Will the new Redland City Plan effectively ban new housing developments on blocks smaller than 400m2
When it resumes discussion on Friday about the controversial City Plan, Redland City Council should give the community a clear and truthful explanation for failing to properly implement a ban on housing blocks less than 400 square metres in the proposed new City Plan.
The State Government advised the Council in June 2017 that its proposed wording to ban blocks smaller than 400m2 was legally ineffective.
But a year later, the city planning scheme put for up approval by Council has not been properly fixed, leaving the door open for more small lot housing.
Following the 2016 local government election the new Redlands Council had to grapple with a poorly prepared draft City Plan which attracted significant community opposition in 2015 when it was finally exposed for public consultation.
One of the fixes which the new Council sought to make was to lift the minimum lot size from 250m2 to 400m2.
But it seems that the will of the new council was not properly implemented when the draft Plan was amended, prior to being voted on in February 2017.
Was this old fashioned bureaucratic incompetence or were the wishes of Redland City’s elected representatives wilfully ignored?
Redlands2030 is aware of at least one other significant instance where the Redlands Council bureaucracy failed to properly implement a resolution passed by the Council – discussed in the story: Council’s extraordinary Shoreline decision needs a better explanation.
Changes to the Local Government Act by the Newman LNP Government in 2012 gave mayors clear powers to direct council staff.
Such power is of course accompanied by accountability and the responsibility for what council officers do (or don’t do) rests clearly with Mayor Karen Williams.
State Government clears the air
The ineffectiveness of Council’s City Plan wording to ban housing lots smaller than 400m2 came to light at a special meeting, called with minimal public notice, on Monday 25 June.
At this meeting Cr Murray Elliot raised concerns about a condition imposed by the Planning Minister which appeared to leave the door open for more small lot housing development in Redlands.
Redlands2030 wrote an open letter to Planning Minister Cameron Dick expressing concern on behalf of the community about the prospect of more housing on lots smaller than 400m2.
A rapid response to Redlands2030 from the Government arrived two days later which indicated that Redlands Council was not totally “upfront” about progress of the City Plan at last Monday’s Special Meeting.
In June 2017, the Council received advice from the Government expressing concerns about the way Council had worded its ban on house blocks smaller than 400m2.
The Government points out that many councils in Queensland have planning schemes that specify minimum lot sizes (such as 400 square metres) in ways that meets the requirements of the Local Government Act.
The Government says it proposed several alternatives to help the Council achieve its objective for minimum lot sizes but Redland Council did not accept these offers and did not provide any other approaches.
In the absence of Council making serious efforts to fix the Plan’s wording, the Minister imposed a condition which allows housing to be developed on blocks smaller than 400m2 if “consistent with the density and character of the surrounding neighbourhood.”
This condition does not provide the community with sufficient certainty that small lot housing will be banned. Work is still required to make detailed amendments to the planning scheme to achieve the outcome desired by the community.
Fixing the problem
Council chambers in Bloomfield Street Cleveland
The Government says it’s willing to fast-track an amendment to the City Plan that meets the legal requirements of the Act and better expresses the outcomes desired by the current Council and the community.
Any resolutions adopted by the Council when it resumes discussion about the City Plan on Friday morning should include very clearly spelt out requirements to ensure that the new City Plan is amended quickly and effectively to ban housing development on blocks less than 400m2.
Councillors should make sure that their resolutions are worded very precisely with a clear focus on achieving a required outcome within a clearly understood timeframe, to avoid the risk of further failure to act in line with the community’s expectations.
The Special Meeting resumes at 8:30am on Friday.
It’s a public meeting and people can observe proceedings from the Public Gallery.
Learning from Council’s City Plan mistakes
Well managed organisations learn from their mistakes and in this instance councillors should ensure that the decisions, actions (and perhaps inactions) which resulted in inadequate wording of the draft City Plan are investigated independently and thoroughly.
Other matters which should also be reviewed include the Council’s failure to consult with the community prior to preparing a draft planning scheme back in 2013.
One agency which has experience in investigating poor administration by Redland City Council is the Queensland Ombudsman.
Redlands2030 – 3 July 2018.
Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email thereporter@redlands2030.net
4 Comments
As an elderly resident tend to stay in my own backyard in Capalaba so am not aware, apart from what I read in the local newspaper, of what is being developed elsewhere in Redlands. I am aware since its close by… of mayor’s late parents flower farm that takes in, not sure how many streets, several acres of land being developed into a huge housing estate off Windemere Rd Alex Hills as friend looked at one of the houses, said it was lovely, but no yard, nowhere for a kid to kick a ball and understand that is the norm in housing developments in Redlands.
Since I live a stone’s throw from Alex Hills shops, was shocked on seeing in Cr Elliott’s last newsletter in which he pictured what are being referred to today, new style of building thirteen (13) ‘cookie-cutter’ style square town houses end of Oaklands St across from the shops locals would have preferred being a home for the aged, since ‘they don’t throw wild parties’. I know nothing about lot sizes, what I do know and worry about is local government/s not caring about the impact on the street and surrounds visually, environmentally, when we see an increase in anti-social behaviour residents are being subjected to as population increases. Poor planning can result in neighbourhood disputes as in one case, couple were forced to sell their $1 million+ Thornlands home due to neighbour complaining of air conditioner being too noisy. Even after soundproofing, complaints continued where they were forced to sell. New owners, along with neighbour were seen fighting outside on the street. When houses are close, careful planning must be taken to avoid these kinds of disputes. Everyone of us needs space for a peaceful life.
Well said Eimi…
the long term costs of the small lot experiment have not begun to be calculated.
My dad once told me “when in doubt about decisions in business and local government ALWAYS ask who benefits ? (!) ”
One only needs to look no further than the familiar linkages to those on council and ensuing beneficiaries of decisions. I’m NOT saying that there is anything that is technically illegal going on , I simply have no way of knowing in a legal sense. However there is to me , a clear bias in many of the decisions.
Known facts are that :
This mayor was raised in the Redlands from Landed community ( farmers etc). Who like many of her parental generation are now seeking to benefit from the land they no longer want to farm. I have no problem with that. BUT, it is the disproportional profiteering that irks me. Superannuation, I hear screamed at me . But lets get real who amongst us other than a ruthless business minority would claim a multimillion Dollar one? In short these ex farmers have gone from “salt of the earth grafters like the rest of us to ….. Ruthless ( selfish) land speculators. In the final analysis many on council are not now or ever were ordinary grafters like their farmers parents.
She has a strong cashed up base of these seeking to maximise their wind fall and equally cashed up avaricious
Also note the family connections of one Cr who was raised along with the mayor whose father was well, a colourful ( hmm) councillor/ builder and as ‘a chippy’ ( his words) is now a millionaire . Note, he was never a large scale developer etc.
Moving on that councillor daughter ism also married into a landed family. One of whom was on the Mayor’s once secret Business Advisory Committee!
Back a ways one Cr was elected asa ‘farmer’ and within weeks after he announced that he was in a consortium who sold their land to be developers. He moved to Bundaberg set up another farm and continued to be and received councillor’s wages, returning for council meetings .
Historically the Redland council has been attention of ‘sharp practices’ as far back as the 1970’s and been mentioned in the state Hansard . ( look it up if you don’t believe me?)
Then there is the dirty tricks and behaviour of some of her team that under most peoples views should have no place on council.
Note before the mayor Seccombe the mentor of this mayor (her factual gaffs then were stuff legend) an aspirant could be elected on the average bankcard but today? One should ask why ? why one would spend thousands and thousands to get a job that costs so much reducing the officially received $ . No business puts up thousands without and expectation of a benefit of some type.
Again there is nothing illegal that I know of , nor am I implying that there is any , merely that the bias is clearly in favour of well ex residents and avaricious off spring. Not the bread and butter resident.
Time for another purge of councill
As a resident of the Redlands since 1989 and an owner of land on Macleay Island since 1972 I know that the record of RCC with respect to land and developers over the the last 40 years has been woeful. In the 1970’s Alfred Grant Estate sold Island land that was underwater & brought RCC into disrepute along with themselves. Then RCC were hoodwinked again when the Raby Bay Developers allowed reclaimed land to slip on many of the blocks in Raby Bay. There is still a massive cost to sure up those blocks. Then Walker Corporation came in with a so called proposal to upgrade the Toondah Harbour ferry terminal and RCC were hoodwinked yet again. Anyone can see it is a commercial development proposal posing as a ferry upgrade. Even Walker Corp indicate there will be no ferry upgrade till at least 900 units have been built and sold. Now RCC is telling us that it is too late for them to back out. No, it is not and the rate payers of Redlands will hold you to account.