Who set the City Plan population target?

Population increase

Lots of mailboxes in south east Thornlands

In recent times the Mayor and some councillors have claimed that the State Government has directed Redland City Council to make plans for the City’s population to increase by 50,000 over the next 25 years.

In the Council’s news release about public access to the Draft City Plan, Councillor Julie Talty was quoted as saying:

The State Government has asked us to find room for an estimated additional 50,000 people and 26,000 new homes between now and 2041 and this draft plan focuses development in existing residential areas rather than new green field sites.

We go looking for the facts

Redlands2030 asked the Council to point to the actual request from the State Government referred to in the statement by Cr Talty.

Eventually, we received this response from the Council’s Acting CEO.

Council is required to appropriately integrate State interests including the State Planning Policy and relevant regional plan into a proposed planning scheme.

The Planning Minister in signing off on the draft planning scheme for public notification, is required to have considered whether the proposed planning scheme satisfactorily integrates State interests.

Under the State Planning Policy – Liveable Communities and Housing, the State’s interest in housing supply and diversity is to ensure sufficient land and housing stock is available in appropriate locations to support development and to meet the diverse needs of different sections of the community. Council commissioned the Redlands Land Supply Review 2014 as a key input into the new planning scheme to align with the SEQ Regional Plan Review planning horizon of 2041.

Using Queensland Treasury and Trade population and dwelling forecasts, the analysis indicated that the City can accommodate the number of dwellings required to house the forecast population, while noting this would require a shift in the form of dwellings and locations this population will wish to reside in. Community consultation was undertaken on the draft report during July and August before the report was finalised. The Redlands Land Supply Review 2014 report is on Council’s City Plan 2015 website.

The planning horizon is a mandatory component under the Queensland Planning Provisions: Section 3.4 Strategic outcomes and is set for the period of the relevant regional plan, or for a period of at least 25 years. The 2041 timeframe was confirmed with the State Government at the outset of drafting.

In her letter of 20 August 2015 to the Redland City Council Mayor Karen Williams, the Deputy Premier and Minister for Local Government, Infrastructure and Planning, Jackie Trad MP confirmed that she is satisfied the relevant State interests have been integrated and advised Council may now consult on the proposed planning scheme.

Fact or fiction?

The response provided to Redlands2030 by the Council reads like a very roundabout way of saying that the State Government has not actually asked or directed Redland City Council to adopt any particular population target.

Instead, it appears that the Council devised the population targets (with reference to State Government forecasts) and they have been approved, for public consultation, by the State Government.

Since Redlands hasn’t been specifically directed or asked to plan for housing 50,000 more people, there is plenty of scope for residents to question the amount of development which the Council has chosen to provide for in its Draft City Plan.

Submissions to the Council about its Draft City Plan are due by 27 November 2015.

Further reading

Here are links to the:

Redlands Land-Supply Review (Final) 2014

Queensland Treasury population projections

State Planning Policy

South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031

Information about the Draft City Plan

Redlands2030 – 17 October 2015

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

8 thoughts on “Who set the City Plan population target?

  1. Watched Channel 9’s Current Affair program last week, showing viewers how OUT OF CONTROL COUNCILS ARE as regards ignoring citizens rights, with developers doing what they like, where they like, as we are seeing in Redland City. With parks/reserves earmarked for being sold to developers in the new town plan, my question is: What are plans for the Glider/R250 Reserve In Alexandra Hills? I was persnally invited to attend the handover by then Redlands MP John Hegerty and impressed that then LNP Environment Minister, a gentleman named Brian Littleproud was there shortly after dawn to greet all who attended. Also in attendance was a Federal representative from Canberra (can’t recall name). What is the present status of this Reserve? Can local government hand it over to favourite developers? Along with others, watched the handover into Council’s hands..in ‘perpetuity’… i.e. endless time, eternity.

  2. So is the State going to pay for infrastructure upgrades ? a second rail line and a fix to the South Brisbane cross river bottleneck, a bus way to Cleveland, upgrades to Old Cleveland Road, Mt Gravatt Capalaba roads, Rickertt Road. Mt Cotton Road ? Redland Bay road etc. etc. etc.

    Where is Councils industry and jobs development program so that the addituional residents can work locally because they wont be able to leave the suburbs during peak hour soon.

    • There has been no extra land set aside for zoning to commercial or industrial uses so the 28,000 jobs Mayor Williams promotes is coming from Where?????

  3. Thank you for raising this issue! I have been concerned about this assumption going unchallenged in the discussion surrounding the proposed Plan. Just last week’s Redland City Bulletin reported a Council spokesman as saying the proposed rezoning would ensure Council MET STATE OBLIGATIONS (my emphasis) to find room for an estimated extra 50,000 people…….No discussion about if this is a desirable target.
    Please share this article as widely as possible!!!

  4. It is interesting Noosa stood by the community wishes of population and carrying capacity and stood firm, the State signed off all their planning schemes without a fight
    To say this scheme will take us to 2041 is rubbish the 2006 scheme accommodated the population till 2036 and today instead of just reviewing policy they have added another 50,000 and then when the scheme is reviewed again in 7 years it will be the same again. The election before a planning scheme is when the developers ramp up the donations, they need their like minded councillors with their feet under the table making decision for the development of our beautiful city.
    Then in another 7 years again it rolls over I saw it in 1998 when certain Councillors were elected, they had been in the job months and already talking about opening up all Redland bay and Thornlands, wellington point and then in 2006 The area of SE Thornlands and Kinross roads came on line. This extra land was not supported by council planners as they explained there was enough land to accommodate the population, SEThornlands was to be left as the inter urban break between Cleveland and Victoria Point .
    When is enough enough give the future of our city back to the people don’t let the developers or their disciples run the agenda

  5. So correct me if I’m wrong please but after reading the article regarding the councils population target of an extra
    50 000 bodies it appears to me that the broken record excuse, “The State government set it” is highly possibly not true. If this is so then I again ask the question, what are the Williams 6 gaining by approving developments that go against the areas character and the wishes of a vast number of rate paying residents? There is definitely a need for an inquiry into the actions of a number of present councillors who appear to represent developers far more than residents or maybe a petition sighting no confidence in certain local politicians may get our point across to the State government

    • Look to where she got her grounding from …..the Secombe six. and then see the linkages with Williams six.
      Then look at who comes from where i.e. the old landed.
      To be fair one shouldn’t be surprised simply because many of the old families have land they want to make millions on. After all they’re moving into retirement and their children ‘need’ [sic] the help. I’ve often heard the old families brush aside the outrageous sums they’re receiving as their “super”.
      Bollocks who has a “super” worth in the 10’s of millions?
      Let’s be clear I don’t begrudge a retired farmer a average super…what this is is simply greed. they don’t deserve a 10X super given they did nothing to earn the difference except out live the farming advantage of the land.
      My biggest concern that these individuals who sit on land just to sell options to developers at an inflated price (which stifles real competition from smaller builders) and then lobby manipulate Council to change population densities and zoning without the tiniest concern for anyone or thing other than them selves. Least of their concerns in the actual carrying capacity of the land or the infrastructure i.e. It currently takes 40+ minutes in peak hour to get from The out reaches Redland Bay to Cleveland… and that is without the number of new estates along that road even being occupied. I dread to thing when they are. And God help an emergency during those future peak hours. As for where the extra children are going to kindy/school. Then there’s the traffic chaos that causes.
      Of course one can only dream of the the environment that was in the last 15 year.
      Yup we will have brick venereal jungle with it’s crime and lack of what we came here for.
      I’m not opposed to change but at least let the people die in a Redlands they sort of remember.
      By that I mean slow the growth down to a human rate rather than that of individual’s GREED>

Comments are closed.