Recent development near Faith Lutheran College
Draft City Plan 2015 is a developers’ dream but a nightmare for the community.
Long term Redlands residents are expressing outrage over “battery style” housing across the City – especially developments on Cleveland-Redland Bay Road just north of the Faith Lutheran College.
Development outcomes of the current planning scheme fail the taste test. Local groups are forming to lobby and contest Council and the State Government on wide ranging issues.
We have Hotspots across the Redlands and the Council wants to allow more of this type of development. The Draft City Plan targets a population increase of 50,000 by 2041.
So why is a 50,000 population increase the underlying assumption of City Plan 2015? Redlands2030 has clarified that this population target is a choice of the current Council. But it doesn’t seem to be what the community wants.
What do the people say?
Redlands2030 – at the Cleveland Markets most Sundays
What are the community’s views on this pivotal issue? When asked about finding room for an extra 50,000 people and 26,000 new homes by 2041 most people say “no…it is too many!”
Polling of the many people visiting Redlands2030’s stall at the Cleveland Markets on Sunday mornings has found that 100 percent want no more than 25,000 more people by 2041. About a third of the respondents would prefer no growth.
Have your say in our poll
What sort of population growth rate do you think Redland City should be planning for. Here’s an opportunity to have your say on the matter.
[yop_poll id=”11″]
This is an opt in poll so its results may not be an accurate indication of community views.
City Plan 2015 is out of step with the people
How is it that the Draft City Plan is so far out of step with community attitudes and values?
Evidence of the community’s values is available. In 2005, National Field Services conducted the Redland Shire Community Survey. This showed that Redlanders have clear views about what sort of place they want to live in.
The community has said it does not want a “big Redlands”. Well documented and enduring community values show Redlanders:
- Believe that there are negative consequences to continuing population growth, at even low percentages
- Prefer to retain the area’s semi-rural and rural lands than to develop these lands to create more local jobs
- Prefer improved public transport to commercial and industrial areas outside the Redlands, over industrial development of our wildlife habitats and rural lands
- Are not prepared to accept a decline in koala numbers in order to accommodate more people (Koalas in the wild are already on their last legs!)
- Support limits on the number of dwellings in order to preserve a village atmosphere, the bush, the Bay and the semi-rural landscapes
- Expect Council to conduct public consultation in all important Town Planning decisions and development applications (City Plan 2015 looks to delegate more decisions to officers!)
- Do not support expansion of the urban footprint (the Shoreline development is an ongoing threat to the established Urban footprint)
What exactly did Redlands say, when asked?
The eight questions and the results (from 2005) are:
| Question | Result | |
| 1 | Redland Shire Council and the State Government should allow the population of the Redlands to increase by nearly 60,000 people, or 50%? | 66% did not agree |
| 2 | We are prepared to accept a decline in koala numbers in order to accommodate more people in the Shire. | 82% did not agree |
| 3 | We should develop our semi-rural and rural lands into industrial areas in order to create more jobs. | 81% did not agree |
| 4 | After the 2004 election, the new Council made changes to the Draft Redlands Planning Scheme (Town Plan) without consulting the community. The changes will bring more development and urban sprawl to the Redlands. Using the same scale, how much do you agree or disagree that Redland Shire Council should always seek public consultation before making important Town Planning decisions on draft plans, development applications, etc? | 93% agreed |
| 5 | An increase of nearly 60,000 people or 50% in the Redlands’ population will negatively affect the lifestyle of existing residents. | 73% agreed |
| 6 | The Council should limit the number of dwellings in the Redlands in order to preserve the Shire’s current village atmosphere, the bush, the Bay and the semi-rural landscapes. | 80% agreed |
| 7 | Wildlife habitats and rural lands should be protected from industrial development by improving public transport to commercial and industrial areas outside the Shire. | 89% agreed |
| 8 |
Given the choice, would you rather (a) have higher buildings up to five storeys in our town centres (b) expand the urban footprint into the Shire’s semi-rural areas (c) limit population growth as Noosa Shire has done? |
68%
prefer to
limit population growth
|
City Plan – out of touch with community values
Chicken for supper?
These 2005 results were resounding. How the authors of the draft City Plan 2015 do not even mention these measures of community values (or any other measures of community attitude) is an astounding omission (of fact). It certainly makes the Draft City Plan 2015 look way out of touch with community values.
This survey of 400 people was conducted by Redlands Community Alliance For Responsible Planning (CARP) ten years ago. Would a new survey yield significantly different results?
Redland City Council had an opportunity to get fresh information about community values while it was preparing the Draft City Plan. Instead, the Council’s City Planning seems to have been informed largely by its discussions with a select group of developers.
It’s a bit like asking foxes if they want chicken for supper.
Remember to have your say in our poll.
Redlands2030 – 31 October 2015
Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email thereporter@redlands2030.net
6 Comments
We used to have koalas in our yard-until a development across the creek.
We have been here 18 years and everything that we love about the Redlands is being destroyed. Why can the council not see that the Redlands is loosing its koalas and unique appeal.
All around blocks are being subdivided, where does this end?
Four koalas were spotted in the trees within the off-leash dog park adjacent to GJ Walter Park yesterday, 5 Nov. Yet this area is earmarked for development! So much for the Redlands caring for koalas – time we took this logo off our Council letterhead and declare some honesty in this whole debate!
THE Redlands City Council as it is today clearly are not listening to the people.
Maybe they need to be kicked out at the next election because first and foremost they have been employed by the people, for the people.
CLEARLY THEY ARE NOT LISTENING
It’s supposed to be Koala counting week-end – what a joke! I have just walked through three parks and haven’t seen one Koala! There was a time when I would see at least two or three. Thanks Redland City Council. Perhaps I could give you the benefit of the doubt and maybe the counting will influence you to rethink the dreadful mess you are making of this place in which we live. Perhaps you may start to agree with the majority of your ratepayers that enough is enough!
City Plan 2015 is laying the foundation for massive development, removing the few constraints presently in place. 400 sq m blocks of land; more code assessible development; removal of the environment overlay in urban areas and the removal of the heritage character precincts will give developers free rein. We are experiencing now the full force of the Seccombe council planning decisions – these will pale into insignificance if the community allows the Willams plan to go through.
We can not progress unless we plan for the short and long term interests of our residents. We therefore must maximize any development where existing infrastructure exists and utilize existing water delivery pipes/systems and extend sewerage facilities to cope with demand, rather than building total new ones. Unviable rural land presently used for primary production ought to be transformed to rural/bush settings for those that can afford them, and if that means no sewerage or town water, that is the price for those blocks going forward. A change in the urban footprint is required in such cases because adjacent urban housing and streams ought not to be subject to weedicide and pesticide pollution because a rural crop/orchard property demands additional chemical controls for its viability. Revitalizing unviable farm land will restore native bush and accommodate wildlife that presently are prevented from these properties.This suggestion is congruent with previous opinion polls.