u/Feebleey

Located in South East Queensland, Australia

Our landlord has revealed plans to subdivide the lot we're currently living on, and at first we were ready to just passvely bail out at the end of lease until I learnt that this guy intended to clear ***EVERY SINGLE TREE ON THE BLOCK*** totalling to at minimum 45 trees (more if they get permission to chop everything that overhangs like they have applied for as well!). The vast majority of these trees are enormous natives, big mature gums and the like, that are all thoroughly enjoyed by countless native animals.

The section the current house is on takes up the aformentioned 2900m2, and there is a big stretch of untamed forest that the mowed house area backs on to which I believe is state protected. Despite this delineation, the whole block is classified as 'core koala habitat', entailing a whole array of interesting legislations designed to combat this naughty behaviour. One of which notably limits the maximum amount of landclearing bidden without special exemptions to a cool 500m2, a smaller number than 2900m2!

So how does he intent to circumvent this limitation? From what I have crudely interpreted, they are invoking 'as of right' exemptions to do with the safety of the building on the property. Also note that this building, in previous document instars, was slated for demolition. So it seems to me that upon coming up against these spiky legislations, they walked back the demolition and instead proposed a 'renovation' to retain a portion of the house, that they could then cry was at risk of being flattened by *every single tree on the entire 2900m2 block*, thus providing grounds for their effective carpet bombing of every accessible scrap of nature. This... strikes me as a strategy that might not hold up under legal scrutiny.

Another detail is that they plan to establish an 'Environmental Covenant' to protect 6200m2 of core koala habitat in perpetuity, which I can't help but assume refers to the state protected forest on the block, which is nice I guess but I was under the impression that it was both already protected and not very desirable for development. I am wondering if destroying a section of habitat while protecting another somehow makes them cancel out, otherwise why mention it?

The development application has just entered its public notification stage (hence us being notified) and I understand we can submit complaints to council, but I am wondering if I have anything to actually complain about! Also if there are any other parties (environmental protection groups?) I should be involving. I didn't (and still don't) want to make enemies with the landlord, but I feel like I have a moral obligation to at least try to mitigate this calamitous ecosystem annihilation. Surely keeping a few trees wouldn't hurt! At least the ones ouside of the build area 😭?

I feel like the victime of a big scam!

We moved in early this year, a herculean effort involving four different parties on four different leases all coming together under one roof. The house is great, perfect location with a big garden and lots of space to put our roots down finally. This was coming off the back of a previous long term rental which was sold out from under us, so we were already feeling jaded but hopeful that this new place could house us for the next chapter of life.

Nothing seemed off, in fact the landlord would even come by to do small repairs and engage in jovial conversation, lamenting his time spent living here raising his family, the work he had put into this place etc etc. Even inviting us to do as we pleased with the garden, in which we have been busily planting fruit trees and native flora (again, literally putting our roots down!). A major factor in us applying was how the place was advertised, quite literally asking for tenants who- assuming what 'long term tenants' implies- would want to stay more than one (1) lease period.

Cue friday, when we receive an email from the REA furtively informing us that the owners have applied for a 'DA to subdivide the property and build on in the future'. Upon perusing the now public documents it is revealed that not only does the proposed subdivision bisect the current house, but that initial documents had been submitted all the way back in early 2025, meaning the cogs were turning well before we signed the lease, even before the place was advertised.

The DA is (to my untrained eye) fairly fraught with slimy tactics too, like claiming they will 'renovate' the current house to get the rights to hack down the numerous massive native trees on the property- citing risk to the current dwelling, while later plotting the same buildings demolition once the trees are taken care of.

It just makes me feel sick knowing we were lured in like cattle, presumably to be milked like good little tenants right up until the time comes to knock the house down around us. It's the deceit and false pretenses that upset me most, (although I am definitely also upset by the maceration of nature) it feels like the truth was very intentionally obscured even though I'm sure they could have had numerous other applicants in this market happy to move in under these stipulations.

Currently we are debating whether to submit an argument against the DA (founded on hypothetically valid ecological/legal concerns, which we only have until wednesday to do), which boils down to gambling both on the success of their application, and then whether they'll move forward with development at the end of our lease. We fear complaining might piss them off, resulting in a witheld lease renewal in any scenario.

TLDR: Machiavellian scheming landlord ushered us into lease under implied pretense of long term stability, only for house-obliterating years-old subdivision plans to be revealed by council as they enter their final approval stages.

It's just a bit shit feeling like we finally had solid ground underfoot, only to have the rug surreptitiously pulled once again! Any advice is welcome.