be replaced by buildings and no trees as a buffer. Picture: Submitted

Douglas Council is being strongly criticised and questioned over why it approved a luxury apartment complex in Port Douglas with no input from neighbours or without any other public consultation, before allowing the developer to get rid of all existing trees and other tropical foliage.

The proposed Kaya Villas development, on a previously leafy block of land in Warner Street was fast-tracked by Council last year. 

Fencing has been put up on the block in preparation for building works, which haven’t progressed much yet.

The development is behind the existing Silkari Pavilions hotel and apartment complex in Macrossan Street. 

Residents of Pavilions are now seething, after the Kaya block was totally cleared of any remaining trees and flora, leaving them with what they say is a bare, ugly view in place of its now gone tropical rainforest outlook. 

Pavilions apartment owner Greg Dunn told Newsport all attempts to have at least some of the trees retained on the Kaya Villas block, failed.

Mr Nunn then called Council to check why its development approval had apparently included clearing the whole block, leaving no trees or any other foliage.

“You got this approval, has there been any consultation with neighbours?” he said.

“And Jenny Elphinston from Council said it was ‘code assessable’ – whatever that means – and there was no need to contact any neighbours to get their views on it, and there was no avenue of appeal.”

More trees cleared in Warner St too

To make matters worse, local residents in the area say they were shocked when yet more mature trees were felled out the front of the proposed Kaya Villas at numbers 30-32 Warner Street – again without any consultation.

Rosie Wang, who campaigned previously against the unnecessary removal of trees in the same street (and which Newsport has covered comprehensively) said about the latest tree removals: “It has been a long-standing battle to keep the trees along Warner Street.  So it was much to my surprise that I noticed last week a large gap in the avenue of trees where 30 and 32 are having the Kaya Villas development,” she lamented.

“Not only was there complete annihilation of all vegetation, trees and fauna on the sites, but the removal of three sensitive trees on an area controlled by council requiring council approval shocks me.”

Local residents angry over planning process

Local residents have vowed to take up the matter of the “code assessment” fast-tracking – which Council gave as the reason for no neighbour or public consultation on the Kaya Villas approval – with the state government.

One, whose name we’ve agreed to withhold for privacy reasons, said that it appears Council can simply give the go ahead to any future developments, without even hearing objections from ratepayers – just like what happened with the Kaya Villas approval. 

“What's to stop the Council fast tracking any planning permission by then claiming it is a ‘Code Assessment’ so can circumvent public opposition?” the resident asked.

“Just keeping a two-metre belt around the back of the property would have secured privacy and maintain the rainforest feel for guests.  It also would have kept privacy from both sides. 

“The back of the $4m houses are two storeys with an open balcony on the first floor and an open back yard area on the ground. I notice on these designs there are no trees, plants, etcetera. Looks like a Melbourne or Sydney street.

“It is a high-profile development with no public input or consultation. Council have ridden roughshod over any possible way to safeguard existing flora and fauna.”

Support public interest journalism

Help us to continue covering local stories that matter. Please consider supporting below.


Got a news tip?

Send a news tip or submit a letter to the Newsport Editor here.


Comments

Comments are the opinions of readers and do not represent the views of Newsport, its staff or affiliates. Reader comments are moderated before publication to promote valuable, civil, and healthy community debate. Visit our comment guidelines if your comment has not been approved for publication.