Opinion: Residents’ development concerns lost in translation

A DEVELOPER is challenging its knockback by council over a controversial apartment project in inner Brisbane - and the concerns of locals aren’t getting a look-in, writes Terry Sweetman.

The St Lucia property that is subject of the development application

• Ratepayer concerns steamrolled
• 22 units to 73: What is council doing?
• Win for residents fighting new high-rise

THOSE with little else to do might recall that I have been chronicling the adventures of a curious development proposal in our riverside St Lucia street.

However it becomes curiouser and curiouser.

A series of developers has been trying to build apartments on a 1242sq m site that went under in the 2011 flood.

Briefly, it began in 2012 when a developer was given approval to build 11 floors with 22 units and 25 car parks.

Local residents objected loudly – and expensively – but won only small concessions as the plans grew to encompass 73 units in 15 floors with parking for 95 cars in six basement levels.

However the development was eventually knocked back by the council.

Julian Simmonds, planning committee chairman and councillor for the area, said the council was not satisfied that an ancient fig tree on the property would not be harmed by plans to dig the underground carpark.

And, significantly, it was not satisfied residents’ concerns about traffic had been adequately addressed by the developer.

A placard placed in the area by concerned residents

“Ultimately, the developer could not satisfy community concerns that the significant tree on the site would be adequately protected or that the impacts caused by the proposal would be appropriately mitigated,’’ Quest reporter Brendan O’Malley quoted him as saying.

Much cheer followed, although it was muted by news of the developer, Lucia Dev Pty Ltd, appealing the decision through the Planning and Environment Court.

Here’s where it gets really curious.

The letter from Dominic Hudson, the council’s senior urban planner, to Lucia Dev lists four reasons for refusing the application.

Three of them are to do with vegetation and one is because some of the balconies range from just 6sq m to 11sq m, somewhat shy of what it considers necessary to provide “attractive and functional open space for residents”.

There was no mention of residents’ concerns about traffic or “impacts caused by the proposal’’.

Simmonds was either misled or misleading over the grounds for refusal and the primacy of public concern.

There’s no way of scoring the importance of misgivings about the project but I would suggest from reading submissions and speaking to locals that traffic (during the build and after) and the unsuitability of the site for so many apartments were the major grounds for objections.

The fig tree was important and there were other considerations, not the least of which was the notion of six floors under a flood zone.

So instead of the developer contesting a decision based on the residents’ concerns, it is left with a fairly confined field of legal battle defined by the council itself.

If this court has the same rules of engagement as other courts of appeal, I suspect there is no way those wider concerns can be aired.

I don’t know what a court might make of minuscule balconies, but it seems quite conceivable it could put a multimillion-dollar project ahead of a tree or two that the developers say they are treating with tender concern.

This court cannot be influenced by external factors, but I (and residents) suspect the council is going into the trenches armed with the weakest of potential grounds for refusal.

If the court upholds the appeal, the council will be able to wash its hands and say: “Don’t blame us.’’

This presumably would not be unwelcome for a lately conciliatory Simmonds who might relish public favour, given reports that he will challenge Jane Prentice for Liberal endorsement in the federal seat of Ryan.

Email Terry Sweetman