“Place based planning” for Weinam Creek?

Residents living in the vicinity of and utilising Weinam Creek recognise the need for urgent redevelopment of the area, particularly in relation to transport needs, but many object strongly to the Weinam Creek development scheme.

Their concerns are that the character of the Weinam Creek Development should be markedly different to that of Toondah Harbour. In this regard, the proposed redevelopment of Weinam Creek should be much less intensive and low key. Specifically, the natural environmental setting should be rehabilitated and enhanced. This could also include the provision of environmental interpretative facilities with improved public access to the foreshore.

Further, high-rise development should be significantly curtailed including the removal of all high-rise development south of Weinam Creek in favour of the creation of

Weinam Creek Priority Development Area: Boundary of the declared PDA

Weinam Creek Priority Development Area: Boundary of the declared PDA

new extensive parklands. Should any high-rise be absolutely necessary then the area behind the proposed new foreshore facilities should be restricted to up to 3 storeys in part only (not up to 7 storeys).  If such curtailment of high-rise reduces the commercial viability of improving the access facilities and redevelopment of the foreshore, then public funds (State and Redland’s City Council) should make up a greater component of a funding partnership.

The issue of parking and access for transit passengers to the southern Moreton Bay Islands and for boat launching and trailer parking should be priority considerations.

The proposed structural element (PDA Scheme 3.3.2) concerning ‘relocating the boat ramp to the southern side of Weinam Creek’ should be further specified. It should have been added to this proviso that: ‘recognising that this facility provides the main protected boat ramp access to southern Moreton Bay from the Redlands, that the current capacity of 4 lanes, at least, be maintained and launching facilities improved with the provision of additional pontoons and additional boat trailer car parking’. Recognition of this important facility and the need for upgrade as part of the relocation should have ben embedded in the detailed outline of the plan.

These few suggestions would assist greatly in differentiating Weinam Creek to the development proposed at Toondah. Place based planning rather than more of the same should be integral to proper planning. This would create the opportunity for a beautiful new environmentally based asset to be established, whilst meeting the urgent need to address passenger and boating access, passenger transit and parking requirements.

Queensland is littered with developments that tried to emulate “another place”. The development schemes released for the PDAs in Redlands resemble that tied approach.  This actually will constrain any developer keen to deliver a quality and economically sustainable outcome.

Place based planning starts with an appreciation of the values of the local community and the site itself.  Both attributes lacking from the approved development scheme.

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

One thought on ““Place based planning” for Weinam Creek?

  1. There are so many things wrong with the current ” plan ” for Weinam Creek, it is hard to know where to begin. Any relocation of the current Ferry Terminal is only to benefit developers, as this frees up more valuable foreshore space for them. The expensive initial & ongoing financial costs of widening and (damaging to Weinam Creeks ecosystems) dredging the creek for relocation of the ferry terminal into the shallow end of the creek is stupid in the extreme. This is where the original smaller ferry terminal used to be but was moved to it’s present location,to avoid dredging costs and to ensure safety at the 4 lane public boat ramp. If the public boat ramp is moved to the south side of the creek, you would have to wipe out the current homes there and a narrow residential street is the only access there. Not exactly good for the residents there is it? But then this PDA was never meant to benefit the locals who already lived here long before the PDAS were announced by the Qld State,Govt. Why should the RCC (and therefore the ratepayers) have to pay for any infrastructure costs, when it is,the Qld State Govt who has total control over this PDA? The road system is totally inadequate to cope with the 2 housing developments that have recently been started at School of Arts Rd, and now this PDA. Plus the Shoreline housing development which estmates another 10,000 residents in Redland Bay, essentially doubling this suburbs population in just one development. Considering the projected population for the Wc PDA has been grossly underestimated in the Weinam Creek PDA Draft report ( only 75% of 2 people occupying 2 storey apartment… Only there are no 2 storey apartmentsin this PDA, just 7,5 & 3 storey) then the roads infrastructure will also have been grossly underestimated as well. This oversight is good for developers as they won’t have to pay so much for their initial investment, leaving it up to all the Redlands ratepayers to pick up the rest of the costs, when it is finally revealed that the roads were never planned properly in the first place. The congestion on Redland Bay/Cleveland Rd from Redland Bay to Victoria Point during peak hours is untenable already. Black spots such as Giles Rd & Gordon Rd, Double Jump Rd, and Anita Street should have been addressed long ago when the first plans were put in place to expand Redland Bay. REDLANDS MP PETER DOWLING STATED RECENTLY IN THE BAYSIDE BULLETIN THAT THERE WERE NO PLANS TO IMPROVE THE MAIN RD BEFORE 2026. WHY NOT, ESP WHEN THEY KNOW HOW MUCH DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO COME WELL BEFORE THAT TIME. By trying to cram a mini Gold Coast type development here, the very ambience that attracts tourists will be gone forever. Why not build and improve on what already exists here, instead of destroying it. It would,make more sense to leave the ferry terminal where it currently,is for safety of public boaties ( who also launch jet skies and canoes from there), and to avoid dredging costs. It would also ensure constant business from commuters to the cafes and restaurants planned for the new private marina, otherwise how are these new businesses going to pay their expensive rents? Especially when there will not be enough parking for everyone who wants to go there, if it is worth going there at all. The area on,Moores Rd that has been earmarked for 3 storey apartments, and the Translink bus terminal, and parking, is a designated flood plain and storm surge zone. You can check that on the RCCs own website in the Red-E-maps section. It also shows you where the environmentally protected and conservation areas, and drainage compromised areas are there too. They are part of the mangroves that according to the BAAM ECOLOGY CONSULTANTS TOONDAH HARBOUR PDA AND WEINAM CREEK PDA ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT are ” of high value to fisheries in,Southern Moreton Bay “, as it is the ONLY INTERTIDAL CREEK BETWEEN SOUTHPORT AND THE SUNSHINE COAST. It is,also the “seasonal maternity camp for 3 different types of endangered flying foxes ” and many other recognised migratory birds, flora and fauna. Nowhere near enough proper thought has gone into this PDA, and nowhere near enough public consultation with the local community has happened either. It would not happen in any other state in Australia this way, especially without a proper Environmental Impact Study being done. I suggest that if development is all you love, then move to the Gold Coast.

Comments are closed.