RESIDENTS living near a new Cleveland apartment development say red dust has blanketed their homes, vehicles and boats, but Redland City Council says the site’s dust-control measures comply with its development approval conditions.
Little Shore St resident Chris Reeves said earthworks at the 137 Shore St North site had left nearby properties coated in red soil despite complaints to both the developer and Council.
Mr Reeves said he had cleaned his boat and car four times in as many weeks, only to find fresh dust and red staining returning.
“We are still experiencing excessive red dust covering our properties, vehicles and boats,” he said.
“There are still red stains over them as well as our homes.”
Another Little Shore St resident, Jarrod Cameron, said red dust had coated his house and belongings both inside and out.
Residents have accused Council of failing to inspect the affected homes, cars and boats, arguing the visible dust on surrounding properties should be enough to prompt stronger action.
But Council said it was aware of the concerns and had conducted on-site inspections to check the developer’s compliance with sediment and erosion-control conditions.
It said officers observed a range of dust-mitigation measures during site visits including sprinkler systems, industrial misting equipment, mesh screening along the site’s front boundary and hoses available for supplementary watering.
Council said the development had been proactively monitored, including during recent marine wind warning events, and would continue to be monitored throughout construction.
“Council is satisfied that the dust suppression methods are in accordance with the development approval conditions for the site and comply with the International Erosion Control Association guidelines,” a spokesperson said.
In earlier correspondence to Mr Reeves, Council said it had carried out three unannounced inspections and found minimal to no dust leaving the site at the times officers attended.
It said excess soil was being removed from the roadway, and the site appeared generally well maintained, while red staining on the road appeared consistent with the natural colour of the site’s soil rather than an ongoing dust or sediment discharge.
Council said construction projects of that scale could generate some dust even where appropriate controls were used and that major earthworks appeared to be substantially complete.
It said officers had nevertheless provided the developer with additional recommendations to improve dust-management practices during a recent inspection.
Mr Reeves said residents remained frustrated, arguing the excavation site was the only active source of red soil in the immediate area.
He said Council’s focus on inspecting the building site, rather than neighbouring properties, had left residents feeling ignored.
Council said it needed evidence of dust actively leaving the site before it could determine whether the developer had breached its approval conditions or environmental obligations.
It urged residents to provide photographs or videos showing dust leaving the site, with the time and location recorded, to help investigate future complaints.
Council said its role was confined to enforcing the development approval conditions and it did not have the legal power to require a developer to clean dust from private property.
