REDLANDS LANNING CHEME STATEMENT OF PROPOSALS ·...

$: REDLANDS LANNING CHEME STATEMENT OF PROPOSALS · G:\Plan&Pol\LandUsePlan\data\TECHNICAL\PLANNING\IPA PlanScheme\Statement of Proposals\Final Documents\SOP-CD\CoverPage&Index\SOP-RPSSubsCoverPage&Index.doc$
REDLAND SHIRE COUNCIL

REDLANDS PLANNING SCHEMESTATEMENT OF PROPOSALS

Review of submissions report – 7 November 2002

G:\Plan&Pol\LandUsePlan\data\TECHNICAL\PLANNING\IPA PlanScheme\Statement of Proposals\Final Documents\SOP-CD\CoverPage&Index\SOP-RPSSubsCoverPage&Index.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page Number

1. Key Issues 12. Site Specific Issues 21

2.1. Division 1 (Wellington Point) 212.2. Division 2 (Cleveland and North Stradbroke) 272.3. Division 3 (Thornlands) 342.4. Division 4 (Victoria Point and Coochiemudlo Island) 462.5. Division 5 (Redland Bay and Moreton Bay Islands) 532.6. Division 6 (Mount Cotton) 632.7. Division 7 (Alexandra Hills) 652.8. Division8 (Birkdale) 662.9. Division 9 (Capalaba) 67

2.10 Division 10 (Thorneside) 693. Miscellaneous Issues 704. State Agency Issues 88

4.1 Department Of Natural Resources and Mines - I 884.2 Department of Natural Resources and Mines – II 894.3 Energex – I 924.4 Department of Emergency Services 934.5 Queensland Police 934.6 Department of Primary Industries 934.7 Department of Families 944.8 Department of Housing 954.9 Department of State Development 964.10 Queensland Transport 964.11 Brisbane City Council 984.12 Department of Sport and Recreation 984.13 Environmental Protection Agency 984.14 Department of Local Government and Planning 1004.15 Energex - II 104

5. Internal Issues 1066. Non SOP Issues 108

REVIEW OF THE REDLAND SHIRE PLANNING SCHEME STATEMETN OF PROPOSALS (SOP) SUBMISSIONS

Review of Submissions Combined Issue Table 07-11-02 Page 1

ISSUE NO ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO. OFFICER COMMENT OFFICER AND COUNCIL

RECOMMENDATION1. KEY ISSUES1.1. Increase the Shire’s urban footprint and the

development of coastal areas for residential andrecreational purposes.

While there are opportunities to consolidate urbandensity around existing centres and transportationnodes, the absence of any broadacre sites in theplan significantly restricts the variety and diversityof housing product in the market place and doesnot recognise the ongoing desire for homebuyersto establish households on single unit housingestates with a range of lot sizes. The ongoingdemand for single unit housing in the next 10-15years will not be satisfied, thus impacting onhousing affordability, the social needs of residents,and economic growth in the Redlands.

It is naïve to think that the forecast population canbe accommodated with limited expansion of theurban footprint. A dual strategy is required to:(a) Ease the pressure for higher density living;(b) Ease the impact associated with the loss of a

thriving land development industry in the Shire;(c) Prevent land development applications; and(d) Continue a life-style trend that is accepted by

the Shire.

55, 146,321, 348,223258, 265,268, 269,270, 271

SpecificSites4, 44,104, 116,119, 141,142, 153,223, 228,227, 228,235, 236,243, 244,271, 273,274, 277,285, 288,291, 296,301, 304,310, 314,316, 317,318, 329,334, 335,339, 343,344, 345,353, 714,722, 723,728, 729

IntroductionThe notion of increasing the Shire’s “urban footprint” or “the area of land to be designated for urbanpurposes” is one that has undergone investigation as part of the development of the Planning Scheme.Deciding upon a development form, including the determination of areas to be developed or conservedbegan at the earliest stages of the planning process.

A number of submissions have focused on this matter, specifically relating the issue ofchanging rural non-urban lands to urban lands within the following localities:

• Springacre Road;• Kinross Road;• SPI 4 – Beverage Road and Cleveland/Redland Bay Road Thornlands.• Bunker and Worthing Road, Victoria Point; and• South of Redland Bay/ Point Talburpin.

Key issues relating to the development of the final policy decisions embodied in the Statement ofProposals are shown below:

Identification of Hard Constraints for Urban Development

From the information gathered and provided in the position papers the following hardconstraints were identified. Council, the Stakeholder Group and the Community ReferenceGroup all agreed on these constraints to further development:• Poultry areas and 500 metre buffers;• Environmentally sensitive areas including the SPP1/97 - Koala Coast• Dam catchments;• Buffers to extractive industries; and• Good Quality Agricultural Land that had not been designated for urban purposes.

Future Population Growth

Redland Shire is expected to experience sustained population over the planning period, withthe total Shire population growing from 118,021 persons in 2001 (pre release of ABS Censusdata) to 172,941 persons by 2016. This is an increase of 54,920 persons.

Location and capacity criteria used in the land use option assessment process identified that themajority of the population growth would be accommodated in the mainland areas of the Shire. Themainland population is projected to increase from 111,756 persons in 2001 to 157,301persons in 2016.This represents an increase of 45,545 persons.

Note - Release of the ABS Census data has occurred since public exhibition of the Statementof Proposals and will be used to prepare the Redland Planning Scheme.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION1. That the submitter note the

comments made in thereport;

2. That no change be made tothe “urban footprint” or “thearea of land to be designatedfor urban purposes”.

COUNCIL DECISION

“That the Officer’sRecommendation be adopted”(Special Meeting Minutes – 11November 2002)




RECOMMENDATION1. KEY ISSUES1.1(con’td)

SpecificSiteReports2.3.5,2.3.6,2.3.7,2.3.10,2.3.11,2.3.12,2.3.13,2.3.14,2.3.15,2.3.17,2.3.18,2.3.19,2.3.21,2.3.22,2.3.24,2.3.25,2.3.26,2.3.27,2.3.28,2.4.1,2.4.4,2.4.5,2.4.9,2.4.12,2.4.14,2.4.15,2.4.16,2.4.17,2.4.18,2.5.3,2.5.5,2.5.9,2.5.10,2.5.13,2.5.20,2.5.21,2.5.22,2.6.3

Residential Land Capacity

As part of investigations to identify future residential land requirements, a Residential LandCapacity Study of residential areas within the Shire was completed. This analysis wasintended to supplement existing broad-hectare investigations undertaken by the PlanningInformation & Forecasting Unit (PIFU) of the Department of Local Government and Planning(DLGP). The PIFU capacity analysis was confined to undeveloped land above 8000m2 inarea, and accordingly does not reveal potential and unrealised capacity of lands under8000m2 in area.

The assessment of actual capacity for planning purposes relied on the accurate identificationof:

1. Land Available for Future Residential Development

Broad-hectare assessment of land availability in the Shire, by the State government, is limitedto the identifying land parcels over 8000m2 hectares in area. To ensure the practicalassessment of capacity, a ‘fine-grain’ analysis of land availability within the Shire wasundertaken. For all lands with a Residential Preferred Dominant Land Use category on theStrategic Plan the following minimum lot sizes where used.

Medium Density Residential 800m2

Urban Residential 2000m2

Residential Low Density 8000m2

Park Residential 8000m2

Special Planning Intents All

Note - The Strategic Plan Preferred Dominant Land Use categories, rather than existing landuse zones were used to identify available land.

2. Assumed Density

The calculation of population capacity was based on an evaluation of ‘actual’ densities being achievedon the ground, rather than ‘proposed’ densities detailed in the Strategic Plan. The actual number ofdwellings being achieved ‘on the ground’ were:

Medium Density Residential 44.1Urban Residential 10.2Residential Low Density 3.9Park Residential 1.4Specific Planning Intent 1 10.9Specific Planning Intent 2 0.0Specific Planning Intent 3 5.7Specific Planning Intent 4 1.2Specific Planning Intent 5 8.3Specific Planning Intent 6 9.9

3. Dwelling Occupancy

A dwelling occupancy ratio of 1.8 persons per multiple dwelling and 3 persons per detacheddwelling was assumed for planning purposes.




RECOMMENDATION1. KEY ISSUES

1.1(con’td)

Findings

The following conclusions are drawn from the Residential Capacity Analysis Study for themainland areas of the Shire:

• Mainland population at 2016 – 157,301persons• Population increase from 2001 to 2016 - 54,920 persons• Strategic Plan ‘proposed’ densities – land is available to house – 160,034 persons• Based on ‘on the ground’ achieved densities – 148,607 persons.• Designated and undeveloped urban land will be exhausted by late 2012.• By 2016 need to house additional - 8,505 persons.

Land Use Option Development, Assessment and Selection Process

The process of developing and selecting the Preferred Land Use Option is detailed below.

Planning Parameters

State government’s Ecological Sustainability Principles examined and information fromPosition Papers distilled to form Planning Parameters. These Planning Parameters, togetherwith the population forecasts, were used as the basis for the development of sixteen LandUse Options.

Option Development

Sixteen options developed based on:• Four themes (Low Growth, Focussed Growth, Mixed Expansion and Dispersed); and• A range of population levels (low through to high growth).

Those Land Use Options were short-listed to six Options and included a dispersed option whichincluded the Orchard Road area, for more detailed assessment.

Assessment of Options

The process for evaluating and assessing the six options was based on scoring each Option against aseries of Assessment Criteria. The Assessment Criteria reflected the policy positions determined in thefirst 3 Stages of the planning process and the state government’s Ecological SustainabilityPrinciples. Together these provided a basis for measuring how each Option achieved ecologicalsustainability as defined in the Integrated Planning Act 1997.

To ensure the scoring process accurately reflected a variety of views, stakeholders were asked toweight the Assessment Criteria. These stakeholders included the Councillors, Council Officers (StaffSteering Committee), the Community Reference Group and the Key Stakeholders Group.

Results of Option Assessment

The results of the Land Use Option Assessment demonstrated the following:• Option 2 - Focussed Growth Medium Population Series was ranked first overall. This Option

ranked either first or second in all of the categories.• Option 1 Low Growth ranked first in the Environment Category. This was largely due to this

Option not extending the urban footprint and not involving any future population growth past thatdesignated in the existing Strategic Plan.

• Option 2 - Focussed Growth High Population Series was ranked first in the Urban Developmentand Transport Categories. This was consistent with the goals of consolidating within the currenturban footprint, ensuring more efficient public transport and encouraging more vital and vibrantCentres.





1.1(con’td)

Note - The dispersed Option as discussed in the submissions was ranked last in all categories.

The purpose of Land Use Option Assessment was to assist Council in selecting a preferred Option forpublic exhibition with the Statement of Proposals.

Final and Preferred Option

Option 2 - Focussed Growth Medium Population Series was selected as being the mostappropriate Option to be placed on public exhibition as it:• Ensured that the existing urban footprint of the Shire was not extended;• Encouraged more efficient public transport;• Promoted the protection of environmentally sensitive areas;• Encouraged more vital and vibrant Centres within the Shire; and• Allowed for an increase in population while retaining the character and lifestyle of the Redlands.

The Focussed Growth Medium Population Series Option would house –• 70 percent of population growth in detached dwellings, and• 30 percent of population growth in medium density development.

It is important to note that the term ’urban footprint’ has been used to describe the Option that waspublicly exhibited. In a similar manner to all other Options, except the low growth option, the selectedFocussed Growth Medium Population Series Option accommodates the anticipated level of populationgrowth within the Shire. The primary difference between the short-listed Options was the manner inwhich expected growth was to be accommodated, being either through the allocation of additionalareas, an increase in density or a combination of both.

Miscellaneous Issues

Park Residential Development

It should be noted that no further areas of Park Residential development have been designated in theSOP. There has been a distinct policy position in the SOP to promote urban consolidation around theexisting centres and transport nodes within the Shire.

It has also been recognised that within a constrained land supply situation, Park Residentialdevelopment constitutes a comparatively inefficient use of available residential land.

Poultry Industry

With regard to issues relating to the poultry industry, reference should be made to 1.10. Thecomments in 1.10 demonstrate that the poultry industry has a significant future within the Shire from aneconomic, landscape, environmental and social perspective.

Specific Planning Intent 4 - Beverage Road and Cleveland/Redland Bay Road Thornlands

Specific Planning Intent No. 4 has been retained in the SOP because it plays an importantrole in the separation of the Thornlands and Victoria Point urban communities, in a physicaland visual sense. All development within this area is intended to be predominantly openrather than built in nature in order to retain its rural non-urban character. The protection of theenvironmental values of the remnant bushland and coastal vegetation within the area is alsoconsidered to be important.`

In the new Planning Scheme, the SPI mechanism will be replaced by a more definitive meansof conveying the planning intent for the area.





1.1(con’td)

Development of the area is intended to be a mix of residential (6000m2 - 10,000m2 sizedallotments) and commercial, recreational and service orientated uses that are consistent withthe amenity of residents, the rural non-urban character and environmental values of the area.

It is not intended to provide reticulated sewerage to this area.

Conclusions

• The process that has been undertaken to develop the preferred land use option is based upon aclear, robust and thorough methodology.

• Based on current growth rates and assuming no augmentation of the current land supply outside ofareas presently designated for urban uses, it is estimated that spare residential land capacity willbe exhausted by late 2012, based on current trends. Current data does not support the notion thatthere is an unreasonably limited supply of land available for urban development.

• All further population growth, above that already designated in the existing Strategic Plan, will beaccommodated by the previously mentioned increase in densities around the Shire’s centres andtransport nodes, this will account for 30 percent of overall housing supply.

• The designation of land as Rural Non-Urban in the Statement of Proposals reflects that these areasare not intended to be developed for urban purposes.




RECOMMENDATION1 KEY ISSUES (continued)





1.2. While ecologically sustainable development isthe intention of the Planning Scheme, this cannotbe achieved without establishing an ecologicallysustainable population size. A study needs to beundertaken to determine the carrying capacity ofthe Shire.• Currently there are many examples of

unsustainable use of resources in the Shire.• Council needs to establish the densities

permitted in already established areas, in orderto ensure population pressures do notnegatively impact on the environment.

• Our ability to regenerate degradedenvironments and reverse social decline will bemore costly and less likely as the populationgrows.

AND

The rate of development in the Shire is out ofcontrol creating an increase in:• traffic congestion;• pollution levels;• loss of natural environment;• urban sprawl; and• crime.

Council needs to control this population growth asit is affecting the lifestyle of Redlands.

The planning time line is too short to adequatelytake into account population growth effects.Longer-term studies are required in order tomanage growth and reach the ‘cap’ in the future.

5, 18, 3435, 40,55, 60,70, 73,79, 81,98, 152,154, 251,254, 255,264, 284,293,19, 93,133, 225,226, 346

Introduction

An ‘ecologically sustainable’ population size is one that planners, the community, environmentalists,politicians and scientists around Australia will continue to address over the next 20 years. There areconflicting interpretations as to what is a sustainable population level and how it can be determined.

As correctly identified in the submission the Statement of Proposals seeks to achieveecological sustainability. This has been undertaken because:• It is a requirement of the Integrated Planning Act 1997; and• The community has strongly expressed an opinion that it wishes to conserve “what makes

Redlands special”.

It is important that the policies and measures included within the new Planning Schemecontinue the work of achieving ‘ecological sustainability’. It is equally important to realise thatecological sustainability as defined under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 includes thenatural environment, social well-being and economic development. It should not beinterpreted to only imply an emphasis on the protection of the natural environment at theexpense of social well being and / or economic growth.

What is Ecological Sustainability?

Ecological sustainability is defined in Section 1.3.3 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 as:

“a balance that integrates(a) protection of ecological processes and natural systems at local, regional, State and widerlevels; and(b) economic development; and(c) maintenance of the cultural, economic, physical and social well-being of people andcommunities.”

An examination of the above demonstrates that ecological sustainability is more than environmentalprotection, it is a balance of environmental, social and economic factors. To set a population levelbased only on environmental matters will not seek to achieve ecological sustainability.

How has the SOP sought to achieve Ecological Sustainability?

The Statement of Proposals has sought to achieve ecological sustainability by gathering as muchrelevant and contemporary data as possible and analysing that data to inform the preparation of LandUse Options. Refer to 1.1 for detailed discussion of the Land Use Option Development, Assessmentand Selection Process.

The Option scoring system was as objective as possible as it was based on quantitative andmeasurable criteria. For example, distance from Centres or transport nodes.

As a result, the Preferred Land Use Option presented in the Statement of Proposals is that optionwhich seeks to achieve ecological sustainability by balancing environmental, social and economicgoals. This has been achieved by:• Accommodating growth in a compact urban form;• Allowing for economic development and growth;• Providing a range of housing types and styles;• Encouraging more efficient public transport;

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION1. That the comments of the

submitters be noted.

2. That the submitters note thatan ecologically sustainablepopulation size must haveregard to balancingenvironmental, social andeconomic goals.

3. That the submitters note thatthe State, regional and localPlanning Scheme process isdesigned with the intention ofseeking to achieve ecologicalsustainability.

4. That the submitters note thatthe planning horizon isappropriate for the reasonsgiven and takes intoconsideration a number ofState, regional and local,required and identified,timeframes.

COUNCIL DECISION

“That the Officer’sRecommendation be adopted”(Special Meeting Minutes – 11November 2002)”





1.2(cont’d)

• Promoting the protection of environmentally sensitive areas;• Encouraging more vital and vibrant Centres within the Shire; and• Allowing for an increase in population while retaining the character and lifestyle of the Redlands.

Time Period of the Planning Scheme

Some submitters have queried the planning period of the new Planning Scheme. The planning periodproposed is 14 years (2002 to 2016). This time period is double that required by the IntegratedPlanning Act 1997 and is regarded as being appropriate because:• It looks forward two Planning Scheme periods;• It aligns with the Department of Local Government’s Population Growth Projections;• It allows land use decisions that can be based upon a degree of certainty. A period in excess of 14

to 15 years could result in outcomes that are presently not envisaged such as technology changesand climate change.

• More up to date information will be available in 14 years that will enable decision-makers of the dayto make informed decisions, rather than long-range predictions.

In addition, the planning period selected accords with a number of Regional and Council programmesthat aim to ecological sustainability. These include:

• SEQ2021 – Regional Framework for Growth Management, due for completion in 2004.• Redland Shire Council Community Plan• Redland Shire Council Corporate Plan• Priority Infrastructure Plan, as required by the Integrated Planning Act, has a timeframe of 15

years.• The three-year operational budget of Council includes –

State of the Environment Reporting Liveability Quality of Life Study Local Area Community Plans and Implementation of the Integrated Local Transport Plan.

Conclusions

1. Having regard to current information and planning practices, the urban pattern andpopulation level shown in the Statement of Proposals is one that has sought to achieveEcological Sustainability.

2. This is achieved by balancing population growth, environmental, social and economicgoals.

3. Population growth rate of Redland Shire is generally consistent with the growth rates ofother local authorities within Southeast Queensland.

4. In general the planning horizon of the Planning Scheme is consistent with the IntegratedPlanning Act, regional programmes and foreseeable population predictions.

Note - It should be noted that some of the policy positions contained within the Statement ofProposals provide outcomes that will extend beyond the planning horizon of 2016.





1.3. The capping of urban sprawl is a positive andstrong component of the SOP. It will allow for long-term sustainable development. There are manyalternative development patterns to urban sprawl.

30, 70,80, 88,159, 293,294, 312,330, 331,433, 730

The support of the submitters is noted in relation to containing urban development toidentified areas, thereby minimising urban sprawl.

Refer to 1.1 for detailed discussion of the Land Use Option Development, Assessment andSelection Process.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION1. The support of the submitters

is noted.

COUNCIL DECISION


1.4. Protection of the natural environment shouldbe increased and enhanced. the preferred landuse map only provides the shire’s ‘backyard’ fornatural bushland by:

(a). Increasing special protection areas to avoid‘islandisation’ and increase the survivalchances of species and the long term ‘health’ ofthe Redlands;

(b). Safeguarding all environmental areas, inparticular the Bay Islands;

(c). Retaining greenbelt areas between suburbs inorder to reduce the ‘built’ appearance;

(d). Place greater restrictions on development;(e). Provide alternative transport options;(f). Promote strategies involving 0% new urban

development;(g). Conducting environmental impact assessments

prior to any development on coastal areas orwetlands;

(h). Protecting the wetlands;(i). Encouraging sustainable development;(j). Encouraging sustainable tourist industries that

rely on the natural environment;(k). Protecting water catchments; and(l). Biodiversity can be best encouraged by

residents planting relevant native trees in theirbackyards to protect certain species.

10, 18,30, 34,81, 84,98, 114,148, 154,237, 272,282, 290,293, 297,307, 312,345, 430,433, 727,19, 60,93, 133,225, 226,346, 251

Introduction

The adopted Planning Scheme process is based on the purpose of the Integrated Planning Act 1997that is to seek to achieve ecological sustainability. As such it is considered that the new PlanningScheme will result in the further protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

Statement of Proposals – Preferred Land Use Map

The Preferred Land Use Map is supported by a range of environmental strategies that are specificallyreferenced in sections:• 3.4.1 – Nature Conservation Strategies;• 3.4.3 – Cultural Heritage; and• 3.4.5 – Environmental Management.

The Preferred Land Use Map is a conceptual representation of the strategies of the Statement ofProposals and is limited in the amount of information that it can display.

The Planning Scheme will include a range of detailed environmental controls and codes to protect theenvironment and manage the potential impacts of development.

Specific Comments

Responses to the specific comments are as follows:

(a) It is possible that the area of land included within a Special Protection zone, or similar zone, will beincreased in the new Planning Scheme. Investigation is being carried out to determine the mostappropriate zones and mechanisms to protect and enhance areas of environmental significance,within and outside, urban areas not only in Special Protection and rural non-urban areas.

(b) It is the intention of the Planning Scheme to incorporate a range of measures to protect andenhance environmental areas within the Shire.Note - Comments with respect to the Southern Moreton Bay Islands are specifically referenced inresponses to the Southern Moreton Bay Islands Statement of Proposals.

(c) Building on the provisions of the existing Town Plan, the new Planning Scheme will identify andprotect greenbelts that provide separation between communities.

(d) Where environmental values are identified, specific land management controls will be incorporatedinto the Planning Scheme.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION1. That the submitters note the

comments made.

COUNCIL DECISION“That the Officer’sRecommendation be adopted”(Special Meeting Minutes – 11November 2002)





1.4 (cont’d)

(e) The Planning Scheme preparation process has been run in parallel with the Integrated LocalTransport Plan. These planning processes have informed each other. The Planning Scheme has,as far as is practicable, supported transport options in the Shire through:• Increasing densities around Centres and transport nodes;• Discouraging urban sprawl, and the development of residential areas where the low density

nature of development results in unacceptable transport services due to provision practicalityor economic viability.

• Designating mixed-use transport corridors; and• Encouraging home based businesses, among other local employment opportunities.

(f) An Option of zero increase in new urban development was assessed as part of the OptionDevelopment Process. It was determined through assessment of the Options that this Option didnot score as well as the Preferred Land Use Option presented in the Statement of Proposalsbecause it did not:• Promote public transport;• Have the potential to create jobs within Redland Shire;• Have the ability to develop vital and vibrant urban centres;• Provide for a range of housing styles;• Recognise regional growth responsibilities; and• Provide for the sustainable provision of services to emerging communities.

(g) An environmental code will be developed as part of the Planning Scheme to ensure an appropriatelevel of assessment is carried out on or near sensitive environmental areas or wetlands.

(h) See (g).

(i) Refer to Introduction.

(j) Sustainable tourism will be encouraged in the Planning Scheme.

(k) Leslie Harrison Dam and North Stradbroke Island/Minjerribah catchments are identified and will beprotected in the new Planning Scheme to ensure water run-off, quality and quantity.

(l) It is agreed that biodiversity can be encouraged by residents planting native trees in theirbackyards. The Planning Scheme will encourage development to landscape using native species.

Note – Outside the constraints of the Integrated Planning Act and the Planning Scheme, Councilconducts numerous projects and initiatives to encourage landscaping and the retention of vegetationthat attract native fauna species. These initiatives include Indigiscapes and vegetation protectionorders.





1.5. Urban development of remaining farmlandsshould not be allowed.

The Shire’s agricultural lands should be maintainedand enhanced using the best soil and waterconservation practices. There appears to be no“Rural Agriculture” land on the Preferred Land UseMap. The best rural land has already been lost tourban development.

Existing farmlands need to be registered withCouncil, in order to allow greenbelts to remain andincrease in the future.

There should be increased allowances andencouragement for farmer crop growing and other“natural” industries, such as oil production, or otheron-site production industries. This will benefit thecommunity of Redlands by:

(a) Revitalising Redlands produce image;(b) Adding to the local food economy;(c) Improving environmental conditions;(d) Educating the community;(e) Improving the tourism industry; and(f) Improving social and community spirit.

9, 19, 30,41, 53,68, 74,98, 100,111, 114,125, 154,251, 272,307, 312,324, 326,34, 60,93, 133,225, 226,346

Introduction

One of the principle and underlying aims of the Statement of Proposals is the protection ofthe Rural Non Urban parts of the Shire for rural and economic and other compatible usesthat compliment the character of these areas. These areas are valued for their economicbase, visual and landscape qualities and environmental benefits.

Rural Strategies of the SOP

Specific Strategies of the Statement of Proposals relating to rural non-urban land thatdemonstrate a policy decision are shown as follows:

1. The Planning Scheme will secure the on-going viability of the Shires Poultry Industrythrough the protection of poultry farming areas and farm buffers from incompatible forms ofdevelopment including, but not limited to, urban and park residential development.

4. Under the new Planning Scheme, Council intends to satisfy the requirements of StatePlanning Policy 1/9 -2 to protect remaining areas of Good Quality Agricultural Land foragricultural and landscape purposes, except where currently designated for urban purposes.

12. Council recognises the strategic importance of the Shire to the cut flower and commerciallandscape industries, and as a research centre for poultry, plant and horticultural industries.

Rural Non-Urban Zoned Land Designated for Urban Development in the Strategic Plan

As a general policy decision it was decided that those parcels of rural non-urban land that is designatedin the Strategic Plan for urban development and as yet undeveloped for that purpose, will be retained inan urban land use zone. This policy decision is based on:• The prohibitive costs of acquiring this land or paying compensation claims;• The small amount of farmland which is yet undeveloped for urban purposes; and• The need to focus on those areas that are not designated for urban purposes.

Protection of the Environmental Values of Rural Non-Urban Areas

The Greenspace and Special Protection designations of the Strategic Plan, and the TreeProtection provisions of the Planning Scheme, ensure that the rural non-urban areas of theShire are protected from indiscriminate degradation. In the new Planning Scheme, it isproposed to build upon these controls by including provisions relating to:• Riparian corridors and waterways;• Intensive agriculture – including Poultry farming;• Landscape character;• Complimentary uses, such as nature based tourism;• Breaks and buffers between urban areas/villages.

Economic Opportunities in Rural Non-Urban Areas

The new Planning Scheme will encourage activities that compliment rural non-urban areasand generate employment and economic growth for the Shire, such as:• Nature, farm and rural based tourism opportunities;

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION1. That the concerns of the

submitters are noted.

2. That the submitters note thatone of the underlying policypositions of the Sop is theprotection of the rural non-urban areas of the Shire.

3. That the submitters note thecomments.

COUNCIL DECISION






1.5(cont’d)

• Production based attractions, such as Mount Cotton Winery;• Native and plantation forestry;• Agricultural research and development activities;

Refer to 1.10 for a detailed discussion on the Poultry Industry





1.6. Support the development of medium densityresidential uses surrounding the centres for thefollowing reasons:(a) Current zoning inhibits maximum use of

available land;(b) Easier access to services for a greater

population density;(c) Encouraging people to walk, rather than

vehicular use;(d) Provide the opportunity for increased retiree

living closer to services;(e) More integrated townships;(f) Ecologically sustainable principles of IPA will

be supported through consolidation;(g) Urban consolidation reduces urban sprawl; and(h) Urban consolidation is where the future

population trends are heading: less familyhomes and more 1-2 bedroom units.

6, 111,260, 299,326, 730

The support of the submitters is noted.

The Statement of Proposal and new Planning Scheme will encourage an increase in mediumdensity development, specifically around existing Centres and transport nodes. This policyposition is intended to expand the range of housing provided in the Shire and will worktowards accommodating 30 percent of the projected population growth top 2016.

Specific Strategies discussed in the Statement of Proposals include:

In relation to Residential Development –

The Planning Scheme will implement residential development strategies that support transportsystems, aim to consolidate urban development and achieve a compact urban form. Suchstrategies will seek to:• Re-allocate residential densities to maximise access to public transport nodes/corridors and to

major Centres and community facilities,• Reduce the extent of new residential areas outside the existing urban footprint to minimise

potential conflicts with areas of natural, landscape or character significance,• Encourage residential renewal and redevelopment in areas of obsolete or deteriorating housing

stock; and• Promote the use of existing infrastructure.

1 The Planning Scheme will seek to encourage the provision of a range of housing styles andaccommodation types to increase housing and locational choice that responds to the housingneeds of the community at all stages of their life cycle.

In relation to Residential development in Centres –

7 The Planning Scheme will seek to implement residential development strategies that supporttransport systems and aim to increase residential densities within and adjacent to designatedCentres. Such strategies will assist in enhancing the vibrancy and vitality of Centres by:• Increasing Centre populations,• Enhancing resident access to facilities and transport services, and• Contributing to the emergence activities that encourage use outside of normal business hours.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION1. That the support of the

submitters is noted.

COUNCIL DECISION


1.7. Higher density housing in the Shire should notbe supported:

a) It increases pollution levels;b) Higher density housing blights the landscape

and causes shadows in adjacent properties;c) Subdivisions in residential suburbs will cause

the disappearance of backyard habitats andspecies, especially birds;

d) Causes the disappearance of the villageenvironment character of the Redlands;

e) Elderly people in multi-storey dwellings arelikely to become more isolated;

f) Elderly people require wheelchair access andlifts are a fire hazard;

40, 69,73, 79,81, 93,98, 136,234, 254,255, 258,294, 308,350, 351,35319, 34,60, 93,133, 225,226, 346,258, 265,268, 269,

In response to the specific comments of the submitters the following comments are offered:

(a) Encouraging medium density development results in less pollution compared tostandard housing development. This is because:• There is less of a requirement to clear vegetation;• Public transport is made more efficient and cheaper;• There is less urban run-off into catchments and Moreton Bay; and• People are able to live closer to work, and therefore travel demand can be more

readily managed.

(b) Well-designed medium density development can provide a high quality living environment,while maintaining the residential character of surrounding development. The newPlanning Scheme will incorporate Codes specifically addressing the design of mediumdensity development types, including small lot housing, dual occupancy (attached anddetached), multiple dwelling units (being three or more dwellings) and apartment



2. That the submitters note that anunderlying policy position of theStatement of Proposals is theprovision of 30 percent ofpopulation growth, in mediumdensity housingt, in proximity toCentres and transport nodes.

3. That the submitters be notifiedthat further investigation beingundertaken in relation to thelocation of medium density





1.7(cont’d)

g) Social problems are likely to result, such ascrime;

h) The population will increase more, increasingtraffic congestion and the biodiversity of theShire;

i) There are no backyards for children to play in;and

j) The atmosphere of the ‘rural’ Redlands will belost.

k) Does not support higher density housing inCleveland or Victoria Point

l) There should be more Residential A land thanmedium density residential.

270, 271,432, 299,333

SpecificSites722

SpecificSiteReports2.5.22

buildings. It should also be noted that Council is currently undertaking a ResidentialDensity Assessment Study to investigate the potential location and intensity of mediumdensity development. This study will examine:• The character of specific areas;• The age and condition of the housing stock within those areas;• The ability of the local road network to handle increased traffic volumes;• The proximity to public transport and community infrastructure;• Existing use rights;• Lot sizes; and• Land values.The purpose of the study is to assess the potential for density increases in specific areasthat are in proximity to Major, District and Local Centres.

(c) For a discussion on subdivision in residential areas that may reduce in the loss ofbackyard habitats refer to 1.4.

(d) The potential loss of character within certain areas the Shire is an important factor toconsider when zoning land for medium density development. As explained in (b) theResidential Density Assessment Study will examine the impacts of a change in density onthe character of an area.

(e) With regard to housing for the elderly, the Statement of Proposal recognises that thepopulation within the Shire is ageing and increasing in numbers. The new PlanningScheme will incorporate a number of measures, these include, but are not limited to:• Defining a use for Housing for Aged Persons, specifically, that will provide design

requirements for retirement villages, hostels, nursing homes and the like;• Ensuring these housing types are located either within or adjoining Centres or in close

proximity to public transport. This will ensure that these forms of housing are notphysically and socially isolated from the rest of the community; and

• Provide specific design criteria to ensure a high quality living environment is obtainedfor the elderly.

• Encouraging housing forms that allow the elderly to remain near family through theprovision of Relatives Apartments.

• In addition, an Aged Persons Housing Strategy is being prepared that is being used toinform the Planning Scheme process. This document will incorporate measures toensure the elderly:• Are adequately housed;• Have access to all necessary facilities and services;• Allow ageing in place; and• Do not suffer from social isolation.

(f) A number of standards, namely Australian Standards exist to ensure lifts do not pose afire risk to residents. In addition, further investigation is being undertaken to determine theability of the new Planning Scheme to incorporate equitable access and adaptablehousing requirements.

(g) A number of measures will be incorporated into the new Planning Scheme to ensure

development in proximity toCentres and transport nodes.

4. That the submitters note thecomments provided.

COUNCIL DECISION






1.7(cont’d)

development maximises personal safety and property security, these include, but are notlimited to:• The design of development to facilitate casual surveillance of property entries and

public spaces;• Provision of adequate lighting; and• Entrenching Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles into

development design.

(h) Refer to (a)

(i) All medium density development will incorporate private and, where necessary, publicopen space that is of a size, dimension, location, privacy and provided with solar access,as a general requirements. This will ensure that regardless of the inhabitants, aged,families or young couples suitable private open space will be provided.

(j) Multiple dwellings are not planned to be located within the rural non-urban areas of theShire.

(k) The location of medium density in selected areas of Cleveland and Victoria Point isappropriate because these two areas have the following attributes:• They are focused on two major Centres;• They have increased access to public transport;• Are in proximity to social, community and health services; and• Have access to major road infrastructure.As explained in (b) above, the location of areas of medium density will have regard to a range offactors.

(l) The Statement of Proposals caters for the housing of expected population growth through theprovision of 70 percent urban residential, being predominantly detached homes, and 30 percentmedium density housing.





1.8. a) The PLU map shows a disproportionatepercentage of increased densities in theWellington Point area, as compared toCapalaba, Ormiston, Birkdale, Thorneside,Victoria Point and Thornlands.

b) Implications from this in the Wellington PointCentre may include:• Severe demands placed on traffic flows;• Shops will suffer from a decrease in

pedestrian activity;• Severe parking limitations will restrict

business development in the WellingtonPoint Centre (only currently a conveniencecentre); and

• May make it a dormitory area.

c) Increased densities would be more readilyabsorbed in Capalaba, Birkdale and RedlandBay.

d) Observing that there is limited broad hectareland available in this area for potential mediumdensity residential development, and over thelong term the source of land supply fromsubdivisions will diminish.

e) Many land parcels are not suitable for higherdensity development, due to narrow frontages.Some parcels have recently been renovatedand are therefore not going redevelopmentprospects in the near future.

f) Redevelopment in this area is becominguneconomic due to increased property prices.

g) Dwelling occupancy rates in the Shire aredeclining – perhaps consider increasingdwelling occupancy from 75 to 100 persons perhectare.

h) In order to stimulate higher densities ofdevelopment around transport nodes thefollowing should be implemented:• Expansion of higher density areas;• Increased of permissible population

densities;• Round permissible dwelling units to the next

whole number

136, 159,118

(a) The areas that are designated as Medium Density Residential are a reflection of the existing TownPlan zoning and Strategic Plan designations. Specific locations for the provision of medium densitydevelopment are currently being investigated. Refer to 1.7 for a detailed discussion on theResidential Density Assessment Study.

(b) An increase in the population in and around Centres has found to have the following beneficialeffects:• Decreased impacts upon road infrastructure within Centres because of increased

access to work, recreation areas, shops, restaurants and cafes;• An increase in pedestrian activity because of the increase in vitality and vibrancy of

Centres with more people in a Centre for longer periods;• In addition, medium density development will be required to provide resident and

visitor car parking on-site. As such, parking will not be required on the road frontageto the detriment of businesses.

(c) See (a) above and 1.7 for the further discussion relating to the location of medium densitydevelopment.

(d) It is agreed that there is limited broad-hectare land available in Wellington Point formedium density development.

(e) See (a) above and 1.7 for the further discussion relating to the location of medium densitydevelopment.

(f) See (a) above and 1.7 for the further discussion relating to the location of medium densitydevelopment.

(g) See (a) above and 1.7 for the further discussion relating to the location of medium densitydevelopment.

(h) Different mechanisms will be examined in terms of how to promote and also ensure gooddesign outcomes for medium density development.



2. That the submitters note that anunderlying policy position of theStatement of Proposals is theprovision of 30 percent ofhousing, in medium densitydevelopment, in proximity toCentres and transport nodes.

3. That the submitters be notifiedthat further investigation beingundertaken in relation to thelocation of medium densitydevelopment in proximity toCentres and transport nodes.


COUNCIL DECISION






1.9. The change in designation of land at the corner ofDouro Road and Main Road, Wellington Point,from Urban Residential to Medium DensityResidential will negatively impact on surroundingproperties as:• Urban Residential land values are adversely

affected by adjacent Medium DensityResidential developments;

• Redesignation is inconsistent with KeyFeatures of the SOP;

• The current village environment will be alteredand will be adversely affected by a largepopulation increase;

• Increased population will put severe demandson the traffic flows through the alreadycongested centre of Wellington Point;

• Severe parking restrictions will restrict businessdevelopment in the Wellington Point Centre.

There appears to be a disproportionate percentageof increased densities in Wellington Point,compared to the other major centres. Whereasincreased densities would be more readilyabsorbed in Capalaba, Birkdale and Redland Bay,the ‘Integrated Employment Centres’, rather thanWellington Point, with limited employmentopportunities.

The environment at the tip of Wellington Pointshould not be pressured by medium densityresidential development. The current tourist use ofthe land is already at its maximum level ofsustainability, with some existing traffic issues.

136, 239,241, 242,245, 303,333, 338,355through to429

The land at the corner of Douro Rd and Main Street at Wellington Point is currently zonedResidential A and designated as Medium Density Residential on the Strategic Plan.

Reference should also be made 1.7 for a general discussion on medium density developmentand 1.8 for a discussion on medium density development in proximity to Wellington PointCentre.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION1. That the submission be

noted.

2. That the submitters considerthe comment provided forIssue 1.7 and 1.8.

COUNCIL DECISION






1.10. 1The SOP plans to maintain the poultry industrymay not be validated as many of the poultryindustries in the Shire have:• Passed their used-by-date;• Are not economically viable to run any longer

due to new contract conditions in place;• Are in close proximity to schools, shops etc;

and• Would better be developed as residential land.

The 1997 Redland Strategic Plan Review identifiedthat poultry farms north of Boundary Road wereinconsistent with future urban growth needs of theShire – why has the SOP taken a different stance.

Concerned about the health effects of poultryfarms adjacent (within 2-3km) to residential landand the litigation implications of this.

There should be at least 500m between poultrysheds and neighbouring properties.

AND

Support the protection of Poultry Industry.

234, 258,350, 325,351, 46,104, 264,265, 71,347, 733

SpecificSites116, 227,236, 244,271, 273,314, 316,318, 329,335, 353

SpecificSiteReports2.3.5,2.3.7,2.3.10,2.3.11,2.3.17,2.3.19,2.3.22,2.3.25,2.3.28,2.4.4,2.4.9,2.4.16

267

Introduction

The poultry industry has, and continues to be, a dominant economic, environmental, socialand landscape feature of the rural and hinterland areas of the Shire. As a long-standingpolicy position within planning instruments of Council has sought to protect and encouragethis industry within the Shire. The poultry industry is a recognised contributor to the localeconomy and employment, and is a land use that is compatible with the character of the ruralnon-urban and environmental areas of the Shire.

1998 Strategic Plan

The existing Strategic Plan through its strategies had a major goal of protecting the poultryindustry because of its recognised economic, landscape and social contributions to the Shire.Relevant extracts of the Strategic Plan are shown below:

Economic Development objective (j)“(j) protecting the poultry industry by restricting urban encroachment into poultry farming areas in the

southern half of the Shire through:• designating the main areas of poultry farming located in the southern part of the Shire

as Rural Non Urban in the Strategic Plan and excluding urban development from thisarea;

• recognising the location of, and the necessity to provide adequate buffers around,existing poultry farms in the determination of development applications within theRural Non Urban area; and

• allowing the expansion of poultry farming in the Rural Non Urban area of the Shire asa land use, which is seen as being generally compatible with State Planning Policy1/97 - Conservation of koalas in the Koala Coast, where this can occur withoutunacceptable amenity impacts on the local area.”

Specific Planning Intent No 5Specific Planning Intent No. 5 located south of and adjoining Bunker Road is considered to besuitable for urban residential purposes. Areas to be retained for conservation, public openspace, buffers for existing poultry farms and drainage purposes are to be determined at thetime a development application is received.

Rural Non - Urban Intent“…………… The Rural Non Urban area contains most of the Shire’s poultry industryestablishments, a viable high value industry which can be compatible with the environmentalvalues of this area. The major areas of poultry farming activity are identified by the term“POULTRY INDUSTRY’ on the face of the Preferred Dominant Land Use Map. It is intendedto protect this industry in these areas by restricting development surrounding these propertiesto uses compatible with their operation. “

Some of the submissions correctly identify that the Kinross Road area was not identified bythe term POULTRY INDUSTRY on the face of the Preferred Dominant Land Use Map andthat this was as a result of a decision by Council that poultry in this location was inconsistentwith future urban growth needs of the Shire. This was true at the time because the Strategicland use decisions of the area were based upon the notion that this area was to be developedfor an Integrated Employment Centre for the Shire.


submitters noted.

2. That the submitters note thatone of the underlying policypositions of the Statement ofProposals is the protection ofthe Poultry Industry fromincompatible land uses.

3. That the Poultry Industry isrecognised and protected asa valuable state, regional andlocal economic andemployment generator.


COUNCIL DECISION






1.10(cont’d)

The benefits of locating a significant employment generator in this location outweighed the costs of theloss of a part of the Shire’s poultry industry. However, owing to significant public concern about thepotential impacts on the amenity of surrounding development, the Integrated Employment Areadesignation was removed from the Preferred Dominant Land Use Map and the area was designatedRural Non-Urban.

Following completion of the Strategic Plan Review, Council undertook to investigate the suitability ofthe Kinross Road area for Residential Low Density development, taking into consideration theconstraints to development presented by the environmental values and the existing uses of the area.

Since this Council resolution, it was determined that:• The Strategic Plan had provided for a sufficient area of land for urban residential development and

as such further land was not required in the near future;• That the designation of land for Residential Low Density development was an inefficient utilisation

of land and infrastructure, which was reinforced by State Government; and• Local planning processes would determine the future designation of the land or the next Planning

Scheme review.

It was against this background that the decisions relating to the Kinross Road area weremade during Stage 1 of the Planning Scheme and reflected in the Statement of Proposals.As far as Council, the consultants and landowners in the area were concerned, the future landuses in the Kinross Road area would have to be re-examined having regard to a range ofissues.

Viability of the Poultry Industry

Many of the submissions called into question the viability and future of the poultry industrywithin the Shire. The following represents a discussion of the viability of the industry withinRedlands.

The Poultry Industry Task Force Report (1999) observed that Redlands has the full spectrumof the industry i.e. growers and processors. There are 33 growers, 3 hatcheries and twoprocessors. Approximately 620 people are employed in the industry.

As part of the development of the Planning Scheme, a Poultry Industry Project was established toensure that land use decisions made in relation to the Scheme were based on the best possibleinformation available. Steggles, Golden Cockerall and Ingham acknowledged that the industry ispresently going through a restructuring process owing to:

1. The required renewal of chicken licenses (many are over 30 years old). The renewal oflicenses is dependent on 2 and 3 below.

2. The changes to the desired size of farms. Many farms presently have 80 000 to 150 000chickens. The new requirement is for an absolute minimum of 120 000 chickens with anoptimum size of around 250 000 chickens.

3. The need for farms to utilise wind tunnelling as a mechanism to cool the chickens moreefficiently.

All three companies believe that the industry within Redland Shire is viable, as long as itcontinues to receive adequate protection from conflicting land uses. From the perspective of





1.10(cont’d)

Inghams, Redland Shire is now extremely important because of its proximity to their Murrarieprocessing plant (all birds must come from locations no more than 1.5 hours driving timeaway) and the fact that outer lying local authorities such as Beaudesert Shire are restrictingthe location of new operations. The significance of the proximity of farms to processingfacilities lies in the increasingly unacceptable levels of bird ‘die – off’ as distances betweenthe farm and processing plant increase. Golden Cockerall is also extremely supportive of theindustry because of its processing plant located within the Shire and its dependence onchickens from the Shire.

The companies have also stated that they are no longer as concerned with the outbreak ofdiseases as long as there is a distance of 1 km between their own farms and 2.5 kilometresbetween their farms and those of their competitors.

A meeting was held with representatives from the Springacre Road area. These landownershad differing goals and objectives regarding the future use of their land. Some of thelandowners are poultry farmers who wish to continue and expand their operations. Theseoperators whom are on the eastern side of Springacre Road and are concerned about theadverse community reaction in response to their recent proposals to expand from nearbyresidents (i.e. Those residing near Venn Parade). Other landowners held the view that theirland should be re-classified to allow some form of residential development. Some poultryfarm owners would also look in the longer term to reclassify their land for residential purposesif Council refuses their plans for poultry expansion.

On balance the poultry industry has a significant future within the Shire. Undoubtedlyrestructuring will occur which is a requirement of the processors. Importantly, the industry willonly remain viable if it continues to receive support from Council’s planning instruments andthe resultant planning decisions based on those instruments.

Industry Protection or Urban Expansion?

Poultry farming areas are experiencing increasing development pressure as areas availablefor broad-hectare residential subdivision diminish. In dollar value terms residentialdevelopment undoubtedly represents an attractive proposition to those occupying rural landand even undertaking profitable rural pursuits as returns are more pronounced and immediateeven if only in the short term.

Proposals to convert such areas to urban residential use are reminiscent of the trends whichcontributed to the at first gradual (1970s and 1980s), then rapid loss of red soil farming landsin the early to mid 1990’s. At that time, arguments presented by landholders on the decliningviability of agricultural operations were put forward as justification for the conversion of suchareas to urban use. Arguably the viability of the Shires agricultural sector had beencompromised much earlier in part by historical land use decisions, which had both diminishedand fragmented production areas.

Urban encroachment into core poultry production areas while appearing innocuous on a caseby case basis could inevitably:• Contribute to the fragmentation of core production areas;• Result in increased development pressure on adjoining operators (notwithstanding that





1.10(cont’d)

such operations may comprise viable enterprises);• Result in a general diminution of rural and landscape character values; and• Establish a precedent, which will make it more difficult for Council to refuse similar urban

development proposals in other rural areas, or defend refusals in the Planning andEnvironment Court.

Even limited urban expansion into otherwise unconstrained rural areas has the potential toactivate a cycle of on-going encroachment and unchecked urban sprawl into associated areaswhich presently perform important economic and character/landscape functions. It isimportant to be cognisant of the wider implications of localised land use decisions on the long-term viability of what is presently a robust contributor to the local economy and rural characterof the Shire.

The protection of industries, which are viable and contribute in a significant way to the localeconomy provides a key means of achieving the economic development element ofecological sustainability under IPA.

Buffer and Planning Controls – Drafting of the Planning Scheme

Some of the submissions assert that the existing buffers included within the existing PlanningScheme should be redrafted and are inadequate. The existing controls in the PlanningScheme were analysed as part of the development of the Rural Position paper and werefound to be adequate in their protection of the poultry industry but required enhancement andrefinement. Further mechanisms that may be incorporated include:• The 500-metre buffer rule to remain in relation to existing farms. The rule may also be

clarified so that it extends to the boundary of the existing farms to allow expansion of thefarms operations.

• All sensitive land use, namely residential subdivisions, within the 500-metre buffer may besubject to code assessment to ensure that these land uses do not affect the viability of thefarm.

• All expansions to poultry farms may be subject to code assessment and not impactassessment, which recognises their importance to the Shire.

• An Intensive Agriculture Code will be developed to assess the expansion of poultry farmsto minimise environmental and amenity impacts.

Designation of “POULTRY INDUSTRY” on the SOP Preferred Land Use Map

A few of the submitters have raised the concern that the location of the term “POULTRYINDUSTRY” on the Preferred Land Use Map is incorrect. It should be noted that the“POULTRY INDUSTRY” terms on the map are schematic and are meant to show in a‘strategic’ sense the location of the existing operations. These locations are not intended tobe exact.

At this stage in the drafting of the Planning Scheme it is unclear how existing operations willbe shown on the zoning maps. Controls will be drafted that ensure that any new operationswill only be able to locate in an area if:• There are significant buffers between the proposed use and existing residential areas;• Run-off and effluent can be controlled;





1.10(cont’d)

• The use does not require significant clearing of native vegetation; and• Effective access can be gained to the site.

In relation to the assertions that the Rural areas of the Shire are not suitable for poultryoperations it should be noted that the Rural-Non Urban parts of the Shire are included withinthis designation to denote that they are not suitable for urban development. The intent of theRural Non-urban designation of the existing Strategic Plan demonstrates this.

“This designation indicates the location of the major rural non urban parts of the Shire whichare intended not to be developed for urban purposes. The area includes large areas ofsignificant habitat value for koalas and other native fauna, as well as land used for agriculturaland other rural based activities (particularly the poultry industry). The area has alsobeen identified as being critical to the overall maintenance of the landscape character of theShire………..”.

Effects of Poultry Farms on Health

There is no information to suggest that poultry farms have adverse impacts upon the health ofpeople within neighbouring residential areas. The 500-metre buffer is required to minimisethe noise and odour nuisances, which may form ongoing problems if urban residentialdevelopment is located within 500 metres of an operation. Likewise the risk of transmissionof disease to the poultry is also of concern for the growers where residential development iswithin 500 metres of an operation.

Environmental Impacts of Poultry Farms

It is acknowledged that there are there are environmental impacts, namely odour and noise,associated with the poultry industry. Council’s planning laws and the EnvironmentalProtection Agency’s licensing requirements are in place to ensure that these impacts areminimised. In particular, the new Planning Scheme, as mentioned previously, will include anIntensive Agriculture Code to assess the expansion of poultry farms in a manner thatminimises the environmental and amenity impacts.In addition, the Poultry Industry’s Code of Practise seeks to minimise impacts through on-sitemanagement initiatives and operational improvements.





1.11. 1. The residents surrounding Kinross Road arestrongly opposed to the land being zonedindustrial.

2. Lorikeet Street and Kinross Road should beconsidered for a combination of Low DensityResidential and Urban Residential for thefollowing reasons:

(a) The community has been opposed toIndustrial uses at this site for over 6 years.

(b) The area is not suitable for rural purposes.(c) The current industrial use of the land brings

semi-trailers, noise and air pollution, to theadjacent residential area.

(d) Surrounding areas are already developedfor residential purposes.

(e) Eastern end of Kinross Road has beenapproved for residential uses.

(f) There are extensive views to the sea andcity as viewed from the site.

(g) This area is prime, high-set land, ideallysuited to a Park Residential development.

(h) Increased traffic on Panorama Drive andWellington Street may occur from theproposed re-designation.

(i) Council had previously promised theresidents that the land would be designatedResidential.

(j) The development of the area will helpachieve the objectives outlined in the SOP.

(k) Subject site is close to all services, waterand sewerage infrastructure

3. An investigation of the Kinross Road areaneeds to be undertaken to ascertain theadverse amenity impacts of the existingpoultry farms on adjoining residential areas.

51, 157,165, 193through to222, 263,294, 320,327, 504through to706, 711,712, 716,724, 725

SpecificSites317, 343,723

SpecificSite Issues-2.3.18,2.3.21 and2.3.23

1. The Kinross Road area in the Statement Of Proposals Preferred Land Use Map is not identified asan industrial designation. The land has been retained within the Rural Non-Urban designation andallows for the continued operation of existing lawful land uses in the area. It is also proposed togive added statutory recognition to the poultry operations through the protection of these uses.

2. It is understood that the community surrounding Kinross Road wish that the precinct is re-designated to a residential designation to give certainty of outcomes. The following offers specificcomments in relation to those matters raised in the submissions.

(a) The precinct is not intended to be zoned for industrial purposes. It is acknowledged that theoperating conditions of poultry farms makes it necessary for buffers of approximately 500-metres to surround the chicken sheds (potentially from the lot boundary). It has beensuggested that the buffers are also be able to be used for alternate uses which:• Do not impact upon the operation of the chicken farms;• Are not sensitive to the operating conditions of the farms;• Allow the chicken farmers to gain some economic return from the buffers; and• Do not impact upon the environmental and landscape qualities of the buffers.

These potential uses will not be industrial in their nature nor will they have the ability to impactupon surrounding residential areas.

(b) According to the chicken processors, the two poultry farms located within the Kinross Roadprecinct are two of the most efficient and well-run operations within the Shire. These useshave operated on this land in access of 25 years. Because of the efficient and clean operatingconditions of these two farms, Council is aware that they operate with little or no impacts uponareas designated for residential purposes. For further discussion in relation to Poultry Farmsrefer to 1.10.

Examination of the location of the existing poultry farms and the application of the 500 metrebuffers from the sheds demonstrates that a limited area of land designated for residentialpurposes is within these buffer areas.

(c) It is not agreed that the present industrial land uses in the area brings semi-trailers, noise andair pollution, to the adjacent residential areas. It is considered that these ‘industrial’ uses aresufficiently separated from the residential uses so as not to impact upon the amenity ofresidential areas. With respect to industrial uses it should also be noted three specific areashave been identified for Integrated Employment Centres. These are located at Capalaba (2)and Redland Bay (1).

(d) The areas within the Kinross Road precinct that are presently being developed for urbanpurposes are those areas that are included within the Urban Residential designation on theexisting Strategic Plan. These areas are clearly outside the 500 metre buffers of the existingpoultry operations and as such are therefore not affected by potential impacts upon urbanamenity.

(e) Refer to (d).

(f) It is acknowledged that the Kinross Road precinct is elevated with views to the bay and city.

(g) The physical characteristics of land are one measure of its suitability to be used or developedfor residential purposes. The amount of land allocated to accommodate residential growthmust also be mindful of the level of population growth expected, and ensure that provisionmatches need. The Planning Scheme needs to accommodate growth, but the manner in which

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION1. That the proposed

designation of Rural Non-Urban remain over theKinross Road land.

COUNCIL DECISION






1.11(cont’d)

growth is accommodated may vary, including density increase, land allocation or a combinationof both. The Land Use Option adopted for public exhibition within the Statement of Proposalsaccommodate growth through density increases and residential land allocation is areas otherthan Kinross Road. This reflects the fact that alternative locations provided less constrainedopportunities to accommodate expected growth, and / or were more consistent with achievingother favourable outcomes e.g. promoting efficient public transport, centre vitality. Theretention of the Rural designation over Kinross Road had regard to a range of issues includingthe following:• The recognition by the Council that the poultry industry makes a vital economic, social, and

landscape contribution to the Shire. As a result, Council has made a conscious decision toprotect those areas where the poultry farms are located. In this particular case, the twofarms located in the Kinross Road area are regarded by the chicken processors as beingtwo of the most efficient and well run operations in the Shire;

• Analysis of Council and the State Government databases demonstrated that sufficientundeveloped land is designated for urban residential development. This land bank issufficient to cater for the Shire’s growth until the year 2012. As a result, further greenfieldsubdivision within the Shire are not required. Refer to 1.1 for a detailed discussion; and

• The need to consolidate urban development around the existing centres and transportnodes within the Shire. This consolidation is proposed to:

Make the Shire’s centres more vital and vibrant; Increase public transport efficiency; Ensure that the Shire’s environmentally sensitive areas are protected; Ensure the more efficient provision of infrastructure; and Provide a range of housing types for all sections of the community.

(h) Maintaining the existing uses in the Kinross Road area will not cause an increase in trafficalong Panorama Drive and Wellington Street.

(i) Council stated when the existing Strategic Plan was being approved, that it would investigatethe use of land for low-density residential uses. Since this time, and through the currentPlanning Scheme review process it has been determined, as explained in (g) above that theland should be retained and designated for rural purposes.

(j) The development of this land could achieve some of the objectives of the Statement ofProposals. However, the detailed and methodical process undertaken to develop and assessthe Land Use Options clearly determined that a consolidated land use pattern would bestachieve ecological sustainability and the policy positions presented in the Statement OfProposals. Refer to 1.2 for a detailed discussion.

(k) Refer to (g)

3. It is not considered warranted to make investigations regarding the impacts upon the amenity ofadjoining residential areas. As stated previously, the two poultry farms in the area are regarded asbeing two of the most efficient and well run the Shire. Council and the community have had fewcomplaints regarding the operation of these existing and lawful uses.





1.12. The ‘Tourist, Business and Accommodation’ PLUdesignation on Coochiemudlo Island provides adensity and style of development that is excessiveand contrary to the principles contained in the‘Coochiemudlo Island Vision Statement 2020’. ThePlanning scheme should take into considerationthe principles of this document, which includeprotecting the fragility of the Island.

A street tree planting scheme should be developedto help alleviate the effects of frees being cut downto build houses.

Until Council establishes appropriate infrastructureon the Island, particularly STP, there is no scopefor increased development.

120, 167through to192, 305,438, 439through to503, 721,734, 735,736

The land referred to in the submissions on Coochiemudlo Island is included within the Tourist,Business and Accommodation designation in the SOP. This designation has been placedover the land to reflect the current designation in the Strategic Plan. Within the CurrentStrategic Plan the following statement are made relating to this designation for the Shire as awhole and in specific areas.

“4.3.7 Tourist Business and Accommodation

This designation indicates the location of areas considered suitable for a mixture of businessdevelopment (including shops), residential development and other compatible uses, whichcater primarily for tourists, holidaymakers and day-trippers.

Further development in these areas will be subject to being able to demonstrate that it doesnot adversely impact on the amenity of surrounding urban residential areas. Development inthis designation would generally not exceed four storeys in height and a residential densitycomponent of 100 persons per hectare. Other densities and height limits may be consideredby Council where provided for in a relevant Local Area Plan or where justified or required bygood design, the characteristics of the site including the urban services available, and theamenity of the surrounding area.

Designated area located at Victoria Parade and Eprapah Street, Coochiemudlo Island

The designated area is considered particularly suitable for tourist accommodation uses andrefreshment establishments. It is also considered suitable for recreational uses. Such usesor any other use for which consent shall be granted shall be of relatively low intensity. Twostoreys is considered an appropriate maximum height for any building.

Designated area located at Victoria Parade and Elizabeth Street, Coochiemudlo Island

The designated area is considered particularly suitable for tourist accommodation andservices and refreshment establishments. Such uses or any other use for which consentshall be granted shall be of relatively low intensity. Two storeys is considered an appropriatemaximum height for any building.

In areas of the Shire identified as having cultural heritage values, the extent to which newdevelopment either protects, enhances or alternatively threatens these values will be takeninto consideration by the Council in determining development applications. Theseconsiderations have particular relevance to those areas identified in the Redland HeritageStudy as containing places and precincts of possible heritage significance, including, forexample, Cleveland and Cleveland Point, Wellington Point, Birkdale, Victoria Point andRedland Bay. The Council will develop performance standards and design requirements forthe protection of areas identified as having cultural heritage values and such provisions mayalter or moderate the land use, density, height, design and other development parametersthat would otherwise apply to new development.

The Council may also require development to make particular provision for customerstravelling by public transport, including where appropriate, adequate provision for taxis andcoaches.”

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION1. That the submitters note the

comments made.

2. That the land remains withina Tourist, Business andAccommodation (or similar)zone.

3. That further investigation bemade by Council to ensurethat the planning controlsrelating to the Islandrecognise the identifiedcharacter of the island andprotect that character fromthe potentially negativeimpacts of inappropriatedevelopment.

COUNCIL DECISION






1.12(cont’d)

The above demonstrates that Council intended through the Strategic plan to ensure that thisarea on Coochiemudlo Island (and in particular this land) was developed in a sensitivemanner and in character with the Island and the community’s vision.

The new Planning Scheme will place the land referenced in the submissions within a zonethat reflects the land’s future and ultimate use (similar to a Strategic Plan). It is stillconsidered that the land be included within a Tourist Business and Tourism zone, howeverfurther examination is required regarding the development controls to be placed over this landthat ensures the special character of the island is not negatively impacted upon.

1.13. Concerned that the resource based industries ofthe Shire (including extractive industries) areincluded in the “rural” category of land, rather thanin one of its own.

The SOP does not have a clear strategy to protectextractive resources. The proposed scheme shouldprotect extractive resources and provideappropriate buffer zones and haul routes for suchresources

The scheme should adopt a “key resource area” forthe resources.

The Scheme should state that there should be noincompatible development, which could lead to thesterilization of known extractive resources, andincompatible land uses should be excluded fromareas surrounding extractive industries.

The SOP in its current form lacks balance, as itdoes not identify a mechanism to triggerappropriate assessment of potentially conflictingdevelopment applications within certain distancesfrom identified extractive resources.

The Association supports the use of a “ConstraintsCode” for the assessment of building works andMCU and Re-configuring a lots applications to beimpact assessable within trigger areas.

306, 1,713 Introduction

The SOP provides for the protection of extractive resources within the Shire, but seeks tobalance this protection with the needs to protect core environmental and habitat areas. Aspart of the development of the SOP Council officers and the consultants held a number ofmeetings with officers from the following Departments:• Department of Natural Resources and Mines;• Department of Environment and Heritage; and• The Department of Local Government and Planning.

In addition all State Agencies including the Department of Natural Resources and Mines wereconsulted extensive during Stage 1 of the Planning Scheme via a range of measuresincluding six (6) state agency briefings.

The strategies included within the SOP reflected the outcomes of these meetings.

State and Regional IssueAt the beginning of the planning review process, Council identified that the conflict betweenthe Koala Coast State Planning Policy and the draft Extractive Resources State PlanningPolicy was clearly an issue of State and Regional significance, and accordingly one thatwould need to be resolved by the State. This position was agreed by DNRM, the EPA andDLGP, the lead agencies for planning related matters. As a result the Department of LocalGovernment and Planning agreed to co-ordinate in the process of reconciling this conflict andhence a number of specific meetings were held with the relevant Government stakeholders.

The statements made in the SOP reflect the outcomes of the meetings where it was resolvedthat:

The Planning Scheme will identify and provide for the sustainable extraction ofresources of economic significance including minerals, sand, rock and gravel.Extraction and haulage of such resources will be balanced with the need to protect thenatural, character and landscape values of resource areas.

This will be achieved through the recognition of existing development approvals andlimits of extraction. Future expansion of extractive operations, particularly where suchexpansion may lead to direct conflict with competing needs to protect coreenvironmental and habitat areas, such as West Mt Cotton, will be subject to

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION1. That the submitters be

advised of Councilcomments.

2. That Council note thecomments and alsoapproach the Department ofLocal Government andPlanning with a request forthe Department to act as thelead agency and resolve theconflict between theprotection of extractiveresources within the Shireand the protection of thecore environmental andhabitat areas of the Shire.

COUNCIL DECISION






1.3(cont’d)

assessment against designated criteria under the Planning Scheme.

During the drafting of the Planning Scheme, expansion criteria will be jointly derivedby Council, the Department of Natural Resources and Mining (DNRM) and theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA). The criteria will provide an assessmentframework for future extractive industry expansion proposals and will address, amongother things.

• The likely impact of any expansion on core natural and habitat, particularlykoala habitat, values;

• The implications of the proposal in terms of the requirements of State PlanningPolicy 1/97 Œ Conservation of Koalas in the Koala Coast

• The economic need for any expansion;• Projected off-site impacts associated with the expanded extractive operation

including those related to operational and haulage processes;• Proposed regeneration and rehabilitation measures, and associated

implementation programs; and• Any associated compensatory measures designed to minimise cumulative

environmental impacts.

Since the SOP has been on public display, DNRM has through the drafting of the documenttitled ‘Key Resource Areas in Redland Shire’ attempted to put forward a policy positionprotecting key resource areas. As a result it can be construed that the balance that wassought to be achieved at the beginning of the process no longer applies and that the DNRM isof the belief (as is their charter) that the protection of these resources over rides the need toprotect the environmental attributes of the area.

Ability to influence outcomes.Whether the approach DNRM has taken is supported or rejected by Council. The conflictbetween the Koala Coast and Key Resource Areas is clearly a State and Regional issue andone that will need to be resolved by the State.

As a result, is strongly recommended that representations are required to be made toDepartment of Local Government and Planning requesting them to resolve the conflictbetween the environmental values of the area and its extractive resources as an issue ofState and Regional Significance.

RREEVVIIEEWW OOFF TTHHEE RREEDDLLAANNDD SSHHIIRREE PPLLAANNNNIINNGG SSCCHHEEMMEE SSTTAATTEEMMEENNTT OOFF PPRROOPPOOSSAALLSS ((SSOOPP)) SSUUBBMMIISSSSIIOONNSS

G:\Plan&Pol\LandUsePlan\data\TECHNICAL\PLANNING\IPA PlanScheme\Statement of Proposals\Final Documents\SOP SPLIT\Section 2 Divisions\SECTION 2 - 2.1.1 - 2.1.16 - FOR DISTRIBUTION.docPage

1


RECOMMENDATION2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.1 WELLINGTON POINT – DIVISION 12.1.1. Requests a statement of proposals for land, as it is

designated Urban Residential under the new SOP,whereas it currently operates as local shopping andcommercial.

RPD: Lot 1 on SP137991Property Address: 2-20 Shore Street, OrmistonCurrent Zoning: Residential A & ComprehensiveDevelopmentCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: ServiceCommercial & Urban Residential

11 The designation in the SOP over the subject land reflects the designationunder the existing Strategic Plan of Urban Residential.

It is acknowledged that the subject site has been developed for TakeawayFoods (Red Rooster) and local convenience uses and is likely to continueto be used for this purpose over a longer period of time.

On the present planning scheme the land is identified as a non-preferreddesignation.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION1. The site should be included within a zone in the

new planning scheme that reflects its presentuse.

2. The submitter is advised of this decision.

COUNCIL DECISION

“That the Officer’s Recommendation beadopted”(Special Meeting Minutes – 11 November2002)



2


RECOMMENDATION2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.1 WELLINGTON POINT – DIVISION 12.1.2. The subject land should not be classified as ‘Special

Protection’ as:(a) It is not significant for koalas or wildlife(b) It is grazed and mostly cleared(c) It has full services (water, sewerage)(d) Nearby land of the same characteristics is

‘Residential Low Density’ and Urban Residential’(e) It is close to rail, schools and shops

The land should be classified as some form of urbanuse (not too dense) in the future in order to use thepotential of the site.

RPD: Lot 3 on RP209627 and Lot 22 on C145611Property Address: 47-51Dundas Street, OrmistonCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecialProtection

62 The inclusion of the land as Special Protection reflects its designationunder the existing Strategic Plan.

The Special Protection designation includes those areas within the mainurban parts of the Shire that have been identified as possessing naturalenvironmental qualities worthy of conservation. These areas include manyareas of remnant vegetation that provide important habitat, corridor andvisual landscape values.

Land was designated under the existing Strategic Plan as SpecialProtection using the following methodology outlined in section 3.4.2 of theStrategic Plan Part B supporting information.

“In some areas identified in the Environmental Inventory it is consideredthat the primary land use consideration is protection or enhancement ofhabitat, even though there may be other land uses which currently existand which will be permitted to continue. Where these circumstances apply,the Preferred Dominant Land Use Map indicates those areas where thereare environmental characteristics important enough to warrant theirinclusion as Special Protection Areas.

Those categories of the Environmental Inventory considered to be of animportance that warrants consideration for inclusion in the SpecialProtection Category for protection or enhancement of habitat are shown inTable 3.4.1.

Table 3.4.1: Conservation Management areas that warrant consideration for inclusion in thePreferred Dominant Land Use Map as Special Protection Areas are shown with a cross.

Land is not included in the Special Protection Areas where there are land usedesignations, which provide for land uses which, if properly designed andmanaged, can incorporate protection of habitat values. These land usedesignations include the Water Supply Catchment, Non Urban and ParkResidential designations.

It should be noted however that the inclusion of the land in the Special Protectiondesignation generally precludes the use of the land for urban purposes. Any otherdevelopment must not impact upon those environmental values that wereinstrumental in the site being included within the Special Protection designation.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION1. The inclusion of the land within the Special

Protection designation should be verifiedagainst the latest update to theenvironmental inventory.


COUNCIL DECISION


Habitat Patch Mosaic Corridors Links Tidal Foreshore

Priority X X N/A X N/A X N/A

Major X X X X N/A X

General X X N/A X X N/A N/A

Enhancement N/A N/A X X N/A X

N/A denotes that a CMA category does not exist.



3


RECOMMENDATION2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.1 WELLINGTON POINT – DIVISION 12.1.3. Are there any intentions under the new Planning

Scheme for Rose Street to be rezoned Urban orMedium density residential, as are other areas within200 metres of Rose Street.

RPD: Lot 2 on RP178379Property Address: 46 Rose Street, OrmistonCurrent Zoning: Low Density ResidentialCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: ResidentialLow Density

83 The area of land within the Rose Street precinct has been included withinthe Residential Low Density Urban area.

This designation was included in the Strategic Plan to reflect the zoningand character of development on the land.

Given the philosophy within the Statement of Proposals to consolidatedevelopment to:• Ensure that the urban footprint is maintained;• Increase public transport efficiency;• Protect important resources and industries;• Retain the character of the Shire;• Safeguard the environmentally sensitive areas of the Shire; and• Promote an efficient pattern of development that makes better use of

existing infrastructure.

It is considered appropriate to investigate the inclusion of the land within aresidential zone/designation or similar.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

1. That the land is considered for possibleinclusion within a residential zone or similar.

2. That the submitter be advised of this decision.

COUNCIL DECISION




4


RECOMMENDATION2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.1 WELLINGTON POINT – DIVISION 12.1.4. Believe that these two lots of land should be converted to

Residential B, or Medium Density Residential under thenew planning scheme for the following reasons:(a) Properties are within 150m of the rail station,

therefore support a higher density designation(b) Adjacent land uses are currently designated

Medium Density, and are further away from rail,shopping and sporting facilities

(c) The locality is in a superior position to beconsidered suitable for multiple dwellings

(d) There is a scarcity of land available in theimmediate area, and consolidation is animportant aspect of the SOP

(e) Nearby allotments will not be affected by aprecedent, as many are not a suitable size formedium density purposes, in addition low andmedium density are suitable adjacent land uses

(f) Re-zoning of the land will assist in providing forthe rising household demand

RPD: Lot 1 on RP885907Property Address: 520 & 522 Main Road,Wellington PointCurrent Zoning: Residential ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: UrbanResidential

91, 92 The subject site is included within the Urban Residential designation in theSOP. As part of the Stage 2 Planning Scheme preparation process therewill be a re-examination of areas that should be included within a mediumdensity designation or zone.

The appropriateness of the locality for increased densities will have regardto the following:• The character of the area;• The age and condition of the housing stock;• The ability of the local road network to handle increased traffic volumes;• Distance to public transport;• Existing use rights;• Lot sizes; and• Land values.


1. That the submission be noted.

2. That the submitter be advised that the landwill be investigated for higher densities.

COUNCIL DECISION




5


RECOMMENDATION2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.1 WELLINGTON POINT – DIVISION 12.1.5. The subject site is currently included as Residential

Low Density, however it and surrounding lots shouldbe included as Urban Residential.

RPD: Lot 2 on RP 181610Property Address: Corner of Hilliard Street andRose Street, OrmistonCurrent Zoning: Residential Low DensityCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: ResidentialLow Density

707 Refer to comment on 2.1.3 as follows;

The area of land within the Rose Street precinct has been included withinthe Residential Low Density Urban area.







2. That the submitter be advised of this decision.

COUNCIL DECISION




6


RECOMMENDATION2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.1 Wellington Point – Division 12.1.6. The affected property is located in the Special

Protection area of the PLU map. This area of landshould be re-designated Urban and used forconsolidation. The area has very limited koalahabitat, is in close proximity to arterial roads,schools, the railways station and other amenities,has lost the rural nature and is surrounded byresidential development of varying densities.

RPD: Lot 13 on RP 55933Property Address: 46-48 Sturgeon Street, OrmistonCurrent Zoning: Special DevelopmentCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecialProtection Area

RPD: LOT 3 ON RP 209626Property Address: 42-44 Sturgeon Street, OrmistonCurrent Zoning: Special DevelopmentCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecialProtection Area

135, 150 Refer to comments in 2.1.2 as attached. OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONRefer to recommendation in 2.1.2

COUNCIL DECISION




7


RECOMMENDATION2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.1 WELLINGTON POINT – DIVISION 12.1.7. The property should be considered for Residential

designation, rather than Special Protection under thenew planning scheme for the following reasons:(a) Site is relatively cleared of native vegetation(b) Site is in a suitable location for the development

of residential land(c) Close proximity to Wellington Point railway

station(d) Surrounding ecosystems could be protected

through the use of buffering(e) The property may have originally been viewed as

suitable for developing residential land

RPD: Lots 3 and 11 on RP 219149 and Lot 12 on RP14089Property Address: 88-92, 91-101 & 102 DuncanStreet, Wellington PointCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecialProtection & Specific Planning Intent Area 2

139 The land was previously included within the Special Protection Designationand Specific Planning Intent 2 designation of the Strategic Plan.

In recognition of a decision made by the Planning and Environment Court(1325 of 2001) where the land was proven to have significantenvironmental values, it has been included solely within the SpecialProtection designation. This designation recognises that the land is notappropriate for urban development.


1. The land continues to be included within theSpecial Protection or similar zone.

2. That the submitter be advised of thisdecision

COUNCIL DECISION.




8


RECOMMENDATION2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.1 WELLINGTON POINT – DIVISION 12.1.8. The property should be re-designated Rural Non

Urban, as it is developable land. The land is abovethe 100-year ARI flood and 2.4m AHD storm surgelevel.

RPD: Lot 12 on RP 14089 and Lots 31 & 34 on RP14087Property Address: 91-101, 88-92 & 102 DuncanStreet, Wellington PointCurrent Zoning: Rural Non Urban & DrainageProblemCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecialProtection Area & Specific Planning Intent

166 Refer to comments in 2.1.2 as attached. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Refer to recommendation in 2.1.2

COUNCIL DECISION




9


RECOMMENDATION2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.1 WELLINGTON POINT – DIVISION 12.1.9. This land is within walking distance to Wellington

Point Railway Station and has the potential to bedeveloped like Raby Bay. However, Council isdeveloping the land suitable for farming andprotecting land that is not good for farming (theproperty)

RPD: Lot 34 and 31 on RP 14087Property Address: 88-92 and 102 Duncan Street,Wellington PointCurrent Zoning: Drainage ProblemCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecialProtection Area

229 Refer to comments 2.1.2 as attached. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Refer to recommendation in 2.1.2

COUNCIL DECISION




10


RECOMMENDATION2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.1 WELLINGTON POINT – DIVISION 12.1.10. NIL2.1.11. Support the SOP proposal to redesignate the land

from Specific Planning Intent No. 1 to UrbanResidential.

RPD: Lot 1 on RP 153635Property Address: 59-61 Hardy Road, Wellington PointCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecificPlanning Intent 1

322 The support is noted. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

1. That the submitter be advised that theirsupport is noted.

COUNCIL DECISION


2.1.12. NIL



11


RECOMMENDATION2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.1 WELLINGTON POINT – DIVISION 12.1.13. Property owner is surprised at the zoning of the

properties on her side of Valley Road as ResidentialA when the properties opposite the street are zonedResidential B. All properties are approx. 150m to theWellington Point railway station. There is only 20mdifference between the properties and if Council iswanting more land to be for higher density housingclose to accessible transport routes, why is thisproperty not also zoned Residential B?

RPD: Lot 39 on RP 14151Property Address: 12 Valley Road, WellingtonPointCurrent Zoning: Residential ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: N/A.

337 The subject site is included within the Urban Residential designation in theSOP. As part of the Stage 2 Planning Scheme preparation process therewill be a re-examination of areas that should be included within a mediumdensity designation or zone.

The appropriateness of the locality for increased densities will have regardto the following:

• The character of the area;• The age and condition of the housing stock;• The ability of the local road network to handle increased traffic volumes;• Distance to public transport;• Existing use rights;• Lot sizes; and• Land values.




COUNCIL DECISION




12


RECOMMENDATION2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.1 Wellington Point – Division 12.1.14 The surrounding area is currently included in the

Rural Non Urban designation.

The property is one of the last remaining propertiesto be included in SPI 1designation under the SOP.The property owner strongly objects to the landbeing designated SPI 1 for the following reasons:(a) All land surrounding the parcel of land is

designated for housing, therefore it isunreasonable to include this isolated lot as Rural(SPI) Area.

(b) The original intent of the SOP 1 area was toretain rural vistas / views, however these view atthe site have been fully compromised

(c) The retention of small pockets of farmland in thispart of the Shire is contrary to the overall strategyand is not in the interests of urban consolidation

The land is most suitable for Urban use as it:(a) Represents a logical extension of residential

development to the north, south, east andwest.

(b) The land can be provided with all servicesand infrastructure.

(c) Proximity to facilities and public transport(d) Development of the land will not impact on

any environmentally sensitive areas(e) Provision can be made for a variety of lot

sizes.

RPD: Lot 2 on RP79535 and Lot 2 on RP 139096and Lot 3 on RP 14090Property Address: 613-623 & 649-655 Main Road,Wellington PointCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecificPlanning Intent No. 1.

347 Rural Strategy 5 in the Statement of Proposals states the following:

“Specific Planning Intent (SPI) areas designated under the 1998 StrategicPlan have proved problematic in facilitating certainty and in deliveringpreferred land use outcomes. A detailed appraisal of alternative land useand regulatory frameworks will be undertaken in the preparation of the newPlanning Scheme. This may include the deconstruction of such measuresand their replacement with more focussed, local planning approaches.”

Each Specific Planning Intent area will be examined and placed within anew zone that provides certainty for the landowner, the community andCouncil.

The area of land (to the east of Main Road and to the north of PlumerStreet) included within SPI 1 has been retained in this designation in theinterim in the recognition that it is the last area of rural land within SPI 1that remains undeveloped and as such does have landscape and openspace features that are important to the area (Gillespies landscapeAnalysis 1998).

The options open to Council with respect to the future zoning and land usecontrols are therefore as follows:

1. Include the land in an Urban /residential zone which recognises that:• Urban development is an extension of residential development to

the south and east.• The land can be provided with all services and infrastructure.• The land’s proximity to facilities and public transport.• Urban consolidation is a more important outcome for the local area

and Shire than the protection of landscape features.

2. Include the land within a zone that recognises its visual andlandscape features.• Planning controls are drafted that protect the land from

development that impacts upon the its visual and landscapequalities and give Council certainty in decision making.

• Other mechanisms be investigated by council to ensure the long-term protection of the site. .


1. That Council undertakes Option 2. Thisinvolves retaining the land in a zone thatrecognises its landscape features.

2. Other mechanisms are investigated byCouncil to ensure the long-term protectionof the site.

3. That the submitter be advised of Council’sdecision. .

COUNCIL DECISION




13


RECOMMENDATION2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.1 WELLINGTON POINT – DIVISION 12.1.15 Consideration should be given to the small pockets

of land in Ormiston bounded by Rose, McCartney,Wellington and Hilliard Streets, for rezoning to ahigher form of residential in order to allowsubdivisions to occur.

RPD: N/AProperty Address: Land bounded by Rose,McCartney, Wellington and Hillard Streets, OrmistonCurrent Zoning: Residential A & Residential LowDensityCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: ResidentialLow Density & Urban Residential

354 Refer to comment on 2.1.3 as follows:

The area of land within the Rose Street precinct has been included withinthe Residential Low Density Urban area.







2. That the submitter be advised of thisdecision.

COUNCIL DECISION




14


RECOMMENDATION2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.1 WELLINGTON POINT – DIVISION 12.1.16 The PLU map shows the land as Public Open Space

on the shore near Waterloo Bay, however Councilhas no rights to the land. Any action on Council’sbehalf to the land in question is full of litigation.

RPD: N/AProperty Address: 14 Beachcrest Road, WellingtonPointCurrent Zoning: Residential ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Public OpenSpace / Urban Residential

65 This matter is required to be investigated further in Stage 2 of thedevelopment of the planning scheme.


That the matter be invetigated further in Stage2 of the formulation of the planning scheme.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNo.

OFFICER COMMENT OFFICER AND COUNCILRECOMMENDATION

2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.10 THORNESIDE – DIVISION 102.10.1 Request to change affected property from Rural

Non-Urban to Urban Residential for the followingreasons:• It is inappropriate to include the property in the

Core Area of the SPP, as it does not provide anyaccess to koalas or other native fauna.

• The property is primarily used for residential land,and therefore should not be considered landused for agricultural or other rural basedactivities.

• The designation of Rural Non-Urban isinconsistent with the SOP principles for futureland use

• The property is in close proximity to transport andservices

• Land is capable of being connected to sewerageand water

• Site is currently under-utilised• Land north of Creek Street is designated Urban

Residential and the re-designation of this sitewould proposed an extension of the land uses inthe area.

• The strategic plan should ensure that the amenityof new residential areas are not negativelyaffected by existing uses that are near a newproposed development.

RPD: Lot 9 RP 14142Property Address: 78-84 Creek Road, BirkdaleCurrent Zoning: Rural Non-UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban / Public

126 It is agreed that the site should be investigated for inclusion within be azone or designation that reflects it’s location:

• Close to Capalaba and adjacent residential development;• Near existing infrastructure.

It should however be noted that the land is included within Core KoalaCoast Area and therefore the land has recognised environmental andhabitat values. As such further investigations should be made withrespect to the land’s habitat values for koalas and other wildlife.


1. The land is investigated for inclusion withinthe Urban Residential and SpecialProtection/Public Open Space zones.

2. These investigations should have regard tothe fact that the land is included within CoreKoala Coast Area and as such the landhas recognised environmental and habitatvalues which should not be compromised.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMITTERS


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.10 THORNESIDE – DIVISION 102.10.2 Need a more detailed map of the property in order to

determine if there are any changes proposed to themovement of Haig Road towards Collingwood Road,in order to given them more saleable land in thefuture.

RPD: N/AProperty Address: cnr Collingwood and Haig Road,BirkdaleCurrent Zoning: N/ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: N/A

300 The location of the transport/greenways/trail corridor has not beenchanged by Council in the SOP. It should be noted however that theSOP makes reference to the corridor in its various strategies which areshown below:

• Investigate the use of the Northern Arterial and extension to MoretonBay Road as transport, greenspace and trail corridors.

• The Planning Scheme will incorporate performance-based codes,which ensure transport corridor alignments undergo EnvironmentalImpact Statement (EIS) prior to designation on Planning Schemetransport networks.

• The Planning Scheme will make provision for detailed environmentalimpact studies (EIS) of the future protected corridors to beundertaken prior to the Planning Schemes designation and alignmentof the corridors.


That the submitter notes the comments.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMITTERS


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.10 THORNESIDE – DIVISION 102.10.3 Airservices Australia has Interest in the Freehold HF

Receiver site at Birkdale Road. Development aroundthis facility (horizontally and vertically) may interferewith the transmission of signals from the facility.Therefore any future development in the vicinity ofthe facility must meet the technical requirements ofAirservices Australia and the SPP 1/02‘Development in the Vicinity of Certain Airports andAviation Facilities’.

RPD: N/AProperty Address: Birkdale Road, BirkdaleCurrent Zoning: N/ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: N/A

302 The concerns of Airservices have been noted and will be taken intoaccount in the development of detailed planning controls in Stage 2 of theplanning scheme.


1. That planning controls are developed inStage 2 of the planning scheme project thatensure the functioning of the Birkdale RoadFacility is not detrimentally affected.

2. That Airservices be advised ofrecommendation 1.

COUNCIL DECISION




1


RECOMMENDATION2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.2 CLEVELAND AND NORTH STRADBROKE ISLAND –

DIVISION 22.2.1. Pleased with the designation of parklands at the

foreshore area at Cleveland.

RPD: Lot 2 on RP14810Property Address: 17 South Street, ClevelandCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecialProtection Area

23 The support of the submitter is noted. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION


2. That Council thank the submitter for theirsupport.

COUNCIL DECISION

“That the Officer’s Recommendation beadopted”(Special Meeting Minutes – 11 November2002)”



2



DIVISION 22.2.2. Requests the property to be re-zoned to service

‘eco-tourism’ for residents and visitors to the Islandfor the following reasons:(a) Provide parking facilities for Myora Springs away

from Dickson Way(b) It is not suitable for rural zoning, due to sandy

soils(c) There is a greater need for more eco-tourism

facilities at the site.

RPD: Lot 1 on RP 152497Property Address: 227-239 Dickson Way, DunwichCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecialProtection.




“In some areas identified in the Environmental Inventory it is considered that theprimary land use consideration is protection or enhancement of habitat, eventhough there may be other land uses which currently exist and which will bepermitted to continue. Where these circumstances apply, the Preferred DominantLand Use Map indicates those areas where there are environmentalcharacteristics important enough to warrant their inclusion as Special ProtectionAreas.


Table 3.4.1: Conservation Management areas that warrant consideration for inclusion in the PreferredDominant Land Use Map as Special Protection Areas are shown with a cross.



The NSI/Minjerribah Planning and Management Strategy considers eco-tourism opportunities on the islands. This document will be used to informwhether the site should be included within such a designation.


1. The inclusion of the land within the SpecialProtection designation should be verifiedagainst the latest update to theenvironmental inventory.

2. The NSI/Minjerribah Planning andManagement Strategy considers eco-tourism opportunities on the islands. Thisdocument will be used to inform whetherthe site should be included within such adesignation.

3. The submitter is advised of this decision

COUNCIL DECISION




Major X X X X N/A X






3



DIVISION 22.2.3. Request the property remain Rural Non-Urban and

not be re-designated ‘Restricted Open Space’ andthat they be notified of any changes that areproposed.

RPD: Lot 115 on SL8938Property Address: Corner Dickson Way andGatumba Street, Myora Springs, DunwichCurrent Zoning: Rural Non-UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban and Restricted Open Space.

147 The land is included within the Rural Non Urban designation and the RestrictedOpen Space designation in the SOP. The Restricted Open Space designationrequires some further investigation with respect to it’s appropriateness over thesite.


1. The Restricted Open Space designationrequires some further investigation withrespect to its appropriateness over the site.

2. That the submitter be informed of thisdecision.

COUNCIL DECISION




4



DIVISION 22.2.4. Clarification as to whether the subject land is

proposed to be re-designated Rural and thereasons for the change.

RPD: Lot 3 on RP 79135Property Address: 21 Ballow Street, AmityCurrent Zoning: Comprehensive DevelopmentCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban.

149 The existing designation over the site is Rural Non Urban. The land washowever previously included within the CD zone in recognition of the unstablenature of the land.

These characteristics of the land are required to be recognised in the newplanning scheme.

The SOP did not change the designation.


1. That the submitter be advised that theunstable characteristics of the land arerequired to be recognised in the newplanning scheme.

COUNCIL DECISION




5



DIVISION 22.2.5. Clarification as to the strategic plan designation for

the property (does not appear on the map to beResidential B)

RPD: Lot 4 on RP884286Property Address: 111 Shore Street, ClevelandCurrent Zoning: Residential BCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: MediumDensity Residential & Special Protection Area

127 The land has been included within the Medium Density Residential and theSpecial Protection designation. The Special Protection designation should notbe placed over the site as this was a mapping oversight.


1. That the site be included solely within a theMedium Density Residential.

COUNCIL DECISION




6



DIVISION 22.2.6. The Special Facilities / Public Purpose designation

at Point Lookout is located too close to shiftingsand dunes and too much clearing of vegetationwould be necessary to accommodate thedevelopment.

RPD: N/AProperty Address: Point LookoutCurrent Zoning: Special DevelopmentCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: NoneProvided

280 The area designation for Special Facilities/Public Purposes on the SOP Map isnot intended to accommodate development. This land has been designatedfor the future disposal of treated effluent at a time when the township of PointLookout grows to such an extent that the existing treatment plant requiresreplacement or augmentation.

The location of this area had careful regard at the time of the drafting of theDevelopment Control Plan for Point Lookout to the topography, theenvironmental characteristics of the area, land stability and distances fromresidential areas.


1. That the land be retained within a zone thatallows for the potential disposal of effluentat Point Lookout.

2. That the submitters note recommendation1.

COUNCIL DECISION




7



DIVISION 22.2.7. Objects to the development of land behind Gore

Street for Urban purposes for the followingreasons:• After rainfall the water table rises and the

floods for days• The site is densely vegetated and home to

many species of flora and fauna• Clearing of the vegetation will stop the bush

from stopping water washing over the dunes• Amity Point does not need more urban

development, as unemployment rates arealready high

RPD: Lot 1 on PER5571Property Address: Behind Gore Street, AmityPointCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: UrbanResidential

246 It is unclear if the submitter is referring to land to the east or west of GoreStreet. Regardless, either side of the road beyond the existing allotments isdesignated for future urban development.

The designation in the SOP as Urban Residential is a result of the existingdesignation in the Strategic Plan.

The submitter asserts that the land is flood liable and is environmentallysensitive.

As a result, it is appropriate to investigate the characteristics of the land.


1. That the flooding and environmentalcharacteristics of the land be investigatedas part of Stage 2 of the planning scheme.

2. That the submitter be advised of theproposed investigations.

COUNCIL DECISION




8



DIVISION 22.2.8. The land that CRL occupies as their head office at

Dunwich should be rezoned for shopping village,providing a shopping and parking facility. There islimited room at Amity or Point Lookout for such afacility.

RPD: Lot 15 on D90415Property Address: 8-22 Mallon Street, DunwichCurrent Zoning: Comprehensive DevelopmentCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: ServiceCommercial

253 The land is currently included within the Comprehensive Development zone,and the Service Commercial Designation on the Strategic Plan and SOP.

Presently, land fronting East Coast Road and Stradbroke Place has beendesignated for Local Shopping Purposes in the SOP. It is intended that retaildevelopment in this area will continue to be restricted primarily to localshopping facilities that meet the immediate convenience needs of the localcommunity. .

The present population of Dunwich and Stradbroke Island does not necessitatethat further retail and commercial land is designated in this locality. Shoppingwhich meets the weekly needs of residents and tourist to North StradbrokeIsland/Minjerribah is located in Cleveland, which has been designated as aMajor Centre on the SOP.


1. That the submitter notes the comments andthat no change is made to the designationof the land.

COUNCIL DECISION




9



DIVISION 22.2.9. Request the property be re-designated to ‘Tourist,

Business and Accommodation’ to accommodatevisitors to the Island.

The majority of the Island is to remainundeveloped, however there needs to be abusiness centre for services and employment atthe Island.

RPD: Lot 1 RP 148843Property Address: 196-212 Dickson Way,DunwichCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban.

253 The designation of the land as Rural Non Urban reflects its current designationin the Strategic Plan.

It should be noted that this designation does not preclude the use of the landfor tourist, business and residential purposes. If the landowner wishes to usethe land for these purposes an application to Council for a material change ofuse is required which would be subject to impact assessment. The land ownerwould be required to demonstrate that:• The development would not impact upon the amenity and environment of

the area,• There was a need for the development; and• Appropriate access arrangements were present.

In the longer term, the Local Area Planning Provisions for North StradbrokeIsland/ Minjerribah will re-examine the future planning requirements for theisland.


1. That Council note the comments and nochange be made to the designation.

2. That the submitter note the comments.

COUNCIL DECISION




10



DIVISION 22.2.10 Expressing concern over the SOP identifying

Flinders Beach settlement as having the possibilityof expanding to almost three times its existing size.Development at Flinders Beach should be in theform of containment, rather than expansion.Development at Flinders Beach should not bedeveloped for the following reasons:

• Areas immediately adjacent to Flinders Beach(particularly Flinders Swamp) have beennationally recognised for high diversity of floraand fauna and endangered and rare animalsand plants.

• Existing urban development has caused majorweed invasions into the natural vegetationcommunities in the area.

• Flinders Beach is a popular camping andfishing area and will lose its appeal as a‘natural’ setting

• A management plan of four-wheel driving anduncontrolled camping needs to be implemented

• The existing environment is already beingdegraded

Council should seek the following outcomes forFlinders Beach:• Containment of existing settlement• Ecological sustainable recreational use of the

beach area• Retention of natural ambience of beach setting• Increased community and visitor commitment

to protection of the beach’s natural values

A precautionary approach should be taken todevelopment at Flinders Beach, i.e. no expansionof the existing settlement.

RPD: N/AProperty Address: Flinders Beach settlement,North Stradbroke IslandCurrent Zoning: Residential BCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: UrbanResidential.

261 Land to the east of the existing settlement is included within the RestrictedOpen Space zone and Urban Residential designation in the Strategic Plan andSOP. Land to the north west of the settlement is included within the Rural NonUrban Designation and Urban Residential designation in the Strategic Planand SOP.

It is acknowledged that the designations in the SOP are a reflection of theexisting Strategic Plan and that no specific investigations have beenundertaken to determine the environmental characteristics of the urbanexpansion areas.


1. That investigations be undertaken toestablish the suitability of the identified landas part of Stage 2 of the Planning Scheme.

2. That the submitter be advised of theproposed investigations.

COUNCIL DECISION




11



DIVISION 22.2.11 Object to medium density residential development

at Cleveland Point for the following reasons:• This development would detract from the

‘historic’ feel of Cleveland Point.• A large proportion of the region is deemed to

have drainage issues and would not be able tosupport a higher population.

• The road provision in the area is not suitablefor medium density residential.

• Noise of increased traffic would reduce theamenity of the area.

RPD: N/AProperty Address: Little Shore Street, ShoreStreet and Cross Lane, Cleveland PointCurrent Zoning: Medium Density ResidentialCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: MediumDensity Residential

279, 280 Land within the Cleveland Point precinct is included within a mixture of MediumDensity Residential and Urban Residential designations in the SOP. As part ofthe Stage 2 Planning Scheme preparation process there will be a re-examination of areas that should be included within a medium densitydesignation or zone.

The appropriateness of the locality for increased densities will have regard tothe following:• The character of the area;• The age and condition of the housing stock;• The ability of the local road network to handle increased traffic volumes;• Distance to public transport;• Existing use rights;• Lot sizes; and• Land values.




COUNCIL DECISION




12



DIVISION 22.2.12 Airservices Australia has interest in the Freehold

HF Receiver site at Mount Hardgrave.Development around this facility (horizontally andvertically) may interfere with the transmission ofsignals from the facility. Therefore any futuredevelopment in the vicinity of the facility must meetthe technical requirements of Airservices Australiaand the SPP 1/02 ‘Development in the Vicinity ofCertain Airports and Aviation Facilities’.

RPD: Lot 1 on SL839953Property Address: Mount Hardgrave, StradbrokeIslandCurrent Zoning: Restricted Open SpaceCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: N/A

302 The concerns of Airservices have been noted and will be taken into account inthe development of detailed planning controls in Stage 2 of the planningscheme.


1. That planning controls are developed inStage 2 of the planning scheme project thatensure the functioning of the MountHardgrave Facility is not detrimentallyaffected.

2. That Airservices be advised ofrecommendation 1.

COUNCIL DECISION


2.2.13



13



DIVISION 22.2.13 Objection to half of the property being designated

Special Protection area under the PLU map, as thisdesignation will restrict any future development atthe site. The rates have not been reduced becauseof this and the property valuation has increased. Theground for the submission include:(a) There is no natural wild life left in the area(b) The property is not a corridor for koalas(c) There is proposed development of three sides of

the property, therefore further restricting thepossibility of a wildlife corridor at the site.

(d) There is no natural vegetation to be protected atthe site – the remaining eucalypts have a disease

(e) There is no logical reason for keeping these 31/3acres for ‘green space’ or similar

RPD: Lots 19-20 on C145614Property Address: 242-246 Queen Street,ClevelandCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: ServiceCommercial & Special Protection Area.











5. The NSI/Minjerribah Planning andManagement Strategy considers eco-tourism opportunities on the islands. Thisdocument will be used to inform whetherthe site should be included within such adesignation.


COUNCIL DECISION




Major X X X X N/A X






14



DIVISION 22.2.14 The following proposals for the property area

requested:

a. That access from Moongalba Road is providedto the property.

b. That no further truncation of the property comeon the junction of Moongalba Road andWoongabba Street

c. That a dwelling be allowed to be erected in thetourist zone and any future owners of theproperty be allowed to erect a dwelling for shortterm tourist accommodation

RPD: Lot 1 on PL 8541Property Address: 9 Moongalba Road, PointLookoutCurrent Zoning: Special DevelopmentPoint Lookout DCP Designation: TouristAccommodation and Facilities Precinct.

315 a. The matter of “access from Mooloomba Road to be provided to theproperty” is required to be referred to the Redland Shire Council for aspecific response by the relevant Council Department.

b. The matter of the “truncation of the property at the junction of MooloombaRoad and Woongabba Street” is required to be referred to the RedlandShire Council for a specific response by the relevant Council Department.

c. The inclusion of the land within the Tourist Accommodation and FacilitiesPrecinct does not preclude the use of the land for a dwelling house. Adwelling house in this precinct is currently a Code assessable use.

It should be noted that Stage 2 of the planning scheme review involves atransfer of those controls within the Point Lookout DCP into an IPA compliantframework. The transfer of controls will ensure the retention of thephilosophical basis of the DCP whilst removing those aspects of the DCP thathave proved problematic or unclear in their interpretation.

At this stage in the drafting process, the name of the proposed zone coveringthe allotment is unclear, however the intent of the zone will be similar to that ofthe Tourist Accommodation and Facilities Precinct.


1. That comment (a) is actioned by therelevant Council Department.

2. That comment (b) is actioned by therelevant Council Department.

3. That comment (c) is noted by the submitter.

COUNCIL DECISION


2.2.15



15



DIVISION 22.2.16 The PDLU map shows a small amount of ‘green’

area on the property. This must be a printing error,as the land contains no significant environmentalvalue. This ‘green’ should be removed from theproperty.

RPD: Lot 18 on C 145614Property Address: 25-39 Delancey Street,ClevelandCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: UrbanResidential

717 Lot 18 on C 145614 is not included within the Special Protection Areadesignation on the SOP Map. The allotment is included within the UrbanResidential Designation.


1. That the submitter be advised that Lot 18on C 145614 is not included within theSpecial Protection Area designation butrather the Urban Residential Designation onthe SOP Map.

COUNCIL DECISION




16



DIVISION 22.2.17 (a) A smaller area around Cleveland should be

designated Medium Density Residential, as thisclassification would reduce its ‘seaside village’atmosphere.

(b) In order to create a ‘mix of residential densities’in Cleveland, some land needs to bedesignated low density residential. This wouldraise the standard and quality of homes in thearea.

(c) By creating cheaper housing in Cleveland, theentire real estate prices will drop and theresidential amenity will be decreased.

(d) Discouraging inefficient forms of residentialdevelopment leads to cluttering of residentialareas. Some moderation by the provision ofsome low-density residential blocks amongstthe medium density areas.

(e) Unit developments on the scale currently zonedfor in Cleveland are counter productive whenconsidering the environment. Increased motortraffic parallels high population andsubsequently produces atmospheric pollution.

(f) The protection of residential heritage characterin Cleveland is vital – don’t allow similar styledunit blocks.

(g) Council needs to encourage alternative designand innovation of buildings in Cleveland.

(h) Some higher-density development is necessaryin order to minimise impacts of populationgrowth on the natural environment, howeverthe PLU map scale for Cleveland will becounter-productive.

282, 297 (a) The Medium Density Residential Area designation on the SOP Map reflectsthe existing Strategic Plan designation and zonings. As part of the Stage 2Planning Scheme preparation process there will be a re-examination ofareas that should be included within a higher density designation or zone.The appropriateness of the locality for increased densities will have regardin Stage 2 of the planning scheme drafting process to the following:• The character of the area;·• The age and condition of the housing stock;·• The ability of the local road network to handle increased traffic volumes;

·• Distance to public transport;·• Existing use rights;• Lot sizes; and·• Land values.

Where Council considers that the Medium density designation will haveadverse impacts on the amenity and character of the Cleveland areabalanced against the requirement to create vital and vibrant centres it willre-examine these designations.

(b) Refer to (a).

(c) Medium density development does not necessarily equate to cheaperhousing. Medium density development designed and constructed in aquality fashion can ensure housing that accommodates a wide crosssection of the community whilst helping retain environmentally sensitiveareas, increasing public transport efficiency and creating vital and vibrantcentres.

(d) Refer to (c).

(e) Increased densities close to public transport has been proven to result inthe reduction of air pollution levels because of increased public transportefficiency. Further, by containing the urban footprint, and promotingconsolidation rather than urban expansion, those areas of the Shire thatare considered to be of environmental significance are not placed underpressure to be converted to urban development.

(f) It is agreed that the protection of residential character within Cleveland isrequired. Presently new medium density housing control codes are beingdrafted that will contribute to development that is:• Energy efficient;• Addresses the street;• Has private open space;• Off street parking;• In character with the area; and• Has an appropriate level of solar access.

(g) Refer to (f).(h) Refer to (a) to (f).


1. That the submitter notes the comments.

COUNCIL DECISION




17



DIVISION 22.2.18 Requests information regarding the proposed

changes (and general PLU) to Myora springs, inparticular the area known as Moongelba.

RPD: Lot 3 on RP148843Property Address: 192 Dickson Way, DunwichCurrent Zoning: Rural Non - UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: N/A

130 In the SOP the land is included within the Rural Non-Urban designation. Thecurrent zoning of the land is also Rural Non – Urban.

In the new planning scheme the land will most likely be included within a zonethat recognises the existing and future intentions for the land. This zone willallow (as does the present planning scheme) for the development of dwellinghouse without any planning approvals from Council.


1. That the submitter note the commentsmade.

COUNCIL DECISION




18

u ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO. OFFICER COMMENT OFFICER AND COUNCIL


DIVISION 22.2.13 Objection to half of the property being designated

Special Protection area under the PLU map, as thisdesignation will restrict any future development atthe site. The rates have not been reduced becauseof this and the property valuation has increased. Theground for the submission include:(f) There is no natural wild life left in the area(g) The property is not a corridor for koalas(h) There is proposed development of three sides of

the property, therefore further restricting thepossibility of a wildlife corridor at the site.

(i) There is no natural vegetation to be protected atthe site – the remaining eucalypts have a disease

(j) There is no logical reason for keeping these 31/3acres for ‘green space’ or similar

RPD: Lots 19-20 on C145614Property Address: 242-246 Queen Street,ClevelandCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: ServiceCommercial & Special Protection Area.












COUNCIL DECISION




Major X X X X N/A X





ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.3 THORNLANDS – DIVISION 3

2.3.1. The subject site is currently being used for motorvehicle repair, panel beating and spray-painting, andhas been operational as an industrial use since1981. The current zone and strategic plandesignation are inappropriate for the use of thepremises, due to traffic noises and flows.

The inclusion of the subject site into a strategicdesignation that encourages less intrusive and moresympathetic commercial uses at the site would bemore beneficial for Council and the surroundingcommunity.

RPD: Lot 25 on RP14831 and Lot 18 on RP14828Property Address: 451 & 451A Boundary Road,ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Park ResidentialCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: ParkResidential

45, 311 The owners of the land have requested that the new planning schemeinclude the properties within a zone/designation that more accuratelyreflects the current use and approval (1981) over the land for motor vehiclerepair, panel beating and spray painting.

Having regard to the nature of the uses and their potential to impact uponthe amenity of adjoining properties they are not considered appropriate fora residential area. As a result the land has been included within the:• Park Residential zone;• Park Residential Strategic Plan designation; and• Park Residential SOP Designation.

The approved uses are more appropriately located with ServiceCommercial and Industrial Areas. It is recognised that the existing use hasexisting approval rights that can be maintained if the use is not abandoned.


1. The proposed designation of ParkResidential or similar zone is retained overthe site and area.

2. If the land owner is looking to expand theexisting operation, then it is desirable,having regard to the land uses in the areafor the operation to be located within aservice commercial and industrial area.


COUNCIL DECISION


2.3.2.


ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.3. Object to the proposed rezoning of land boundingSpringacre Road, currently used for chicken growing,from Special Rural to Residential under the newplanning scheme. The existing planning schemerecognises the importance of and protects thepoultry farms of Redlands. The new scheme shouldprovide the same protection.

(a) Object to the speed that viable farm lands couldbe closed.

(b) New investment in farm equipment cannot becontemplated until the land designation matter isresolved.

(c) There is no pressure on this farm from theprocessor to cease production, however the re-zoning proposal is creating great uncertainty.

(d) The farm provides for employment for residentsof the Redlands.

(e) The importance of the poultry industry in theShire is emphasised in the current Strategic Plan.

(f) The Council’s position paper – Vision 2005 andBeyond understands the community and theinfluences shaping it.

(g) The need to close all chicken growing farms inSpringacre Road in order to fill demands forresidential land is not warranted at this time.

(h) If Council approves the rezoning in the RPS ofthe farmland around this area is given withoutappropriate transitional arrangements, then farmswill not be given adequate time to withdraw fromthe industry. The following transitionalarrangements are required if rezoning toresidential is to take place:• That all commercial chicken farms

operational at the date of commencement ofthe RPS be authorised to lawfully continue tooperate until the business ceases

• Continuation of the 500m buffer be made

RPD: N/AProperty Address: Springacre Road, ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban

122, 123 The SOP has not changed the designation in the Springacre Road areafrom its present designation. The land is still designated Rural Non Urban– Poultry Farming.


1. That the submitters be advised that theSpringacre Road area designation has notchanged in the SOP.

COUNCIL DECISION


ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.4. Objection to the re-designation of 78-80% of theproperty from Rural to Special Protection Area forthe following reasons:(a) A vast majority of the property is not needed for

protection of the Eprapah Creek corridor(b) Profitability of the property for potential

subdivision will be lost (Council should resumethe land if it is considered so important)

RPD: Lot 2 on RP 14825Property Address: 5-9 Mango Place, ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecialProtection Area & Park Residential


The Special Protection designation includes those areas within the mainurban parts of the Shire that have been identified as possessing naturalenvironmental qualities worthy of conservation. These areas includemany areas of remnant vegetation that provide important habitat, corridorand visual landscape values.

Land was designated under the existing Strategic Plan as SpecialProtection using the following methodology outlined in section 3.4.2 ofthe Strategic Plan Part B supporting information.

“In some areas identified in the Environmental Inventory it is considered that theprimary land use consideration is protection or enhancement of habitat, eventhough there may be other land uses which currently exist and which will bepermitted to continue. Where these circumstances apply, the PreferredDominant Land Use Map indicates those areas where there are environmentalcharacteristics important enough to warrant their inclusion as Special ProtectionAreas.

Those categories of the Environmental Inventory considered to be of animportance that warrants consideration for inclusion in the SpecialProtection Category for protection or enhancement of habitat are shownin Table 3.4.1.



It should be noted however that the inclusion of the land in the SpecialProtection designation generally precludes the use of the land for urbanpurposes. Any other development must not impact upon thoseenvironmental values that were instrumental in the site being includedwithin the Special Protection designation.




COUNCIL DECISION




Major X X X X N/A X





ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.5 This property should be considered by Council as asuitable site for scaling back the poultry industry anddeveloping residential land. Land immediately northand south of the site has been developed forresidential purposes.

Grounds for request:• Strategic Plan review outlined the area as

suitable for urban purposes.• The approach taken in the SOP conflicts with the

Strategic Plan Review.• Council does not appear to have considered

specific areas for land suitable for residentialdevelopment.

• Further investigations should be made to addressthe lack of urban land available, the proposedpopulation growth and the rural amenity issues.

• Restrictions of residential development toexisting identified areas (outlined in the SOP)does not consider the inefficient developmentpattern small allotment sizes may cause.

• Development of the site for urban purposeswould not conflict with the Rural Strategy 1in theSOP.

• Residential Development Strategy 6 in SOPwould be supported, as poultry farm to the westis also in support of developing for residentialpurposes (a buffer between surrounding useswould be provided).

• Subject site is close to all services, water andsewerage infrastructure.

• The subject site is nominated as Balance Area isSPP, however a majority of the subject area isalready cleared of vegetation.

Two possible options for developing the site:1. Land north of Boundary Road and east of the

creek to be Urban Residential2. Incorporates a Rural Non Urban designation as a

buffer around the two poultry farms at thesouthern end of Kinross Road and BoundaryRoad.

RPD: Lot 2 on RP 75742Property Address: 104 Kinross Road, ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban

227 Refer 1.1 and 1.10. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Refer 1.1 and 1.10.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.6 Requests land be included under the UrbanResidential designation, or perhaps commercial (fora corner store development), rather than SpecificPlanning Intent. Main reasons for request is theaccessibility of the property.

RPD: Lot 2 on RP14813Property Address: 296-304 Redland Bay Road,ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecificPlanning Intent

228 Refer 1.1 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Refer 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.7 The existing and proposed designation of the land asRural Non Urban is not compatible with the mixedrural residential and rural land at the site and in theimmediately surrounding area. Although the subjectsite is currently used as a poultry farm, thesurrounding land is predominantly used for ruralresidential purposes. Therefore a Park Residentialdesignation for the area would be more appropriate,as:

(a) The Poultry industry is no longer needed due tothe amount of infrastructure needed to meetfuture requirements

(b) The Woodlands Drive Area would be mostsuitable for Park Residential Development

(c) There are existing and future amenity issues(traffic, odour, noise) associated with residentialland uses neighbouring the poultry industries

(d) The Woodland Drive area could accommodatefuture growth in the Redlands

(e) A large proportion of the area is not constrainedby environmental considerations

(f) Site is not ideal for poultry farming

RPD: Lot 3 on RP89552Property Address: 164-166 Woodlands Drive,ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural Non-Urban


Refer 1.1 and 1.10.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.8 The subject area should remain as Rural Non-Urbanor Park Residential, and not Urban Residential. Thisarea backs onto Special Protection land and shouldremain as acreage lots, so as to maintain propertyvalues.

RPD: N/AProperty Address: Land bounded by ZiegenfussRoad, Panorama Drive, Boundary Road andCleveland-Redland Bay Road, ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non Urban / Park Residential/ Public Purpose / Residential ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: ParkResidential / Urban Residential / Special ProtectionArea / Specific Planning Intent / Special Facilities

247 The majority of this area is included within the Park Residential andSpecial Protection Areas. A small portion of land is included within theUrban Residential designation. The small area of Urban Residential landrepresents land that was previously designated in the Strategic Plan andhas been subject to residential approvals. This isolated pocket of landdoes not represent or indicate Council’s desire to develop this precinct forresidential purposes.



COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.9. The site is currently used for poultry as part of theDarwalla Group, and it is not possible to relocate thefarm, therefore continued operation of the presentlyviable farm is necessary.

Support Council’s efforts to provide adequate bufferzones for the industry.

If the land at Springacre Road is designated forResidential development under the planningscheme, the following requirements should be met:• All commercial chicken farms operational at the

date of commencement of the planning schememust be authorised to continue operations underthe zoning and rules and regulations of thecurrent Strategic Plan.

• The 500m buffer zone continue to be enforceduntil the industry ceases operation.

• The implications under IDAS be advised to anyaffected business.

• Protection of farm viability through codeassessment be supported.

RPD: Lot 1 on RP128542Property Address: 109-119 Springacre Road,ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban

267 The support of the chicken grower of the plans to protect the poultryindustry within the Shire is noted.


1. That the support of the owner of the land benoted.

2. That the owner of the land be thanked fortheir support.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.10 Council should consider re-designating the farmingland at Springacre Road in order to allow the farmersto exit the farming industry.

The new poultry farm policy will result in litigationevery time a farmer wants to build or convert a shed.There has not been enough public consultationregarding this policy.



Refer 1.1 and 1.10.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.11 This area of land should be considered for futureurban land due to its proximity to services andinfrastructure at Victoria Point. Many residents in theShire do not support the policy for the protection ofthe poultry industry in the SOP. The continuation ofa poultry farm in close proximity to residentialdevelopments could incur expensive litigation as aresult of neighbourhood dissatisfaction and healthand safety concerns. Many farmers are alreadyplanning to sell their land and relocate their farms inother areas



1. Refer 1.1 and 1.10.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.12 Opposed to the re-designation of the land to RuralNon Urban for the following reasons:• The site is an ‘island’ of vacant undeveloped land

in close proximity to the designated urban areasto the north of Boundary Road

• The site is not suitable for rural development dueto its location and size

• The site is in the balance area for the KoalaCoast SPP, the greenspace value of the site islimited and it is remote from any wildlife corridors

• The surrounding land uses create apredominately urban environment

• The are is remote from designated local ordistrict centres and the commercial nodeopposite the intersection will provide for futureresidents at the site

• The land would be best designated for residential/ commercial / educational uses, as is adjacent tothe north of the site

• Option 2 as the PLU limits the scope of the planto restate the 1998 land use study for theStrategic Plan

• Not all areas can be included within the existingurban footprint

• Increased urban densities at existing centresdoes not cater for the anticipated populationgrowth

• The use of Boundary Road as the extend ofurban development is not supported as there aremany areas, including the subject site, that aresuitable for land not included in the Rural NonUrban PLU.

Therefore the site should be included in the UrbanArea.

RPD: Lot 1 on SL 2913Property Address: Corner of Boundary Road andWoodlands Drive, ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban

277 Refer to 1.1

Council recognises the unique locational and contextual characteristics ofthe site, which warrants further investigation of the site for uses otherthan residential.


1. Refer to 1.1

2. Council recognises the unique locationaland contextual characteristics of the site,which warrants further investigation of thesite for uses other than residential.

3. That the submitter note the comments

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.13 Support Heritage Pacific’s integrated precinctproposal to allow residential subdivision at their land.Council should allow this to happen.

RPD: Lot 14 on RP869105Property Address: 278-294 Cleveland – RedlandBay Road, ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecificPlanning Intent

285 Refer to 1.1 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Refer to 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.14 The existing zone of the land is unsuitable and itshould be re-designated Urban Residential. HeritagePacific has plans for future residential developmenton the land that covers all issues that havepreviously stood in the way of the land beingdesignated for residential purposes, namely:• the Koala Corridors,• the visual buffer between Thornlands and

Victoria Point,• total master planning,• Infrastructure and servicing issues,• protection of the remnant bushlands, and• protection of coastal vegetation.

RPD: Lot 14 on RP869105Property Address: 278-294 Redland Bay Road,ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecificPlanning Intent


Refer to 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.15 The existing zone of the land is unsuitable and itshould be re-designated Urban Residential. HeritagePacific has plans for future residential developmenton the land that covers all issues that havepreviously stood in the way of the land beingdesignated for residential purposes, namely:• the Koala Corridors,• the visual buffer between Thornlands and

Victoria Point,• total master planning,• Infrastructure and servicing issues,• protection of the remnant bushlands, and• protection of coastal vegetation.

RPD: Lot 10 on SL5478 and Lot 20 on SP119616Property Address: 359-379 & 381-405 RedlandBay Road, ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecificPlanning Intent

296, 301 Refer to 1.1 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Refer to 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION


2.3.16


ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.17 The zoning in this area should be changed from rural(chickens) to allow for residential development. Theproperty owners wish to sell their property and inorder to get a decent price (so they can relocate thefarm) they need it to be rezoned.

RPD: Lot 2 on RP128542Property Address: 107 Springacre Road,ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban


Refer 1.1 and 1.10.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.18 • The locality is surrounded by residentialsubdivisions, which conflict with the use.

• The site is in close proximity to Councilinfrastructure.

• The farm is located in the existing urban footprint.• In the 1997 Strategic Planning Study farms in the

north were seen as being unviable in the mediumterm.

• The locality is well serviced by the existing roadand transportation network.

• It is in close proximity to Capalaba and Clevelandcentres.

• Provision of limited expansion of residentialareas in the Shire will allow for greater housingchoices.

RPD: Lots 21-22 on RP 192692Property Address: 100-102 Kinross Road,ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban / Special Protection Area

317, 723 Refer 1.1 and 1.11 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Refer to 1.1 and 1.11

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.19 This area contains most of the Shire’s poultry farms.The poultry farming operations on the eastern side ofSpringacre Road are constrained due to the furtherexpansion of residential development and thediminishing buffer area. The farms are also underpressure from industry upgrading and regulation andfrom residential encroachment. The protection of theSpringacre Road area is not viable, and would bemore suited for residential purposes.

The Rural Non-Urban designation states thatresidential development is not intended

Comments on Existing Planning provisions:• The current provisions of the planning scheme do

not establish a set of provisions that enable theexpansion of the existing farms to accommodatethe requirements of chicken companies to ensuretheir long term viability.

• The buffer requirements vary between thestrategic plan and the scheme, creatingconfusion.

• The ability for the buffers to be relaxed throughthe planning process undermines the protectionof the industry through potential encroachment ofresidential development.

Comments on SOP:• The SOP does not expand on the rationale

behind Council’s desire to protect the poultryindustry. At Springacre Road little regard hasbeen given to the needs of farmers, viability ofcurrent and future operations and possible long-term strategies for alternative land uses.

• The changing licencing requirements of the Qldpoultry industry farmers are not reflected in thecurrent planning scheme, the SOP needs toaddress the commercial and locational realitiesfacing the poultry operations in the SpringacreRoad area.


Refer 1.1 and 1.10.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.3 THORNLANDS – DIVISION 32.3.19cont.

• Therefore, farmers need to meet industryrequirements (i.e. buffer distances, sizes offarms, distances from residential) to maintaintheir licence, and due to the close proximity ofresidential to the existing farms, this is notpossible. (properties affected:96-108 SpringacreRoad).

• The Rural Non-Urban designation of the land (inthe SOP) does not provide any long-term supportfor the farmers, enable expansion of the farms orallow for the redevelopment of the propertiesshould they lose the production contracts.

• The most critical issue is the encroachment ofpark residential, which severely impacts onexpansion of the properties. In addition, thelimited size of the majority of the holidays andconstraints for future amalgamation of lots.

• While the protection of rural industries is animportant component of the SOP, the viability ofthe current operations and their future needscannot be ignored.

• On-going land use conflicts are imminent and theSOP does not outline an approach for the futureof the poultry industry, recognizing and protectingthe interests of farmers and residents.

• The land has few environmental constraints andtherefore re-designation of the land should beconsidered.

RPD: (refer to submission – approx. 18 lots)Property Address: Springacre Road, ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban


ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.20 Council needs to implement a restriction on theheight of vegetation people are allowed to plant intheir properties, in order to prevent it from blockingothers views of Moreton Bay.

RPD: Lot 9 on RP105619Property Address: 166 Panorama Drive,ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: N/ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: UrbanResidential

336 Council cannot control people planting vegetation within their propertythat restricts views of Moreton Bay. Council can only enforce vegetationremoval when that vegetation poses a threat or a risk to a property.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION1. That the submitter notes the comments

made.

2. That no changes are made to the policyposition of the SOP in regard to this matter.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.21 Owners are disappointed at the lack of landdesignated for Residential Development inThornlands.

The property can no longer be used by the owners toobtain an income under its current zoning. Councilhas listed this area for a poultry industry, howeverthere are only two farms. If subdivision for residentialpurposes were allowed then the owners of adjacentfarms would be happy to sell.

The property should be re-designated to residentialdevelopment (there would be no disruption to koalahabitat, it is in close proximity to local amenities, hasgood drainage and would increase the patronage tosurrounding schools).

RPD: Lot 2 on RP75752Property Address: 104 Kinross Road, ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban

343 Refer 1.1 and 1.11 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Refer 1.1 and 1.11

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.22 Does not want any upgrading of the poultry shedssurrounding the property. Pressure is being put onthe farmers to extend their farms.

RPD: N/AProperty Address: Springacre Road and WorthingRoad, ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Special Rural / Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban


Refer 1.1 and 1.10.

COUNCIL DECISION


2.3.23


ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.24 The site is proposed to be designated UrbanResidential and Special Conservation Area. Thesubmission is for the re-designation of SPI 4 areaand Park Residential density to Urban Residentialand Special Protection for the following reasons(area is planned to be developed by HeritagePacific):

• Much of the subject area has been cleared• The important environmental and scenic

objectives of the locality could best be metthrough the re-designation

• The area is immediately adjacent to existingurban development that provides all necessaryurban and social infrastructure to this part of theShire

• Site is in close proximity to schools, shoppingcentres an sporting facilities

• The area can be serviced with all urbaninfrastructure at low costs

• An ICP should be established to apportion cost• High level of road access is available• The existing SPI4 designation is unsustainable

and an environmentally irresponsible approach tomanaging development or planning forpopulation growth and does not recogniseenvironmental and scenic objectives for thelocality

• Park Residential development in this locality isnot sustainable and will require futuregenerations of planning schemes to promotefurther subdivision

• The existing SPI4 Designation permits theconstruction of residential along the highest pointof the site at Cleveland-Redland Bay Rd,contrasting the ‘rural buffer’ preferred use by thecurrent strategic plan.


Refer to 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.3 THORNLANDS – DIVISION 32.3.24cont.

The new proposed designation for Urban Residentialand Special Conservation Area would better achievethe objectives of the plan, in the protection of areasof conservation value and the dedication of land forscenic rural buffers and environmental corridors.

The scenic quality and rural buffer objectives canbest be achieved be developing a series of widenatural landscape buffers along Cleveland RedlandBay Road.

The proposed areas of Special Protection and UrbanResidential not only separates the uses, but alsoprovides the necessary returns that permitsrehabilitation and re-vegetation programs that willenhance the environmental assets of the locality.

Need to develop a Thornlands Local Area Plan thatbest considers development in the locality

RPD: N/AProperty Address: Area north of Eprapah Creeksurrounding Cleveland Redland Bay Road atThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SPI 4

714


ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.25 Council should consider this area of land suitable forpurposes other than Poultry, such as ParkResidential, due to the increase in dust, noise, traffic,odours, pesticides, unknown health implications aswell as lifestyle deterioration as a result of increasesin farm sizes.

RPD: Lot 2 on RP 128089Property Address: 110-118 Springacre Road,ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban


Refer 1.1 and 1.10.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.26 Object to their property still being designated SPI4under the new scheme, and believe that it should bedesignated residential, for the following reasons:• Development of residential sized lots between

6000-10000m2 leads to visual and environmentaldegradation.

• Farms on these lots are too small for economicproduction.

• Heritage Pacific are proposing a residentialcommunity that would manage the concerns ofCouncil in relation to environmental and koalacorridors, visual buffer between Thornlands andVictoria Point.

• Protection of bushland, and• Protection of coastal vegetation.

RPD: Lot 16 on RP14839Property Address: 364-374 Boundary Road,ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SPI 4


Refer to 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.27 The rural property should be considered forResidential expansion for the following reasons:• The property and surrounding properties are

currently cleared of significant vegetation• The existing transport system and services at the

property would allow for future residential expansionwithout placing an increased burden on the Shire

• It would increase the utilisation of schools in thearea

• Increasing densities in the current urban areas isa major fault with the proposed plan

RPD: Lot 1on RP 815078, Lot 2 on RP 865865 andLot 2 on RP 815077Address of Property: 124-160 Taylors Drive, 157-167 & 169-195 Woodlands Drive, ThornlandsCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban


Refer to 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



2.3.28 The property has been designated poultry industry inthe PLU map. However this would not be compatibleas:

• There are no properties in the area that couldprovide a 300m buffer zone (all are elongated,narrow lots).

• There are only 2 chicken farms in this area.• The environmental issues would also prohibit the

Council’s preferred usage of this area, as it isheavily populated with rural home sites, there island clearing restrictions and it is located at thehead of water courses.

• If chicken sheds were built they would have to betied to the longer tem operators, however theseoperators don’t want any more sheds in theRedlands.

• Why does Council improve poultry industry onlands that the producers don’t want and that arenot suitable, and that would result in litigationfrom many residents?

RPD: Lot 2 on RP 172063Property Address: 49 Woodlands DriveCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: N/A


Refer 1.1 and 1.10.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.4 VICTORIA POINT AND COOCHIEMUDLO ISLAND –

DIVISION 42.4.1. Request for land outside of Koala Coast area at

specific site to be designated Urban ResidentialDevelopment, for the following reasons:• The land is relatively cleared and does not

contain any significant koala habitat.• Any vegetation to be retained could be identified

upon an application to Council for a materialchange of use.

• There is no longer any designated urbanresidential land west of the Victoria Point Centre.

• The subject site is relatively unconstrained.

RPD: Lots 67, 68 and 71 on RP85360Property Address: 131-139 & 151-169 BunkerRoad, Victoria PointCurrent Zoning: Special RuralStrategic Plan Designation: Rural Non-Urban /Special Protection Area


Refer to 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



DIVISION 42.4.2. It is advised that Council join the two separated

public parks at the site in order to enhance the areaand improve the overall general environment.

RPD: N/AProperty Address: Egret Drive (between TernStreet and Heuston Court), Victoria PointCurrent Zoning: Rural Non Urban & Public OpenSpaceStrategic Plan Designation: Special ProtectionArea / Rural Non Urban / Public Open Space

32 It is not intended to place land within a Public Open Space or similarzone unless that land is in public ownership.

In order to join the two parks it will be necessary for Council to acquirethe allotment, which is private ownership.


1. That Council investigates the requirementfor this land to be used as a public openspace linkage.

2. That Council advises the submitter of itsplans to investigate this matter.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



DIVISION 42.4.3. Concerned that part of their property has been

included in the ‘Public Open Space’ designation onthe PLU Map. What are the implications of thisdesignation, if it is correct?

RPD: Lot 26 on RP86773Property Address: 132-136 Bunker Road, VictoriaPointCurrent Zoning: Special RuralStrategic Plan Designation: Specific PlanningIntent 5

103 As a result of a recent approval by Council over land included withinSpecific Planning Intent 5, the land has been included within the RuralNon Urban and Public Open Space areas.

The SOP has tried to translate the intent of the approval. Thedesignations selected and the location of these designations is requiredto be investigated as part of Stage 2. AS a general principal howeverland should not be included within a Public Open Space zone ordesignation if it is in private ownership. In instance the land would bemore appropriately included within a Special Protection designation orsimilar.

This matter is required to be investigated further.


1. The designations selected and the locationof these designations is required to beinvestigated as part of Stage 2.

2. The submitter is advised of the designationin the SOP.

COUNCIL DECISION


ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.4 VICTORIA POINT AND COOCHIEMUDLO

ISLAND – DIVISION 4 (continued)2.4.4. Under the PLU the property and some surrounding

area has been classified Rural Non-Urban. Theowners object to the re-classification of their propertyand request it be re-classified to Urban for thefollowing reasons:• The ‘Special Rural’ designation provided some

benefits in terms of land usage.• The new zoning will further de-value the land,

whilst the property owners are maintaining andenvironmentally sensitive area along EprapahCreek and pay high rates.

• The property is 5km from Victoria Point majorcentre and 2km from Park Residential uses.

• Adjacent land uses are urban and in closeproximity to low density residential.

• What is the justification of protecting poultryindustry 5km from a major centre.

• Property is within 6km of service schools.• The values of the property have been eroded in

terms of increased traffic flows, decreasedprivacy and security.

RPD: Lot 61 on RP86052Property Address: 54-62 Worthing Road, VictoriaPointCurrent Zoning: Special RuralStrategic Plan Designation: N/A


Refer 1.1 and 1.10.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



DIVISION 42.4.5. Request information regarding the likelihood of them

subdividing their property (3+ acres) into threeallotments.

RPD: Lot 1 on RP907141Property Address: 145-149 Bunker Road, VictoriaPointCurrent Zoning: Special RuralStrategic Plan Designation: Rural Non Urban

119 The land is currently included within the Rural Non Urban zone andsimilar designation under the Strategic Plan. As a result the land cannotbe subdivided under the present planning scheme because the minimumlot size is 10 hectares.

Within the new planning scheme the minimum subdivision size for ruralnon-urban land is required to be re-examined. This re-examination willnot involve a reduction in allotment size.

Refer to 1.1 for a more detailed discussion relating to the furtherintensification of rural non-urban areas.


1. That the submitter be advised that underthe present and proposed planning schemethe land will not be able to be subdivided.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



DIVISION 42.4.6. Opposed to the re-designation of property from

Special Rural to Rural, as it devaluates the property(no longer protecting koala habitat). The property issurrounded by industrial developments.

RPD: Lot 37 on RP86773Property Address: 180-198 Bunker Road, VictoriaPointCurrent Zoning: Special RuralStrategic Plan Designation: Rural Non Urban /Special Protection Area

161 The land has not been re-designated from Special Rural to Rural. Thedesignation in the SOP reflects that of the existing Strategic Plan which isRural Non Urban.

In stage 2 of the planning scheme review process, it will be decided as towhat zone the land will be included within to most appropriately reflectCouncil’s future intentions for the area.



COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



DIVISION 42.4.8 Requests the zoning of the property be changed

from ‘small shopping centre’ to Residential as:• Already sufficient shopping facilities in the area

(both convenience and local centres).• The site is too small to accommodate shops and

adequate parking.• Surrounding residential areas would be

inconvenienced if a commercial developmentwere put at the site.

• Commercial development at the site would not beviable.

RPD: Lot 160 on RP 845055Address of Property: 73-77 Benfer Road, VictoriaPointCurrent Zoning: Residential ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: LocalShopping

230, 231 The property is included within the Residential zone and the LocalShopping designation in the Strategic Plan and the SOP.

The land has been included within the Local Shopping designationbecause it is on a corner and in excess of 1.5 kilometres of the VictoriaPoint Shopping centre.

It is acknowledged that the area has a sufficient level of local shoppingfacilities (e.g. Shell Service station) and that a local shopping area is notrequired.


1. That the Local Shopping or similar zone beremoved from the site.


COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



DIVISION 42.4.9 This property should remain under the Rural Non

Urban designation as it has no koala significanceand it is in close proximity to major shopping centresand major roads.

RPD: Lot 51 on RP86052Address of Property: 65-73 Worthing Road,Victoria PointCurrent Zoning: Special RuralCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban


Refer 1.1 and 1.10.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



DIVISION 42.4.10 The designation of the land for poultry farming is

inappropriate for the following reasons:• Site is 1km from Victoria Point shopping centres.• In past Council plans this area of land was

designated for future residential, which appearsto be more appropriate.

• The world movement is away from sheds to free-range eggs.

RPD: Lots 26 – 30 on RP86773Address of Property: 100-136 Bunker Road,Victoria PointCurrent Zoning: Special RuralCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecificPlanning Intent

259 As a result of a recent approval by Council over land included withinSpecific Planning Intent 5, the land has been included within the RuralNon Urban and Public Open Space areas.

The SOP has tried to translate the intent of the approval. Thedesignations selected and the location of these designations is requiredto be investigated as part of Stage 2. AS a general principal howeverland should not be included within a Public Open Space zone ordesignation if it is in private ownership. In instance the land would bemore appropriately included within a Special Protection designation orsimilar.

This matter is required to be investigated further.


1. The designations selected and the locationof these designations is required to beinvestigated as part of Stage 2.

2. The submitter is advised of the designationin the SOP.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



DIVISION 42.4.11 Create a shopping precinct in this area, install paving

to roadway, pedestrian crossings, and reduce speedlimit.

RPD: N/AAddress of Property: Colburn Avenue (near thePelican’s Nest Shops), Victoria PointCurrent Zoning: N/ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: N/A

281 Council has recently completed local streetscaping works in ColburnAvenue. These works have included:• Paving;• Landscaping;• Street furniture etc.


The submitter be advised of the comments.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



DIVISION 42.4.12 Property should be rezoned to Urban, due to the

demand for more residential areas, the proximity toschools and major centres.

RPD: Lot 19 on RP178353Address of Property: 200 – 222 Bunker Road,Victoria PointCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban


Refer to 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION


2.4.13


ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



DIVISION 42.4.14 Request land to be re-designated to Urban

Residential for the following reasons:• It is an isolated pocket of farm land less than 1

km from Victoria Point Shopping centre.• Urban development is currently on the SE side of

the property.• Major roads on other two sides of property• Property is no longer located in an environmental

corridor.• Due to the surrounding urban land uses the

property can no longer function peacefully as afarm – wish to relocate the farm to a moresuitable area.

• All services to the property are located within50m.

• It is dangerous to have potentially dangerousfarm animals located next to urban communities.

Recommend that for planning in the Shire thereshould be a central point for concentrate housingand small business development followed by 5kmradius of leafy suburbs followed by the remainder asfarmland.

If Council does rezone the land, higher rates at theproperties would be inappropriate.

RPD: Lot 53 on RP 86052Address of Property: 77 Worthing Road, VictoriaPointCurrent Zoning: Special RuralCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban / Special Protection Area


Refer to 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.4.15 Issues currently affecting the property:

• Water – deterioration of water quality fromupstream has declined, there is no suitable borewater in the area, high cost of buying town wateris depleted.

• Trees on adjacent blocks creating shadows onproperty.

• Housing on adjoining estates will soon be 50mfrom prime-growing lot,

• Fire hazards at lot due to unmanaged scrubbordering property,

• Security issues from adjacent residential land,• Present return on investment is poor due to

inability to produce to maximum capacity,• Council has a weighting and priority towards

environmental issues, at the expense of practicalapplications of land use.

Suggestions:• The area bounded by Eprapah and Sandy

Creeks and Kingfisher Road should be rezonedfor residential use in order to allow the farmers torelocate to a more suitable area, without beinghindered by residential development.

• Council should guarantee economically viablewater supply

• Some relaxation on tree clearing laws• Better consultation between landholders and

adjacent urban dwellers on farm managementpractices

• Recognition by the urban community on thefarmers right to exist.

RPD: Lot 52 on RP 86052Address of Property: 75 Worthing Road, VictoriaPointCurrent Zoning: Special RuralCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban


Refer to 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



DIVISION 42.4.16 The SOP proposes the land to be redesignated from

Special Purposes to Poultry Industry. However itshould be designated Urban Residential for thefollowing reasons:• It would minimise adverse population growth

impacts on the natural environment• Surrounding areas are urban• It would maximise access to public transport

nodes / corridors and to major centres andcommunity facilities

• Reduce the extent of new residential areasoutside the existing urban footprint to minimisepotential conflicts with areas of natural,landscape or a character significance

• It would promote a compact community with agreater diversity of activities, and minimise low-density urban sprawl and impact access to publictransport services.

RPD: Lot 51 on RP 86052Property Address: 65-73 Worthing Road, VictoriaPointCurrent Zoning: Special RuralCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban

316 Refer 1.1 and 1.10.

It should also be noted that the site is designated under the StrategicPlan the land is designated Rural Non Urban.


1. Refer 1.1 and 1.10.


COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



DIVISION 42.4.17 Concerned at the lack of land that has been

designated for future Urban use. The subject siteshould be re-designated to Future Urban for thefollowing reasons:

• Site is within 1km of the area defined as VictoriaPoint town centre

• Accessible public transport• Minimal extension of the existing urban footprint

would be required• No impact on the poultry industry (all properties

fall• outside of the 500m exclusion zone)• Minimal environmental impact as the bulk of the

land is cleared, and a large amount of it is underfarming (less irrigation will lead to improvement inhealth of the creek)

• The viability of the Victoria Point Town Centre willdepend on the size of the population catchmentthat it serves.

RPD: Lots 67 & 68 on RP85360, Lots 1, 2 & 3 onRP907141 and Lot 71 on RP85360Property Address: 131-159 Bunker Road, VictoriaPointCurrent Zoning: Special RuralCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban / Special Protection Area


Refer 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



DIVISION 42.4.18 The zoning of the properties off Worthing Road as

Rural Non Urban would be a gross under-utilisationof the land, and should be re-designated UrbanResidential for the following reasons:

• Areas to the east and south are already UrbanResidential

• To maximize the use of utilities in an area closeto shopping and transport

• The scarcity of undeveloped land in closeproximity to services

• The amenity of the rural area will be diminishedfrom ongoing urban development to the east andsouth

• Trespass from adjacent urban areas onto therural property can expose the owners to publicliability risk

• The farms are a nuisance to residentialneighbours

RPD: Lot 49 on RP205323Property Address: 63 Worthing Road, Victoria PointCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban / Special Protection Area

344, 345 Refer 1.1 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Refer 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



DIVISION 42.4.19 Object to the inclusion of the land in the Special

Protection Area on the PLU and believe it should beincluded in the Urban Residential designation for thefollowing reasons:

• The designation conflicts with the current zone• The designation conflicts with the previous

appeals to the P&E Court stating thedevelopment of residential on the land should notbe refused

• The SPA designation is contrary to the intent ofthe PDLU designation under DCP No. 1, which isDrainage Problem Area

• The DNR, QPWS and PSC has abandonednegations with the land owner to acquire theproperty for public purposes, indicating the landnot longer holds any value in terms of specialprotection for environmental reasons.

RPD: Lot 103 on RP 100701 & Lot 12 on RP 14787Property Address: 206-218 & 230-252 PointO’Halloran Road, Victoria PointCurrent Zoning: Residential ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecialProtection Area.

349 This site will be subject to a further report to Council given thesignificance of the land.


This site will be subject to a further report toCouncil given the significance of the land.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



DIVISION 42.4.22 In recent years some of this area has been cleared

and degraded of undergrowth. Further investigationsshould determine if the land designation should bere-assessed and possibly revert back to DPclassification.

RPD: Lot 190-194 RP97359Property Address: 15-23 Williams Street,Coochiemudlo IslandCurrent Zoning: Drainage ProblemCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecialProtection Area






Table 3.4.1: Conservation Management areas that warrant consideration forinclusion in the Preferred Dominant Land Use Map as Special Protection Areas areshown with a cross.






COUNCIL DECISION




Major X X X X N/A X




REVIEW OF THE REDLAND SHIRE PLANNING SCHEME STATEMENT OF PROPOSALS (SOP) SUBMISSIONS

1

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.5 REDLAND BAY AND SOUTHERN MORETON BAY

ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.1. A primary school is needed at Point Talburpin, in

order to cope with the increased ‘young family’population in this area.

The implementation of a pre-school at PointTalburpin would also alleviate the demand forexpansion of the existing facility at Redland BayPrimary School.

16, 109 It is agreed that the issue of the location of a school in Point Talburpin isrequired to be discussed with the Department of Education.

The Department of Education has not acquired land in this area, howeverCouncil is aware that the Department is actively investigating thepurchase of land at Point Talburpin.


1. That the location of a primary school beinvestigated in Stage 2 in the planningscheme at Point Talburpin.

2. That further discussions with theDepartment of Education be initiated inStage 2.

COUNCIL DECISION



2

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.2 Council has allowed this site and surrounding sites to

become a Commercial area, although they werezoned Residential A. As an owner of a propertyadjacent to the subject site, the resident wishes toknow when changes to the designation were made.

RPD: Lot 37 on RP118213Address of Property: 22 Boronier StreetCurrent Zoning: Residential ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: UrbanResidential

28 All land within this area is included within the Residential A zone andUrban Residential designation in the SOP.


That the submitter be advised that the land isincluded within the Residential A zone andUrban Residential designation in the SOP.

COUNCIL DECISION



3

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.3 Requests information regarding future developments

at Scenic Road and Serpentine Road, Redland Bay.

RPD: N/AAddress of Property: Scenic Road and SerpentineRoadCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban


Refer 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



4

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.5 The land along Heinemann Road should be re-

designated for residential housing with minimalenvironmental impact (a continuation of Valley Way).Minimal bushland would need to be cleared.

RPD: N/AAddress of Property: Heinemann Road, RedlandBayCurrent Zoning: Special Rural / Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban


Refer 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



5

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.5 REDLAND BAY AND SOUTHERN MORETON

BAY ISLANDS – DIVISION 5 (continued)2.5.6 The designation of the property as “tourist”

significantly increases the amount of traffic at MarineStreet, affecting the amenity of residents in the area.

RPD: Lot 2 on RP150087Address of Property: 2a Marine Street, RedlandBayCurrent Zoning Tourist, Business & ResidentialCurrent Strategic Plan Designation Tourist,Business & Residential.

160 This land has been designated as a Tourist, Business andAccommodation area because it is adjacent to Moreton Bay and theexisting centre of Redland Bay.

The existing Strategic plan states in regard to the area the following:

Designated area located at Broadwater Terrace, Esplanade, MarineStreet and Stradbroke Avenue, Redland Bay

Area designated Tourist, Business and Accommodation fronting onto theEsplanade is considered suitable for tourist accommodation uses payingparticular regard to amenity considerations for neighbouring residentialproperties and possible access and parking considerations.

Two storeys is considered an appropriate maximum height for anybuilding within this area to reflect the existing residential character of thearea.

These controls or similar will be retained in the new planning schemewhich recognise the location of the land within the Shire and its valuefrom a tourism perspective.


1. That the land be retained within a Tourist,Business and Accommodation or similardesignation.


COUNCIL DECISION



6

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.7 Object to the Banana Plantations at Marine Parade

being re-designated Residential, as it is a landmarkand is home to many wildlife species.

RPD: Lots 18-32 on RP30542, Lot 17 on RP908449and Lots 4-16 on RP30542Address of Property: 102 Broadwater Tce. & 125Esplanade Esp., Redland BayCurrent Zoning: Residential A / Residential BCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: MediumDensity Residential

160 The designation in the SOP reflects the current designation in theStrategic Plan as Medium density residential and it’s zoning asResidential A and B. As part of the Stage 2 Planning Schemepreparation process there will be a re-examination of areas that shouldbe included within a medium density designation or zone.

The appropriateness of the locality for increased densities will haveregard to the following:• The character of the area;• The age and condition of the housing stock;• The ability of the local road network to handle increased traffic

volumes;• Distance to public transport;• Existing use rights;• Lot sizes; and• Land values.


That the submitter is advised of thesecomments.

COUNCIL DECISION



7

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.8 Map 3.6.1 should be amended to show the Austral

quarry (Redland Bay Quarry), as well as a 1000m-trigger distance from the quarry boundary that wouldrequire a material change of use or reconfiguring alot to be impact assessable.

Section 3.6 Extractive Resources of the PositionPaper on Physical Constraints should be amendedand clearly state that the deposits of argillite withinthe German Church Road Quarry are of Statesignificance and therefore no sensitive developmentsshould be allowed within specified distances. Inaddition information on clay at page 16 of thePhysical sense. Constraints page is incorrect andoutdated. The last sentence of s3.6 does not makesense.

RPD: Lot 1 on RP 854704Property Address: 505-609 German Church RoadCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban

224 Refer to Key Issue 1.13. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Refer to Key Issue 1.13.

COUNCIL DECISION



8

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.9 Property should be rezoned to Park Residential for

the following reasons:• It would be an extension to Ridgewood Downs

Estate Park Residential• There is a shortage of park residential in the

Shire• Zoning ensures that large areas of natural bush

land remain untouched for wildlife, whilst stillallowing for residential development.

RPD: Lot 2 on RP 227426Property Address: 2-32 Heinemann Road, RedlandBayCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban


Refer 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



9

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.10 The remaining land at Scenic Road should be

converted to low density residential, rather thancreating higher density housing in already developedcentres.

RPD: N/AProperty Address: Scenic Road, Redland BayCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban / Urban Residential


Refer 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



10

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.11 1. The SOP does not mention the changing of the

land from Special Rural to Rural Non Urban,however this featured on the PLU Map.

2. The designation of the land should remain asSpecial Rural and not changed to Rural NonUrban for the following reasons:• A change in designation would change the

property values of the site• Future prospects of running a business at the

site would be diminished• As the SOP did not outline the changes

3. Why are two areas of land in Victoria Pointremaining as Special Rural.

4. The area of land should also be withdrawn fromthe Koala Coast SPP area.

5. Why should ratepayers have to pay rates forbuffer zones within 500m of poultry farms?There is a buffer zone indicated on the subjectsite, however no notification of this was given tothe landowner.

RPD: Lot 10 on RP79864Property Address: 37 Double Jump Road, RedlandBayCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban

248 1. The land has not been re-designated from Special Rural to Rural.The designation in the SOP reflects that of the existing Strategic Planwhich is Rural Non Urban. In stage 2 of the planning scheme reviewprocess, it will be decided as to what zone the land will be includedwithin to most appropriately reflect Council’s future intentions for thearea.

2. Refer to (a).

3. Two area of land in Victoria Point are not included within the SpecialRural designation.

4. The Koala Coast area is designated because it is identified underState Planning Policy as being habitat for the koala. Redland Shire isnot in a position to alter or change the boundaries of this area.

5. The 500-meter buffer zone to existing poultry sheds recognises thatwithin this area that development should be restricted to usescompatible with their operation. Special Rural uses are seen ascompatible to the operation of poultry farms. Uses that are notconsidered to be compatible are what are termed to be sensitive landuses such as urban development. The 500-metre buffer wasincluded within the supporting information of the 1997 Strategic Plan.



2. That Council determine an appropriatezone for the Special Rural Areas.

COUNCIL DECISION



11

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.12 • Proper planning needs to be given to the problem

of Island residents car parking at the commuterterminal, especially with the expected populationgrowth at the Islands.

• Is the new location of the ferry terminal stableenough land to accommodate the weight ofbuses that will be using it? Have tests beendone?

• Buses should not be allowed to travel downOutrigger Street, as it is too narrow

• The identified parking solutions by Council (multi-storey car park, raising car parking fees, buyingland and moving the car park further away) willnot be successful in alleviating the problem.Rather, a better and cheaper barge serviceshould be provided

• Consideration for the people at Banana andOutrigger Streets needs to be given to the loss ofamenity from car parking of Bay Island residents

RPD: N/AProperty Address: Banana Street and OutridgeStreet, Redland BayCurrent Zoning: N/ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: N/A

262 Council is currently undertaking the Redland Bay Master Plan projectwhich amongst other things is reviewing existing and future car parkingdemand in association with marine orientated areas. Outcomes of thestudy/masterplan will be incorporated into the planning scheme.


That the submitter note the comments.

COUNCIL DECISION



12

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.13 Request that the property be designated low density

residential.

RPD: Lot 4 on RP79864Property Address: 25 Double Jump Road, RedlandBayCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban


Refer 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



13

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.14 Object to the re-designation of the properties

(currently used for agricultural purposes) to SpecialProtection. The protection areas should be confinedto the creek.

RPD: Lot 2 on RP 105508, Lot 1 on RP105230 & Lot1 on RP 30568, Lot 60 on R 1291, Lot 61 on RP212392Property Address: 1-27 & 75-95 Unwin Road & 29-33 Donald Road, Redland BayCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: UrbanResidential / Special Protection Area / Public OpenSpace

275, 276 This land has been included within the Special Protection designation asit reflects the existing designations of the Strategic Plan and the planningprovisions of the southern Redland Bay Area. The Special Protectiondesignation includes those areas within the main urban parts of the Shirethat have been identified as possessing natural environmental qualitiesworthy of conservation. These areas include many areas of remnantvegetation that provide important habitat, corridor and visual landscapevalues.










COUNCIL DECISION




Major X X X X N/A X





14

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.15 Object to the re-zoning of the property from Special

Rural to Rural Non Urban as this designation placesfurther development restrictions on the property andprevents the owners from establishing a business attheir property

RPD: Lot 15 on RP79864Property Address: 49 Double Jump RoadCurrent Zoning: Special RuralCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban

328 The land has not been re-designated from Special Rural to Rural. Thedesignation in the SOP reflects that of the existing Strategic Plan which isRural Non Urban. In stage 2 of the planning scheme review process, itwill be decided as to what zone the land will be included within to mostappropriately reflect Council’s future intentions for the area.


1. That the submitter notes the comments.2. That Council determine an appropriate

zone for the Special Rural Areas.

COUNCIL DECISION



15

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.16 Disagree with the future zoning of the property from

Residential Low Density to half Residential lowdensity and half Public Open Space. The ownersrealize the need to create buffer zones, corridors andopen space systems, however it is not necessary todesignate half the lot for this purpose. Feel that theirlot should be zoned similar to surrounding lots (halfpark residential and half residential low density or allpark residential), as this would allow for wildlifefriendly fencing and bush land and would allow thewildlife corridors to extend along the boundary totheir lot.

RPD: Lot 2 on RP 205164Property Address: 94-142 Muller Street, RedlandBayCurrent Zoning: Medium Density ResidentialCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Public OpenSpace / Residential Low Density

340 The western portion of the allotment has been included within a bufferzone for a number of reasons which include:• Buffering from Redland Bay Road;• Buffering from rural uses to the west; and• The desire to retain movement corridors for wildlife.

The Public open space designation and Residential low-densitydesignation reflect the existing designations in the Strategic Plan.

Because of the desire to consolidate development within the existingurban areas of the Shire it is considered appropriate to investigate theinclusion of the land within the low-density designation to an urbandensity designation.



2. Because of the desire to consolidatedevelopment within the existing urbanareas of the Shire it is consideredappropriate to investigate the inclusion ofthe land within the low-density designationto an urban density designation.

COUNCIL DECISION



16

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.17 A large proportion of the property is designated as

Public Open Space. This designation should bealtered for the following reasons:• There are no watercourses or low lying areas on

the property, or within 50m of the property,therefore the designation of the land as PublicOpen Space is inconsistent with the land use

• The land has been operating under intensivehorticulture for over one hundred years

• Land immediately north of the property isdesignated Residential A in the DCP and thePublic Open Space mentioned in the DCP is onlythe areas mentioned in point A

• Approximately 1/5 ha of the property isconsidered within Q100 flood levels, however theowners have never seen water heights intrudeonto the property

• Due to the proximity of the property to majorservices (electricity, water and sewerage) itwould be suitable for residential development

• The property is in the current urban footprint• Given the large amt. of low lying land in the area

set aside as Public Open Space, the 10%parkland requirement of the whole area is beingmet and there is no need to designate furtherparkland on sites that are conducive toresidential development.

RPD: Lot 3 on RP 48961Property Address: 39-49 Collins Street, RedlandBayCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: UrbanResidential / Special Protection Area

718 Land to the west is included within the Special Protection designation, notthe Public Open Space designation as asserted in the submission. Landto the east fronting Collins Road is included within the Urban Residentialdesignation. The land is included within the Rural Non Urban zone.

For comments relating to the reasons why the land was included withinthe Special Protection designation refer to 2.5.14 as attached.


1. That the submitter be advised that the Landto the west is included within the SpecialProtection designation, not the Public OpenSpace designation.

2. That the submitter refers to 2.5.14 forcomments relating to the designation ofSpecial Protection areas.

COUNCIL DECISION



17

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.18 Buffer zone between agricultural areas and

residential development is a good element of theplan in order to protect the residents from odoursand noise, but also to provide the poultry industrywith an environment they can survive in.

RPD: Lot 6 on RP86773Property Address: 60 Double Jump Road, RedlandBayCurrent Zoning: Special RuralCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban


That the submitter is thanked for their support.

COUNCIL DECISION



18

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.20 Informal Submission

What future developments are proposed for ScenicRoad and Serpentine Road?

RPD: N/AProperty Address: Scenic Road and SerpentineRoad, Redland BayCurrent Zoning: Rural Non Urban / Tourist,Business & ResidentialCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban / Tourism, Business & Accommodation

44 No development is planned for this area. Refer 1.1 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

1. That the submitter notes that nodevelopment is planned for this area.

2. Refer to 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



19

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.21 Late Submission

The site is included in the Rural Non Urbandesignation, but also in Greenspace habitat withDominant Landscape and Visual Values. Thesurrounding areas are all designated Rural NonUrban, with the exception of the Serpentine CreekConservation Park, south of the site, which is zonedPublic Open Space.

The SOP aims to keep the same designation for theland, however it should be considered to bedesignated to allow an Integrated Golf Course andMaster Planned Residential Community withassociated tourism and recreational facilities. Thesubject site is a large area of land and is not locatedin the existing urban footprint, however there are noareas of land in the existing urban footprint thatwould be suitable for this form of development. The‘Business and Industrial Development’ appear toencourage tourism development, however there areno areas identified on the PLU map that would besuitable such development.

It is believed that the proposed landmark golf coursecommunity and tourism facility at the site wouldachieve all aspects of the SOP in relation to tourismfacilities. Details of vision for the proposal areincluded in the submission.

Believe that the proposal at the subject site would:• Complement the land’s environmental features

and facilitates ESD.• Is of a size to support a range of community

infrastructure.• Can facilitate alternative forms of transport.• Can generate employment and business

development.• Can contribute to social and economic fabric of

the Shire.

RPD: Lots 11 and 12 on RP903116 and Lot 253 onS312377Property Address: Serpentine Creek Road andBadcock Farm, Redland BayCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural NonUrban


Refer to 1.1

COUNCIL DECISION



20

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.22 Redland Bay Southpark Development:

1. Centres strategy: there needs to be moreemphasis placed on reconfiguring the sprawlingsuburbs into discrete communities and realneighbourhoods. This is crucial given theamalgamation of Capalaba, Alexandra Hills,Birkdale and Thorneside. More defined edgesneed to be created.

2. Moreton Bay Interface Strategy: the newplanning scheme should have specific intent to:preserve natural attributes of Moreton Bay,facilitate equitable public access, create publicopen spaces, create commercial opportunities atthe foreshore, increase tourism and visitoropportunities, link physically, visually andculturally residential areas within the Bay.

3. Economic Strategy: Whilst it is desirable topreserve future rural and primary industrypursuits, this should not be done at the expenseof New Economy Industries.

4. Preferred Land Use Option: the issuesassociated with growth are not resolved simplyby limiting the growth. The current economicenvironment of Redlands is not sustainable.Council’s proposal for full consolidation to thecurrent footprint runs the risk of losing theremaining nodes and urban villages (e.g. SPIareas in Thornlands).

5. The consolidation model, without some form ofcontrolled green fields, may potentially limitchoice, equality and affordability, and well asimpact on the current lifestyle of residents.

6. Urban consolidation strategies do not achievetheir goals (many reasons for this are listed in thesubmission).

7. There is not a threshold market size in Redlandsto warrant urban intensification as proposed.

722 1. Council has recently completed a Centres Strategy that viewedcentres as more than a focus on economic activity and employment.As confirmed by the study a centre must perform a role in thecommunity including:• Retailing and Commerce;• Social gathering or escape point;• Tourism activities;• Educational;• Culture and entertainment;• Sense of place within the urban environment;• A place to live;• Passive and active recreation; and• Personal services and administration.

As a result Council through the new planning scheme will bedesignating multi-functional centres that will have different roles andfunctions according to their physical location and services provided.

It should also be noted that further to the development of the planningscheme, Council will be embarking upon an ambitious program ofLocal Area Plans.

2. It is agreed with the submitter that the SOP does not fully articulatethe desire to preserve natural attributes of Moreton Bay, facilitateequitable public access, create public open spaces and createcommercial opportunities at the foreshore. As a result, in stage 2 theplanning scheme will further investigate these matters.

3. The preservation of rural and primary industries will not be achievedat the expense of what is termed New Economy Industries. NewEconomy industries have the opportunity to locate within thespecifically designated Integrated Employment Centres within theShire.

4. The consolidation option will reinforce the character of the nodeswithin Redland Shire.

5. Refer to 1.1

6. Refer to1.1 and 1.7

7. Refer to 1.1



COUNCIL DECISION



21

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.22Cont.

8. Consolidated development and facilities in thenorthern parts of the Shire will place considerablestress on existing infrastructure, particularly theroad system and will not reduce dependence onBrisbane and it will tend to reduce social equitydue to the centralisation of resources andfacilities.

9. Full consolidation has little chance of achievingthe desired environmental outcomes and is notgood planning (more reasons listed).

10. Suggested alternative to consolidation: createnew villages with identifiable village centresthrough the adoption of the focused growthoption to create a more compact urban formabout the existing transport nodes.

11. A Green fields release should also be created,possibly in the south of Redland Bay (detailsgiven in the submission)

Note: The submission demonstrates how a newcompact master planned community immediatelysouth of Redland Bay would be an economicallyviable development that protects the environment,promotes liveability, can be planned from the bottomup and balanced in a regional context.

8. Refer to 1.1

9. Refer to 1.1

10. The preferred option achieves this.

11. Refer to 1.1


22

ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.



ISLANDS – DIVISION 52.5.23 LATE SUBMISSION

The UQ Redland bay farms are shown as SpecialFacilities / Public Purposes and open space in thePLU Map. At a meeting held with Council it wasconsidered that a mix of residential uses may beappropriate in the event of UQ leaving the site in thefuture

Rezoning at this stage is not warranted, however astatement of intent for future use could be included inthe Strategic Plan

RSC should draft such a statement for their PlanningSchedule – promoting the idea that the farmlandswould be retained by the University and sold as oneparcel of land for maximum developmentopportunities

RPD: Lot 24-25 on RP30555, Lot 16-17 onRP30555, Lot 2 on RP48270, Lot 3 on RP90361, Lot2 on RP95747 and Lot 11 on SL 1595Property Address: 21 Salisbury Road and 20Government Road, Redland BayCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecialFacilities, Special Protection and Public OpenSpace.

737 It is appropriate that Council investigates the use of the land forresidential uses given the proximity of the land to existing developmentand the Redland Bay centre.

Given that the zoning of the land in the new planning scheme will haveforward planning intentions (ie ultimate and desired use) it is likely thatthe land will be included within a residential zone. It should be notedhowever that the northern portion of the land should be included within azone/s that reflect its environmental and open space values


1. That the submitter notes the officercomment.

2. That the land be investigated for inclusionwithin residential, open space andconservation zones.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.6 MOUNT COTTON – DIVISION 62.6.1 The acre lots at Sunrise Street should be allowed to

subdivide to half-acre lots, whilst still beingdesignated residential low density.

RPD: N/AProperty Address: Sunrise Court, Mt CottonCurrent Zoning: Residential Low DensityCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: ResidentialLow Density

20 Consistent with contemporary planning philosophy within the Shire thisland would no longer be designated for urban or low-density purposesbecause of its location within the hinterland and rural on urban part of theShire.

It is not considered that the intensification of urban development on thisland would achieve the desired environmental and landscape outcomesfor the Shire in this location.


That the land is included within a designation orzone that ensures the land remains at a similarurban density to that of Residential LowDensity.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.6 MOUNT COTTON – DIVISION 62.6.2 Should be able to build another house on their

property to accommodate their elderly parents. Thereasons Council has given to reject this and thecomments are below:• Could adversely affect the environment – there is

already a petrol station two allotments down theroad.

• Over taxing on service – 6 people is no anunusual number to have in a household with a lotsize of 600m2

• Eyesore – neighbours have tin sheds at theiradjoining properties.

RPD: Lot 4 on RP95979Property Address: 408 Mt Cotton, Mt CottonCurrent Zoning: Park ResidentialCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: ParkResidential

342 The SOP is not designed to resolve development applications.

The current planning scheme includes controls relating to detachedrelatives apartments. These controls will be assessed and includedwithin the new planning scheme.



COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.6 MOUNT COTTON – DIVISION 62.6.3 Under the new planning scheme the same

designation is given to the property as before.Requests the property to be re-designated to Urbanunder the new planning scheme for the followingreasons:

• Urban development on all four sides of theproperty

• Close to transport routes and close proximity tomajor employment centre of Capalaba and localcentre at Vienna Road and Winbourne Road

• Environmentally sensitive areas at the site shouldbe protected

• Development of the site for residential supportsthe principles outlined in the SOP

• Site is well serviced by existing infrastructure

The site may have some environmental values, butthis is only based on aerial mapping – furtherinvestigations need to be made.

Council needs to undertake an investigation todetermine the true economic importance and viabilityof the poultry industry in the Shire.

RPD: Lot 122 on RP 225877Property Address: 401 Redland Bay Road,CapalabaCurrent Zoning: Rural Non-UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: CombinedSpecial Facilities/Public Purpose, Special Protection,Rural Non-Urban

141, 142, 334 Refer to 1.1

Council recognises the unique locational and contextual characteristics ofthe site, which warrants further investigation of the site for uses otherthan residential.


1. Refer to 1.1

2. Further investigations be made with respectto the future zoning of the site.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.6 MOUNT COTTON – DIVISION 62.6.4 The existing uses at the site are cottage/craft

industrial purposes in the former poultry sheds.However Council has refused to regularise this use.

Requests a change in the designation of the propertyfor a local centre, in order to service the extensiverural residential development in the locality and toremove the existing poultry sheds.

A strictly controlled industrial development at the sitemay also be feasible.

RPD: N/AProperty Address: 175-189 Duncan Road,CapalabaCurrent Zoning: N/ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: N/A

257 Recently Council rejected a planning application to the use of this land forcottage and craft industrial purposes in disused poultry sheds. It isunderstood that the application is subject to an appeal to the Planningand Environment Court and as such no comments can be made inrespect of this appeal.

It should be noted however any future development or land use within theRural Non Urban designation or similar zone will need to demonstratethat it does not compromise the important environmental and landscapevalues of these areas of the Shire. In some cases, these constraints maypreclude any substantial intensification of an existing lawful use, and inany event all land uses in this area will require careful management toensure retention of its environmental and visual values.


1. That the submitter note the commentsmade

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.6 MOUNT COTTON – DIVISION 62.6.5 Include circle on site between Degen Road and

Broadwater Road / Mt Cotton Road that wasshopping and add it to the new plan.

124 The location of the local shopping area will be investigated in Stage 2 ofthe planning scheme.


1. That the drafters of the planning schemeinvestigate the location of this localshopping facility.

2. That the submitter be advised of thisrecommendation.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMITTERS


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.7 ALEXANDRA HILLS – DIVISION 72.7.1 The site has been deemed surplus to school needs

and is identified as a balance area in the KoalaConservation area as it is used as a refuge site forwildlife. Therefore it should be changed to specialprotection under the new strategic plan.

RPD: Lot 177 SL 8558Property Address: 48-68 Windemere Road,Alexandra HillsCurrent Zoning: Public PurposesCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecialFacilities

76, 102, 272 Originally the land was included within the Special Facilities/PublicPurposes designation in the Strategic Plan because it was planned to bedeveloped by the Education Department for a school. At the time it wasrecognised by Council that the site had significant environmentalconstraints, however a decision was made that from a community benefitperspective that the land should be included within a designation thatallowed for schooling purposes.

Since this time the Department of Natural Resources has advised thatthe land is surplus to their requirements and as such the Department haslodged a housing application with Council. Council is currentlyconsidering the application.

It is agreed that the site should be changed to Special Protection as theland:• Is included within the Koala Coast;• Is within the Greenspace area in the Strategic Plan;• Has been identified as containing significant environmental attributes;

and• Is no longer required for educational purposes.


That the land be included within the SpecialProtection designation.

COUNCIL DECISION


ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.8 BIRKDALE – DIVISION 82.8.1 The location of the Birkdale waste management

facility is inappropriate due to the location ofsurrounding medium density residential areas.Relocation opportunities should be addressed.Council has advised that work is being conducted toalleviate odour and runoff from the facility, howeverthere are severe acoustic issues also associatedwith the facility.

Residents of Birkdale would like a more detailed planof the future of the waste management facility atBirkdale and its impact on the residents of thesurrounding areas.

29, 36 Further discussions and report to be repaired in consultation withRedlands Water and Waste.


To be noted.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.8 BIRKDALE – DIVISION 82.8.6 LATE SUBMISSION

The PLU map shows that area as being included inthe Special Protection Area designation

Land immediately north of the site are included in the‘Urban Residential’ designation and they believetheir property should be given the same designationas it has higher elevation

Requests to be advised why the designation of theproperty is included as Special Protection Area

RPD: Lot 2 on RP 868908Property Address: 8-20 Bailey Road, BirkdaleCurrent Zoning: Rural Non UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: SpecialProtection Area












COUNCIL DECISION




Major X X X X N/A X





ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.9 CAPALABA – DIVISION 92.9.3 The subject area should remain designated Rural

Non-Urban and not be changed to Park Residential,for the following reasons:• The site is on the boarder of a water catchment• Further growth of this area in not desirable• The area is of environmental significance and

forms a major wildlife corridor• Further development will lead to a loss of natural

vegetation and thus loss of flora and fauna• Re-designation of this area will conflict with the

Draft Corporate Plan and the recently releasedKoala Conservation and Management PolicyStatement and objectives.

RPD: N/AProperty Address: Howletts Road, CapalabaCurrent Zoning: Rural Non-UrbanCurrent Strategic Plan Designation: Rural Non-Urban

252 The SOP has not changed the designation of the land. The designationof the land in the SOP reflects the Current Strategic Plan Designationof Park Residential.

In the new planning scheme this land will be included within a zone thatensures that no further subdivision of the land is possible.


The submitter note the comments made.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.9 CAPALABA – DIVISION 92.9.5 The area along Coolnwynpin Creek corridor and

along Crotona Road should no longer be adesignated Koala Conservation area as the area isoverdeveloped and absent of riparian vegetation.

RPD: N/AProperty Address: 18 Sutphin Street, CapalabaCurrent Zoning: N/ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: N/A

272 All creek corridors within the Shire will be included within a SpecialProtection zone or similar in recognition of their environmental, wildlifecorridor, drainage and visual characteristics.


1. That no change be made to thedesignation.

2. That the submitter be notified of thisdecision.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.9 CAPALABA – DIVISION 92.9.6 Wish to be informed whether the printing business at

the property will be affected by the new planningscheme (will there be any changes to the property).

RPD: N/AProperty Address: 510 Redland Bay Road,CapalabaCurrent Zoning: N/ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: N/A

332 The new planning scheme will include the land within a Rural Non Urbanor similar zone. This zone will include similar use rights to the existingplanning scheme. If the existing printing business is a lawful use, thenew zone will have no impacts upon its operation.


The submitter note the comments made.

COUNCIL DECISION


ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.9 CAPALABA – DIVISION 9 (continued)2.9.11 Request that Council consider the property for higher

density residential land uses such as ResidentialLow Density with 2000m2 allotments for the followingreasons:

• Many allotments in the vicinity of the subject siteare around 2000m2, sewered and within theWater Supply Catchment vicinity

• As the allotments are sewered they do not pollutethe Dam Catchment with the disposal of septicwaste

• The site is in the northern part of the Shire and inthe existing urban footprint

• The police station, fire station, PCYC, St LukeSchool, Capalaba State School are all in closeproximity to the site

• Property in close proximity to Capalaba Towncentre and shopping complexes

• Property has 80m frontage to a major bus route• Is services will all infrastructure, including

sewerage, water supply, power and telephonethat is necessary for Residential Low Densitydevelopment

RPD: Lot 1 on RP 113525Property Address: 336 Mount Cotton Road,CapalabaCurrent Zoning: N/ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: ParkResidential

708 The SOP has adopted the policy position that Park Residential is an enduse that is not envisaged to be intensified in terms of urban densities.The SOP has adopted this stance having regard to the following factors:

• These areas are generally within close proximity to rural uses (suchas poultry);

• They form a transition between urban and non urban areas;• They are not serviced with sewerage infrastructure; and• They are often with greenspace areas.


1. That no change be made to the zoning ofthe site.

2. That the submitter is noted of this decision.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


2 SITE SPECIFIC BY DIVISION ISSUES2.9 CAPALABA – DIVISION 9 (continued)2.9.13 DMR has resumed 1-3 metres of the land at the

subject sites. Is there any chance the subject site willbe rezoned in the new planning scheme.

RPD: Lots 24 & 25 on RP112762Address of Property: 149 & 151 Redland BayRoad, CapalabaCurrent Zoning: Residential ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: UrbanResidential

77 The subject site is included within the Urban Residential designation inthe SOP. As part of the Stage 2 Planning Scheme preparation processthere will be a re-examination of areas that should be included within amedium density designation or zone.

The appropriateness of the locality for increased densities will haveregard to the following:• The character of the area;• The age and condition of the housing stock;• The ability of the local road network to handle increased traffic

volumes;• Distance to public transport;• Existing use rights;• Lot sizes; and• Land values.




COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.1. Does not agree with the provisions of the SOP as it

is a waste of time and Council often don’t givefeedback on submissions.

8, 33, 152 Comment noted. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the submitter be thanked for theirinput.

COUNCIL DECISION


3.2. Agrees with and supports all of Council’s plansfor future development in the Shire, in particular:the retention of the Rural-Urban character of theRedlands, the protection of areas of naturalsignificance and maintaining the existing urbanfootprint. All interest groups have been considered.

12, 49, 57,95, 108

The support of the submitters is noted. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the submitter be thanked for theirsupport.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.3 Issues of concern at North Stradbroke Island include:

a. What is Special Facilities/ Public Purposes for.b. Distinctions between Public Open Space and

Restricted Open Space.c. The inappropriate designation of the restricted

open space zone, due to fragmentation andissues of fire management, visitor access andcontrol.

d. A community consultation meeting should beheld and Dunwich or Point Lookout to discusswith residents the issues of Native Title and theneed for island-based enterprises, as well as toallow the residents their chance to voice theiropinion.

e. What is the status and future of DCP 3 for PointLookout.

f. Proposals for beach protection (especially 4WDdamage), sewerage and water management andpublic transport.

g. The PLU map does not show many accessroads.

h. The STP at Point Lookout appears excessivelylarge for the population it would serve.

i. The large area designated for STP at PointLookout should be re-assessed. A buffer zonebetween the STP and the water catchment isnecessary.

j. Blue Lake National Park is not marked on thePLU map, but appears to me in an areadesignated Special Protection Area.

k. General and Service industry designationsshould be allocated in each township on theIsland.

l. The designation of a water supply catchmenteast of Dunwich may be excessively impactingon the Island environment and in contrast to theSOP principles.

m. Council should consider the collection and use ofstormwater in residential areas.

n. Other industries, apart from tourism needs to beaccommodated on the island.

o. The area of 900 ha of plantation pine forest eastof Dunwich has not been identified on the PLU –should be.

p. A sustainable timber and fishing (Amity Point)industry on the Island should be accommodatedin the PLU / zoning map.

q. 22, 112,156, 286

(a) This area is for the disposal of effluent at Point Lookout in the futurewhen the current population exceeds the capacity of the existingsystem.

(b) The difference between public open space and restricted open spaceare shown below by reference to the provisions of the existing StrategicPlan. :

4.4.1 Public Open Space

This designation indicates the location of areas which are currently inpublic ownership or are expected to come under Council control for usefor parks and recreation purposes.

These areas are intended to perform a role in meeting the recreationalneeds of Shire residents for active and passive recreational pursuits. Itis also intended to recognise the importance of these areas in manylocations for environmental functions such as waterway preservation,maintenance of fauna habitat and/or corridor and coastalprotection/buffering from land uses which would impact on the value ofthese areas.

There is a close relationship between many areas in this designationand land in the Special Protection Area designation in the maintenanceof these environmental functions.

The recreational functions of these areas operate at regional, districtand local levels for particular sites. In particular, it is intended that theJudy Holt Reserve, Cleveland Showgrounds, Pinklands SportingReserve and land at German Church Road be retained for opportunitiesfor major sporting facilities to serve the Shire.

It is also intended that further areas of open space will be incorporatedin areas where new urban development occurs in the Urban -Residential Oriented designations described in Section 4.2, to meetrecreation and open space needs for those communities. These areasare to be co-located with other residential support facilities such aslocal centres and community facilities. Areas of public open space areto be integrated as a key part of urban areas in recognition of theirimportant contribution to the physical and sociological well-being ofcommunities in accordance with the Integrated Local Area Planningprinciples set out in Section 6.0 of this plan.

Areas of public open space may also include cycleway systems for theShire, particularly where these function for local or recreational trips.

Some areas of public open space may also be used to facilitate tourismin the Shire, but these will be restricted to locations with good vehicularaccess such that access to these areas and the tourist activitiesthemselves do not interfere with the residential amenity of surroundingcommunities.


That the submitter and Council note thecomments.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.3

cont. The plan also indicates, by symbols, public open space areas allocatedfor sports fields. These are not exhaustive and other areas of the openspace system may also be suitable for these purposes. The Sportsfielddesignation on the plan indicates that the amount of urban developmentin the general vicinity warrants the provision of some type of formalfields for organised sporting activities. Land required for this purposemay be obtained as park contributions through the land developmentprocess or through purchase by Council.

4.4.2 Restricted Open Space

This designation indicates the location of areas which are intended toaccommodate sporting, recreational and tourist oriented uses andexhibit and maintain an open area character. Land in this designationincludes both privately owned properties and certain publicly ownedland used for activities not involving access by the general public.

Land in this designation also makes a major contribution to theenvironmental and visual character values of the Shire in that itcontains substantial areas of land adjoining creeks and coastal areas,and which assist in retaining environmental values through preservationof water quality and bushland. The designation includes:

• The Howeston Golf Course and adjoining wetland areasalong Tingalpa Creek;

• Ormiston House and its associated grounds which provide astrong feeling of open space and bushland in a coastallocation; and

• A substantial area of land west of Hilliards Creek which isprimarily publicly owned and contains significant areas ofbushland, together with locations used for irrigation oftreated waste water and other public purposes.

Further development of land in this designation should be low key, of asimilar nature to existing uses and not compromise the environmentaland visual character values of these sites.

(c) The planning scheme will include an overlay, which will designate Bushfire hazard areas.

(d) It should be noted that Council will be embarking upon a Local AreaPlan process for North Stradbroke Island after the approval of the newplanning scheme. This process will allow for extensive consultation inthe development of this plan.

(e) The Point Lookout DCP will be reviewed as part of the second stage ofthe planning scheme review. This plan will be transferred into an IPAcompatible format. Also, those components of he plan that requireupdating and revision will be changed.


ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.3

cont.(f) These matters have been broadly addressed in the North Stradbroke

Island/Minjerribah Planning and Management Study. More detailedwork will be undertaken as part of the Local Area Plan for the Island.

(g) This is due to the scale of the SOP map.

(h) Council’s engineers determined the size of the area which isconsidered appropriate for the potential future population of thetownship.

(i) Refer to (h).

(j) The SOP map is schematic and is not intended to show all physicalfeatures.

(k) Noted.

(l) The designation of the water supply catchment is to denote thoseareas, which are within the catchment of Herring Lagoon on NorthStradbroke.

(m) Noted.

(n) The island contains a variety of industries that help support the localpopulation. Land that supports these industries will be recognised byan appropriate zone in the new planning scheme.

(o) Noted.

(p) Noted.

3.4 Land use designations are suitable, however thereare large areas designated for poultry.


Refer to 1.10

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.5 Land should be set aside for the provision of

churches and other community buildings, that are:1. Not in residential areas2. On land unsuitable for housing3. Possibly between residential and commercial

development

48 Noted. This matter will be considered during the drafting of the RedlandsPlanning Scheme.


That the submitter be advised that theirsubmission has noted.

COUNCIL DECISION


3.6 Lot Sizes –

1. Maintain housing affordability.

2. Ensure that lot sizes surrounding schools,hospitals and centres are kept at a ‘reasonable’size for families, no smaller than 26 perches.

3. Concerns that the lot sizes throughout the Shireare already too small and are in danger ofbecoming ‘slums’ in the future. Howeverimplementing more parkland could balance thisout.

4. Infill development lots should not be less than600m2.

5. Small lots of 400sqm do not allow for privacy orvegetation planting in Res A zoning. Often thebuilding wall forms part of the boundary line.

50, 53, 56,60, 98, 281

1. Housing affordability is one of the policy positions that the planningscheme will seek to achieve. Community and Social DevelopmentStrategy 5 in the SOP stated the following:

In providing for the development of future residential areas provisions ofthe new Planning Scheme will seek to maintain housing affordability byfacilitating residential mix and a variety of lot sizes. In particular thePlanning Scheme will seek to optimise opportunities for the provision ofaffordable housing, such as hostels, community housing and nursinghomes.

2. The planning scheme will, through the subdivision or reconfiguration ofland code ensure that the allotment sizes are appropriate for thelocation and ensure a high degree of amenity for future residentialdevelopment. It should be noted however that the SOP has, in an effortto contain urban sprawl proposed to , consolidate development withinexisting urban areas. This consolidation of development is proposedwithin and around existing centres.

3. Noted.

4. The minimum size of infill allotments is a matter that we be controlledthrough the subdivision or reconfiguration of land code. This code ispresently being drafted by Council and will take into account theseconcerns.

5. The residential amenity on small allotments can be controlled by aresidential housing code specifically relating to small allotments. At thisstage of the drafting process, the exact details of the controls, or codehave not been finalised, however the maintenance of residentialamenity and privacy will be one of the primary goal or purpose of thiscode.


That the submitters note the comments.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.7 In favour of minimal controlled development at North

Stradbroke Island, allowing greater densities inexisting centres, and ensuring that new developmentis ‘self sustainable’ in design. This can be achievedby:• Ensuring that new developments minimise the

use of utilities.• Reduce curb and channelling and encourage

keeping water on-site.

52 It is planned to undertake a review of the detailed planning controls forNorth Stradbroke through a Local Area Plan after the new planning schemeis approved. It should be noted however that North Stradbroke island isrecognised as a fragile environment where any plans to intensifydevelopment would be required to be seriously examined in terms of itspotential impacts upon the environment.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.8. a. To better protect the koala habitat areas, koalahabitat corridors should be placed throughout theShire, not just constrained to the Koala Coastarea. In residential areas wildlife access shouldrun along and between properties.

b. Council could also ensure that koala compatibletrees be planted throughout the Shire.

c. More areas of land throughout the Shire shouldbe set aside for recreational and environmentalprotection.

56, 88, 111,144

a. Some of these comments are outside of the Planning Scheme’scapacity, and so they have been addressed through Council’s KoalaPolicy and its accompanying Koala Strategy.

Council has endeavoured to allow for wildlife corridors in urban areasthrough the acquisition of land and through the designation of land forpublic open space, special protection and restricted open space. Thedesignation or identification of smaller corridors for koalas on privateland is difficult because of the conflicts between urban living (domesticsanimals etc) and koalas. It is also difficult because residentialproperties are typically 600m2 in area, which does not allow enoughvegetation to be retained for serious corridor opportunities.

b. With regard to the planting of koala habitat trees, Developers will berequired to plant koala compatible trees (where this is appropriate froma safety and infrastructure viewpoint) as part of Council’s adoptedVegetation Enhancement Strategy.

c. The Shire is in the process of completing an Open Space andRecreation Study. This study is amongst other things is identifying landthat is required for recreational uses in the future to service the needsof the Shire’s residents and visitors. With respect to environmentalprotection, large tracts of the Shire are set aside (including land inCouncil control) and more is being investigated for purchase.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.9. What buffers does Council propose for noise andodours at the Rural-Poultry Industry designated landand adjacent Residential land.

67 Council is investigating extending the 500 metre poultry buffers from theedge of the property boundary rather than from the existing sheds. Thiswill ensure that poultry farms will be able to expand their operations withinthe property boundaries.



COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.10. • The SOP makes no mention of commercial strip

developments within the Shire. Controls of thesedevelopment, specifically advertising, should beaddressed.

• The SOP does not mention culture, or a culturalcentre in Redland Shire. Perhaps considerationshould be given to the development of an openair amphitheatre in the Shire

69 • The SOP includes a number of strategies in relation to stripdevelopment. Strategy 3 on page 27 specifically referencesdiscouraging out of centre development and particularly stripdevelopment.

• The SOP in section 3.4.3 specifically outlines those strategies relatingto cultural heritage. It is acknowledged that the SOP does not outlineplans for a cultural centre within the Shire. This is however regarded asbeing outside the scope of the SOP.



COUNCIL DECISION“That the Officer’s Recommendation beadopted”(Special Meeting Minutes – 11 November2002)

3.11. • Prevent any further business / commercial / retaildevelopment.

• Provide environment / nature / greenbeltprotection overriding any other issue.

70 • Council recently completed a Centres Study for the Shire. This studydetermined that there is enough land designated within the existingplanning scheme for retail and commercial uses until the year 2016. Asa result the planning strategies within the SOP strongly encourage theconsolidation of the existing retail and commercial centres within theShire.

• It is important to realize that ecological sustainability is defined underIPA to include the natural environment, social well being and economicdevelopment. It should not be interpreted narrowly to imply a greateremphasis on the protection of the natural environment at the expenseof social well being and / or economic growth.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.12. The stakeholders have a bias view towardsenvironmental criteria. The community needs to haveeconomic considerations, with respect to:

• All areas with close access to existing servicesshould be developed with suitable small parks.Outer areas away from services should be openspace. If Council does not suitably infill and useservices, the economic and environmental cost ofthe community

• There will be an under-supply of land in theShire, forcing up prices, eliminating theopportunity for first home buyers in the Shire andforcing people to live further away from work,services and shops

• A full cost benefit analysis and environmentalweighting (outcomes based) should be used inassessing the development options, as thesimplistic methods used make some options (3A,3B, 4) look worse than they area.

71 • The preferred option that was used as the basis of the SOP had urbanconsolidation as one of the major and underlying policy principles.

• Refer to 1.10.• It is considered that the marking method employed during the

assessment of the options was as rigorous and detailed as waspossible having regard to the information available.



COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.13. Comments in regards to PLU map for sports

complexes:

• The only new sports field shown on the PLU mapis the rubbish dump at Redland Bay, howeverexisting facilities in the Shire area alreadystruggling to cope with their demand.

• It is imperative that additional land be set asidefor active use, rather than just drainage / floodingand conservation purposes – planning needs totake into consideration people’s needs.

• Suggested sites for active purposes, including anOlympic sized swimming pool and sports fieldsinclude: at Victoria Point near the High Schooland Shopping Centres (rather than residential orretirement purposes).

72 Council is currently completing an Open Space and Recreation Study.This study will inform the outcomes of the planning scheme with respect torecreation within the Shire.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.14. Three local shopping centres are proposed forRedland Bay, however this is not tenanted. Shoppingcentres increase crime, vandalism, and graffiti inresidential areas. Consider the shopping centres atQueen Street and School of Arts Road sufficient toservice the requirements of the area.

A tourism opportunity designated at the end of theSchool of Arts Road would mean a natural mangrovearea would be destroyed.

86 These local shopping centres are shown on the SOP map in an indicativemanner to show where local shopping centres could locate. These localcentres will cater for the daily and convenience shopping needs ofresidents within the local area.

Currently land at the end of School of Arts Road is indicated as suitable fora tourism use. Any such development would need to be respectful ofadjoining environmental values and potential impacts on the Moreton BayMarine Park. The appropriateness of a tourism opportunity at the end ofSchool will be reviewed as part of the drafting of the Planning Scheme.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.15. No comment. 96 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That Council thanks the submitter for theirviews.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.16. Land at Redland Bay between Mt Cotton and

Victoria Point and Mt Cotton and Redland Bay iscurrently occupied as a macadamia farm andchicken sheds, however is located in an urbancorridor. Council needs to prioritise which corridorshould be developed first, in order to considerrelocation opportunities for the farm and the sheds.

Potential relocation opportunities may lie at theeastern side of Heinemann Road, and therefore re-designation of this land for subdivision may need tobe considered.

104 Refer to 1.1 and 1.10. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Refer to 1.1 and 1.10.

COUNCIL DECISION


3.17. There needs to be a greater provision of affordableland in the Shire for developing small warehouses.There is a demand for the buildings, however limitedavailable land for developing. Relocation to Brisbanemay be the only other alternative.

110 One of the key economic development planks of the SOP is theidentification of three Integrated Employment Centres. These centres areto be located at Birkdale Road Birkdale, the Capalaba Turf Farm andRedland Bay. These IEC’s are designated areas suitable for the co-location of a wide range of industrial, warehouse, transport, storage andoffice uses together with retail, educational and recreational uses. Thisshould substantially increase the availability of industrial land within theShire.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.18. Areas set aside for tourism should providecaravanning facilities, rather than resort parks.

111 Noted OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That Council notes the comments.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.19. The SOP does not seem to include a designation

such as “broad vistas”, in order to recognise theimportance of views and outlooks from their homes.How does the plan cater for the aspect of peoplepaying a lot of money for a ‘view’ from their home?

Suggest an addition heading “broad vistas” beincluded, with a statement such as “protect andenhance the present opportunities for broad vistasfrom houses and public areas such as roads,shopping centres, recreational areas and parks”

115 As part of the development of the planning scheme it is proposed to includewhat is termed a constraints layer relating to Landscape and Visual Valueswithin the Shire. This will ensure that any development identified in theplanning scheme in certain areas will be required to minimise the impactsupon an areas visual and landscape values.

Council is committed to undertaking a scenic amenity study for the Shire.This project is already budgeted and is expected to commence shortly.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.20. Support the plans for the protection of ruralindustries so as not to make the agricultural areas an‘urban desert’.


That Council thanks the submitter for theirsupport.

COUNCIL DECISION


3.21. The SOP aims to preserve the land resources forrural industries, but it has not addressed existing orpotential conflicts between community members andthe industry. Amendment of the urban footprint isnecessary to provide a better interface betweenthese areas.

225, 226,256

It is considered that the interface between rural and urban areas issufficiently defined in the SOP. The interface is reinforced by planningcontrols such as the 500-metre buffer between poultry and residentialareas and the 1km buffer between extractive uses and urban areas.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.22. The scale of the plan should be improved to moreclearly delineate specific areas and to facilitateinformed feedback. Consider a smaller scaled map,perhaps showing road designations.

22, 127,149, 156,191, 192,300, 312

The SOP is meant to be more schematic rather than detailed as it shows ina broad policy sense Council’s intentions for the Shire till the year 2016.The current stage of the planning scheme review (stage 2) is nowexamining land designations/zoning at a more detailed and refined level.



COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.23. The current form of the SOP will not lead to a

sustainable future, as outlined by the IPA.81 Refer to 1.2 and 1.4. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION


COUNCIL DECISION


3.24. The strategy needs to better protect the rights ofresidents, specifically ensuring that transportplanning and its implementation gives priority topreserving residents ‘quality of life’ and that trafficwill be encouraged away from residential streets.

133 The SOP was in parallel with the development of an Integrated LocalTransport Plan. The ILTP endeavours to ensure that the future transportneeds of the Shire are properly considered together with strategies forfuture growth and land use.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.25. Ormiston should be considered an area suitable forthe location of elderly housing. Both low and highcare aged residential housing is necessary in theShire, due to the high percentage of agedpopulation.

135, 237 The SOP as one of the Residential development strategies seeks toencourage the provision of a range of housing styles and accommodationtypes to increase housing and locational choice that responds to housingneeds of the community at all stages of their life cycle. One of thesehousing choices is aged housing. This housing will be required to belocated near to or adjacent to existing centres or near public transport toensure integration with the community.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.26. The SOP is deficient in the following areas:

Outlining the types of developments and usesallowed in the specific “areas”.

No relationship between the Point Lookout DCP andthe SOP was made.

Point Lookout should provide for increased low-density residential areas around the commercialareas.

The Planning scheme should also make increasedsite coverage provisions for Point Lookout (not 30%,as in the existing scheme).

140 The SOP is meant to outline the future intention for land use and growthmanagement in Redland Shire to the year 2016. The SOP is strategic byits very nature and has not looked and examined specific areas unlessthere has been a distinct requirement to do so.

In relation to Point Lookout, it should be noted that in stage 2 of theplanning scheme review, detailed controls will be drafted for the township.These will involve the transfer of the controls into an IPA compliantframework. It will also involve changing those controls, which have notworked or require further refinement.

Following completion of the North Stradbroke Island/Minjerribah Planningand Management Study, a detailed Local Area Plan for the Islands will bepresented.



COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.27. Note that the proposed Bunnings site has been re-

designated Commercial on the PLU map.144 At this time, the Statement of Proposal reflects the current Strategic Plan. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION


COUNCIL DECISION


3.28. Council needs to ensure that the new PlanningScheme takes account of highly space-intensivedevelopments, such as Bunnings by:

• Creating a stand-along definition for suchdevelopments, such as ‘Trade Supplies /Hardware’

• Under ‘Centres’ it is advised that Councilconsider the development of ‘fringe retail’, eventhough ‘out-of centre’ development is notpreferred. Developments such as Bunnings arenot suitable in major centres.

• Bunnings development should be consideredsuitable land use within, but not limited to,Integrated Employment Centres.

145 The comments made by Bunnings in relation to Hardware stores are thosethat local authorities are being increasingly required to consider in terms ofthe functioning of their centres. Essentially a Bunnings store (in thetraditional sense) and other similar stores have located on the fringe orurban centres. The reasons for this are given in section 3 of thesubmission which include the requirement for:• A large flat site;• Site exposure to a main road;• Low cost sites; and• Within a catchment of 10 000 people.

As stated in the submission, most local authorities do not have these sitesavailable within their centres and hence the requirement to locate outsideof centres.

The problem is however that Bunnings and other larger hardware storesare increasingly including a range of goods and services that do notconfine their use to solely what is termed ‘hardware’. The types ofproducts essentially make these uses large-scale shopping centres. As aresult, local authorities are finding that these ‘shopping or retail’ uses arebeing located outside of the centre and impacting upon the viability andvitality of the centres.

The recently drafted Centres Study undertaken as a background study tothe planning scheme review made a number of recommendations relatingto centres and their functioning and how to include controls in the newplanning scheme. The study suggested that the primacy of the centreshould be maintained and that all development should be located within acentre and if not within a centre, located on its fringe. This is called thesequential approach. It should also be noted that the recommendationsstated that development should be made to consider changing theirtraditional format so that they can ‘fit’ into the centre. In this sense aBunnings store may be required to change its format and retrofit into acentre. It is also relevant to note that in the Redland context the area ofland that has been designated for centre activities is not just the centrecore. It is a mixed use area that includes a range of uses including:• Commercial;• Retail;


1. That the submitter note the comments;and

2. That Redland Shire Council continuesto adopt the sequential approach tocentres planning.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES• Residential;• Service industrial; and• Community.

The centres areas Redland Shire that are appropriate for these types ofuses (Victoria Point, Cleveland and Capalaba) all have sufficient landwithin their designated centres for this type of use.


ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.29. A Tri-Service Cadet Navigational and Survival

Training Facility, for the general public, communitygroups, schools and business, should be developedin the Mt Cotton region, above the Venman’sBushland Reserve.

151 This matter is referred to Council’s Environmental Management Group. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

This matter is referred to Council’s Parksand Recreation department

COUNCIL DECISION.


3.30. 1. It would be impossible to provide recreationaland open space opportunities for the diversepopulation, as is the intent of the SOP

2. Noted it is impossible for water supply to beecologically sustainable

3. An upgrade of all sewerage plants is necessary4. More stormwater controls need to be put in place

within the Shire

154 1. Noted.2. Noted3. Redland Water and Waste has responsibility for the provision of

sewerage and stormwater infrastructure within the Shire. Part of thisresponsibility is the planned maintenance and upgrade of allinfrastructure to meet community needs and requirements.

4. Stormwater controls will be addressed through Stormwatermanagement codes in the planning scheme.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.31. Protection of heritage in the Shire should be of highpriority.

154 Council has recently enacted a voluntary heritage register. Properties thatare included on this register will be required to co ply with the requirementsof a Heritage Code or similar in the new planning scheme.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.32. The Bayview development at German Church Roadshould be restricted and land for open space andconservation to be preserved. Council shouldacquire the southern part of the proposed land forconservation purposes.

156 Council as part of Stage 2 of the planning scheme will be developing aLocal Area Plan for the Bayview development. This plan will includedetailed controls relating to its future development.



COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.33. Waste Management: There is no future allocations

of land for waste management facilities following theclosure of Birkdale in six – seven years. Potentialwaste management expansion area at Lot 1 RP205164 at Redland Bay. There is not other landallocated as special purposes for wastemanagement.

162 Refer to Redland Water and Waste for further investigation and comment. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

No recommendation.

COUNCIL DECISION


3.34. Disappointed at the large amount of UrbanResidential development south of Redland Bay andthe disappearance of the farmland. Instead of thisdevelopment Council needs to have:• More green corridors• Larger blocks of land• More parklands• Recreational areas and public open spaces

223 The SOP preferred land use pattern involved no further increase in thearea of land designated for future urban development. This wasrecommended to ensure:• Accommodating growth in a compact urban form;• Allowing for economic development and growth;• Providing a range of housing types and styles;• Encouraging more efficient public transport;• Promoting the protection of environmentally sensitive areas;• Encouraging more vital and vibrant Centres within the Shire; and• Allowing for an increase in population while retaining the character and

lifestyle of the Redlands.

Refer to 1.1.



COUNCIL DECISION

“That the Officer’s Recommendation beadopted”(Special Meeting Minutes – 11 November2002

3.35. Council should not force people to live in the westernsuburbs of Redlands, with a lower living standard, toaccommodate the increasing population.

250 The SOP does not promote people moving to the western areas of theShire. The SOP promotes:• Accommodating growth in a compact urban form;• Allowing for economic development and growth;• Providing a range of housing types and styles;• Encouraging more efficient public transport;• Promoting the protection of environmentally sensitive areas;• Encouraging more vital and vibrant Centres within the Shire; and• Allowing for an increase in population while retaining the character and



The submitter note the comments.

COUNCIL DECISION


3.36. Concerned with:• Large areas of proposed medium density

residential.• Lack of open spaces and parklands in the

residential areas.• Increasing the housing density and population

conflicts with the character of the Redlands.• Capalaba should remain for industrial purposes,

whereas Cleveland, Ormiston and Victoria Pointshould be ‘quiet areas’.

254, 255 Refer to 1.6 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Refer to 1.6

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.37. Some key issues that have not been considered in

the SOP:

a. Cleveland has not addressed some key elementsof planning, including: mixed use, residentialdensities and the importance of transit stations

b. There must be a balanced mix of activities fortowns to achieve diversity within theneighbourhood

c. A compact urban form reduces the number oftrips per household that are necessary

d. Urban villages should be considered in theRedlands

e. To achieve strong urban centres, dwellingdensity should be increased (up to 125 du/ha)

f. The location of medium rise buildings should becarefully considered – i.e. not on a coastalheadland or hills where they dominate theskyscape

• Parking requirements

Overall commends Council for the aims outlined inthe SOP

260 a. The centres matrix recognises Cleveland as a multipurpose centre thathas a number of different roles including:• Retail and commercial;• Administration;• Tourism;• Culture and Entertainment;• Residential;• Community Services; and• Commercial Industry.

b. Agreed.c. Agreed.d. The concept of urban villages has been recognised within Redlands for

some period of time through various planning documents and localstreetscape works. This recognition will be built upon the forthcomingyears by the development of Local Area Plans for distinct areas.

e. It should also be noted that Council is currently investigating thelocation and intensity of medium density development. This study willexamine:• The character of the area;• The age and condition of the housing stock;• The ability of the local road network to handle increased traffic

volumes;• Proximity to public transport and the centre;• Existing use rights;• Lot sizes; and• Land values

f. Refer to (e)g. Noted.


That the submitter note the commentsmade.

COUNCIL DECISION


3.38. a. Planning at Wellington Point should take intoconsideration: more usable greenspace withbikeways and paths, low-set cluster housing forthe aged

b. Council should not allow commercial activitiesusing wood fires to be adjacent to residentialareas

c. Provision of more aged care facilities throughoutthe entire Shire

d. Capping the populatione. Banning the installation of wood heaters

264 a. Noted.b. Noted.c. Council recognises the requirement to accommodate aged care

housing within the Shire. The planning scheme will encourage agedcare housing within or adjacent to existing centres an near publictransport.

d. Refer to 1.2 and 1.10.e. Noted.



COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.39. a. The planning scheme should give priority to the

protection of residential amenity.

b. The character of existing residential areas shouldnot be diminished

c. Before any decisions about the location of futureresidential areas is decided, Council shouldundertake a survey of areas within the Redlands,as part of a Local Area Plan to discover thecommunities perception of future developmente.g. The Wellington Point region suggests anincrease in population from 8000 to 13,000(Commerce and Industry Issues Paper) in thenext 15 years, however there does not appear tobe room for this increase and it contradicts items1-9 p23 of the SOP.

266 a. The residential strategies of the SOP specifically state the desire toprotect the amenity of residential areas. Residential strategy 6 is asfollows:

The Planning Scheme will seek to protect residential amenity throughthe:Separation and buffering of incompatible uses,Effective siting and design of major transport corridors, andImposition of operational and environmental controls on non-residentialuses that have the potential to impact adversely on the liveability ofresidential areas.

b. Agreed.

c. This will be undertaken as part of a detailed local area planning processthat is planned to be started by 2003.



COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.40. a. Council should implement ESD indicators at a

community level (examples included)

b. The level of population, material and energyconsumption and waste output in Redlandsneeds to be determined

c. Council needs to determine the type of growthand industry which is wanted in the Shire in thefuture (conflict between urban development andagriculture)

d. The building industry needs to ensure that allnew developments use resource efficient energy,water and materials

e. The Corporate Plan does not address thefollowing:• Protection of agricultural lands• Prevention of development on all remaining

wetland areas and adjacent low lying areas• Proper management of catchments and

stormwater• Assessing development applications to

ensure they have a net positive gain toecosystem and human health in the long term

f. Incentives for these to happen include:• Tariff block charge for water use should

increase with the use of water• Energy efficiency incentives• Rates should be reduced for people who

reduce consumption of resources• An Awards system to undertake energy and

water conservation measures

278, 293 a. Noted. This matter should be referred to Council’s EnvironmentalManagement Group.

b. Many of the issues surrounding this cannot be dealt with by a PlanningScheme. For example, Council is currently involved in the FederalGovernment program. Cities for Climate Protection that sets a series ofsteps towards determining energy outputs and goals for reduction.

c. Redland Shire aims to have industries that provide services to the localcommunity, local jobs and does not impact upon the environment andamenity of the Shire.

d. Noted. The planning scheme will include an energy efficiency code orsimilar for residential development.

e. The Corporate Plan is not part of the SOP. This matter should bereferred to Corporate services.

f. See (e).




3. That the relevant Council Departmentsnote the comments.

COUNCIL DECISION


3.41. A policy should be implemented to cover thefollowing issues:

a. Landowners require approval from Council toclear vegetation and issues considered beforeapproving an application include: protectingriparian vegetation along streams and rivers,maintaining vegetation for wildlife and retainingvegetation where it assists in protection of soilerosion and salinity.

b. Golf courses should not be allowed in bushlandareas, as proposed at Duncan Road, Capalaba.

272 a. Refer to 1.4.

b. Noted.


Refer to 1.5

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES


ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.42. Duplex buildings in the Shire should only be

allowed on corner lots so that each building hasstreet frontage.

281 The siting and design of duplexes or dual occupancies will be subject to amultiple dwelling code or similar. The matter of whether this form ofhousing should only be located on corner allotments will be investigatedfurther during the drafting of this code.



2. That the drafters of the codes note thesubmitters comments.

COUNCIL DECISION


3.43. The location of mobile phone towers in the Shireneeds to be more appropriate (i.e. not adjacent toschools, as is in Victoria Point).

281 It is envisaged that a telecommunications code or similar will be drafted aspart of Stage 2 of the planning scheme review. This code will examine:• The location of these uses (especially near sensitive land uses);• The design and height of the structures; and• The visual impacts of the installations.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.44. Bikeways and cycle tracks should not be placedbehind residential areas, in order to prevent crimeand increase surveillance.

283 The planning scheme will incorporate Crime Prevention ThroughEnvironmental Design (CPTED) principles. This will ensure that bothpublic and private spaces are designed so as to minimise the possibility ofcrime.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.45. Park Residential land is wasteful and destructive tothe environment – re-vegetation may not be the bestsolution to wildlife habitats

Larger parcels of land in residential areas suitable forsubdivision to cater for population growth may beunavailable or unsuited to sub-division. Where doesthe population go then?


Refer to 1.1.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.46. 1. Reserve more areas for light industry to

minimise the travel of locals to work.

2. Allow all areas within walking distance to railwaystations to be redeveloped to high density (up tofour storeys) with off-street car parking toencourage the use of the railway.

295 1. One of the key components of the SOP was the designation of threeIntegrated Employment Centres. An extract of Economic DevelopmentStrategy 2 is shown below:

2. The Shire’s primary business and industry needs are proposed to bemet through the identification of three Integrated Employment Centres(IECs). IEC’s are designated areas suitable for the co-location of awide range of industrial, warehouse, transport, storage and office usestogether with retail, educational and recreational uses.

An IEC is an area within which a range of traditionally incompatibleindustries are able to locate together subject to compliance withcommon design standards.IEC™s typically include office parks andbusiness parks in campus like settings. Equally IECs may includemixed use industrial areas accommodating a range of activities.

Three IECs are proposed to be designated under the new PlanningScheme. The designated IEC™s are illustrated on the Preferred LandUse Option. IEC locations and descriptions include:

IEC 1 Birkdale Road, BirkdaleThe Birkdale IEC site is characterised by attributes that are likely tomake it attractive to high profile, low impact, activities often associatedwith managed business parks. This IEC is particularly suitable for thedevelopment of a education/research facility developed as a highlymanaged campus environment.

IEC 2 Capalaba (Turf Farm)The Capalaba IEC will form part of the Capalaba Centre. This area issuitable for development as either a business park, mixed business andindustry area, or for the establishment of a specific land intensiveindustrial development

IEC 3 Redland BayThe Redland Bay IEC is intended to service the new and expandingresidential areas in the southern part of the Shire and the SouthernMoreton Bay Islands.This area is less constrained and suitable for a range of general,service andlight industries.

2. The designation or location of medium density development within oradjacent to transport nodes and centres is one of the key policypositions of the SOP.


1. That the submitter’s comments benoted.

2. That the submitter notes the commentsmade.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.47. 1. Larger lot sizes should be developed to

accommodate houses and existing vegetation.The present requirements to retain large treesclose to buildings is impractical and will lead tohome owners seeking retribution from RSCif/when trees fall.

2. Perhaps Council should consider regulations toretain corridors and council-owned land alongrear boundaries of lots and along ridge tops.

3. Stormwater management needs to be bettercontrolled.

4. The list of permissible plant species for PointLookout needs to be restructured to remove theweeds.

5. Council should stop sand mining at StradbrokeIsland as it is destroying the biodiversity.

324 1. In order to consolidate development within the Shire it has beendecided that no further larger lot residential development will beallocated or designated. Larger allotment style developments areregarded as being inefficient from an infrastructure and environmentalperspective.

2. Refer to 1.5.

3. Refer to 1.5.

4. The Point Lookout DCP is being reviewed as part of Stage 2 of theplanning scheme. This review will include improving those parts of theDCP that require updating.

5. It is believed that sandmining on North Stradbroke Island is steadilybeing phased out over the next 20 to 30 years. The sand mining ishowever not subject to Council controls, but is subject to Statelegislation.


That the submitter note the comments.

COUNCIL DECISION


3.48. Concerned about preservation of wetlandsgenerally throughout the Shire. These areas aresensitive and provide habitat for koalas.

430 Refer to 1.4. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Refer to 1.4.

COUNCIL DECISION


3.49. Requires better consultation (not just another planasking the Shire to comment).

710 The planning scheme review has included an extensive consultationprocess that has employed the following consultation mediums:• Public meetings;• Stakeholder meetings and workshops;• Internal council meetings;• Meetings with state government departments;• Web page;• Newsletters;• Phone line; and• Email address.



COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.50. A new zoning needs to be created to cater for land

over 2ha (small acreage properties) in Rural andSpecial Rural Areas.

719 Noted. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the drafters of the planning schemeconsider the comments

COUNCIL DECISION


3.51. Most proposals for future development in the Shireare not sustainable development.

293 Refer to 1.2 and 1.4. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION


COUNCIL DECISION


3.52. Criticises SOP for its lack of innovative vision and its‘bogging down in past failures’, although it is positivefor its consideration of conservation and populationgrowth.

Medium rise structures will evolve, but there is littlechance when ‘old’ thinking demands urban sprawl.

299 It is considered that the process followed in the development of the SOP isone that is both robust and innovative. The innovation of the SOP relatesto the development of a range of realistic development options that wereassessed against Ecologically Sustainability principles.

In relation to medium density development. Refer to 1.7.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.53. Where are high-density areas going to be located? 307 Medium density development is planned to be developed around or withincentres and transport nodes.



COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.54. The letterbox drop of plan and Newsletter 3 was a

positive idea. Council should make executivesummary documents (such as for Vision 2005 andBeyond) available for the public and warnings aboutlarge document size on the internet).

The instructions on the feedback form could besimplified do say “what are you issues, concerns,and suggestions for improvement to the issue/s”

307 Comments are noted. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the submitter notes the commentsmade.

COUNCIL DECISION


3.55. The importance of connectivity in the landscape inorder to ensure effective biodiversity conservation.Much more could be done to support this, such asthe land at Wellington Point between the primaryschool, high school and Redland College).


Refer to 1.4

COUNCIL DECISION


3.56. The “village atmosphere” of the Redlands could beretained not by preserving the farmlands, but bymanaging the desirable farmland as open space.This would provide the opportunity to rehabilitate theareas with native vegetation and return them to aquasi-natural state. There would then be a mosaic ofurban areas and areas of natural vegetationthroughout the Shire.

312 Refer to 1.4 and 1.5 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION


COUNCIL DECISION


3.57. The SOP aims to encourage “adaptable andinnovative” housing types. This is commendable, aslong as we don’t end up with a big mixture ofdifferent styles that becomes an eyesore.

326 The comments are noted. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That Council notes the comments.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.58. Planners need to be more aware when planning for

koalas. The koalas should not be put in VictoriaPoint as the soil is poor and thus the trees are not asnutritious. Planners have been prone to develop landthat is good for koalas into urban areas.


Refer to 1.4

COUNCIL DECISION


3.59. Residential development should not be allowedalong a 3-5km coastal strip.

351 The SOP did not expand the area of designated urban development fromthat shown in the existing Strategic Plan. As a result no further coastalland has been designated for urban development.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.60. Support the development proposals for NorthStradbroke Island. The proposals for additionalresidential, industrial and services will maximize theislands potential through the environmentalmanagement issues identified.

Further development of access to North StradbrokeIsland needs to be examined.

97 The comments are noted. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the submitters comments be noted.

COUNCIL DECISION


3.61. The industrial and commercial areas of Capalabaand Cleveland need to be transformed toaccommodate future residential units close toservices.

730 The industrial and commercial areas within Cleveland and Capalaba arerequired to provide jobs and services to the residents of the Shire. Ratherthan designate these areas for retail uses, it is preferable to retain them forindustrial and commercial development. It should be noted however thatduring stage 2 of the planning scheme review process, that Council isinvestigating the appropriateness of certain areas for medium densitydevelopment having regard to a range of criteria.



COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.62. Wildlife:

• Council should designate all creek riparianenvironments as special protection areas (75-50m each side of the watercourse) – reasons forthis proposal are contained in the submissions(many of them!!).

• Water use needs to be addressed.• Council should encourage rural industries that

are going to increase labour and the Shire’seconomy.

• Council needs to enforce waste water policies forsuburban water users and commercialoperations.

(More detailed information in the submission)


Refer to 1.4

COUNCIL DECISION


3.63. There is a need to provide more areas of commercialoffice space in the Capalaba region. Existing officespace in the region has a number of problems,including:• Minimal parking spaces• Office space too small• Expense• No other professional businesses in Capalaba

27 Recently Council completed a Centres Strategy for the Shire that has beenused in as a background study to the planning scheme review. This studyfound that there was sufficient land within the centres to cater forcommercial and retail development for the proposed population by the year2016. This study does not preclude the redevelopment of centres tobecome more attractive and functional multi purpose areas.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.64. Council should encourage non-service businesses toestablish in accessible areas, not at the back ofRedland Bay. Implications could result from this notoccurring, which include:• Increased single occupancy traffic leaving

Redlands• Lessens employment opportunities to service

these industries• Workers and jobs will therefore be attracted to

areas outside of Redlands.

13 The location of the Integrated Employment Centres had regard to a numberof locational criteria including:• Access to major transport routes;• Separation/buffering from residential areas;• Close proximity to a potential workforce; and• Not being included within areas of environmental significance.

As a result it is considered that these areas will be able to contributetowards Redlands becoming more sustainable from a local jobs creationperspective.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.65. Consideration should be given to the location of a100m corridor for public use running down thewestern side of North Stradbroke Island.

249 Noted. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the submitters comments be noted.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES


ISSUENO

ISSUE SUBMISSIONNO.


3 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES3.66. Suggest the construction of a duplex development at

6 Vienna Road, Alexandra Hills for the purposes ofelderly or disabled accommodation. The site is highlyaccessible.

49 The planning scheme will not designate those areas where duplexdevelopment can be located other than in a broad urban residential zone.The location of duplexes will have regard in the new planning scheme to arange of factors including, but not limited to:• Allotment size;• Allotment dimensions;• The size of the duplex; and• The character and nature of adjacent development.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.67. Inappropriate aquaculture, such as cage fish farms,should not be allowed access from the foreshore ofRedland Shire. These farms could createenvironmental issues in Moreton Bay

281 The new planning scheme will include a range of codes that will ensurethat environmentally inappropriate development cannot be established. Inrelation to aquaculture uses it is proposed that these uses will be assessedagainst an aquaculture code or similar.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.68. Thinks that dual corner stores / residences should begiven permits to operate, in order to provideconvenience for residents in the area and provideemployment opportunities for retirees. This wouldresult in less pollution, good exercise for residents,community interaction, and more employment in theShire.

726 Local stores or local shopping areas will be able to be located within newerdeveloping urban areas to serve the daily convenience needs of localresidents. If these local corner stores/shops. Council would be supportiveof a residential component to these stores if required by the applicant.



COUNCIL DECISION


3.69. a. Kinross Road should be converted into a lightindustry area as it is a cleared site, planned in anenvironmentally friendly way, with adequatevegetation buffer zones

b. Capalaba should not be the only area consideredfor intensive industrial and commercialdevelopment, rather Victoria Point should beencouraged as a major employment centre.

c. The impact of development on CoolnwynpinCreek waterway surrounding the 4-wayintersection and koala corridor has beendisastrous

724 a. Refer to 1.11

b. One of the major policy planks of the SOP was the identification ofthree Integrated Employment Centres at Birkdale, Capalaba andRedland Bay. Reference is made to Rural Strategy 6 of the Sop whichstates the following:

6. Through the designation of Integrated Employment Centres (IEC's),the new Planning Scheme will make provision for a wider range ofindustries including those which have tended to locate inappropriatelyin rural areas due to the absence of suitable areas elsewhere in theShire. Such uses include rural industries and construction, transportand storage depots.

AS such it is considered that the SOP examined in depth therequirement for major employment centres.

c. This matter should be referred to Council’s Environmental servicessection for comment.


1. That the submitter note the commentmade.

2. That the matter of the alleged impactsupon the Coolnwynpin Creek waterwayshould be referred to Council’sEnvironmental services section forcomment.

COUNCIL DECISION


RREEVVIIEEWW OOFF TTHHEE RREEDDLLAANNDD SSHHIIRREE PPLLAANNNNIINNGG SSCCHHEEMMEE SSTTAATTEEMMEENNTT OOFF PPRROOPPOOSSAALLSS ((SSOOPP)) SSUUBBMMIISSSSIIOONNSSISSUE

NOISSUE Submission

No.OFFICER COMMENT OFFICER AND COUNCIL

RECOMMENDATION4 STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCY

ISSUES4.1. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

AND MINES - 1

The Department lodged two submissions. The firstsubmission outlined the following.

a) No strategies are provided for the protection ofimportant extractive resources.

b) No clear indication that the Planning Schemewill protect existing operations from conflictsfrom inappropriate development.

c) The Planning Scheme should employ a similarlevel of protection to the poultry industry.

d) The requirements on Extractive Industries aremuch more rigorous than other forms ofdevelopment.

e) DNR would welcome the opportunity to developexpansion criteria for mines.

f) The draft State Planning Policy for ExtractiveResources includes the following quarries assites of State significance:• West Mount Cotton Resource/Redland Quarry

Area; and• The Mount Cotton Resource/Mount Cotton

Quarry Area.

g) The Department has included a copy of theirguideline for dealing with extractive resources inPlanning Schemes.

Later in the public comment period the Departmentlodged a second submission. This submissionincluded a draft report entitled Key Resource Areasin Redland Shire (June 2002).

1, 713 Introduction

The SOP provides for the protection of extractive resources within theShire, but seeks to balance this protection with the needs to protect coreenvironmental and habitat areas. As part of the development of the SOPCouncil officers and the consultants held a number of meetings withofficers from the following Departments:• Department of Natural Resources and Mines;• Department of Environment and Heritage; and• The Department of Local Government and Planning.

In addition all State Agencies including the Department of NaturalResources and Mines were consulted extensive during Stage 1 of thePlanning Scheme via a range of measures including six (6) state agencybriefings.

As a result, it is incorrect for the Department of Natural Resources andMines to state that they were not included within the development of theSOP. The strategies included within the SOP reflected the outcomes ofthese meetings.

State and Regional Issue

At the beginning of the planning review process, Council identified that theconflict between the Koala Coast State Planning Policy and the draftExtractive Resources State Planning Policy was clearly an issue of Stateand Regional significance, and accordingly one that would need to beresolved by the State. This position was agreed by DNRM, the EPA andDLGP, the lead agencies for planning related matters. As a result theDepartment of Local Government and Planning agreed to co-ordinate inthe process of reconciling this conflict and hence a number of specificmeetings were held with the relevant Government stakeholders.

The statements made in the SOP reflect the outcomes of the meetingswhere it was resolved that:

The Planning Scheme will identify and provide for the sustainableextraction of resources of economic significance including minerals, sand,rock and gravel. Extraction and haulage of such resources will bebalanced with the need to protect the natural, character and landscapevalues of resource areas.

This will be achieved through the recognition of existing developmentapprovals and limits of extraction. Future expansion of extractiveoperations, particularly where such expansion may lead to direct conflictwith competing needs to protect core environmental and habitat areas,such as West Mt Cotton, will be subject to assessment against designatedcriteria under the Planning Scheme.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION1. That DNRM be advised of Council

comments.

2. That Council note the comments andalso approach the Department of LocalGovernment and Planning with arequest for the Department to act as thelead agency and resolve the conflictbetween the protection of extractiveresources within the Shire and theprotection of the core environmentaland habitat areas of the Shire.

COUNCIL DECISION



NOISSUE Submission



ISSUES (continued)4.1

ContinuedDuring the drafting of the Planning Scheme, expansion criteria will bejointly derived by Council, the Department of Natural Resources and Mining(DNRM) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The criteria willprovide an assessment framework for future extractive industry expansionproposals and will address, among other things.• The likely impact of any expansion on core natural and habitat,

particularly koala habitat, values;• The implications of the proposal in terms of the requirements of State

Planning Policy 1/97 Œ Conservation of Koalas in the Koala Coast• The economic need for any expansion;• Projected off-site impacts associated with the expanded extractive

operation including those related to operational and haulage processes;• Proposed regeneration and rehabilitation measures, and associated

implementation programs; and• Any associated compensatory measures designed to minimise

cumulative environmental impacts.

Since the SOP has been on public display, DNRM has through the draftingof the document titled ‘Key Resource Areas in Redland Shire’ attempted toput forward a policy position protecting key resource areas. As a result itcan be construed that the balance that was sought to be achieved at thebeginning of the process no longer applies and that the DNRM is of thebelief (as is their charter) that the protection of these resources over ridesthe need to protect the environmental attributes of the area.

Ability to Influence Outcomes.

Whether the approach DNRM has taken is supported or rejected byCouncil. The conflict between the Koala Coast and Key Resource Areas isclearly a State and Regional issue and one that will need to be resolved bythe State.

As a result, is strongly recommended that representations are required tobe made to Department of Local Government and Planning requestingthem to resolve the conflict between the environmental values of the areaand its extractive resources as an issue of State and Regional Significance.


ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNo.


4 STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCYISSUES (CONTINUED)

4.2. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESAND MINES - 2

a. Recreation and Open SpaceThe Recreation and Open Space section in theSOP overlaps, and thus the subjects ofrecreation and open space are not clearlydefined, therefore the provision of each in thedevelopment process is unclear.

b. Specific SitesThere are inconsistent land use intentions for thefollowing sites:

• Lot 171 on SL7400 – object to the restrictedopen space zoning as part of the land isbeing used for business.

• Lot 1 on SL813180 – The land appears as aSpecial Protection area, but should remain asSpecial Facilities/public purposes so StateGovt can deal with the land for its mostappropriate use.

• Lot 112 on C14514 – The land should not bedesignated Special Protection, and should bedesignated Special Facilities / PublicPurposes.

• Lot 141 on SL10562 – the land should bedesignated for residential development,rather than Special Protection Area.

c. The PLU areas for Amity, Point Lookout andDunwich may restrict further developmentresponsibilities.

d. Problems with designation of area for seweragedisposal.

732 a. Recreation and Open Space

Council notes this matter. It was stated in the SOP however that at thetime of preparing this Statement of Proposals, Council was preparing adetailed Open Space and Recreation Study for the Shire. Futurerecreation and open space planning will draw heavily on the findings ofthis Study, which is expected to be completed during Stage 2 of thePlanning Scheme process. In the absence of the findings of this study,recreation and open space issues have been addressed only in a genericmanner having regard to available source material and State Agencyinput. Upon finalisation of the Open Space and Recreation Study, detailedfindings will be incorporated in the Planning Study and used to inform thedrafting of the Planning Scheme in Stage 2 of the project.

b. Specific Sites

Specific parcels of land that the department believes are inconsistentwith their future intentions are as follows:

• Lot 171 on SL7400.

This site is currently zoned Restricted Open Space and containsCouncil’s Sewerage treatment facility. DNRM have not provided anyguidance as to what they think the site should be zoned.

• Lot 1 on SL813180 – Wellington Street (TAFE College Site).

This matter has been discussed and commented on as part of 2.7.1.

The land was included within the Special Facilities/Public Purposesdesignation in the 1988 Planning Scheme as it was planned to bedeveloped as a TAFE College. The 1998 Strategic Plan recognisedthe extremely high environmental values of the land and included thesite within the Special Protection designation. This position wassupported by State Government with the gazettal of the Plan. In themost recent submission the site had significant environmentalconstraints

Department of Natural Resources has advised that the land is surplusto TAFE requirements and as such the Department is preparing for itsdisposal.

It is considered that the site should be retained within the SpecialProtection designation as the land:

• Is included within the Koala Coast;• Is within the Greenspace area in the Strategic Plan;• Has been identified as containing significant environmental

attributes; and• Is no longer required for educational purposes.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION1. That the Department of Natural

Resources be advised of Councilcomments.

2. That at the time no changes be made tothe proposed zoning of the followingparcels of land:

• Lot 171 on SL7400• Lot 1 on SL813180• Lot 112 on C14514• Lot 141 on SL10562

3. DNRM be invited to provide furtherinformation to Council to support theirchanges to the proposed zonings of thespecific sites referred in dot point 2above.

4. That Council and Department furtherdiscuss the location of the wastetreatment area at Point Lookout.

COUNCIL DECISION



NOISSUE Submission



ISSUES (CONTINUED)

• Lot 112 on C14514 - Land to the west of the DPI researchfarms – Cleveland.

The inclusion of the land as Special Protection reflects its designationunder the existing Strategic Plan.

The Special Protection designation includes those areas within themain urban parts of the Shire that have been identified as possessingnatural environmental qualities worthy of conservation. These areasinclude many areas of remnant vegetation that provide importanthabitat, corridor and visual landscape values.


“In some areas identified in the Environmental Inventory it isconsidered that the primary land use consideration is protection orenhancement of habitat, even though there may be other land useswhich currently exist and which will be permitted to continue. Wherethese circumstances apply, the Preferred Dominant Land Use Mapindicates those areas where there are environmental characteristicsimportant enough to warrant their inclusion as Special ProtectionAreas.

Those categories of the Environmental Inventory considered to be ofan importance that warrants consideration for inclusion in the SpecialProtection Category for protection or enhancement of habitat areshown in Table 3.4.1.


Land is not included in the Special Protection Areas where there areland use designations, which provide for land uses which, if properlydesigned and managed, can incorporate protection of habitat values.These land use designations include the Water Supply Catchment,Non Urban and Park Residential designations.

It should be noted however that the inclusion of the land in the SpecialProtection designation generally precludes the use of the land forurban purposes. Any other development must not impact upon thoseenvironmental values that were instrumental in the site being included



Major X X X X N/A X





NOISSUE Submission



ISSUES (CONTINUED)within the Special Protection designation.

In his particular instance, Council maintains that the land hassignificant environmental qualities and as such the land should remainin the Special Protection designation. This matter was vigorouslydebated and agreed with the Sate during the finalisation of the existingStrategic Plan.• Lot 141 on SL10562

This site is currently subject to a lease for the growing of wild flowers.Council has previously expressed interest in the long-term use of thesite and has objected to the extension of the lease (Murphy). It isunderstood that the site is also subject to a native title claim. Furtherdiscussion with DNRM on the future use of the site is necessary.

c. Allocation of further land on North Stradbroke Island.

Council cannot allocate further land for urban development on NorthStradbroke until all native title issues have been resolved. In additionthe North Stradbroke Island/Minjerribah Planning and ManagementStudy provides an important framework for the long-term sustainabilityof the Island. Council envisages that this study will be translated into adetailed land use plan in the New Year. When agreements arereached between all parties then the decisions to consolidate or extendthe urban areas of the Island can be made. These decisions will alsohave regard to matters such as:

• Environmental protection;• Infrastructure provision;• Catchment management;• Cultural heritage;• Bushfire hazards etc

In addition it is expected that an extensive community consultationprogram will support the development of a detailed Local Area Plan forthe Islands.In the interim it has been decided that the Planning Scheme will notincrease the urban areas of the Island.

d. Problems with designation of area for sewerage disposal.

With respect to the area shown for the future disposal of waste at PointLookout it should be noted that this designation covers the area thathas been designated as part of detailed planning process followed forthe Point Lookout DCP. This DCP, a legal document, was in partfunded by DNR and also agreed to by DNR.

If the Beenleigh office has changed its mind with respect to the locationof the area, then it is suggested that Council and the Department meetto find an alternative location.


ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNo.


4 STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCYISSUES

4.3. ENERGEX - 1

a. Portrayal of Energex’s existing infrastructure inthe SOP has been overseen.

b. The SOP omits the Belmont to Beenleigh 110kVline

c. The SOP omits the Beenleigh to Stradbroke110kV line.

d. The information shown in supporting maps in theSOP are incomplete as they do not display thefull extent of the existing 110kV and 33kVelectrical supply network (Energex will supplythe necessary maps)

e. Energex will supply those maps for displayingeasement corridors and existing subtransmission lines, as well as those easementsthat have capacity for augmentation.

f. Energex will supply a schedule of existing andproposed substations as well as an indication ofthe fully developed capacity of thosesubstations.

g. Energex supports SOP that rehabilitation ofareas after installation should occur at SMBI.

h. In relation to11kV and 33kV network ordistribution lines, Energex requires that day today maintenance and operational workassociated with that network be considered‘exempt’ development (self-assessable).

i. Energex is developing an ‘ElectricityInfrastructure Code’ with a number of Councilsand is targeted at new development and hasbeen constructed to provide a “trigger” affectingself-assessable development.

89, 309 a. The SOP intentionally omitted Energex’s infrastructure because of theschematic nature of the map. Council is however aware of theinformation that Energex gave Council in hard and digital format. Thisinformation will be used in the detailed drafting of the Planning Scheme.Electricity infrastructure has however been recognised in the SOPthrough specific strategies including:

Infrastructure Issue 1414. Recognition and the need for complementary planning approachesto facilitate the protection of operating works and trunk distributionsystems such as transmission corridors, substations, pipelines, amongothers.

Energy Supply Strategy 14Council will facilitate the extension and provision of reticulatedelectricity and gas services in conjunction with development. Under thenew Planning Scheme Council will enable service providers todesignate trunk facilities including transmission corridors, substationsand pipelines as Community Infrastructure in accordance with theIntegrated Planning Act.

b. Refer to (a)

c. Refer to (b)

d. Refer to (a)

e. Energex has already supplied Council with this information.

f. Noted.

g. Noted.

h. This matter will be taken into account and considered by Council duringthe drafting of the Planning Scheme.

i. Council will request a copy of this code from Energex for considerationin the drafting of the Planning Scheme.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION1. That Council notes the comments made

by Energex.

2. That Energex be assured by Councilthat their infrastructure will beappropriately recognised in thePlanning Scheme.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNo.



4.4. DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

a. Departments interests are to ensure thatcommunities are no put at risk from the impactsof natural and technological hazards and thatemergency service delivery and infrastructureare not adversely affected.

b. DES is presently preparing a SPP for NaturalDisaster Mitigation in local government PlanningSchemes.

c. Commends Council for a comprehensive andthorough document.

d. Request that RSC identify and map naturalhazards in the area and ensure that thecommunity will not be put at risk of naturalhazards, through planning provisions. Therecent funding of the Natural Disaster RiskManagement Study of the Shire should be usedfor this purpose.

e. In the Planning Scheme DES recommend thatCouncil:• Map identified natural hazards on existing

and future urban and rural-residential areasand include appropriate measures to ensuresuch developments area away from hazardareas

• Give preference to development that iscompatible with the level of hazard of theland

f. The Dangerous Goods Safety Management Act2001 will also have implications for the PlanningScheme where Major Hazard Facilities andLarge Dangerous Goods Locations areproposed.

89 a. Noted.

b. When the SPP becomes available Council will endeavour toincorporate the requirements of the policy into the Planning Scheme.

c. Noted.

d. It is understood that the study has been budgeted and approved andthat Council is currently waiting on further information from the StateGovernment. When the study has been completed or hazard areashave been identified they will be used to inform the drafting of thePlanning Scheme.

e. Despite hazard mapping not being completed in time for the SOP, aPosition Paper on the Constraints to development was undertaken asbackground information. The constraints that were identified included:

1. Flooding, storm surge and drainage problem areas.2. Slopes and land stability.3. Visual and landscape quality.4. Bushfire hazard.5. Contaminated land.6. Vector control and management.7. Acid sulphate soils.

f. Council will reference the requirements of the Dangerous Goods SafetyManagement Act 2001 in the drafting of the Planning Scheme.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION’

1. That Council notes the comments madeby the Department of EmergencyServices.

2. That the Department of EmergencyServices be assured by Council thatnatural hazards will be considered andrecognised in the Planning Scheme

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNo.



4.5. QUEENSLAND POLICE

No additional comment to earlier advice supplied

94 Noted OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

No recommendation required.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNo.



4.6. DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES

a. Clarification of the definition of ‘Open Space’,and splitting it into component parts, in order toadequately reflect the values associated with it isrequired, in addition to outlining anyconsistencies in the definition outlined by theDLGP.

b. The term ‘recreation and open space’ should bechanged to ‘recreation and sport’ so as to avoidinconsistencies in the use of ‘open space’.

c. The statement that natural and recreationalvalues are closely linked should be removed, asin many circumstances this is not the case.

d. DPI does not support rural residentialdevelopment where it may adversely impact onagricultural areas.

e. DPI has an issues with how rural residentialdevelopment may be considered to contributetowards rural character.

f. S3.2.4 of SOP should also consider that newbusiness development should not beencouraged without first considering the coststhat may arise from a loss of agriculturalcapacity within the Shire.

g. S3.2.5 DPI should be removed as a StateAgency for extractive resources.

h. Under ‘Nature Conservation Issues’ DPI shouldbe identified as a relevant State Agency for eachof the issues.

i. The Fisheries Act should be referenced whenreferring to Strategy 3 – “the effectivemanagement of remnant vegetation.

j. DPI should be mentioned as a relevant StateAgency with respect to SMBI Population GrowthManagement Strategies & Natural Environment.

k. The Planning Scheme should support the valuesof fisheries resources and reflect the State’sposition that unmanaged or inappropriatedevelopment impacting upon fisheries resourcescan significantly affect the economic and

129 a. The definition of ‘Open Space’ and its component parts will be includedand assessed as part of the ‘Open Space and Recreation’ Studycurrently being undertaken by Council. Future recreation and openspace planning will draw heavily on the findings of this Study, which isexpected to be completed during Stage 2 of the Planning Schemeprocess. In the absence of the findings of this study, recreation andopen space issues were addressed only in a generic manner havingregard to available source material and State Agency input. The SOPwas to simply highlight the open space issues and strategies in theShire with a more detailed overview intended in the Planning Scheme.Upon finalisation of the Open Space and Recreation Study, detailedfindings will be incorporated in the Planning Study and used to informthe drafting of the Planning Scheme in Stage 2 of the project.

b. The term ‘recreation and open space’ was used as a result of the ‘OpenSpace and Recreation’ study currently being undertaken by Council.The study will further define the roles and/or main components for bothrecreation and open space. The main findings from this study will beincorporated in the Planning Study.

c. This matter is noted and will be taken into account in the Stage 2drafting of the Planning Scheme.

d. The SOP does not designate any further areas for rural residentialdevelopment. .

e. See (d) above.

f. Noted. The poultry industry has, and continues to be, a dominanteconomic, environmental, social and landscape feature of the rural andhinterland areas of the Shire. As a long-standing policy position withinplanning instruments Council has sought to protect and encourage thisindustry within the Shire. The poultry industry is a recognisedcontributor to the local economy and employment, and is a land usethat is compatible with the character of the rural non-urban andenvironmental areas of the Shire. As such, the protection of the poultryindustry and other rural pursuits within the Shire has been one of themajor policy planks of the SOP.

g. Noted.

h. Noted.

i. Reference to the Fisheries Act will be captured in the Planning Study tosupport the values of fisheries resources and reflect the State’s positionthat unmanaged or inappropriate development can significantly affectthe economic and ecological resources of the region.

j. Noted.

k. Noted.


1. That the Department note thecomments made.

2. That Council notes the commentsmade.

COUNCIL DECISION



NOISSUE Submission



ISSUESecological resources of the region and the State.

l. General DPI Fisheries Interests that must beupheld in the Planning Scheme:• Community Value of Fisheries Habitat• Waterway Barrier Approvals• Buffer Provision• Mosquito and Biting Midge Control• Dredging• Aquaculture• Acid Sulphate Soils

l. Noted.


ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNo.



4.7. DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES

a. The trend in the supply of childcare facilities inthe Shire has changed, and there is now anundersupply of facilities, especially in Clevelandand Alexandra Hills (Victoria Point currently hasvacancies). The identification of the need forchild care services should be a priority in thePlanning Scheme.

b. Agrees with the strategies for the provision ofhousing choice and affordability, but there is nomention of how the Planning Scheme willprovide accessible housing.

c. In the development of centres the Departmentwould also like to see the opportunity for socialand community interaction, such as malls,squares, parks etc.

d. Strategy 4 should also include urban designprinciples that facilitate social interaction.

e. The definition of affordable housing should notincorporate supported housing – the needs ofpeople are different.

f. The scheme should provide opportunities foraffordable housing in new residentialdevelopments, and emphasize developmentaround larger centres.

143 a. The trend in the supply of childcare centres is noted and will beincorporated in the ‘Planning Study’, in terms of the need to balancepopulation growth with community infrastructure and also reflected as apriority strategic provision in the Planning Scheme.

b. Housing accessibility is captured in Strategy 4 of Community and SocialDevelopment, which states that urban form will enhance access andlinkage and encourages improved community integration and cohesion.The Planning Scheme will however include development standards,which ensures equitable access to all new housing is implemented.These provisions will correlate with the provisions in the DisabilityDiscrimination Act, which enforces accessible housing.

c. Provisions contained in the Planning Scheme will encourage social andcommunity interaction in centres. The urban design and planningprovisions will ensure there is appropriate access and linkage within thecentres and will encourage community, interaction, integration andcohesion.

d. This provision or standards to assist in the facilitation of socialinteraction will be captured in the Planning Scheme.

e. Noted, and will be defined further in the drafting of the PlanningScheme.

f. The drafting of the Planning Scheme, in conjunction with theDepartment of Housing, will seek to optimise opportunities for theprovision of affordable housing. One of the policy positions that thePlanning Scheme will seek to achieve will be Housing affordability.Community and Social Development Strategy 5 in the SOP stated thefollowing:

In providing for the development of future residential areas provisions ofthe new Planning Scheme will seek to maintain housing affordability byfacilitating residential mix and a variety of lot sizes. In particular thePlanning Scheme will seek to optimise opportunities for the provision ofaffordable housing, such as hostels, community housing and nursinghomes.


1. That the Department note thecomments made.


COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNo.



4.8. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

a. The Department supports Council/s proposedgrowth management strategy and populationgrowth management strategies.

b. Residential Development Strategies. TheDepartment should also be listed as having aninterest in Strategies 2 and 10.

c. Centre strategies: the Department supports allthese strategies.

d. Business and Industry Development: theDepartment supports strategies 4 & 11 andshould be listed as having an interest in strategy4

e. Transport: the Department supports thesestrategies and should be listed as having aninterest in strategy 13.

f. The Department should be listed as havingrelevant and shared interest in the 19 strategiesfor affordable housing, sustainable communitiesand physical infrastructure. The Departmentbelieves that consultation is required.

g. Suggests that an infrastructure charges plan bedeveloped as part of the Planning Scheme.

h. Affordable housing, sustainable communitiesand community and social development: theDepartment supports these strategies

i. DEO’s: the Department suggests the inclusion ofa DEO in housing (an example given insubmission)

j. Council should implement performanceindicators to assess the Planning Scheme’ssuccess in ensuring access to adequate andappropriate housing for the Shire’s community.

k. The Department notes and accepts that the levelof services on the mainland and the Islands willbe different

l. Supports the development of a Local Area Planfor the SMBI

m. The Department is currently in the process ofpreparing a State Planning Policy for AffordableHousing and Residential Development. The SPPwill address the issues of affordable housing andresidential development in the context of landuse planning and development assessment

n. The Department is also finishing a LocalGovernment Housing Resource Kit.

434 a. Noted.

b. It is noted that the Department should have been listed as having aninterest in Strategies 2 and 10.

c. Noted.

d. Noted. It is noted that the Department should have been listed ashaving an interest in strategy 4 of the centres strategy.

e. Noted. It is noted that the Department should have been listed ashaving an interest in strategy 13 of the Transport strategy.

f. Noted. It is noted that the Department should have been listed ashaving an interest in the 19 strategies for affordable housing,sustainable communities and physical infrastructure.

g. An infrastructure charges plan will be developed following to thecommencement of the Planning Scheme.

h. Noted.

i. Noted. DEO’s have not been drafted as part of the SOP. DEO’s arepresently being drafted and this matter will be considered.

j. Noted.

k. Noted.

l. Noted.

m. Noted.

n. Noted.


That the Department of Housing be advisedof Council’s comments.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNos



4.9. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT

Supports strategies in sections of ‘Business andIndustry Development ‘ and ‘Physical Infrastructure’,which are the main interests of the Department.

709 The support of the Department is noted. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Department of State developmentis thanked for their support of the SOP.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNos



4.10. QUEENSLAND TRANSPORT

a. Key issues QT would like to see implemented inthe new scheme include:• Promoting higher density urban settlement

patterns where the potential for cyclist andwalking trips is increased, local vehicle triplengths are reduced and public transport usecan be maximised

• Expanding local employment opportunities toincrease levels of self containment throughencouraging home based business andproviding mixed business and industry areas

• Making provision for land uses that willenhance the efficiency and operation ofpublic transport services.

b. Overall QT generally supports the strategies ofthe preferred policy directions in the SOP.

c. Strategy 2: the draft policies already representQT’s desired outcomes on state or regionallysignificant transport matters which should beconsidered in the preparation of the newPlanning Scheme. These policies can be usedas a guide now.

The relevant significance of each issue shouldbe evaluated for Redlands in developingappropriate codes to meet specific intents

d. Strategy 3: strongly supported, however it isunclear how this relates to the Transport / Trailcorridors identified in the PLU map. Indeveloping transport infrastructure chargingschedules it is important that opportunities toobtain contributions for regional cycleinfrastructure are considered.

e. Strategy 5: Linking this strategy to thepreparation of economic development strategiescan reinforce the function of existing centres forlocal economic development. Local planninginitiatives that support a viable network of districtcentres could be implemented to direct thisprocess.

f. Strategy 6: the initiatives are supported but theyare not appropriate to be implemented into aPlanning Scheme (should be addressed in theILTP). However Council is encouraged to review

715 a. The SOP does promote:• higher density urban settlement patterns;• expanding local employment opportunities to increase levels of self

containment through encouraging home based business andproviding mixed business and industry areas

• the provision for land uses that will enhance the efficiency andoperation of public transport services.

b. Noted.

c. Noted. The relevant significance of each issue will be evaluated forRedlands in developing appropriate codes to meet specific intents

d. Noted and agreed.

e. Noted and agreed.

f. Noted and agreed.

g. If there is a future transport corridor proposed there would be arequirement to consider environmental impacts should any be required.

h. The existing rail corridor will be retained within the one zone. As yetthe name of the zone has not been chosen or decided upon. It isagreed that railway activates will be either exempt or self-assessable.The scale of the SOP means that the rail corridor has not been clearlyshown. When the zoning maps are developed this land will be shownclearly.

i. The issue of railway noise will be included within the relevant codes forsensitive land uses (eg residential).

j. Noted and agreed.

k. Noted and agreed.


1. That Council note the comments madeby QT.

2. That QT note Council’s comments.

COUNCIL DECISION



NOISSUE Submission

NosOFFICER COMMENT OFFICER AND COUNCIL


ISSUESits car parking policies in the Planning Schemeto limiting car parking provision for newdevelopments in close proximity to major centresor high capacity public transport nodes.

g. Strategy 7: it is unclear what is meant by‘incorporating performance based codes’.

h. Existing Rail Corridor:• All railway land should be represented under

one land use category in the maps,• ‘Railway activities’ should be made exempt

from development,• The PLU should depict railway land more

clearly as it appears partially obscured bythe road corridor.

i. Railway Noise• The new Planning Scheme should

incorporate provisions requiring new noisesensitive developments adjacent to railcorridors to comply with acceptable noisestandards.

• QT is currently finalising the SIPP on thisissue

j. Maritime Facilities:• The Planning Scheme should identify the

need for continued and uninterruptedlandward access to all public boatinginfrastructure facilities, and that any adjacentland uses do not prejudice the futureoperation or expansion of these facilities.

k. Pedestrian and cycle networks:• QT supports the Planning Scheme requiring

permeable street systems in thedevelopment of new subdivisions QT iscurrently finalising a Regional Cycle NetworkPlan for SEQ and Council should haveregard to this strategy when developing itsoverall cycle network strategy.

• The Planning Scheme should include acycling and walking network plan map.

• The SIPP No.2 – Cycling Interests inPlanning Schemes provides further guidanceon how cycling requirements can beaddressed in Planning Schemes.


ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNos



4.11. BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

Support the approach taken, particularly the corematters and issues. The strategic issues that are ofinterest to both Council areas and where bothCouncil’s could achieve a greater alignment ofpurpose are outlined below:

1. The regionally significant nature conservationvalues of SEQ should be incorporated into thescheme

2. A statement regarding the identification andprotection of ecological corridors whichrecognise the broader region and the need toprotect regional corridors linking Logan andBrisbane need to be incorporated

3. A specific commitment needs to be made to theapplication of the Common Nature ConservationClassification System under Strategy 3.

4. Key biodiversity management issues, such asfire regimes and management of weeds shouldbe pursued by BCC and RSC

5. A more substantial acknowledgement of thenature conservation values of the Rural NonUrban lands (in the Koala Coast area), togetherwith a balanced land use intent statement shouldbe implemented to reflect what BCC has done

720 1. The broader nature conservation values of the Shire are reflected intothe SOP and will be reflected in the Planning Scheme by a range ofmeasures outlined in section 3.4.1 of the SOP.

2. Noted and agreed. This will be investigated as part of the Stage 2process.

3. When Council decides to undertake another round of mapping of theShire’s vegetation, we will use the methodology of the Common NatureConservation Classification System.

4. This matter cannot be controlled through a land use document.

5. The land use intent for the rural non-urban areas of the Shire willincorporate a substantial recognition that this area has vitalconservation values.


That Council note the comments ofBrisbane City Council.

COUNCIL DECISION


4.12. DEPARTMENT OF SPORT ANDRECREATION

Clarification about statements in SOP onrecreational services and facilities strategy.• Action 2 – it is unclear whether the standard of

facility relates o the highest level of competitionable to be undertaken at the facility or the qualityof the facilities provided.

• When planning sporting facilities both theprovision of new facilities and the upgrading ofold facilities should be considered.

• Action Plan (Goal 12) – the provision of newregional level walkways / trails should beconsidered within the framework of the RegionalTrails Network where applicable.

431 The comments made by the Department relate to the Redland ShireCommunity Plan and not the SOP. The Department’s comments are notedhowever.


No recommendation required.

COUNCIL DECISION



ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNos



4.13. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The Following three aspects are of concern

1. The very limited way in which the SOPsaddresses cultural heritage issues.

In terms of cultural heritage, the Shire has adistinctive and regionally recognised historicallandscape. A cultural heritage study hasdetermined the dimension of this valuablefeature, which also forms a core matter underthe Integrated Planning Act 1997.

Outcomes of this study are supported. However,the SOPs provide no certainty for culturalheritage protection. As a consequence EPA’sState interests are likely to be compromised.The scheme needs to address cultural heritageissues by including an appropriate thematiclayer, development triggers and planning codes.

A planning process with appropriatedevelopment triggers and consultationopportunities provides greater certainty for landholders, resource managers, developers,Indigenous people and the broader community.It also ensures delays during the developmentare minimised, and areas of cultural significanceare given reasonable consideration at theplanning and development assessment stages.There is legal recourse for Indigenous peoplethrough the Land and Resources Tribunal toapply for injunctions to prevent interference withculturally significant items, and such actions maynot only lead to delays to development, but alsogenerate considerable legal costs.

2. The location of the proposed integratedemployment centres (IECs) at both Birkdaleand Thornlands and the potential conflictwith the Koala Coast State Planning Policy(Koala Coast SPP).

The two proposed IECs at Birkdale andThornlands are within the Koala ConservationArea designation under the Koala Coast SPP,‘Conservation of Koalas within the Koala Coast1/97.’ The planning objective for the designationis to ‘conserve koalas and their habitat in a waythat does not affect existing uses and

731 1. Cultural Heritage

It is strongly disagreed that the SOP does not address cultural heritageissues. Strategies 2 to 6 (pages 54 to 55) include in depth strategiesrelating to cultural heritage. In addition Council is committed to undertakea cultural heritage study of the mainland of the Shire. Cultural heritagestudies have already been undertaken for North StradbrokeIsland/Minjerribah and Southern Moreton Bay Islands.

2. Integrated Employment Centres

• An IEC is not planned to be located at Thornlands. IEC’s are plannedto be located at Capalaba, Birkdale and Redland Bay.

• It is acknowledged that the SOP does not explicitly state that thedevelopment of the IEC’s in the Koala Cast Areas will ensure theprotection and conservation of koalas and their habitat. It is howeverthe intention of Council to conserve koalas and their habitat in theseareas whilst allowing for development that does not impinge upon thesevalues.

• Stage 2 of the Planning Scheme allows for the drafting of detailed LocalArea Plans for the 3 IEC’s. These IEC’s will include detailed structureplans that will designate environmental areas and precincts whilstincluding detailed codes for the protection of environmental values.


1. That the EPA be advised that the SOPincluded significant and detailedstrategies relating to cultural heritage.

2. That the EPA be advised that an IEC isnot planned to be located atThornlands. The IEC’s are planned tolocated at Capalaba, Birkdale andRedland Bay.

3. That the EPA be advised that Stage 2of the Planning Scheme allows for thedrafting of detailed Local Area Plans forthe 3 IEC’s. These IEC’s will includedetailed structure plans that willdesignate environmental areas andprecincts whilst including detailed codesfor the protection of environmentalvalues.

4. That Council notes the comments.

COUNCIL DECISION



NOISSUE Submission



ISSUESdevelopment rights or remove developmentcommitments’. The Thornlands site wouldrequire the rezoning of ‘rural/non urban’ land,and is likely to be a catalyst for futuredevelopment of surrounding parcels of land.

The Birkdale site is similarly affected by theKoala Coast SPP. Both sites would need todemonstrate an over-riding need vis-a-vis Koalaprotection and/or protection of natureconservation values through design andmanagement. The Birkdale site also containsecological and vegetation values of regionalsignificance. These aspects would need to beaddressed in future master planning of theBirkdale site.

EPA also has concerns with the location of theIEC at Thornlands as it will encroach intorural/non urban areas. If this occurs there islikely to be conflict with existing land uses andincreased pressure for land use change. Thislocation also posses a greater problem in termsof servicing, and the generation of nuisancecomplaints when compared to the IECs atBirkdale and Capalaba. The EPA would preferto see IECs positioned within the existingurban/industrial ‘footprint’.


ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNos



4.14 DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTAND PLANNING

1. The Department supports the use of the ‘corematters’ (as detailed in section 4 of Schedule 1of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA)) as thebasis for the issues and strategies identified inthe SOP. This structure will assist in providing awell developed basis for progressing the IPAplan making process.

2. Section 4.1 and Section 4.2.3 – InfrastructureProvisions

This section refers to Council’s proposal to preparea ‘Benchmark Development Sequence’ or ‘PriorityInfrastructure Plan’ (PIP) as an integral componentof a statutory planning instrument for the Shire. It isnoted that under Integrated Planning and OtherLegislation Amendment Act 2001 (IPOLAA), passedby Parliament in December 2001, PriorityInfrastructure Plans have superseded BenchmarkDevelopment Sequences as the principalmechanism by which infrastructure is to beregulated as an identifiable component withinPlanning Schemes. PIPs allow for the creation of‘Infrastructure Charges Schedules’ and‘Infrastructure Payments Schedules’ as contributionmechanisms for funding trunk developmentinfrastructure. Further to this matter, it is presumedthat references to ‘Development Sequence Maps’ insection 4.8 of the SOP relate to PIP’s. It is notedthat powers to impose development conditionsrelating to non-trunk infrastructure has beenreintroduced. Whilst formal provisions regardingthese mechanisms will be provided in the nearfuture, Departmental officers are currently availableto provide additional comment regarding operatingprinciples associated with these proposedmechanisms.

The Minister has agreed to the current transitionalinfrastructure ‘headworks’ funding arrangementscontinuing beyond the 30 March 2003 deadline.This is intended to remove uncertainties associatedwith infrastructure planning and fundingrequirements whilst allowing Councils to focus theirattention on the completion of new IPA PlanningSchemes. The preparation of infrastructure planscan then be subsequently incorporated into IPAschemes by way of scheme amendments.

739 1. The support of the Department is noted.

2. Comments relating to PIP’s are noted.

3. Comments relating to the Strategic Framework are noted and havebeen addressed in the recently drafted Planning Scheme Form andContent Report.

4. Noted.

5. Comments relating to LAP’s are noted and have been addressed in therecently drafted Planning Scheme Form and Content Report.

6. Comments relating to zones are noted and have been addressed in therecently drafted Planning Scheme Form and Content Report.

7. Comments relating to the Tables of Assessment are noted and havebeen addressed in the recently drafted Planning Scheme Form andContent Report.

8. It is agreed that the competing requirements of the Koala Coast and theexistence of extractive resources within the hinterland areas of theShire are required to be reconciled. It is however considered that theDepartment of Local Government and Planning should take a lead rolein determining this outcome. This matter is discussed in full in Issue4.1


1. That Council notes the Department’scomments.

2. That the Department note Council’scomments and in particular the need forthe Department to take a lead role inresolving the extractive resource andKoala Coast conflict.

COUNCIL DECISION



NOISSUE Submission



ISSUES

3. Section 4.2 – Strategic Framework

Page 7 of the 1/01 IPA Plan Making Guidelineoutlines that a Planning Scheme should contain asummary of the approach taken by the scheme toachieve its Desired Environmental Outcomes. Thissummary may take the form of a strategicframework. Such a framework is likely to conveymatters such as;

• Major land use allocations;• Major infrastructure provisions; and• The way in which the effects of development are

intended to be managed having regard to landuse allocation, infrastructure provision andvaluable features.

It is significant to note that a summary such as a‘Strategic Framework’ would have no role indevelopment assessment. On this basis, a‘Strategic Framework’ is easily distinguishable fromthe historically active role of a ‘Strategic Plan’.Rather, it is anticipated that issues which wouldhave been addressed by a Strategic Plan will nowbe addressed via DEO’s and measures within theIPA scheme. Should Council wish to utilise mapslinked to the Strategic Framework for developmentassessment purposes, such provisions should beincorporated into relevant scheme measures.

4. Section 4.2.1 Desired EnvironmentalOutcomes

This section outlines that Desired EnvironmentalOutcomes will only be included at a primary level ofthe proposed Planning Scheme, and not at thedistrict or local level. This would appear to conflictwith comments made within the SMBI SOP (inparticular section 4.2) indicating that a proposed‘Local Area Plan’ for the Islands will include DEO’s.It is noted the Department only supports theprovision of one level of DEO’s (as outlined on page12 of the 1/01 IPA Plan Making Guideline).

5. Section 4.3 – Local Area Planning

At this stage of the scheme drafting process, it isprudent to note the Department holds an essentiallyhesitant approach to the utilisation of LAPmechanisms within statutory planning instruments.Whilst it is acknowledged these instruments have


NOISSUE Submission



ISSUESbeen favoured by a number of local governments todate, it is the Department’s view this approach leadsto unnecessary segmentation of Planning Schemesresulting in excessive repetition and detail. On thisbasis, it is considered that planning instrumentsbased on a LAP platform are more likely to frustrateoutcomes associated with the integration andcoordination of planning issues throughout localgovernment jurisdictions.

The Department is currently finalising an alternativeplanning mechanism (based on localities) which willassist in facilitating the inclusion of area specificmeasures in Planning Schemes whilst allowing forthe mitigation of duplication issues. Whilst theDepartment anticipates that formal publication ofoperating principles associated with this mechanismwill be provided by mid to late August 2002, informaldiscussion on this matter has already occurredbetween Departmental and Council officers.Departmental officers are available to furtherdevelop these mechanisms with Council as part ofthe scheme drafting process.

6. Section 4.4.1 – Planning Zones

This section outlines that each zone in the proposedIPA Planning Scheme will have a statement of intentand character and potentially a code requirementapplying exclusively to that zone. It is noted that the1/01 IPA Plan Making Guideline places considerableemphasis on recommended structures associatedwith the provision of measures relating to distinctgeographical areas. Essentially this structurepromotes the binding of area specific tables ofdevelopment with area specific codes. The areacode provides the mechanism by which statementsof intent can be expressed as ‘overall outcomes’ ormore specifically, ‘specific outcomes’ and ‘probablesolutions’. The use of prolonged texturalcomponents to preface tables of development isgenerally not supported by the Department.

7. Section 4.4.2 – Tables of Assessment

This section states assessment tables under theproposed IPA Planning Scheme will be similar tothose tables contained in Council’s current scheme.Whilst it is anticipated this comment was made toprovide an identifiable reference for members of thecommunity, the Department wishes to clarify thesignificant technical changes between tables of


NOISSUE Submission



ISSUESdevelopment based on the IPA and tables ofdevelopment based on the Local Government(Planning and Environment) Act 1993. The 1/01IPA Plan Making Guideline gives considerabledirection regarding the Department’s preferredformat for incorporating tables of development intoIPA schemes.

8. Koala Coast Issues

It is noted the RSC SOP refers to the RegionalFramework for Growth Management (RFGM). It isfurther noted the Department places significantemphasis on ensuring outcomes posed by theRFGM are reflected in IPA Planning Schemes. Inaddition the Department supports the SOP’srecognition of the importance of the Koala Coast asidentified in the RFGM and State Planning Policy1/97: Conservation of Koalas in the Koala Coast(SPP1/97). It is anticipated that potential conflictsbetween the regional significance of the KoalaCoast and the utilisation of extractive resources inthe Shire will need to be addressed by Council priorto the commencement of Planning Scheme drafting.The Department supports the position previouslydiscussed at a meeting on 1 February 2002 withrepresentatives from Council, the Department ofLocal Government and Planning, the Department ofNatural Resources and Mines (DNRM) and theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA). Inparticular, it was agreed that key resource areas(i.e. Mt Cotton) should be evaluated in terms of SPP1/97 with specific reference to paragraph 5.9 of theSPP regarding overriding need. It is further notedthat the evaluation of any overriding need must alsobe consistent with Paragraph 5.2 of the SPP whichoutlines that: -

‘Layout and detailed design of developmentanywhere in the Koala Coast should as far aspracticable, minimise adverse impacts on koalahabitat values without reducing development rightsor removing development commitments’

Departmental officers remain available to assist inthe progression of drafting issues associated withthis matter to resolve potential land use conflictswithin this region.


ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNos



4.15 ENERGEX - 2

Energex requests you consider the designation ascommunity infrastructure within the planningscheme, of identified easements for electricalpurposes and their infrastructure, operating worksand augmentation of existing infrastructure assets

The local reticulation network – distribution lines upto and including 33kV, most commonly seen withinlocal streetscapes needs to be considered exemptdevelopment for the purposes of the planningscheme. ENERGEX requires this to be able to allowday-to-day maintenance and operational works onthe distribution network supplying power to thecommunity. Other Council’s have supported thisexempt development

DLGP is proposing to include a definition ofDistribution Lines as exempt development underIPA

The submission includes a schedule detailingENERGEX’s existing and proposed substation siteincluding both vacant and developed, which arerequired for essential electrical purposes

The submission also includes maps detailing subtransmission line corridors (we never got these).These corridors contain existing energyinfrastructure assets associated with the supply ofelectricity and will at all times require upgrading andmaintenance.

Currently there are seven existing substation sitesand five proposed sites within the Redland ShireCouncil area. Over next 8 or so years ENERGEXwill need to maintain and augment all existingsubstations sites as well as build new substationson existing sites owned by ENERGEX. The planningscheme would need to reflect the provision of theidentified future works as designated communityinfrastructure up to the ultimate capacity indicated

89, 309 Refer to 4.3 Refer to 4.3


ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNo


5 INTERNAL ISSUES (REDLAND SHIRECOUNCIL)

5.1 Councillor A

1. The area surrounding Kinross Road, Thornlandsshould be made into an IEA to allow for further jobcreation. It is a well-located site on the westernside of any high-density development. It cannot bedeveloped into Residential. As a last resort itshould remain as Rural Non Urban.

2. The cleared areas of land at the corner of LyndonRoad and Redland Bay Road (currently SpecialProtection), Capalaba and at the corner of RedlandBay Road and Runnymeade Street should beallowed to be developed into an aged care facility,and the balance of the site reserved forconservation.

3. The State government land at Windemere Road atAlexandra Hills and the school site in ZiegenfuszRoad should be changed to a Special ProtectionArea.

137, 138 Kinross Road

Refer to 1.11 (as follows):

1. The Kinross Road area in the Statement Of Proposals Preferred LandUse Map is not identified as an industrial designation. The land hasbeen retained within the Rural Non-Urban designation and allows forthe continued operation of existing lawful land uses in the area. It isalso proposed to give added statutory recognition to the poultryoperations through the protection of these uses.

2. It is understood that the community surrounding Kinross Road wishthat the precinct is re-designated to a residential designation to givecertainty of outcomes. The following offers specific comments inrelation to those matters raised in the submissions.

(a) The precinct is not intended to be zoned for industrial purposes. Itis acknowledged that the operating conditions of poultry farmsmakes it necessary for buffers of approximately 500-metres tosurround the chicken sheds (potentially from the lot boundary). Ithas been suggested that the buffers are also be able to be usedfor alternate uses which:• Do not impact upon the operation of the chicken farms;• Are not sensitive to the operating conditions of the farms;• Allow the chicken farmers to gain some economic return from

the buffers; and• Do not impact upon the environmental and landscape

qualities of the buffers.

These potential uses will not be industrial in their nature nor willthey have the ability to impact upon surrounding residentialareas.

(b) According to the chicken processors, the two poultry farms locatedwithin the Kinross Road precinct are two of the most efficient andwell-run operations within the Shire. These uses have operatedon this land in access of 25 years. Because of the efficient andclean operating conditions of these two farms, Council is awarethat they operate with little or no impacts upon areas designatedfor residential purposes. For further discussion in relation toPoultry Farms refer to 1.10.

Examination of the location of the existing poultry farms and theapplication of the 500 metre buffers from the sheds demonstratesthat a limited area of land designated for residential purposes iswithin these buffer areas.

(c) It is not agreed that the present industrial land uses in the areabrings semi-trailers, noise and air pollution, to the adjacentresidential areas. It is considered that these ‘industrial’ uses aresufficiently separated from the residential uses so as not to



COUNCIL DECISION



NOISSUE Submission

NoOFFICER COMMENT OFFICER AND COUNCIL

RECOMMENDATION

5.1CON’TD

impact upon the amenity of residential areas. With respect toindustrial uses it should also be noted three specific areas havebeen identified for Integrated Employment Centres. These arelocated at Capalaba (2) and Redland Bay (1).

(d) The areas within the Kinross Road precinct that are presentlybeing developed for urban purposes are those areas that areincluded within the Urban Residential designation on the existingStrategic Plan. These areas are clearly outside the 500 metrebuffers of the existing poultry operations and as such aretherefore not affected by potential impacts upon urban amenity.

(e) Refer to (d).

(f) It is acknowledged that the Kinross Road precinct is elevated withviews to the bay and city.

(g) The physical characteristics of land are one measure of itssuitability to be used or developed for residential purposes. Theamount of land allocated to accommodate residential growthmust also be mindful of the level of population growth expected,and ensure that provision matches need. The Planning Schemeneeds to accommodate growth, but the manner in which growthis accommodated may vary, including density increase, landallocation or a combination of both. The Land Use Optionadopted for public exhibition within the Statement of Proposalsaccommodate growth through density increases and residentialland allocation is areas other than Kinross Road. This reflects thefact that alternative locations provided less constrainedopportunities to accommodate expected growth, and / or weremore consistent with achieving other favourable outcomes e.g.promoting efficient public transport, centre vitality. The retentionof the Rural designation over Kinross Road had regard to a rangeof issues including the following:

• The recognition by the Council that the poultry industry makesa vital economic, social, and landscape contribution to theShire. As a result, Council has made a conscious decision toprotect those areas where the poultry farms are located. Inthis particular case, the two farms located in the KinrossRoad area are regarded by the chicken processors as beingtwo of the most efficient and well run operations in the Shire;

• Analysis of Council and the State Government databasesdemonstrated that sufficient undeveloped land is designatedfor urban residential development. This land bank is sufficientto cater for the Shire’s growth until the year 2012. As a result,further greenfield subdivision within the Shire are not required.Refer to 1.1 for a detailed discussion; and

• The need to consolidate urban development around theexisting centres and transport nodes within the Shire. Thisconsolidation is proposed to:∗ Make the Shire’s centres more vital and vibrant;∗ Increase public transport efficiency;∗ Ensure that the Shire’s environmentally sensitive areas are


NOISSUE Submission


RECOMMENDATION

5.1CON’TD

protected;∗ Ensure the more efficient provision of infrastructure; and

∗ Provide a range of housing types for all sections of thecommunity.

(h) Maintaining the existing uses in the Kinross Road area will notcause an increase in traffic along Panorama Drive and WellingtonStreet.

(i) Council stated when the existing Strategic Plan was beingapproved, that it would investigate the use of land for low-densityresidential uses. Since this time, and through the current PlanningScheme review process it has been determined, as explained in (g)above that the land should be retained and designated for ruralpurposes.

(j) The development of this land could achieve some of theobjectives of the Statement of Proposals. However, the detailed andmethodical process undertaken to develop and assess the LandUse Options clearly determined that a consolidated land use patternwould best achieve ecological sustainability and the policy positionspresented in the Statement Of Proposals. Refer to 1.2 for a detaileddiscussion.

(k) Refer to (g)

3. It is not considered warranted to make investigations regarding theimpacts upon the amenity of adjoining residential areas. As statedpreviously, the two poultry farms in the area are regarded as beingtwo of the most efficient and well run the Shire. Council and thecommunity have had few complaints regarding the operation of theseexisting and lawful uses.

Lyndon Road and Redland Bay Road, and Redland Bay Road andRunnymeade Street

Refer to 1.1. (as follows):

Introduction

The notion of increasing the Shire’s “urban footprint” or “the area of land tobe designated for urban purposes” is one that has undergone investigationas part of the development of the Planning Scheme. Deciding upon adevelopment form, including the determination of areas to be developed orconserved began at the earliest stages of the planning process.

A number of submissions have focused on this matter, specifically relatingthe issue of changing rural non-urban lands to urban lands within thefollowing localities:• Springacre Road;• Kinross Road;• SPI 4 – Beverage Road and Cleveland/Redland Bay Road Thornlands.• Bunker and Worthing Road, Victoria Point; and


NOISSUE Submission


RECOMMENDATION

5.1CON’TD

• South of Redland Bay/ Point Talburpin.

Key issues relating to the development of the final policy decisionsembodied in the Statement of Proposals are shown below:

Identification of Hard Constraints for Urban Development

From the information gathered and provided in the position papers thefollowing hard constraints were identified. Council, the Stakeholder Groupand the Community Reference Group all agreed on these constraints tofurther development:• Poultry areas and 500 metre buffers;• Environmentally sensitive areas including the SPP1/97 - Koala Coast• Dam catchments;• Buffers to extractive industries; and• Good Quality Agricultural Land that had not been designated for urban

purposes.

Future Population Growth

Redland Shire is expected to experience sustained population over theplanning period, with the total Shire population growing from 118,021persons in 2001 (pre release of ABS Census data) to 172,941 persons by2016. This is an increase of 54,920 persons.

Location and capacity criteria used in the land use option assessmentprocess identified that the majority of the population growth would beaccommodated in the mainland areas of the Shire. The mainlandpopulation is projected to increase from 111,756 persons in 2001 to157,301persons in 2016. This represents an increase of 45,545 persons.

Note - Release of the ABS Census data has occurred since publicexhibition of the Statement of Proposals and will be used to prepare theRedland Planning Scheme.

Residential Land Capacity

As part of investigations to identify future residential land requirements, aResidential Land Capacity Study of residential areas within the Shire wascompleted. This analysis was intended to supplement existing broad-hectare investigations undertaken by the Planning Information &Forecasting Unit (PIFU) of the Department of Local Government andPlanning (DLGP). The PIFU capacity analysis was confined toundeveloped land above 8000m2 in area, and accordingly does not revealpotential and unrealised capacity of lands under 8000m2 in area.

The assessment of actual capacity for planning purposes relied on theaccurate identification of:

1. Land Available for Future Residential Development

Broad-hectare assessment of land availability in the Shire, by the Stategovernment, is limited to the identifying land parcels over 8000m2 hectaresin area. To ensure the practical assessment of capacity, a ‘fine-grain’


NOISSUE Submission


RECOMMENDATION

5.1CON’TD

analysis of land availability within the Shire was undertaken. For all landswith a Residential Preferred Dominant Land Use category on the StrategicPlan the following minimum lot sizes where used.

Medium Density Residential 800m2

Urban Residential 2000m2

Residential Low Density 8000m2

Park Residential 8000m2

Special Planning Intents All

Note - The Strategic Plan Preferred Dominant Land Use categories, ratherthan existing land use zones were used to identify available land.

2. Assumed Density

The calculation of population capacity was based on an evaluation of‘actual’ densities being achieved on the ground, rather than ‘proposed’densities detailed in the Strategic Plan. The actual number of dwellingsbeing achieved ‘on the ground’ were:

Medium Density Residential 44.1Urban Residential 10.2Residential Low Density 3.9Park Residential 1.4Specific Planning Intent 1 10.9Specific Planning Intent 2 0.0Specific Planning Intent 3 5.7Specific Planning Intent 4 1.2Specific Planning Intent 5 8.3Specific Planning Intent 6 9.9

3. Dwelling Occupancy

A dwelling occupancy ratio of 1.8 persons per multiple dwelling and 3persons per detached dwelling was assumed for planning purposes.

Findings

The following conclusions are drawn from the Residential CapacityAnalysis Study for the mainland areas of the Shire:

• Mainland population at 2016 – 157,301persons• Population increase from 2001 to 2016 - 54,920 persons• Strategic Plan ‘proposed’ densities – land is available to house –

160,034 persons• Based on ‘on the ground’ achieved densities – 148,607 persons.• Designated and undeveloped urban land will be exhausted by late

2012.• By 2016 need to house additional - 8,505 persons.

Land Use Option Development, Assessment and Selection Process

The process of developing and selecting the Preferred Land Use Option isdetailed below.


NOISSUE Submission


RECOMMENDATION

5.1CON’TD

Planning Parameters

State government’s Ecological Sustainability Principles examined andinformation from Position Papers distilled to form Planning Parameters.These Planning Parameters, together with the population forecasts, wereused as the basis for the development of sixteen Land Use Options.

Option Development

Sixteen options developed based on:Four themes (Low Growth, Focussed Growth, Mixed Expansion andDispersed); andA range of population levels (low through to high growth).

Those Land Use Options were short-listed to six Options and included adispersed option which included the Orchard Road area, for more detailedassessment.

Assessment of Options

The process for evaluating and assessing the six options was based onscoring each Option against a series of Assessment Criteria. TheAssessment Criteria reflected the policy positions determined in the first 3Stages of the planning process and the state government’s EcologicalSustainability Principles. Together these provided a basis for measuringhow each Option achieved ecological sustainability as defined in theIntegrated Planning Act 1997.

To ensure the scoring process accurately reflected a variety of views,stakeholders were asked to weight the Assessment Criteria. Thesestakeholders included the Councillors, Council Officers (Staff SteeringCommittee), the Community Reference Group and the Key StakeholdersGroup.

Results of Option Assessment

The results of the Land Use Option Assessment demonstrated thefollowing:• Option 2 - Focussed Growth Medium Population Series was ranked first

overall. This Option ranked either first or second in all of the categories.• Option 1 Low Growth ranked first in the Environment Category. This

was largely due to this Option not extending the urban footprint and notinvolving any future population growth past that designated in theexisting Strategic Plan.

• Option 2 - Focussed Growth High Population Series was ranked first inthe Urban Development and Transport Categories. This was consistentwith the goals of consolidating within the current urban footprint,ensuring more efficient public transport and encouraging more vital andvibrant Centres.

Note - The dispersed Option as discussed in the submissions was rankedlast in all categories.


NOISSUE Submission


RECOMMENDATION

5.1CON’TD

The purpose of Land Use Option Assessment was to assist Council inselecting a preferred Option for public exhibition with the Statement ofProposals.

Final and Preferred Option

Option 2 - Focussed Growth Medium Population Series was selected asbeing the most appropriate Option to be placed on public exhibition as it:• Ensured that the existing urban footprint of the Shire was not extended;• Encouraged more efficient public transport;• Promoted the protection of environmentally sensitive areas;• Encouraged more vital and vibrant Centres within the Shire; and• Allowed for an increase in population while retaining the character and


The Focussed Growth Medium Population Series Option would house –• 70 percent of population growth in detached dwellings, and• 30 percent of population growth in medium density development.

It is important to note that the term ’urban footprint’ has been used todescribe the Option that was publicly exhibited. In a similar manner to allother Options, except the low growth option, the selected Focussed GrowthMedium Population Series Option accommodates the anticipated level ofpopulation growth within the Shire. The primary difference between theshort-listed Options was the manner in which expected growth was to beaccommodated, being either through the allocation of additional areas, anincrease in density or a combination of both.

Miscellaneous Issues

Park Residential Development

It should be noted that no further areas of Park Residential developmenthave been designated in the SOP. There has been a distinct policyposition in the SOP to promote urban consolidation around the existingcentres and transport nodes within the Shire.

It has also been recognised that within a constrained land supply situation,Park Residential development constitutes a comparatively inefficient use ofavailable residential land.

Poultry Industry

With regard to issues relating to the poultry industry, reference should bemade to 1.10. The comments in 1.10 demonstrate that the poultry industryhas a significant future within the Shire from an economic, landscape,environmental and social perspective.

Specific Planning Intent 4 - Beverage Road and Cleveland/Redland BayRoad Thornlands

Specific Planning Intent No. 4 has been retained in the SOP because itplays an important role in the separation of the Thornlands and Victoria


NOISSUE Submission


RECOMMENDATION

5.1CON’TD

Point urban communities, in a physical and visual sense. All developmentwithin this area is intended to be predominantly open rather than built innature in order to retain its rural non-urban character. The protection of theenvironmental values of the remnant bushland and coastal vegetationwithin the area is also considered to be important.`

In the new Planning Scheme, the SPI mechanism will be replaced by amore definitive means of conveying the planning intent for the area.

Development of the area is intended to be a mix of residential (6000m2 -10,000m2 sized allotments) and commercial, recreational and serviceorientated uses that are consistent with the amenity of residents, the ruralnon-urban character and environmental values of the area.

It is not intended to provide reticulated sewerage to this area.

Conclusions

• The process that has been undertaken to develop the preferred landuse option is based upon a clear, robust and thorough methodology.

• Based on current growth rates and assuming no augmentation of thecurrent land supply outside of areas presently designated for urbanuses, it is estimated that spare residential land capacity will beexhausted by late 2012, based on current trends. Current data doesnot support the notion that there is an unreasonably limited supply ofland available for urban development.

• All further population growth, above that already designated in theexisting Strategic Plan, will be accommodated by the previouslymentioned increase in densities around the Shire’s centres andtransport nodes, this will account for 30 percent of overall housingsupply.

• The designation of land as Rural Non-Urban in the Statement ofProposals reflects that these areas are not intended to be developed forurban purposes.

Windermere Road

Agree that the State Government land in Windermere Road, AlexandraHills should be re-designated in a Special Protection Area (Refer to 2.7.1).The re-designation at Ziegenfusz Road will be investigated in Stage 2 ofthe planning scheme.


ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNos


5 INTERNAL ISSUES (REDLAND SHIRECOUNCIL)

5.2 Councillor B

1. Sustainable development should be a key featurefor the SOP.

2. SPA and SPI do not adequately cater for thefuture.

3. A triple bottom line approach is necessary to blueprint plans. Suggestions include:• Area planning by the community• Development must provide environmental

corridors• Planned communities must be greater than

200ha• Pet management covenants must be

conditioned• All infrastructure must be funded by the

applicant• Any plan must provide needed facilities, i.e.

sporting clubs• Must provide cycle way and footpaths to link

facilities to the community.

4. The existing land use can be maintained, includingpoultry, horticulture and extraction industries.

5. Future employment could be provided in thefollowing ways:• No residential (permanent)• Eco tourism• Green business• Animal management strategies• Environmental improvements are conditions of

acceptance of any application• Solar, wind or other natural energy sources are

to be considered as power sources• Rates can be modified to reflect use• Existing uses remain valid and can only lapse

after non use for a set interval

6. Two areas need to be considered – the area eastand west of Kinross Road, Thornlands and thearea South of Boundary Rd, between KingfisherSpringacre, Double Jump and Redland Bay.

435, 436and 437

1. Refer to 1.2. (as follows)

Introduction

An ‘ecologically sustainable’ population size is one that planners, thecommunity, environmentalists, politicians and scientists around Australiawill continue to address over the next 20 years. There are conflictinginterpretations as to what is a sustainable population level and how it canbe determined.

As correctly identified in the submission the Statement of Proposals seeksto achieve ecological sustainability. This has been undertaken because:• It is a requirement of the Integrated Planning Act 1997; and• The community has strongly expressed an opinion that it wishes to

conserve “what makes Redlands special”.

It is important that the policies and measures included within the newPlanning Scheme continue the work of achieving ‘ecological sustainability’.It is equally important to realise that ecological sustainability as definedunder the Integrated Planning Act 1997 includes the natural environment,social well-being and economic development. It should not be interpretedto only imply an emphasis on the protection of the natural environment atthe expense of social well being and / or economic growth.

What is Ecological Sustainability?

Ecological sustainability is defined in Section 1.3.3 of the IntegratedPlanning Act 1997 as:

“a balance that integrates(a) protection of ecological processes and natural systems at local,regional, State and wider levels; and(b) economic development; and(c) maintenance of the cultural, economic, physical and social well-being ofpeople and communities.”

An examination of the above demonstrates that ecological sustainability ismore than environmental protection, it is a balance of environmental, socialand economic factors. To set a population level based only onenvironmental matters will not seek to achieve ecological sustainability.

How has the SOP sought to achieve Ecological Sustainability?

The Statement of Proposals has sought to achieve ecological sustainabilityby gathering as much relevant and contemporary data as possible andanalysing that data to inform the preparation of Land Use Options. Referto 1.1 for detailed discussion of the Land Use Option Development,Assessment and Selection Process.

The Option scoring system was as objective as possible as it was based onquantitative and measurable criteria. For example, distance from Centres



2. That the submitter notes Council’scomments.

COUNCIL DECISION



NOISSUE Submission


RECOMMENDATION

5.2CONT’D

or transport nodes.As a result, the Preferred Land Use Option presented in the Statement ofProposals is that option which seeks to achieve ecological sustainability bybalancing environmental, social and economic goals. This has beenachieved by:• Accommodating growth in a compact urban form;• Allowing for economic development and growth;• Providing a range of housing types and styles;• Encouraging more efficient public transport;• Promoting the protection of environmentally sensitive areas;• Encouraging more vital and vibrant Centres within the Shire; and• Allowing for an increase in population while retaining the character and


Time Period of the Planning Scheme

Some submitters have queried the planning period of the new PlanningScheme. The planning period proposed is 14 years (2002 to 2016). Thistime period is double that required by the Integrated Planning Act 1997 andis regarded as being appropriate because:• It looks forward two Planning Scheme periods;• It aligns with the Department of Local Government’s Population Growth

Projections;• It allows land use decisions that can be based upon a degree of

certainty. A period in excess of 14 to 15 years could result in outcomesthat are presently not envisaged such as technology changes andclimate change.

• More up to date information will be available in 14 years that will enabledecision-makers of the day to make informed decisions, rather thanlong-range predictions.

In addition, the planning period selected accords with a number of Regionaland Council programmes that aim to ecological sustainability. Theseinclude:

• SEQ2021 – Regional Framework for Growth Management, due forcompletion in 2004.

• Redland Shire Council Community Plan• Redland Shire Council Corporate Plan• Priority Infrastructure Plan, as required by the Integrated Planning Act,

has a timeframe of 15 years.• The three-year operational budget of Council includes –• State of the Environment Reporting• Liveability Quality of Life Study• Local Area Community Plans and• Implementation of the Integrated Local Transport Plan.

Conclusions

• Having regard to current information and planning practices, the urbanpattern and population level shown in the Statement of Proposals isone that has sought to achieve Ecological Sustainability.


NOISSUE Submission


RECOMMENDATION

5.1CON’TD

• This is achieved by balancing population growth, environmental, socialand economic goals.

• Population growth rate of Redland Shire is generally consistent with thegrowth rates of other local authorities within Southeast Queensland.

• In general the planning horizon of the Planning Scheme is consistentwith the Integrated Planning Act, regional programmes and foreseeablepopulation predictions.

Note - It should be noted that some of the policy positions contained withinthe Statement of Proposals provide outcomes that will extend beyond theplanning horizon of 2016.

2. Agreed. The SPI’s and SPA’s are being extensively reviewed as part ofthe planning scheme review.

3. Triple bottom line.

• After the planning scheme has been completed, Council plans toembark upon a program of Local Area Plans that will examine identifiedlocal areas.

• With regard to environmental corridors, refer to 1.4.• The SOP does not identify any greenfield development areas. Refer to

1.1 for further details.• Noted.• Noted. Funding of infrastructure will be achieved by the Priority

Infrastructure Plans (PIP’s)• Sport and recreation facilities are currently being examined by the

Open Space and Recreation study. When completed the study willinform the drafting of the planning scheme.

• Agreed.

4. This has been achieved through the SOP.

5. Noted.

6. Refer to 1.1 and 1.11 (as above)


NOISSUE Submission

NoCOMMENT OFFICER AND COUNCIL

RECOMMENDATION6 NON SOP ISSUES6.1. A new public jetty in the Cleveland area would provide

an attractive feature for fisherman, public and visitors.7 Refer to Economic Development Group

6.2. The provision of a rubbish skip in residential areasonce or twice a year would allow the residents todispose of waste, reduce the amount of illegaldumping on roadsides, and reduce the bulkyhousehold items of rubbish disposed and the costs ofremoval.

7 Refer to Redland Water & Waste

6.3. Expense of travel to South Stradbroke Island and theother Bay Islands is excessive.

2 Refer to Land Use Planning Group

6.4. Redland Shire does not have any Powerlinkinfrastructure.

3 Noted

6.5. Concerned with the lack of visibility of street signs,either covered by foliage or non-existent, throughoutthe Shire.

14 Refer to Infrastructure Development Group

6.6. Requesting Council to introduce and enforcelegislation regarding the removal of overhanging treesand other vegetation on neighbouring properties.

15 Refer to Environmental Management Group

6.7. Requests information regarding:(a) Future use of land marked

transport/greenspace/trail corridor that runs fromWellington Point to Birkdale

(b) The timeline for future transport corridorconstruction at Wellington Point.

17 Addressed as part of ILTP

6.8. Concerned with safety implications from proposeddevelopment off South Street, Capalaba. Alternativeaccess roads opposite Omega and McLeod Streetsshould be provided.


6.9. The bushland area behind Hanover Drive, AlexandraHills, bounded by the Smith Street Industrial Estateand the DPI/CSIRO Centre, behind the STP is home tomany wildlife species and should be protected from 4-wheel drive vehicles and motorbikes.


6.10. Council should consider banning the installation anduse of wood burning heaters in order to increaseenvironmental management and the health ofresidents in the Shire.

Wood fire commercial activities, such as wood firepizza operations should not be allowed in residentialareas

The SOP aims to “protect and enhance air quality” and“protect public health”, however this cannot be

26, 59, 61,78, 105,240, 287,294

Refer to Environmental Management Group


NOISSUE Submission


RECOMMENDATION6 NON SOP ISSUES

achieved if wood heater installations continue to beallowed. The community is concerned that increasedpopulation densities in the future and the impact on airquality.

6.11. Rainwater at 22 Boronia Street, Redland Bay, isallowed to be directed to 23 Pitt Street. The water runsonto Pitt Street, which is absent of kerb andchannelling, and the road is thus being degraded.


6.12. Issues with Birkdale South State School:(a) The school is infested with rats and during schoolholidays the rats migrate to the surrounding residentialhousing. Council and State Government need toalleviate this issue.Parking issues at school(b) Illegal car parking in driveways in adjacentresidential streets needs to be controlled.

29 Refer to Community and Social Planning and Infrastructure DevelopmentGroup

6.13. Council should retain funds to spray for mosquitoesand shadflies at Redland Bay and CoochiemudloIsland. The mosquitoes are carrying dangerousdiseases, thus an extensive program needs to beimplemented to alleviate the problem.

31, 47, 132 Refer to Environmental Management Group

6.14. There are rubbish control issues at the foreshore ofRedland Bay, directly in front of the Redland BayHotel. Council needs to place more rubbish bins inplace in order to keep this place ‘beautiful’.


6.15. Local artists should be given the opportunity to painton construction site boards throughout the Shire.

38 Refer to Community and Social Planning Group

6.16. Increased security, lighting and screening should beencouraged at:(a) the Capalaba Lions Park in order to increase the

safety of the park(b) Salisbury Street, Redland Bay(c) Omac Street, Redland Bay (including footpaths).

39, 82 Refer to Environmental Management Group and InfrastructureDevelopment Group

6.17. The Queens Esplanade, the Thornesidewalkway/cycleway and Manly Esplanade should beextended to join together.


6.18. The schools in the Shire need to be better tidied ofrubbish. Perhaps an incentives system could beimplemented.


6.19. Issues that need attention at Coochiemudlo Islandinclude:• Cliff slopes at the western end need stabilising to

prevent slippage• Exotic plan infestations along fringe of the Island



NOISSUE Submission



need to be controlled• Peacock overpopulations on some parts of the

islands, the diseases they carry and the disruptionthey cause to residential properties and gardens

6.20. (a) Put numbers on the back of busses(b) Maintain standard of service at public libraries(c) Keep rates as low as possible(d) Protect the natural water

50, 60 Refer to Community and Social Planning Group

6.21. (a) More areas need to be set aside for young peopleactivities, such as skate parks, particularly atAlexandra Hills, for example at:

(1) Wimbourne Road Park(2) Windermere Road

(b) Open air free stage concerts(c) Increased shelter at beaches(d) Off-leash dog parks and dog ponds for swimming(e) Beach areas for dogs to swim at(f) Open air movies(g) Designated areas for car racing, manned by police(h) Increased police patrols throughout the Shire(i) Free parenting classes(j) Increased drop-in centres(k) Increased parklands(l) Painted murals on fences throughout the Shire(m) Increased security at schools to minimise

vandalism(n) Ensure staff at Council have integrity and moral

stature

These activities will help with the rising youth suiciderate, growing homelessness, rising unemploymentrates and the rising cost of after school activities.

53, 85, 233 Refer to Community and Social Planning Group

6.22. (a) No more skate board parks, especially at CharlieBuckler Sports Field

(b) The Creek at Charlie Buckler Sports Field needsclearing as it is overgrown and a breeding groundfor mosquitoes.


6.23. A toilet needs to be constructed at Raby Bay. 58 Refer to Community and Social Planning Group

6.24. (a) Provision should be made for the maintenance ofsmall parks, specifically the small park betweenFig Tree Place and Wellington Street, Ormiston

(b) Council should implement a program of monitoringthe Koala habitat trees, by planting new ones, andensuring that old ones are healthy and disease-free.



ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNo

COMMENT OFFICER AND COUNCILRECOMMENDATION

6 NON SOP ISSUES6.25. Comments on the Water Extraction Scheme at North

Stradbroke Island:(a) Reduction in water quality of waterways,

specifically 18 Mile Swamp(b) Council needs to demonstrate the amount of water

taken since the inception of the scheme andmonitoring of the waterways

(c) Lack of monitoring by Council will lead to thedestruction of the natural heritage of NorthStradbroke Island.


6.26. Concerned that bushland at Amity Point is becominginfested with ‘asparagus fern’ and ‘fish tail fern’.Council needs to encourage residents to clear theneighbourhood of infestation.


6.27. (a) Housing commission areas should be spread outthroughout the Shire

(b) The Shire is getting a name like ‘Inala’, due to itlooking ‘tired’ and ‘sad’

(c) There are too many shops in the Shire.


6.28. (a) Keep the gutters, footpaths, drains and parks cleanand tidy

Water suppliers check water pressure within the homefrom the street main up to the property boundary.

74 Refer to Environmental Management Group and Redland Water & Waste

6.29. Correction of street spelling 75 Refer to Land Use Planning Group

6.30. (a) Develop boardwalks in mangroves, creatingeducational centres, for example from WellingtonPoint around to Thorneside.

(b) Develop malls, areas without cars, throughout theShire

(c) Develop virtual villages


6.31. (a) Alternative waste water treatment technologiesshould be investigated in order to better protectMoreton Bay, such as using recycled water in theShire

(b) A cycling / walking track should be implementedfrom Cleveland to Victoria Point to promotealternative transportation options within the Shire


6.32. The street widths in the Shire are too narrow andtraffic-calming devices are annoying and oftendangerous.


6.33. Concerned with:(a) cost of fruit and vegetables in the Shire (due to

farmland being sold for residential development)(b) beaches being closed due to blue-green algae(c) loss of bushland and habitat for native birds and

animals



NOISSUE Submission



(d) over priced housing in the Shire(e) Increased crime in the Shire(f) Air and noise pollution levels

6.34. Informing Council that a proposal for a multi-purposecommunity centre has been drafted

101 Refer to Community and Social Planning Grope

6.35. Redland Shire Council and Brisbane City Councilshould merge in order to provide better services forcheaper rates.

106 Noted

6.36. The properties backing onto the Moogurrum Creek atClub Crescent at Redland Bay subject to fire hazards,especially during school holidays. Noxious weeds arealso present and bank erosion is occurring. Suggestfire hazard reduction activities are undertaken on aregular basis and the area surveyed in terms of bankerosion.


6.37. Main roads in the Shire need to be fenced and bettersigned to prevent the slaughter of koalas. All roadsshould have lower speed limits and movable speedcameras.


6.38. Council bushland bordering Shiraz Street, CrystalWaters needs to be cleaned up.


6.39. Comments for Stradbroke Island:(a) Council should implement: timber boardwalks,

planting of native trees, bus turnaround at MainBeach, flat edge “curbing”, timber bikeway fromDunwich to Point Lookout, no timber driveways,underground power

(b) Council should not allow: cement footpaths,raised curbing and channelling, guard rails,bare parklands, inadequate seweragesystem, unattractive bus shelters, billboardsand plastic flags, plastic rubbish bins

(c) There is resentment in the community towardsthat local action groups (FOSI & SIMO) andtheir interference into the rights of propertyowners

Comments for Mainland:(a) Likes: heritage listings, heritage signs, timber

boardwalks, corrugated iron constructions(b) Dislikes: cement paths, signage, entrance to

Grandview at Cleveland, overhead power lines,traffic islands, billboards, destruction of trees,bare parks

(c) Suggestions: explanations of aboriginalparks/street/suburb names

125, 128,140

Refer to Land Use Planning Group to co-ordinate a response


ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNo


6 NON SOP ISSUES6.40. Continue to plant grass and trees at recently cleared

land at Shiraz Street, Thornlands.117 Refer to Environmental Management Group

6.41. Road widening and curb and channelling needs tobe provided at Vine Street, Redland Bay.


6.42. The statements of intents in newsletter no. 3 May 2002for transport at Karragarra Island have not beenimplemented. When is something going to be done?

134 Addressed as part of SMBI SOP/ILTP

6.43. Council should not allow the development of human‘rabbit’ warrens in the Shire.


6.44. Request that a committee could meet withlandholders / potential landholders to discuss thepurchase of land and requirements for land (i.e.clearing of trees, building of shade houses or dams)


6.45. The flooding issues associated with the EprapahCreek at Thornlands could be resolved by redirectingthe creek along its natural course, rather than the 3-4mchannel diversion.


6.46. Commend Council for the extension of the foreshorewalkway at Redland Bay.

Speed bumps should be erected at Redland BayShopping Centre, in order to increase pedestriansafety.


6.47. Council should enforce a local law stating that nodevelopments are allowed to block out Bay views ofany existing developments (including the growing ofvegetation), as currently Bay views at Panorama Drive,Thornlands, are being lost.


6.48. Council revenue needs to be allocated more evenlyacross the Shire (rather than just at Cleveland).

281 Noted


NOISSUE Submission


RECOMMENDATION6 NON SOP ISSUES6.49. 52 Thornlands Road – Thornlands

(a) Is the land being purchased for conservation or publicopen space purposes?

(b) Is the land to be purchased at true market valueand not at an over inflated price?

(c) Seek details of RSC involvement in the valuation ofproperties (i.e. will an outside valuer be used)

(d) Will RSC ensure that an independent valuer fromDNR manage or supervise the valuation of thesubject properties

(e) Given the sensitivity of the community to suchmatters and past questionable related activities,Council should give consideration on how muchrate payers money is spent on these properties.

RPD: N/AProperty Address: 52 Thornlands Road, Thornlands andSouth Street, ClevelandCurrent Zoning: N/ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: N/A


6.50. Toxic waste should be collected more often thanevery 6 months (rather, every week). A secure areashould be set aside for the disposal of the waste.


6.51. Shopping Centre developers must be made tocomply with conditions / consent agreements made atthe approval stage, so they are no relaxed during theconstruction stage. For example, Victoria PointShopping centre has not complied with vegetation ornoise barrier requirements facing Bunker Road, andhas not provided the proposed number ofbus/commuter parking bays.


6.52. Regulated parking areas in the Shire need to bebetter enforced.


6.53. Restrictions and controls must be placed on domesticpets that are allowed to run wild. Cats should also beregistered. The proposed Eddie Santagiuliana Wayshould be made dog free.


6.54. The foreshore park between the southern end ofOrana Esplanade and the northern end of RosebudEsplanade must never be made into a roadway, as itwould create a place for hoons to race.


6.55. The locality known as Point Halloran should beofficially renamed as ‘Point O’Halloran’.


6.56. Council should improve road safety, reduce vehiclespeeds, keep vehicles on the correct side of the road,



NOISSUE Submission



erect cats eyes or centre line road markers atintersections on suburban roads,

A survey of intersections and road corners within theShire needs to be carried out to identify areas thatneed safety improvements

Without road markers to delineate the roadwaycentreline, vehicles on suburban roads cut corners andmaintain higher speeds.

6.57. Renewable energy sources in the Shire need to beexamined and encouraged in new developments (e.g.wind farm generators at Mt Cotton).


6.58. (a) Toilet block should be erected at the beachfront atPt O’Halloran

(b) A walkway from Victoria Point to Redland Bayshould be erected

(c) More parking for residents on Link Road should beprovided

(d) A traffic Island a the Victoria Point lights (corner ofLink, Colburne and Holy) should be provided

Footpaths should be erected on both sides of streets insuburban areas to reduce soil erosion

319, 307 Refer to Environmental Management Group and InfrastructureDevelopment Group

6.59. Would like to see a movie theatre, café and libraryestablished closer to Redland Bay


6.60. Property owners should be compensated if restrictionsare placed on their property for the benefit of the wholecommunity

Any restricted / protected areas designated by Councilshould be kept clean of noxious weeds and plants byCouncil (at the expense of Council).


6.61. To serve residents of Wynnum, Manly, Redlands andfuture development planning should be underway fornext major road running parallel to M1 Motorway andcloser to the coastline of the bay.

Addressed as part of ILTP

6.62. Issues of concern at Point Lookout:(a) Council should consider introducing a 40km/hr

speed limit. Perhaps erected traffic calmingdevices to enforce this

(b) Exotic infestations of weed need to be addressedIncreased extraction of water for pumping to themainland is lowering the water table and therefore thelakes and lagoons.

113 Refer to Community & Social Planning and Environmental ManagementGroup


ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNo


6 NON SOP ISSUES6.63. • Council should ensure there is a policy for cats to

have bells• There is a lack of frontline staff to support and

educate the public on matters of the environment


6.64. Planners need to keep the natural attraction of PointLookout whilst still providing for accommodationand transport in the area. At Lighthouse Hill theroad is being severely degraded from parked cars,due to the lack of parking facilities. Perhaps smallbuses could be implemented to reduce the numberof cars in the area.

RPD: Lots 316 and 317 on PL 8544Property Address: 25 Midjunberry Road, Point LookoutCurrent Zoning: N/ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: N/A


6.65. Comments on Dunwich: ACI and CRL move their loading facilities north or

south of Dunwich and re-develop the present jettyarea so that ferries dock away from water taxis

A peer could be implemented to link the existingACI loading facility to the Dunwich jetty – couldcreate a convenient and safe mooring facility and agateway to the Island

Dunwich beaches and foreshores need to be givenback to the public i.e. remove the camping facilityfrom Bradbury and Adams Beach and open up tothe public


6.66. Road / cycle way upgrades required forconsideration in the planning scheme:Straighten and widen Mt Cotton Road from Capalabato Redland Bay – Beenleigh Road and continue overLogan River and on to Hope IslandUpgrade both the cycleway and roadway at Wilson’sEsplanade, Victoria Point, between Pt O’HalloranRoad and Coleburn EsplanadeLes Moore Park requires an upgrade.


6.67. Railway line proposals: Plan a railway line from Brisbane extending

through Capalaba, Victoria Point and RedlandBay (possibly further south for futuredevelopment)

Duplicating the single track to Cleveland is awaste of money if is not also extended toRedland Bay

Possibly use the branch line from Manly toCarindale to facilitate extension.

Rail lines should be used as main line carrierswith buses as feeders to rail stations.

281, 307 Addressed as part of ILTP


NOISSUE Submission



Planning bus ways parallel to rail lines isunnecessarily duplicating the services andnegatively impacting upon the environment.

The railway line could extend through Redland Bayand rejoin the rail network at Logan Lea (creating aring route, rather than radial)

6.68. Victoria Point Reserve is overused and there is littleopportunity for day-trippers to park, due to Islandresidents exceeding time limits allowed. Commercialuse of the park should also be restricted and moreefficient utilisation of the recreational infrastructure isnecessary. The following should not be allowed in thearea:

Passengers boarding ferries A bus stop Vehicle drop off point for passengers Vehicles servicing the needs of handicapped Emergency vehicles accessing the jetty Pedestrians crossing road to stairs on cliff Normal two way vehicular traffic Vehicles with boat / boat trailers Vehicles accessing vehicular barge A commercial office operated by the vehicular

barge company Expansion of existing recreational infrastructure

Vehicular barge extensions must not be allowed

281, 352 Refer to Environmental Management Group

6.69. Establish a Council office and public library at VictoriaPoint

281 Refer to Community & Social Planning Group

6.70. More recreation areas and parking facilities shouldbe provided at Wellington pt. The public should betterutilise the Jeff Skinner Reserve and the leaching ofacid sulphate sub soils from the reserve into the Bayshould be prevented.


6.71. A cultural and/ or community facility should bedeveloped at Capalaba.


6.72. Any proposals for an extension to the railway line fromCleveland to other centres, such as Capalaba, VictoriaPoint and Redland Bay?


6.73. Buses in Redlands are difficult to access – may peopledrive to Carindale and use BCC buses from there.Adequate, safe and secure parking should be providedfor people wishing to use public transport.


6.74. Traffic Issues:(a) broad leafed plants should be placed along

roadsides to reduce noise pollution



NOISSUE Submission



(b) open plan designs of road networks areneeded

traffic calming devices should be implemented in theShire (esp. around William Street)

6.75. The clearing of undergrowth at the area surroundingthe STP is clearing vegetation for native birds in thearea.

The ‘Tourism Opportunity’ at the EprapahConservation Reserve should ensure that humantraffic does not disturb the bird species in this area.

RPD: N/AAddress of Property: Link Road (back of STP),Victoria Point and Eprapah Conservation ReserveCurrent Zoning: N/ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: N/A


6.76. Points raised in relation to the Thomas Street Parklands:(a) The parklands are an asset to the community and

future development should proceed with duecaution

(b) The off-leash dog run should be made permanentin the area to encourage greater community use

(c) Pathways should be implemented to link thefootbridges, in addition to seating and the plantingof native trees

(d) No play equipment should be constructed in thepark

(e) There should be a blending of landscape fromSovereign Waters foreshore to Thomas StreetParkland

(f) Should be an upgrade of the cricket nets(g) Cleaning and upgrading of waterways is required

RPD: N/AProperty Address: all properties behind ThomasStreet Parkland, BirkdaleCurrent Zoning: N/ACurrent Strategic Plan Designation: N/A


6.77. Concerned with the maintenance and cleanliness ofparklands in the Wellington Point region and the needfor playground upgrades, due to overcrowding.


6.78. (a) The car park at Wellington Point Station should bere-configured to allow more parking spaces

(b) Council should improve the facilities at ClevelandPoint (including parking) and encourage tourismactivities such as bay cruises etc.

326 Refer to Infrastructure Development Group and Economic DevelopmentGroup


ISSUENO

ISSUE SubmissionNo


6 NON SOP ISSUES6.79. An upgrade to the Weinam Creek facilitates are

required79 Refer to Environmental Management Group

REDLANDS LANNING CHEME STATEMENT OF PROPOSALS ·...

Documents

Transcript of REDLANDS LANNING CHEME STATEMENT OF PROPOSALS ·...