Council Meeting – Wed 9th Dec
Sue Brooks December 10th, 2009
I thought some further explanation in relation to the decision by Council yesterday to approve a shopping centre development in Maryborough on behalf of Micky Souvlis is needed. Micky has been waiting some time to have this development approved and he applied for the development prior to amalgamation.
The problem that Mr Souvlis faced was that he was asking for a large development that would not comply with the existing and still current Maryborough Planning Scheme. If the development did comply I would have expected that it would have been dealt with under the old Maryborough City Council and be under construction by now.
Councillors were generally keen to support an extension and rebuilding of the retail centre in that location and recently we decided to ask our staff to explore any options that would see the development go ahead and still be justifiable under the Maryborough Planning Scheme. This is because the officers had recommended to Council that the application be refused.
Yesterday Council received a report with grounds recommending approval for the development with a lengthy (but not unusual) list of attached conditions. These conditions related to such things as the total floor size of the building, bulk and scale of the building, setbacks to other boundaries, pathways and driveways conditions and car parking provisions amongst others.
I moved to support the recommendation and asked that the shopping centre trading hours be amended to facilitate late opening for appropriate retailers. Cr McNeven seconded my motion. At this point Cr Dalgleish attempted to amend the motion by asking that conditions be altered to reflect a document emailed directly to Councillors, by the developers consultant, at 5pm the evening before. To my mind the document was not relevant, did not properly list actual conditions and our staff had not even had time to read it or the suggestions to alter conditions. Cr O’Connell seconded the amendment
Much debate ensued and the Mayor decided that the proposed amendment was actually going to alter the original intent of the motion to such a degree that it made the amendment unacceptable. At this point the Mayor refused the amendment. My motion to give a permit with associated ‘reasonable and relevant’ conditions was then put and was lost.
Cr Dalgleish then proceeded to move a motion that the development be approved and listed altered conditions which include a reduced setback (to 2 metres from 5 metres) to adjoining properties, reduced car parking provision and reduced requirements in relation to other works. I believe that these altered conditions make the development so non compliant with the Maryborough Planning Scheme that I voted against the motion. I also believe there are now inconsistencies within the conditions and that another delay to Mr Souvlis is inevitable due to the ad hoc approach taken yesterday by the majority of Councillors.
I do not believe that Council should be making decisions as important as a large scale retail development ‘on the run’ and that it should be disregarding the Planning Scheme and officers considered recommendations to the extent demonstrated yesterday.
While it is very, very difficult for all Councillors to be presented with what to all intents and purposes is a ‘good quality’ development being undertaken by high qulaity developers does not negate the duty of a Councillor to apply relevant legislation correctly and appropriately. When I vote on development applications it is my most serious duty to make decisions based on how I believe the relevant Legislation (Planning Scheme etc) like it or not, is being addressed. I cannot make my decisions based on whether I ‘like or dislike’ a development.
I wish the Souvlis family every success in their venture and look forward to having input into the Fraser Coast Growth Strategy. I do believe that retail and commercial development is constrained in both cities due to current planning schemes and hope that we can alter this as we move towards a new ‘Plan’ for the entire region.
- Development issues , Uncategorized
- Comments(4)
It is a little disappointing developers (and it seems to be more at the Maryborough end than Hervey Bay) keep insisting on putting applications forward that haven’t been properly researched or considered.
I can understand they all want their projects off the ground but town planning schemes are there for a reason. If a developer wants council to bend the rules then they better put together a strong case for council to do so.
However.. I am a little concerned when council appears to ’sit’ on a proposal for several meetings as they did with the Delavista project rather than reject the proposal outright at the first opportunity as recommended by council’s own officers. To me this only causes unnecessary angst between the developer and council and subsequently tends to be picked up by the media who go to town painting a picture that council is anti-progress.
If council has legitimate concerns about a development and more importantly there isn’t a decent majority of councilors in agreement then I believe such a project should be rejected and the developer asked to address the specific details before returning.
I will watch this one with interest!
Well said Ben, could not agree more. No decision is always a bad decision, you either pass it or reject it. no stalling.
Based on the locals report, we all know which councillors will have the UDIA’s support next election, don’t we?
Sadman
Sue,
What are you going to give me to get my vote?
I bet you cannot beat a two door fridge?
It’s a bit like the days of yore, when candidates
used to stand outside polling boths and give people
two bob for the vote.
They be really poor at Aldershot.
Glad to see the Planned development going ahead. We all will be great beneficiaries of this next step in the growth of the Maryborough and Fraser district. Good to see a local family involved and giving back the community the have lived in for over half a century.