Cleveland Needs a Simpler Plan for Toondah Redevelopment

Steve MacDonald

Steve MacDonald

Cleveland residents are concerned about Redland City Council’s plans for Toondah Harbour according to Steve McDonald, spokesperson for Redlands2030.

Mr MacDonald said that:
“The Toondah Harbour scheme developed by Council and approved by the Newman Government will disadvantage existing residents, hurt Cleveland businesses and cause environmental destruction of marine and coastal areas in Moreton Bay. “
“There is a huge risk that development and infrastructure costs will have to be met by ratepayers through higher rates or increased debt.”
Specific reasons for concern about the Council’s scheme, if it goes ahead, include:

  1. Council will not keep G.J. Walter Park as local residents want it. The cricket oval and dog off leash area are not guaranteed to stay in the Government’s approved plan.
  2.  Free Straddie parking for residents and visitors will be history. Everyone will have to pay to use a new, privately owned, multi storey car park. Just like Brisbane Airport.
  3.  Dredging for a 400 berth marina will destroy the marine and coastal environment including fish breeding areas, the Moreton Bay Marine Park and internationally recognised Ramsar wetlands that support many vulnerable species.
  4.   Koalas will be threatened by extra development in the G,J. Walter Park area.
  5.   A large new retail centre at Toondah Harbour will devastate businesses in the Cleveland CBD who are already struggling due to other Council planning decisions.
  6.   The scheme is only suitable for mega-developers. Local developers and builders will not get a look in, so any profits from development will likely flow overseas.
  7.   The Mayor’s statements that we need $80 million of harbour infrastructure are not credible as they are nor supported by any detailed technical investigations.
  8.   Ratepayers across Redland City could end up paying $MILLIONS for Toondah infrastructure to support a major developer.
  9.   The Toondah Scheme ignores the Redlands 2030 Community Plan which records the community’s vision, goals and values based on input by thousands of residents.

Mr McDonald said that Cleveland needs a simpler Toondah scheme that improves Straddie ferry travel for residents and tourists and works for local residents, Cleveland businesses and Redland City ratepayers.

Concerned local residents have set up Redlands2030 with a website www.redlands2030.net, facebook page and YouTube channel for people to share information and discuss Toondah Harbour, development of the City Plan 2015 and other development issues.

Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email thereporter@redlands2030.net

2 thoughts on “Cleveland Needs a Simpler Plan for Toondah Redevelopment

  1. I totally agree on all points and would love to see a less intense plan for the are instead of one which has been rammed down the throat of all local residents. G J Walter park cut up, I don’t think so. we do not have enough sporting ovals in the Redlands as it is and now the Mayor wants to get rid of another one with no plan available for a sports hub???

  2. SIMPLER PLAN FOR TOONDAH HARBOUR

    Background: As a Cleveland resident and rates payer, I have had a keen interest in the Toondah Harbour redevelopment since the Redland City Council (Mayor Williams) went to the State Government in January 2013 and requested a Priority Development Area be declared at Toondah Harbour. Now in January 2015, residents still have not been shown a detailed design of the proposal. As at January 2015 all evidence I have seen still confirms that as much as the RCC rhetoric professes they have listed to the community, the RCC have still not heard the message from the community. Campbell Newman and Jeff Seeney recently paid dearly for their arrogance and maybe the same fate will fall Mayor Williams about Jannuary 2016. Hail the ballot box!

    Current: The community certainly did not ask for 20 storey or 10 storey buildings on waterfront public land. Neither did the community ask for an 800 or 400 berth marina with it’s associated parking and access issues. The community has not been shown any proposal as to how existing parking issues let alone additional parking issues will be managed.

    The first issue I heard the community asking for was for the ferry terminal itself to be upgraded, and include a coffee shop style waiting lounge for customers, as for over 40 years the current owners / management had failed to manage and allocate funds to upgrade their infrastructure to a contemporary standard sought by the community.

    The second issue of concern heard by me was the 24/7 existing parking eyesore at both the terminal and the busy and crowded access road to the terminal. Surely, a low profile multi level car park (on the western side) surrounded by appropriate landscaping could be both visually unobtrusive and a more affordable outlay to the current owners whom I believe are a private company, the State Govt., and the RCC.

    Let’s keep it simple. Wrecking our local parks and foreshores for the benefit of developers is not compulsory.
    Garry
    Redlands2030

Comments are closed.