Shoreline and Teak Lane on Council agenda

Stage 1 of the Shoreline housing will be discussed at Redland City Council's general meeting on Wednesday 10 May.

Shoreline’s housing subdivision plans will be discussed at the Council meeting on Wednesday 10 May.

Stage 1 of the Shoreline housing project and the Teak Lane appeal are among issues on the agenda for Redland City Council’s general meeting on Wednesday 10 May.

Councillors will also be asked to delegate the CEO authority to approve an $8.5 million contract for cleaning of Council facilities.

News from the previous council meeting on 19 April 2017, discussed below, includes:

  • Council decided to cut funding to the Donald Simpson Community Centre
  • Presentation of a petition about matters relating to the Ombudsman’s report
  • Approval of a five story apartment project next to the historic Grand View Hotel
  • A controversial decision to approve housing in an area zoned industrial

Shoreline

Proposed Shoreline Development area

Subdivision plans for 344 housing lots in Stages 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) of the Shoreline project will be considered at Council’s general meeting on Wednesday 19 April.

Preliminary approval for a 4,000 home development was given controversially by Redland City Council and the State Labor Government in 2015 even though the area is not zoned for urban development in the South East Queensland Regional Plan.

The officers report identifies the following key issues in assessment of Shoreline’s Stage 1 proposal:

  • Wallum Froglet habitat
  • Acoustic barrier screening
  • Lot sizes – Town Centre Frame Precinct (TCF1)
  • Poultry Overlay
  • Tankering of waste water
  • Road design
  • Retaining Structures

Shoreline’s Biting Insect Management Plan

Mosquitoes and biting midges (sandflies) are a major concern in the area proposed for this housing development. The officers report includes Shoreline’s Biting Insect Management Plan which says (page 18):

Opportunities exist to minimise both the breeding of mosquitoes and biting midge on site, and the impact of mosquitoes and biting midges breeding on adjacent lands, through appropriate site planning, engineering design, building design and on-going site management.

Optimal management of biting insects at Shoreline will be achieved where proponent initiated measures for on-site management support Council’s off-site (local government area-wide) management of mosquitoes.

Who approves $8.5 million cleaning contract?

Councillors are being asked to delegate to the CEO authority to approve a contract for the cleaning of Council facilities over the next five years which is expect to cost $8.5 million.

The justification put forward in the officers report for this decision to be delegated to the CEO is that:

Approving this delegated authority will assist in the awarding of the contract by the required date and reduces the need to seek alternative methods in the event of the current contract expiry.

This is by no means the first occasion that elected councillors have been asked to delegate authority to the CEO to award a major contract. A sceptical observer might wonder why this keeps happening. Is the Council bureaucracy unable to manage tenders in a timely fashion or is this perhaps a well worn ruse to minimise transparency of major contract decisions at Redland City Council?

Teak Lane

Council’s refusal to approve development on the Teak Lane environmental corridor next to Victoria Point Town Centre shopping centre is being appealed. A court appearance is scheduled for 17 May 2017.

This appeal will be discussed by councillors in the closed section of Council’s general meeting on 10 May 2017.

Agenda for general meeting on 10 May 2017

The next general meeting of Redland City Council commences at 9:30 on Wednesday 10 may 2010.

Meetings are held at the Council’s chambers in Bloomfield Street, Cleveland and members of the public can observe proceedings from the public gallery except for items to be discussed in closed session.

Here is a link to where you can download the meeting agenda which includes detailed officers reports.

News from previous general meeting on 19 April 2017

The video recording of the general meeting on 19 April was only made available about a week after the meeting.

Here is a link to where you can download the 19 April meeting minutes.

Matters discussed on 19 April include:

Donald Simpson Community Centre funding cut

Donald Simpson Centre to lose Council funding

In closed session councillors decided to cut Council’s $100,000 per annum funding contribution to the Donald Simpson Community Centre.

Funding will be cut by 50% for the forthcoming financial year to $50,000.

Thereafter Council will make no contribution to the Centre’s recurrent (operational) funding.

The Centre currently provides information, educational and other activities to more than 2,000 members.

The Centre’s Board slammed the Council’s decision in an email to its members, saying:

The briefing paper considered by Council in making this decision was not provided to the Board until after the decision had been made. We were not able to refute the inaccurate information supplied in the briefing paper or the two funding options:

  1. to cease funding completely from 1 July 2017 or;
  2. to fund us for one more year at half the previous rate and then cease completely.

Additionally, these options were not the options which we were led to believe would be in the advice to the Council. The Council Officer concerned either misled us or the options were changed by someone else.

The Council resolution was approved 6/5:

  • Crs Mitchell, Edwards, Elliott, Talty, Gleeson and Williams voted FOR the motion.
  • Crs Boglary, Gollè, Hewlett, Huges and Bishop voted AGAINST the motion.

A petition about the Queensland Ombudsman’s Report

Thornlands resident and former councillor Debra Henry addressed Council about the Ombudsman’s Report in the public participation section of the meeting. She also presented to her local councillor (Paul Golle – Division 3) a petition signed by 184 people calling on the Council to:

  1. Note “The Redland City Council defamation report” published by the Queensland Ombudsman on 5 January 2017 which found that council’s actions in threatening defamation proceedings against two residents was unreasonable, based on a lack of clear analysis regarding who, if anybody, was defamed by the comments, not based on instructions from any of the allegedly defamed parties and not a reasonable or proportional response to what was “relatively minor criticism of council’s decisions”.
  2. Promptly implement the recommendations made by the Ombudsman in his report
  3. Apologise in writing to all residents who were sent letters threatening legal action.
  4. Review the behaviour of Council officers discussed in the report and determine whether or not there were any instances of inappropriate conduct.
  5. Develop and implement council policies to ensure independent and impartial oversight of Council’s response to reviews by external agencies.

At the meeting Council’s receipt of the petition about the Ombudsman’s report seemed somewhat unorthodox – the Mayor said this had been discussed at the previous day’s “pre-general” meeting”. This can be viewed on the meeting video recording between 28 and 29 minutes.

More information about Debra Henry’s presentation, petition and the Ombudsman’s report is available in this Bulletin report.

Five story apartment complex next to the Grand View

Banyan tree next to the Grand View will be saved but two koala trees on the site will be felled

Councillors approved development of 33 apartments on a site next to the Grand View hotel even though the proposed buildings exceeded the area’s height limit and will require felling of two koala trees in an area known to be inhabited by many koalas.

Three koala trees on the road reserve next to the development area are required to be protected.

A large fig tree known as “Queensland’s Oldest Banyan tree will be retained.

A motion to approve the proposed development was approved 8/3

  • Crs Boglary, Mitchell, Gollè, Hewlett, Edwards, Talty, Gleeson, and Williams voted FOR the motion.
  • Crs Elliott, Huges and Bishop voted AGAINST the motion.

The video recording of this section of the meeting is bookmarked at: 11.3.4 MCU013600.

The Bulletin wrote about this issue in its story: Redlands development gets tick despite being oversize

Planning on the run in Redland Bay

In a decision characterised by Cr Muray Elliot as “planning on the run” councillors voted to approve a housing subdivision in an area zoned for industry. Many councillors were sympathetic to the views of nearby residents who did not want to live near industrial facilities. But there was no explanation why this zoning change had not been dealt with in the recently approved Draft City Plan which was put out for consultation by the previous council in 2015.

A motion to give preliminary approval for housing development was approved 6/5.

  • Crs Boglary, Mitchell, Edwards, Talty, Gleeson and Williams voted FOR the motion.
  • Crs Gollè, Hewlett, Elliott, Huges and Bishop voted AGAINST the motion.

Debate on this issue was covered by the Bulletin in Redland Bay industrial land approved for housing.

The video recording of this section of the meeting is bookmarked at 11.3.3 MCU013561.

Redlands2030 – 5 May 2017

 

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

6 thoughts on “Shoreline and Teak Lane on Council agenda

  1. Is Shoreline to be built by Ausbuild as I note above photo of Mayor with Ron Loney. Heaven help us if building plans are same as the Kinross Rd development with no parkland as far as a friend and I could see, and horrified houses were so close together there appeared to be only room enough for one bin between them. Already there has been a fight between two home owners in Thornlands due to noise complaint from air conditioning unit that on request had been sound proofed. This is one case I personally know of…but am hearing of more complaints from unit dwellers having no peace from neighbours’ sounds going about their normal everyday activities. When is living close..too close for comfort in eyes of RCC’s town planners?

  2. If the Shoreline development area is outside the Urban Footprint, why is Council even considering the application?

    Developing an area within the Urban Footprint must cause a large increase in land value. Does Council intend to tax this increase of land value, which would be a gift by the community to the developer applicant? Developers (of appropriately zoned land) are welcome to receive a fair return on their investment of labour and capital, but they don’t deserve gifts from the ratepayer. Any windfall from the rezoning should be taxed at 100%.

  3. It will be interesting to see if the Council allows Shoreline to commence their development considering the original conditions required the developer the upgrade a number of roads. Also there is no sewerage on the site and if I recall only a certain amount of homes could be approved that need to truck their sewerage out. Where is the accountability. Mayor cant vote on this application.
    Teak Lane is not zoned for commercial or car park so the Council staff must defend the refusal of Council, whilst the developer will push for approval, the environmental corridor and buffer for residents must be protected.

  4. I wonder if the council really knows how bad the mosquitoes and midge problem really is here on scenic road . Plague proportions and every day it precludes us from spending much time outdoors.
    We have different swarms of different insects, that it becomes difficult to enjoy the area. How do you think the occupants of 4000 homes , with small children are going to like being attacked, bitten every day once the Shoreline development happens ?
    Mangroves are here to stay , as are the midges . Mozzie and March flies
    Redlands best kept secret

    • Gayle such wise words, but sadly the developers don’t care, they live at Raby Bay and other areas without the biting midge problem. The council in their planning scheme continued to note that this area was infested with mossie and midge problems and was zoned rural non urban but that was ignored by Mayor Williams and her sheep and now many families will struggle with this issue. I have been down Pear Street and covered in mozzies, all the residents live indoors.

      • Well if Councillors voted at their last meeting to save residents from an industrial zone next door in spite of what the planning scheme said, then maybe they can do like wise and vote against this for the future residents. Especially as this one was outside the planned footprint.
        If one were facetious it could be said there is a good case for tiny lots at Shoreline because residents and their kids will be inside all the time not in a garden.