UPDATE: Redland Bay six story buildings

Architect's drawings of proposed Redland Bay units

Architect’s drawings of proposed six story apartment complex at Redland Bay

On 25th September I published an article  “Going up – six storey buildings in Redland Bay'” describing a proposal for a 42 unit 6 story apartment building on the foreshore at Redland Bay.

A brief summary:

  • The 42 unit tower exceeds the town plan by 3 stories and greatly exceeds density
  • 22 units (5 story) have already been approved on the Esplanade thus taking the current proposed total to 65 on the foreshore – with more to come
  • This overdevelopment will restrict access for the community to the foreshore and Sel Outridge park due to traffic congestion and lack of parking
  • A precedent will be set for any foreshore land to have 6 story units regardless of zoning and will destroy the foreshore as we know it

Here is a link to the article.

I would like to provide an update on progress of this proposal to date:

A decision on the 42 unit development on Redland Bay foreshore was due late October but has been postponed with the likely decision date now being late January (through a General Council Meeting).

The positive thing is that the delay is caused by our local Councilor Mark Edwards calling in this proposal (challenged the developer) on the grounds of building height and density. The outcome was that the developer will amend the design in line with “what is more appropriate for the site”.

Things we now need to look out for:

  • “what is more appropriate for the site” may have different views for:
    • developers
    • councilors
    • local residents
    • the public that use the Esplanade and Sel Outridge Park
  • If the new proposal is still impact assessable (non compliant by the code) and an MCU (material change of use), the general public should have the opportunity to view and assess the new proposal and provide submissions as they would with any new proposal
  • This should not be left to be a negotiation between the developer and council officers if it is not code assessable
  • We need to continually monitor the council progress as it has been made clear to us by Council Planning Officers and our local Councilor that they will not be proactive in keeping us up to date.

I would think that the heightened public interest in protecting this area of the foreshore from high rise development may have had significant impact on the path that this has taken. It is important that the public is kept informed of progress of the approval steps to ensure that their contribution leads to best outcome for all that use the foreshore

Save the Redland Bay Foreshore

I thank all those that have become involved in the Save the Redland Bay Foreshore campaign through social media or on the ground and believe that your efforts have and will make a difference

I don’t believe that there is a place for any foreshore properties to be greater than 3 stories in Redland Bay, regardless of current zoning (there are a few anomalies that have recently been rezoned from medium density residential to allow 5 stories. The properties discussed above are not among these)

Peter Hoare
Redland Bay

 

Published by Redlands2030 – 13 November 2016

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

One thought on “UPDATE: Redland Bay six story buildings

  1. Several contradictions coming from RCC. Council are approving developments outside the city Plan, accepting increased urban densities and reduced lot sizes and frontages without several essential considerations:

    1. A covenant to provide Builders, developers and residents reference to minimum acceptable standards and specifications. Covenants protect council provisions, homeowners and neighbours from poor development practice/decisions and inevitable legal challenges & unlimited liability costs.

    Failure to revise and issue building and development covenants, a language introduced as a protective measure by reputable builders themselves, renders council vulnerable to accepting dictates and more cheaply built urban sprawl from Developers instead of Council retaining its autonomy and elected control to ensure quality accepted formula builds and the area’s “Signature” (RCC concedes in its article “Innovation Summits to Drive Economic Growth, Redland City Council News , Nov 9 2016, that the area “lacks a clear identity”, highlighted by its own Economic Development Board).

    RCC will never secure any resilient or distinguishing local identity, other than being a residential dormitory zone, by allowing/granting carte blanch developments, kowtowing to applicants and failing to require any specified standard of compliance. What a sad end to the areas legacy that would be. The salad bowl area of the South-East, once considered Queensland’s capital, reduced to a cookie-cutter carpet of predominantly unemployed commuters and welfare recipients in increasing hardship with inadequate infrastructure and amenities.

    2. Council planners are still referencing National Construction Codes, as an authority reference, despite the fact that recent RCC planning approvals do not adhere to population densities, street frontages or the larger allotment sizes the National Construction Codes were developed in alignment with. Consequently, codes fail to address increased health, safety, fire, legal challenge and insurance risks (highlighted by Fire and Emergency Services Personnel in the wake of the recent Paddington Fire Outbreak).

    Recent Court judgements reference “poor development decisions” here in RCC. Approved developments have also been reported as “problematic” in State Government Climate Action and Renewable Energy Ministerial Submissions, governance reviews and Health “Heat Spot” Reports by independent Authorities, TV media, community groups and individual residents. Federal Authority – Fair Work Building & Construction Auditors have aired concerns and voiced criticisms. MP’s from other jurisdictions have requested a Judicial Enquiry at State Parliament, to highlight questionable development decisions and planning approvals being accepted here. Multiple incidences have now been referred to The CCC for investigation. It would appear that these concerns have been validated by collective authorities united in expressing the same concerns collectively.

    Amidst auditor and authority concerns, it might be thought responsible to address those concerns and restore public trust in the integrity of the system and its custodian elect and appointed council officers. This has not been so.

    Why add to, and aggravate an acknowledged problem with additional development that adds to our identity, infrastructure, road congestion, welfare reliance, domestic violence, addiction, inadequate policing and criminal incidence woes, made worse with un-financed Draft SEQ City Plan expectations? Would it not make more sense to suspend approvals and urgently review our situation? Why insult and alienate community groups, issue legal threats and label them political activists for merely asking questions, when acknowledged and reputable, independent expert & compliance authorities are making the same observations? What about lawful complaints processes?

    3. The SEQ Draft City Plan carries expectation for RCC to create over 24,400 jobs and replace 60% of those expected to be lost over the next 4-15 years according to urban economic and CEDA Reports, whilst accommodating another 34,000 residents.

    a. If all these developments were intended to boost local jobs, why in fact have construction jobs actually DECLINED – a 910 Full-time job loss in 5 years! Shouldn’t we urgently assess why that is happening, if we are “selling the farm” and failing to receive anything in return but broken promises, unsubstantiated expectations and exacerbated local servicing costs resulting in rate increases whilst developers are offered incentives equating to 96% cost reductions, additional concessions and lost 6 figure plus council revenue receipts? Who is the council servicing again, and why are residents and ratepayers paying for that privilege?

    b. We are enabling developments that do not comply with universally stakeholder supported community plans, or in alignment with World Health Organisation (WHO) “Healthy Cities” Recommendations, UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) accepted treaty obligations, or Australian Bureau of Statistics “acceptable-quality-of-life provisions, advocating 1.7 jobs per dwelling approved. Why? Why accept less, and devalue our area and assets, or poison a healthy community out-of-balance by subscribing to less than legislated and internationally, globally endorsed standards?

    c. Instead of bidding for Incubation funds, we’ve waived that opportunity away. Where other regions secured $6-$10 Million in Incubation Funds, we conceded our claim for the same to Brisbane City Council.

    d. Despite missing out on Innovation or Incubator Funds in our own right, RCC has advertised its intent to absorb 16-18 new Council Trainees and apprentices and has miraculously announced a series of Youth led Innovation Summits to Drive Economic Growth, without a budget or autonomy or area covenant to drive and guide it of course – on the mere recommendation of our Economic Development Advisory Board. Council’s commitment to local Youth established a precedent when it failed to follow-up or implement Youth Homelessness Summit Recommendations, hosted at The Redlands Sporting Club a few short years ago, before the issue was as critical as it has become now. Another Youth Led Forum will likely experience the same success, despite the aptitude and enthusiasm of its youth leaders, who will likely be no less passionate and committed than the first. The Redlands Innovation Summit has not yet been substantiated or scrutinised by a professional journalist and has been exclusively posted by RCC Communications staff on the RCC News website.

    Might I humbly suggest we secure the money like everyone else first, instead of spending money we don’t have, on ideas we don’t have the finances or resources for, or demonstrated commitment towards. How will our youth be empowered to effect economic benefit?

    Why concede all Advance Queensland Incubator Funds away and surrender them to BCC authority by inaction?

    Isn’t this collectively reason enough to “stop the rot” and justify a “Cease & Suspend” until further notice” to urgently revise where we stand and what this area really responsibly requires to ensure a future beyond the Council’s current incumbents?

    This request is an action in alignment with State SEQ Draft Plan commitments, and Deputy Premier Jackie Trad’s own published assurances that the Draft City Plan is committed to community engagement and job creation as priorities.

    The difference between what is promised and what is being delivered, represents “more insult” than “consult” to the Redland Community our elected authorities profess to serve.

    Meanwhile credible solutions and funding opportunities are being ignored. Why and to what purpose? So that we have to accept what developments are served up to us rather than dictating our own terms, to protect our community, our children’s futures and our humble homes & investments?

    Redlands is losing more than just its “identity”.

Comments are closed.