Shoreline to be considered at Council Meeting

Redland City Council next meets on Wednesday 18 November commencing at 9:30 am. Here’s a link to the meeting agenda. Some of the agenda items are discussed below.


Shoreline principle garry hargrave with Mayor Karen Williams at a 2112 business function

Shoreline’s Garry Hargrave with Mayor Karen Williams at a 2012 business function

A proposal to extend Redland City’s urban footprint into southern Redlands will be considered by councillors at their meeting on Wednesday.

The 278 page officers report  recommends that the Shoreline application be approved, on the basis that it “has been assessed against the relevant planning instruments and the proposed development is considered to comply with the Redlands Planning Scheme subject to conditions.”

The report discusses why it is OK to approve the application even though the proposed 4,000 dwelling development is located in the Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area under the South East Queensland Regional Plan. Apparently its OK because when the application was referred to the State Government they didn’t say no.

Proposed Shoreline Development area (click to enlarge)

Proposed Shoreline Development area (click to enlarge)

It is understood that the Council may have shopped around for quite a while before it was able to find a legal opinion that supported this proposition.

If the Council and the State Government were to let this project proceed it would beg the question: why bother having a regional plan, or a planning scheme?

On Wednesday it will be interesting to see which if any councillors declare conflicts (or perceived conflicts) of interest. It’s known that the husband of Cr Kim Maree Hardman has worked for one of the Shoreline developers and Mayor Karen Williams may have benefited from election campaign involvement by people or entities associated with Shoreline.

Redlands2030 has previously reported that the proposed Shoreline development was an issue at the 2012 local government elections when various commitments were made by the current Mayor and councillors. On the basis of those commitments, it’s surprising that the Council has not already refused the application.

Transport forum

The third and final Transport Forum was held on Saturday afternoon. Interest in these forums appeared to have waned with only about 30 residents showing up for scones and chats.

Whose idea was it to schedule a transport forum at a venue (Capalaba Sports Club) not well served by public transport on a Saturday afternoon?

Over the three forums the presentations (mildly interesting) and discussion (fairly repetitive) were poorly focused giving residents little confidence that the Council has a handle on solving the region’s transport challenges.

3 Seabreeze Court, Ormiston

Part of the proposed development at Seabreeze Court, Ormiston

Part of the proposed development at Seabreeze Court, Ormiston

At 3 Seabreeze Court in Ormiston a developer want to put five units onto a site with area of only 1644m². The officers report notes that the density proposed is one unit per 328m² which is less than the probable solution for the area which is one unit per 400m².  The report also notes:

The proposal presents as three separate buildings; two single storey dwellings and one two-storey building containing 3 units. The two-storey building is considered to not be compatible with the detached character of the locality, in terms of its bulk and scale. Additionally, it is considered that the three proposed units adjoining the eastern boundary will unduly impact on the amenity of the neighbouring lots to the east.

Despite such concerns about the development proposal, the officers recommend a preliminary approval subject to the following requirements:

  1. Provide a revised layout and design that demonstrates compliance with Specific Outcome S2 of the Multiple Dwelling Code and Specific Outcome S2.4 of the Urban Residential Zone Code; Or
  2. Demonstrate that a revised design and layout complies with the Overall Outcomes for the Multiple Dwelling Code and Urban Residential Zone Code

Paradise Gardens, Boundary Road Thornlands

Paradise Gardens Structure Plan (click to enlarge)

Paradise Gardens Structure Plan (click to enlarge)

Councillors will be asked to approve development of a neighbourhood centre on the corner of Panorama Drive and Boundary Road in Thornlands. The development is proposed to incorporate a supermarket-based shopping centre, tavern and a childcare centre.

The proposed development is impact assessable and required public notification. There were nine properly made submissions received during the notification period objecting to the proposal. Of these, 7 were made on behalf of other centres and 1 was from an adjoining resident. There were no submissions in support of the proposal.

Officers have recommended that Council issue a preliminary approval subject to conditions.

Koala protection under local laws

Councillors are to discuss koala area mapping and the requirements for dog owners in koala areas under item 11.2.2. Unfortunately, the officers report was not available when the agenda was published, so the community has no awareness of what councillors may be considering.

The need for better koala protection was identified on 22 April, with councillors ordering an immediate review. That was more than six months ago.

Heritage issues including Commonwealth land in Birkdale

Cr Paul Bishop has put forward notices of motions that:

  • That Council resolves to release all relevant background documents used to inform decision makers during Phase 1 of the Birkdale Commonwealth Land Review Process, and that these reports be made publicly available via Redland City Council’s website at Council’s earliest convenience.
  • That Council resolves to request officers recommence and finalise the 2012 RPS Heritage Review, in order to inform Councillors and residents about future heritage matters in Redland City, and that this work be completed as soon as reasonable.
  • That Council resolves to conduct a workshop for Council and community about the process of proposing, assessing and deciding significance of a place for future inclusion on a Redlands Local Heritage Register established under the Part 11 of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992, and that this workshop be conducted by Redland City Council Officers at their earliest convenience.

Redlands2030 – 15 November 2015




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

5 thoughts on “Shoreline to be considered at Council Meeting

  1. Here is what will happen, council will eventually approve the CRRA Shoreline development. The Mayor will leave the room through conflict of interest and the casting vote will be by,you know who. CRRA has planned this from the day Melva won the Mayors Job. Job well done and executed, first class job.

  2. it is inconceivable that the Council is to approve more land for urban areas when so much of the existing (and regulated0 urban area is under or undeveloped. Redlands will soon have so much land and so little essential services or public transport or recreational areas

  3. What injustice, Shoreline being approved by a weak group of planners who are fully aware that the development does not comply with the Council Planning Scheme or the State Govenment Regional Plan. Quite clearly the state has recommended that this development be taken out of the Draft Planning Scheme only a short time ago, have these council planners lost all concept of reality . The application was sent to Main Roads for assessment that is not a reason to claim the State said NO. If this development is approved it shows quite clearly that the money spent on doing planning schemes and reports to justify planning outcomes has been wasted. If the Council planners are so incompetent they can’t identify the reasons for refusal, then I assume all they are doing is just a tick and flick for the Mayor and her 5 sheep. Bring on the election

    • Toni, the cosy photograph of the Mayor and a leader in the Shoreline application we all know will have the Mayor declaring conflict of interest and the door of the chamber will swing open on its well used hinges when this comes up for vote in council. But will any other councillors declare conflict of interest? Some can’t help their family connections, so what happens there?
      But all in all I got the impression that Shoreline was its own planner, decider and approver.
      After all, 75% of 632 respondents to their survey said it was a goer. That’s big deal. you can’t argue with those numbers.
      Give the ” incompetent Council planners” a go. Shoreline was saving us money by doing the work themselves.

Comments are closed.