In response to the call for public submissions about Shoreline’s proposed development, Redlands2030 has been asked by many people to provide some assistance with making a submission and what might be considered the key issues.
If a large number of people make submissions it helps the Council to understand what the community is concerned about.
The sheer weight of the documentation in support of Shoreline’s application is overwhelming. To assist those people wanting to make their concerns known, the following draft submission has been written. It comments on a dozen concerns. No doubt there are other important issues.
People making a submission should feel free to amend this draft submission and add comments about other items or concerns.
Redlands2030 will make a comprehensive submission closer to the closing date. This submission will be made available on the Redlands2030 web site.
In the meantime, submissions based on the template below will help Redland City Council to understand issues that concern ratepayers and constituents.
The deadline for submissions is Friday 28 November.
Update 29 November 2014
Here is a copy of the Redlands2030 Submission about Shoreline’s proposed development.
How to make a submission now:
To do this effectively HIGHLIGHT and COPY the text below (i.e. the Draft Submission Template text below from the words “Assessment Manager” to the word “Sincerely”).
PASTE the text into an blank email.
It is ESSENTIAL to address the email to ” firstname.lastname@example.org ” with Subject: ” Development Application Enquiry: MCU013287 ” (click here for mailto: link if needed).
It is an OPTION, for further impact, to send a copy of your submission (by cc) to the Mayor on email@example.com
A further option is to send another copy (again by cc) to your local councillor (see Redland City Council Contacts )
Importantly write your name and address on the submission (we suggest after the word “Sincerely”).
This would look like:
John Smith, 16 Brown Street, Ormiston 4253
Draft Submission Template:
Redland City Council
PO Box 21
Cleveland QLD 4163
Development Application Enquiry: MCU013287
Re: Submission to Development Application for Preliminary Approval under Sections 241 and 242 of SPA for Material Change of Use Proposed Master Planned Residential Community and to Vary the Effect of a Local Planning Instrument RCC Ref: MCU013287 Serpentine Creek, Scenic and Orchard Roads, Redland Bay
I/we make this written submission objecting to the above development application. The critical points and the basis for my objections are:
- Redland City Council should not consider this (MCU) a properly made application. Any alternative view defies logic. The land is rural land by any plain English definition and this is further confirmed by the provisions of the SEQ Regional plan, Councils own planning scheme, the Redlands2030 Community Plan, and the Redlands Rural Futures Strategy.
- The State Government’s response/advice confirms the Shoreline application should not have been accepted as being properly made because the site of the application is rural land.
- Council’s support, by way of a vote of the elected councillors, would be a breach of their requirement to the Local Government Act, that elected officials must act in the public interest. A vote in support of the Shoreline application would require almost all Councillors to break their pre-election commitments on the question of whether they (individually) would support an expansion of the Urban Footprint.
- The requirement that the proposal must be in the overriding public interest is not proven. Land owner or commercial interests are not part of the equation.
- The proponents’ attempt to use opt-in polling as a measure of community support fails. The only City wide community surveys relevant to the test of “overriding public interest” is that done to develop the Redlands 2030 Community Plan which remains the best measure of “over riding public interest” in the City.
- The full cost of the infrastructure and the proportion to be met by Council and the State should be disclosed and agreed (publicly) by all parties before an approval of an application that locks in long term funding requiring either increased rates or increased debt for both ratepayers and taxpayers.
- Social and environmental costs of the proposal have not been quantified. Glib admissions of an increase in travel times have been attributed to the proponent but the full and accumulated economic costs to be imposed on the community are unknown. Some issues to emerge include increased travel time and possibly decreased land values across the city.
- Council’s Urbis Land Supply Study says there is no need to bring new land suitable for residential development into the Urban Footprint at this time. The Urbis report recommends that Council determine the scale and location of any new Urban Residential land to be added to the residential land supply based on government costs, optimising development yields, and timing requirements.
- The development pattern and the location of the Shoreline proposal is contrary to the Queensland Plan (especially in terms of the nature of residential development and the intent to halve population growth in the SEQ region).
- The Shoreline proposal threatens the lifestyle, quality of life and livability of residents of the city. The impact of urban sprawl on these attributes such as traffic congestion has not been fully addressed. Importantly, any analysis should be done independently, by Council. Reliance on the Shoreline proponents’ “sales pitch” is not a sound basis for Council to make a decision in support of the application.
- The proponents’ economic and job scenarios are unlikely to be realised. The projections appear to be extremely optimistic and based on untested assumptions.
- Assumptions that the project will be a catalyst for improved public transport is fanciful. It seems there is no commitment by the Government that new services will be provided or who will pay.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this submission.
(Insert your Name and address here)