25 Oct 12
Please see below the Sippy Downs & District Community Association witness statement to the State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee regarding the Sustainable Planning & Other Legislation Amendment Bill that was heard in Parliament House today.
SDDCA witness statement
State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee
Proposed SPOLA Amendments
The Sippy Downs & District Community Association represents a community of 9,000 people encompassing Chancellor Park estate which was a court-approved development, resulting in poor planning and infrastructure that has cost council and ratepayers several million dollars to rectify.
We do not want to see the same mistakes made in future development at Palmview, located on our southern boundary.
Our submission relates specifically to the amendments that remove master planning and structure planning provisions and to changes to Section 242.
The Palmview Structure Plan was finalised in November 2010 and is incorporated in the new Sunshine Coast draft planning scheme which was recently signed off by the state government. It will rely on the current master planning provisions for effective implementation.
Whilst we are not in favour of all elements of the Structure Plan, particularly the Greenlink transit corridor, we strongly support the master plan approach and agreed sequencing of development and infrastructure. Over 1200 submissions were received by council in support of the sequencing as per the finalised structure plan, which was agreed to by all parties.
Palmview is intended to house 17000 residents. Of particular concern is the impact on the local Sippy Downs road network. The only existing road access to Palmview is through Sippy Downs. However, the structure plan clearly identifies a critical new linkage as the first road in the development sequence.
We are also very concerned about the potential for the Palmview developer to lodge preliminary applications under Section 242 for part of the structure plan area. A developer could apply for development in small stages in order to avoid the requirements of a structure plan. This would undermine council’s ability to strategically plan growth. I would be pleased to give actual examples.
In summary, we ask that the committee ensure that:
1. Sequencing of development and road network in existing structure plans are upheld.
2. Any preliminary approval applications made under s.242 for development covered by a structure plan should be assessed according to that structure plan, not in isolation.
We call on the parliament to ensure that their local communities are protected and that the proposed amendments do not allow a return to ad hoc development and its associated problems.
Any enquiries please contact the SDDCA
Planning & Development Sub-Committee
Murray Lyons 0417 198 887