Redland City’s Medium Residential Density Zone Code will be reviewed as part of the next City Plan Amendment Package if a motion put forward by Cr Wendy Boglary is passed at the Council meeting on Wednesday 29 January 2020.
The meeting will be held at the Council’s chambers in Bloomfield Street, Cleveland commencing at 9:30am. The meeting is (mostly) open to the public and people can observe proceedings from the public gallery.
Refusal of medium density development in Wellington Point
At a special meeting on 7th January, Redland City Council voted 7/4 to refuse a development application for ten single bedroom units at 18 Chermside Street in Wellington Point.
The refusal motion was supported by Wendy Boglary, Paul Golle, Lance Hewlett, Murray Elliott, Tracey Huges, Paul Gleeson and Paul Bishop.
Councillors voting against refusal were Peter Mitchell, Mark Edwards, Julie Talty and Karen Williams.
Before the application was discussed it was noted that Todd Reinke, recently announced candidate for Division 1, is a director of the firm ‘Go 2 Your Room’ and had a financial interest in this project proceeding. Conflicts of interest were raised and discussed in relation to crs Boglary, Edwards and Talty. It was not considered necessary for any councillor to leave the room.
The discussion about this development application (and discussions about conflicts of interest) can be viewed on the Council Meeting video recording.
Here is a link to the council webpage where the 7 January 2020 meeting minutes can be found.
Budget bid to fund sealing of island roads
Also up for discussion at this meeting is a motion from Cr Mark Edwards that Council allocate $800,000 for ‘island green sealing’ of roads during the remainder of this financial year.
Submission about the SEQ Koala Conservation Strategy
A detailed officers’ report recommends that the Council make a submission about the State Government’s draft SEQ Koala Conservation Strategy by the deadline which is 31 January 2020. The officers’ recommendation to Council was published in full by Redlands2030 in an earlier post:
Koala conservation strategy on Council agenda
Closed session items
Four items are listed on the agenda for confidential discussion in closed session:
- 19.1 Voluntary Transfer of Land Concession
- 19.2 Purchase of Meissner Street Site by Redland Investment Corporation
- 19.3 Council (Planning and Environment Court Appeal 4300/2019)
- 19.4 Sutgold V Redland City Council (Planning and Environment Court Appeal 3829/2019)
Item 19.2 relates to activities of the Council’s controversial property company (Redland Investment Corporation) buying land in the Weinam Creek Priority Development Area.
Item 19.3 relates to a developer appealing against the Council’s deemed refusal of plans for a Retirement Facility and Relocatable Home Park in Victoria Point at 673-685, 687-707 and 711-719 Redland Bay Road and 10 Double Jump Road.
Item 19.4 relates to an appeal by a Fiteni Homes company against Council’s deemed refusal of plans for reconfiguring 8 lots into 176 lots and new roads in Victoria Point at 72-82 Double Jump Road, 158-166, 168-172 and 174-178 Bunker Road.
Council’s request for a postal election is rejected
About a year ago Redland City Council voted to request that the 2020 elections for Redland City Council be conducted as a postal ballot only election – no opportunity to cast ballots in a polling booth.
This decision was discussed in a report by the Redland City Bulletin.
But it appears that the Council’s request has been rejected by the Minister for Local Government. The ECQ has published a list of 19 councils that will be having postal ballot elections in whole or in part. Redland City Council is not on this list.
Local council election timetable
The meeting on 29th January 2020 will be the penultimate opportunity for Redland City Council to make major policy decisions before commencement of the pre-election caretaker period.
The caretaker period commences when the Electoral Commission of Queensland publishes the Notice of Election. This is scheduled to take place on 22 February 2020.
After the meeting on Wednesday, Redland City Council is scheduled to have one more meeting (on 12th February) before the caretaker period begins.
Agenda for meeting on 29th January 2020
Shown below are the contents of the meeting agenda.
The full agenda which includes officers’ reports can be downloaded from the Council website.
Redlands2030 – 27 January 2020
Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email thereporter@redlands2030.net
One Comment
Folks,
I’ve said this before but It’s worth revisiting.
The reality of big business read (the council) by the time we read / see details at a council meeting the outcome is already made! Broadly speaking it is in the ‘in camera’ ( read public not allowed ) the arms are being twisted etc to muster the votes.
The long gone but not lamented ex councillor and Father of Cr Talty openly said that at these ‘in camera” meeting the councillors should be able to say what they want without the fear of being sued.
Previous Mayors have “workshoped” issues behind closed doors. It is a practice continued by this mayor. Functionally it is at these meetings that Council officer’s reports/advice are presented based on their interpretation OF THE LETTER OF THE LAW. However many of these reports etc have already been vetted by select councillors e.g. the mayor and sent back for revision to conform with councillor/mayoral desired policy. Not withstanding arm twisting, deals done etc.
I agree that in some cases commercial in confidence details can be discussed but how does that apply in every item ? In short it doesn’t unless manipulated to do so. Once all that is completed the item is brought to the public meeting.
Token arguments are parroted by selected councillors. THEN the public comments are politely listened to. After that the agreed vote takes place. Ergo our presence at a meeting is all theatre to give the IMPRESSION of public input.
That is clearly putting the horse before the cart.
One explanation was that this was more efficient , less messy (united front). But whose interests does this meet…. the councillor !
Note earlier I said ‘the letter of the law’ in essence that means any comment or objection that isn’t supported by the Councillors’ agreed interpretation is ignored as being irrelevant. i.e. some years back I put in an objection to a development and listed some 20 verifiable facts. The council response was clearly written by the work experience student in that it referred to what was a number of pre written sections ( excuses) of the law. in reality none Of my objections related to the pre written answers. When I challenged that I was told that none of my comments /points showed a breach of the law ergo they were irrelevant.
My point to you the reader is that by the time we see the details the decision has already been determined and unless you can point to a clear in court arguable breach your only recourse is to change your councillor, mayor or preferably both.
To that end I’m inclined to consider the aspirant Claire Richardson if for no other reason that she has a proven background and education to at least understand some of the consequences of our current singing qualified kindy teacher excuse for a mayor’s demonstrated lack appropriate education or skills.
Ultimately we need to change the state members to those who will change the laws so when the public speak the councillors/mayor can’t make deals change honest officer’s reports to suit their careers or friends interests. It is utter nonsense that a mayor/councillors can isolate themselves from the public they have SWORN to serve but be easily accessible to corporations and developers whose real interest aren’t the good of the community …. only profit