Toondah deals were signed in September 2014 but development plans are still being kept secret from the community.
Redland City Council decided to keep secret details of the latest changes to the mega Toondah Harbour residential development scheme, discussed at its most recent meeting on 23 May.
This continues a pattern of secret behaviour which has resulted in public scrutiny being dodged for more than four years.
Councillors renew Toondah confidentiality
The Toondah Harbour Master Plan was Item 19.5 in the agenda of the recent Council meeting held 23 May 2018. Minutes of the meeting show that all things Toondah were kept under longstanding confidentiality arrangements.
Councillors seem blind to the public interest in the Toondah development and remain wedded to past decisions that all things related to Toondah are kept secret from the community.
However, these decisions by Council are clearly deliberative decisions, otherwise the questions wouldn’t be put to Councillors in the first place!
It was noticeable that four Councillors (at different times) voted against either closing the meeting or invoking confidentiality provisions.
Previously, when asked about the use of confidentiality arrangements at least some Councillors have claimed “we didn’t have a choice” or “we were told we had to”.
But the meeting minutes show clearly that Councillors decide whether or not to hold Toondah discussions and other matters in closed meetings under confidentiality provisions.
Why is Toondah still so secret?
Given the Toondah Infrastructure Agreement and the Toondah Development Agreement are in place, what remaining matters need to be hidden.
No one knows because its commercial in confidence!
Isn’t it time that the public interest and right to know delivered transparency, accountability, and open government at Redland City Council?
It’s difficult to imagine how ratepayers would be worse off if they were better informed about what deals Council is, and isn’t, doing.
Any dodgy deals, not in the public interest, would be spotted sooner and killed off quicker.
What changes are being made?
From the name of agenda item 19.5, “Toondah Harbour Master Plan”, we can deduce that the Walker Group have made changes to their previous master plan.
It’s unclear how many variations have been considered by Council but both of Walker Group’s previous efforts have been well removed from what the community was consulted about more than four years ago.
The latest version is probably another attempt to skirt the legal, community, social, economic and environmental constraints of the site. The need for ongoing revisions is to be expected because Council’s original site planning for the Priority Development Area was poor and inadequate.
Use of this area for up to 3,600 apartments was never supported by the PDA planning process and the possibility of such an outcome was never explained by Council to the community.
“Wise planning and design” and “Inclusive and ethical governance” are some of the Council’s stated vision outcomes in its Corporate Plan. But in its handling of the Toondah Harbour dodgy deal none of these vision outcomes are being achieved.
How Toondah confidentiality was extended?
At the General Meeting held on 23 May 2018 “Confidential Items” were listed in the agenda as item 19. Item 19.5 referred to the Toondah Harbour Master Plan.
A closed meeting
To get things under the cover of the confidential arrangements Cr Elliot moved (seconded by Cr Talty) that Council moves into closed session to consider the confidential report(s) listed in section 19 of the agenda (including item 19.5).
In turn Item 19.5 the Toondah Harbour Master Plan was discussed and the minutes show this matter was considered to be confidential under Section 275(1) – (h) of the Local Government Regulation 2012, and the Council is satisfied that discussion of this matter in an open meeting would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it deals with other business for which a public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests of the local government or someone else, or enable a person to gain a financial advantage.
The motion of confidentiality was CARRIED 8/2 and it was noted that Crs Williams, Boglary, Hewlett, Edwards, Talty, Elliott, Huges and Gleeson voted FOR the motion. While Crs Gollè and Bishop voted AGAINST the motion.
Toondah master plan discussed in secret
And so the Council moved into a closed session to discuss the Toondah master plan. It is recorded that the discussions had to be in secret presumably because it was considered likely to prejudice the interests of the local government or some one else, or enable a person to gain a financial advantage. No details of who why or what are given as to how someone might gain an advantage or what matters might be prejudicial.
More serious is is the weight given to the unknown prejudicial matters such that these outweigh all matters of accountability, transparency and from the public record all matters of public interest.
In the case of the Toondah PDA these hidden matters have been used to dodge public scrutiny for more than four years.
Discussions kept secret
Council reconvened and resumed the open public meeting and the following resolution was moved by Cr Mitchell and seconded by Cr Gollè that Council resolves to (1) note the report; and (2) ensure that the report and annexures remain confidential.
This motion was carried CARRIED 9/2 with Crs Williams, Mitchell, Gollè, Edwards, Talty, Elliott, Huges, Gleeson and Bishop voted FOR the motion. Crs Boglary and Hewlett, who voted AGAINST the motion.
Reasons for confidentiality are confidential
In trying to unpack the decision Toondah decisions of Redland City council it seems the confidentiality arrangements are so pervasive that the reasons for the confidentiality are themselves confidential.
It would be interesting to have Councillors step up and tell the community how the public interest is still being served by arrangements that have perpetuated secrecy about the Toondah scheme for over 4 years.
Council was recently asked to advise when some due diligence reports on Walker Group’s Toondah plans, considered by Council in 2015, would be made publicly available.
The worrying response from Council was “the content of the reports will remain confidential until completion of the project”.
The project timelines are possibly 2-4 years of investigations and approvals plus 30 years of construction. That means true accountability for the Toondah project is being deferred by 30-35 years!
Is this really the course our elected representatives have chosen?
Redlands2030 – 2 June 2018
Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email thereporter@redlands2030.net
12 Comments
The same secret applies to Walker’s Weinam Creek PDA
We have written to RCC as well about the secrecy for the Weinam Creek PDA
SMB FUTURES FORUM
Mayor Karen Williams
Redland City Council
Bloomfield Street
Re: Weinam Creek PDA
Dear Mayor,
we refer to your press release dated 18.May 2018
Redland City Council Press Release.
Walker Group’s Weinam Creek proposal will not proceed
May 18, 2018
Redland City Council has announced that in conjunction with Walker Group, a decision has been made not to proceed with Walker Group’s Weinam Creek Priority Development Area project proposal.
Redland City Mayor Karen Williams said Council would instead take on the planning for the Weinam Creek area.
“Walker’s vision for the Weinam Creek development was excellent, but after considering it and consulting with Walker Group, a decision has been made not to proceed due to lack of public infrastructure in the proposal,” Cr Williams said.
“Walker Group had been active throughout the submission process, having submitted all required documentation within the allocated timeframes.
“However, there were challenges with the lack of commercial development opportunities available to fund the public infrastructure outcomes Council and the State are requiring.
“Council is committed to the rejuvenation of the area and is instead working on a plan that provides the community infrastructure the area needs and demands,” Cr Williams said.
Walker Group Queensland General Manager, Peter Saba said the company had worked hard with EDQ and Council to try to find a mutually acceptable development proposal for the PDA, but the parties had agreed this was not possible.
Mr Saba said: “Walker will concentrate its efforts on the Toondah Harbour development which will provide the Redlands community with a fabulous new bayside destination.”
“The Weinam Creek Priority Development Area (PDA) was declared at the request of Redland City Council (RCC) on 21 June 2013. Planning of the Weinam Creek PDA will be managed by the Minister for Economic Development Queensland (MEDQ) in partnership with RCC.”
It is now almost 5 years since the declaration of the Weinam Creek PDA, and absolutely nothing. has been achieved.
We have wasted 5 years of valuable time.
In the past, we, the ratepayers of the Southern Moreton Bay Islands have asked numerous times, that design proposals be made public to the most important stakeholders in this project, the ratepayers and residents of the Southern Moreton Bay Islands.
All our requests were denied, because the designs were deemed “commercial in confidence”, according to the contract with the developer, Walker Corporation.
This clause certainly does not apply anymore.
You said in the press release, that Walker’s proposals were excellent.
We, the most important stakeholders also would like to see these excellent designs.
As per your policy of open and transparent government, and in order that islanders can form their own opinions on this important issue, we therefore request, that Redland City Council immediately releases all relevant detailed design proposals, submitted to the RCC, by the previous developer .
yours sincerely
SMBI Futures Forum
Clem Ebber M Eng Arch (GER) Dipl. Ing.
Here is RCC’s answer
Dear Clem,
Re: Walker Group’s Weinam Creek Priority Development Area (PDA) project proposal.
Thank you for your correspondence in response to Council’s announcement regarding the decision not to proceed with Walker Group’s Weinam Creek PDA project proposal.
I note your request for Walker Group’s design proposal to be made public and do appreciate your interest in these plans.
While the proposal is not progressing the details remain confidential and as such the Walkers proposal is not able to be released.
Council will now be taking on planning for the area and details of these plans will be provided to the community in the near future.
I would encourage you to refer to the Weinam Creek PDA web page at http://www.redland.qld.gov.au for future updates on the project.
Yours sincerely.
Louise Rusan
General Manager Community and Customer Services.
Redland Council’s secret deals behind closed doors, councillors silenced, response when questions asked about specific development issues by local citizens, reply always the same…’commercial in confidence’. Redlands Investment Corporation appear to be the decision makers in RCC along with Mayor & Co. as in recent case surprised to learn they moved childcare centre from cnr Oaklands St oppos Alex Hills shops to end of Woolworths parking lot next to petrol station, then instead of what locals thought would be built there…an aged care home, surprised they would have 13 box type town houses to share their street with. One resident said home for the aged was preferred, as elderly folk don’t throw wild parties. These ratepayers had no say.
Seems whatever dodgy deals are done with developers behind closed doors, none are considered to be in the public interest.
Gold Coast, Logan, Ipswich councils are all under investigation but Redlands was overlooked. It should be included as we, the people, feel it is definitely ‘in the public interest’ to overhaul the entire council to bring about honesty, accountability, as it has been said that ‘when the rot sets in at the top, it filters down’.
Assuming that the bed of the bay is unallocated State Land (as is most land below high water mark), it will be necessary for the Department to conduct a section 16 evaluation of the “most appropriate use” of the land. This procedure has been in the Land Act since 1994 and is meant to be completed prior to lodging of a development application, as the grant of tenure over State land is the most fundamental of the range of permits likely to be needed. If the developer is refused tenure, there is no point in pursuing a development application.
The Land Act 1994 does not require the Department to publish the most appropriate use report, but under the government’s right to information policies, this would surely follow a specific request. Also, in a contentious case like this, I don’t see how the Department could complete a section 16 evaluation without consulting the community.
Hi,
I wrote to Cr Paul Golle asking why RCC decided to keep the Toondah discussions secret. He replied as follows:
4June 2018
Hi Richard
I have some feedback from the CEO.
In early 2016, Council, Walker Group and Economic Development Queensland entered into a binding Development Agreement and Infrastructure Agreement.
The Council report on 23 May 2018 discussed matters pertaining to that development agreement that under its terms remain confidential.
The Council minutes (publically available) stated the reasons as follows
19.5 Toondah Harbour Master Plan
This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 275(1) – (h) of the Local Government Regulation 2012, and the Council is satisfied that discussion of this matter in an open meeting would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it deals with other business for which a public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests of the local government or someone else, or enable a person to gain a financial advantage.
Respectfully
Councillor Paul Gollè
It appears that this council is no better than the last lot of muppets we had to put up with. Local Government Act 2009 is founded on 5 principles, transparency and decision making in the public’s interest, democratic representation, social inclusion and meaningful community engagement and finally ethical behaviour.
Correct me if I’m wrong but ever since Williams became Mayor, this council has done everything it can to conduct its business without we the residents knowing any information. Last term we had the council’s Development Industry Reference Group of major developers within the Redlands holding meetings under confidentiality rules. Now it’s the Redlands Investment Corporation activities that the council discusses in confidence behind closed doors away from the public. Throw in how council uses their “workshops” as a way of discussing various topics of concern without us residents having any knowledge of or input and one would get the feeling that the forementioned principles of government are of no concern to this group of councillors. Why all the confidentiality if you have nothing to hide from the residents? I find their actions unethical and lead me to the only conclusion possible given their actions and that being I do not trust any of them and that they do not have our best interests at heart. Only dishonest people have something to hide.
I was a local government Councillor for six years in another municipality. It was Council policy that all matters, and especially town planning matters, were discussed in open Council or open committee except for two categories. Matters involving staff recruitment or discipline; and proposed acquisition of private land by Council were kept confidential for obvious and traditional reasons.
Holding the town planning meetings in public in front of the gallery was a great discipline and a great barrier to improper influence by any party. Because matters of town planning are matters of public interest, there is no obvious reason why they should be kept secret.
There seems to be an ongoing problem in Redlands with secrecy. No doubt the Councillors would be aware that there is a general Right to Information in dealings with the State Government, and that sets an ethical standard for public administration Queensland. Any departure from that should require a specific justification. There may be a very good reason for secrecy in this case, but there can surely be no reason for keeping the reasons for secrecy secret.
On face value a disappointing performance by all Councillors. But one at least purports to be about protecting community values.
Surely it is time for Councillors to show the community a fixed (short) timeframe for all deals to be revealed. Ongoing secrecy is surely not in the public interest….the whole process has a stench about it.
This is unacceptable, particularly in the light of recent claims of misconduct in almost every local government authority in southeast Queensland. I wonder what the Crime and Corruption Commission might make of this? On the surface, it appears that ratepayers are being excluded from the decision-making process and from accessing any relevant information that might inform them, including information that is critical to the democratic process. Why is the council trying to hide this detail from its electors under the guise of ‘commercial in confidence’? The council is not a private company: it is a public utility and must offer transparency in all of its dealings that involve public assets which include land, financial contributions and decisions that impact on these.
OMG such abuse of power. 18 years as a councillor we never signed a confidentiality agreement, so I guess the ones in power saw this as a tool to silence those who become concerned about the deals and are too weak to question. When the expressions of interests were first floated we heard that there were some developers interested, there was Toondah or Weinam or both as part of a agreement, Walker choose both. We now hear that Walker has pulled out of Weinam Creek PDA, so doesn’t that mean the signed agreement is now invalid. Looks like Walker Group has chosen the quick buck option, so a development being built in the bay on a marine park and a Ramsar site, is a goer. What is Mayor Williams covering up? I would expect if there are changes to the original agreement regarding Toondah then that agreement is invalid. So it says to the average person, lodge a wish, change it, add to it and do what you wish and Council is always flexible. But if 99% of the community did this to a development application it would have to be re-lodged as a new application. Why does Walker Group get special treatment? Wondering what the other interested parties were offering to develop at Toondah and Weinam Creek? I share the frustration of the majority of ratepayers who see this whole Toondah development as a sham. If I recall a PDA in Mackay, Brisbane City and Logan have all been open and the community was aware of the conditions, even though many were not happy. At least they were advised, Redlands Council should be sacked over this cover up. I have to wonder if the Councillors are aware they represent the community not a developer, what are they hiding????
As Walker is still fighting the Tasmanian govt thru the courts about deposits used for a development that was refused by the federal environment dept – that development was 12 klms away from RAMSAR protected wetlands!! How much is this council going to tie ratepayer’s into legal litigation when federal environment dept refuses this development??
A Governance Review for Ipswich City Council Sept 24th 2017 by “Reinforcements – Management Consultants” lists at page 22 under “Comparisons of Descision Making Disclosure on Local Government Websites” that for Redland City Council ” Minutes contain full report and recommendations. and audio recording of proceedings available.”
However we know that is wrong . Any Audit or Governance Report in Redlands must have Terms of Reference strongly fixed from outside of Governments.
The approved provisions kept secret in Redland City Council must relate to other public goods and public infrastructure agreements and other short cut approvals , given by Redland City Council and other liabilities and undisclosed impacts. There will be other externalities affecting urban, terrestrial areas and marine areas.
How can Redland City Council assess such developments without the environmental and environmental planning staff they sacked and without marine scientists ?
This shows a total contempt for all democratic principles. The entire Council should be sacked. We live here and should have every right to know what deals are taking place with our money as well as what vandalism will occur in the name of progress!