Redland City Council has been asked to make a submission about the Toondah Harbour Draft EIS to safeguard the public interest.
To date the Council’s response has been unsatisfactory.
It appears that its secret development agreement with Walker Group means that the Council has signed away its capacity to impartially review this document and advocate concerns about the project’s impacts on our community and the environment.
The public interest
Since local councils and elected councillors are required by law to act in the public interest, Redlands2030 has been trying to find out if Redland City Council will review the Toondah Harbour Draft EIS and respond with a submission which reflects the community’s concerns.
The specific question put to Redland City Council by Redlands2030 in May 2022 was: “our members and supporters are concerned to know if Council itself will be reviewing the draft EIS and making a submission in the public interest. Given Council’s in-house planning, environmental management and development expertise it is surely well placed to review the EIS and make a submission on matters of public interest. Is this an action Council will be undertaking?”
This was the Council’s response:
“Council is not involved in this Federal Government process. Council is in favour of the science being tested independently and will consider the EIS when released. Council remains very interested in the outcome and encourages community involvement.
So what do you make of this flaky response? It appears discouraging from a community perspective. Council went on to say:
Not to be denied, almost 100 people petitioned Redland City Council asking that “to safeguard the Public Interest, the Council engages reputable independent experts to review any Environmental Impact Statement which may be published, about plans to construct apartments in Ramsar wetlands next to Toondah Harbour and that the Council ensures the findings of such independent reviewer submitted as part of any consultation process which may be authorised by the Federal Environment Minister in accordance with the EPBC Act. “
This petition was a serious call for the Council (and the elected Councillors) to act in accordance with the Principles of the Local Government Act… in short to do … what they are paid to do. These principles oblige councils to act in accordance with “transparent and effective processes, and decision making in “the public interest” (our bolding).
Council’s advice (1 November 2022) was: That the petition is of an operational nature and be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer for consideration.
So the plea by residents and ratepayers for Councillors to act in the public interest was deflected as being of merely an operational matter. No Councillor seems to have been concerned that the petition was an unusual call. It was after all a call on Council (and Councillors) to act in the public interest.
Arguably the Council’s decision was a vote to ignore the extraordinary allegation that Council was not acting in the public interest. There was no debate on the substance of the petition and the matter was swept away to be actioned by the Chief Executive Officer. The core of this question about the public interest is whether or not the public interest is being served by the Redland City Council or its Councillors. Essentially this question was ignored.
The Chief Executive Office, in merely explaining the consultation process, neatly avoided any explanation of why the Council would not be acting in the public interest or even according to their mandate. Given the Council’s dismissive response, can we assume the Council or the Councillors will even read the EIS?
So, taking these failures by Council to fulfil its obligations to act in the public interest it is hard to avoid thinking about just whose interests do the council and Councillors stand for.
Given Council appears to view itself as a development partner of the Walker Group, how does the Council itself reconcile the potential for a conflict of interest or other perceptions?
We keep hearing Councillors might be exposed to possible litigation under the terms of the “commercial in confidence” arrangement with the Walker Group, so how do Councillors resolve the potential for their own conflict of interest on Toondah matters, including any decision to not make a submission about the Draft EIS?
Redlands2030 – 18 November 2022
Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email thereporter@redlands2030.net
5 Comments
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I have just read the environment section of the lengthy Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) recently submitted by Walker Corporation for a commercial unit development proposal on the shores of Moreton Bay at Toondah Harbour. Walker Corp have obviously paid a lot of money for this lengthy statement and I think they have been dudded because of the lack of factual detail and the tendency to keep saying things like – it will have “minimum” impact on the shore birds and the koalas. In fact it would have a major impact on shore birds because it involves the dredging of a 40 hectare (100 acre) shore bird area on the shores of Moreton Bay. The EIS has correctly pointed out that a population of koalas currently live in the trees above an area that will have at least 50 large truck movements per day but they imply that fencing will solve the problems for koalas. The Koala Action Group (KAG) has studied these koala movements over a number of years and they are aware that such a large commercial development in this area would drive the koalas out. The company says they would have to cut down some mature koala trees but they are willing to plant up to 1,000 Eucalypt saplings. There is a problem with this as saplings take at least 15 years of growth to be able to support a single koala. This EIS is sadly lacking as a serious study.
Please do not allow this Toondah development to go ahead. Spark up Cleveland central, give it life again. Do not ruin the waterway, the area, the birds, the koalas, the roads would not cope. It is a crazy idea. Would be great if the council was more interested in the people it represents and not just developers. Also be more inclusive and work as a team not shut people who really care about the area out. It is a community of varying types of people, relate to them ALL. No to Toondah NO
It will be interesting to see how Redlands Council, as a partner to the development, exercises its authority regarding inevitable complaints of construction noise events in excess of DA noise conditions. Will it be prepared to take any necessary enforcement action, show cause or stop-work notices that force a delay to the development’s progress – given it has a vested interest as a development partner in the project achieving completion milestones? Will deadline-driven subcontractors seek to push boundaries on DA conditions if they realise Council is gun-shy on noise enforcement? Is the Council compromised in its responsibility to put ratepayer interests first?
This is where the compliance of the PDA where the State over-rides RCC comes into play. Any action will bounce from one to the other leaving the Redland residents out in the cold. If approved by the Federal Government, the real fight will begin. The project is favoured by the State and will be rushed through with the State brushing RCC aside with local residents not receiving any consideration.
You will not get any response from Redland City Council on the EIS of Walker Corporation in relation to Toondah Harbour because they signed a “commercial in confidence” agreement with the developer. At the mass turnout this year of around 2,000 people at the Toondah Harbour rally in the Park Marina beside Cleveland Station the councillors were informed that they could not even attend. That says something.