The proposed Toondah Harbour project and overall lack of community input into planning continue to be of major concern to many as shown in these letters to the Editor.
If you have something to say about anything, send an email to: email@example.com
Protect our spectacular natural environment
Please, please, local government, think!
We are blessed with natural surrounds in Cleveland.
I live in North Street and often bike ride around Toonah Harbour area.
You need to respect, protect our spectacular natural environment!
No to concrete jungle!
Toondah Harbour proposal is all wrong
When will this Council and these Councillors admit the Toondah Harbour proposal is just all wrong? It comes from a different era and those still promoting it should apologise to the residents of and visitors to the shire for their pig-headedness.
Really, the concept is so dated it belongs in the Joh era. A time when we could claim we didn’t know any better. I’ve been told it would never happen in NSW, Victoria or even Tasmania.
Remember, the concept stretches along the coast from Cassim Island north to opposite the Old School House Gallery. The existing ferry terminal is a pimple in comparison to the real goal of massive residential development. Its impacts during construction and later will extend well beyond the red lines on the maps.
Surely, if proponents of this development were honest promoters then the development would be called EAST Cleveland. With a strap line something like ”remember the Bay…because we filled it”.
Clearly it will double the traffic in the area, and existing access to and through Cleveland is not designed for these loads. The major legacy will be serious congestion at peak times.
Recently, the Queensland Government decided that Councils must be more open with information. It must be more readily available to residents and ratepayers. But this has not happened for the Toondah proposal. It seems to change in size at the whim of the developer and Council says “nothing”. Is it a lack of interest, part of an agreement with Walker Corporation or a lack of competence?
Finally, there are still opportunities to show that we (the residents and ratepayers) are not idiots. We need to stand up and show our disgust at the way we have been treated.
Former Councillor, Division 2
Planning and development myths
The Minister for Planning, Jackie Trad has put out another ‘Planning’ media release and questionnaire for her South Brisbane Electorate. Some of it applies to Redland City and environs and the lack of democratic processes in planning. These expose some of the State Government and development industry’s “urban myths” and ostrich-like capabilities.
Ms Trad’s letter to her constituents shows people deserve much more! But for now some comments on aspects raised by Ms Trad include:
Who is listening?
Under “More Rights for the Community”, the “Residents and Community groups will now have the ability to appeal decisions without adverse costs being awarded against them.” These rights previously existed for 20 years.
The community has fewer grounds to get into Planning Committees, Full Council or the Planning & Environment Court as a result of UDIA “unfinished business” 1997 as the Planning Principles , Environmental Planning Instruments and Triggers, Consent Use, Strategic Plans, and Column 5 Rejection clauses, PE and E Act, IPA and SPA, to name a few, have been committed to history.
These have been replaced with 1980s legislative outcomes, poor environmental and social assessments (State Instruments, Planning Schemes and D.A.s), staff sackings, a wall of Code, Low Rise and Infrastructure (which are being resisted by a few third parties and Extended Domain Design to save habitat) and fast tracking etc etc.
“Transparency and Accountability”
This may cause apoplexy and/or hilarity if it was not so serious and perhaps, in part,non-existent. New requirements on councils and state government to publish reasons for development decisions for the first time.
”Organisations like BRU members and Wildlife Branches can remember when reasons were previously given, particularly when Referral Coordination was made to up to ten government agencies and comments were timely and available. This cuts across RTI, Governance, Local Government Act changes , access and SARAs stonewalling and departmental stonewalling. Other commentators suggest reinstatement of Column 5 Rejections to eliminate the mantra.
“Nothing is Rejected” and to reject non-complying applications at the front counter/by post or electronic IDAS, by committee, and Full Council and reduce deemed refusals.
Some of the other schoolboy howlers from the Minister, all heard before, include: Mandatory Consultation, Stricter Code Assessment, Critical Infrastructure delivered, Climate Change Recognised and Stronger Heritage protection. Politicians and the shape shifters do not understand what these phrases mean, or once stood for. These 5 issues are only some of the wider issues Baz and others mentioned for the Planning Inquiry .
“Pristine Queensland Coastline will be protected by the reinstatement of land surrender arrangements” These were never strong enough even before Newman and others fixed/gutted the CMA, the well-consulted Coastal Plans and the extraordinary mapping.
The previous land surrenders may have amounted to 5 or 6 under subdivisions (ROLs) for Queensland. However, the amount of Coastal Development has been mapped by GRMPA (187 sites) has been mapped by QCC 1990 (250 sites) and WWF /BREC 2006 (about 250 sites) which says a lot about minor number of surrenders. Looking at thousands of kilometres of shorelines, there are poor to no setbacks on Vegetated Beaches with aquifers /roosting spots, Dunes, Archaeological Sites, Beach Scrubs, Saltwater and Freshwater Wetlands. There are hundreds of case studies with no land surrenders, inadequate to no set backs, or no reserves/esplanades and some ecosystems lost by speculative clearing, land development and cyclones. A much different science based consultative process is needed on a new CMA and new coastal plans especially for North Stradbroke Island, Moreton Bay and Redlands.
As for protecting the pristine Queensland coastline, that does not seem to apply to Toondah Harbour. Is this the best/worst recent example? How can people say one thing while doing another?
In conclusion, the Government’s rhetoric is emphatic that the community will be well served by the new Planning Act, but reality and the QCC/EDO report card suggests that the new Act is the LNPs position, coloured lightly by the ALP. Big businesses and mates win, community loses (again).