Toowoomba council refused four projects in past two years, including major housing estate

Several major projects have been rejected by the council in recent years, including some cases where councillors voted against their own staff. See the list here:

Half of the development applications rejected by the Toowoomba Regional Council over the past two years were vetoed by the councillors themselves after officers supported them.

The council has revealed the full slate of projects it has knocked back since January 2020, with just four applications making the list.

Another two major housing estates, one by Teedale Pty Ltd at Glenvale and another by George Weston Foods at Harlaxton, were not included but were slated for refusal before the applicants took the council to court.

But the list also highlights the importance of community advocacy, with some major projects overturned thanks to public opposition.

Two of the projects listed, the Defence Housing Australia estate at Mount Lofty in 2020 a the service station at Crows Nest, actually had approval from the planning department before councillors voted at different special meetings to knock them back due to community pressure.

Planning and development chair Councillor Megan O’Hara Sullivan said the small number of rejected applications showed the council wanted to progress appropriate developments.

“This (list) does not include the George Weston Foods and Teedale applications, which were not applications refused by council,” she said.

“Council officers endeavour to work with applicants to achieve approval of appropriate development applications.

“It is rare that an application is refused, as is evidenced by the minimal number of development applications refused since January 2020.”

Two other projects, the demolition of a neighbourhood character house in North Toowoomba and a two-lot subdivision in Mount Rascal, were rejected by council officers.

The former is currently before the planning and environment court.

Here is the list, in no particular order:

David Pemberton wants council to reconsider the decision to deny permission to demolish a house on Hume Street. Picture: Kevin Farmer

1. 68 HUME STREET, NORTH TOOWOOMBA

Proposal: Demolition of neighbourhood character dwelling

Refused: November 2021

Status: In court

Applicants David Pemberton and Alina Meyer lodged an appeal in December with the planning and environment court over the decision on the Hume Street property in North Toowoomba.

The property, which has been described as “derelict and uninhabitable”, is covered by a neighbourhood character overlay that restricts its development and demolition.

In his claim to the court, Mr Pemberton said he had demonstrated enough evidence that the home was beyond salvaging and needed to be knocked down.

Plans for Rifle Range Rd at Mount Lofty by Defence Housing Australia, which were rejected by the council.

2. RIFLE RANGE ROAD, MOUNT LOFTY

Proposal: Reconfigure 8 into 50 lots

Refused: September 2020 (by council)

Status: Unknown

The infamous Defence Housing Australia project on the side of the Toowoomba escarpment had been bandied about for nearly a decade.

A proposal was lodged in 2016, which led to an enormous community outcry around a range of issues.

When it finally got to a vote four years later, it was roundly rejected by councillors on five key planning matters.

While it is understood DHA is not finished with the site, no new plans have been submitted to the council.

Concept designs for a service station and car wash at Crows Nest, which had the community up in arms.

3. NEW ENGLAND HIGHWAY, CROWS NEST

Proposal: Service station and car wash in three stages

Refused: February 2020 (by council)

Status: In court

Hundreds of Crows Nest residents were up in arms after applicant Marakech Pty Ltd lodged plans with the council to build a new service station and car wash on the New England Highway in 2017.

The three-stage project didn’t reach a vote until early 2020, when councillors voted against their own planner to reject the proposal.

The council cited concerns over flooding and contamination of the region’s main drinking water supplies.

The two parties have been stuck in a lengthy court battle.

4. 175 MOUNT RASCAL ROAD, MOUNT RASCAL

Proposal: Reconfigure one into two lots

Refused: January 2020

Status: Unknown

Easily the lowest-profile refusal on this list, applicants John and Lynn Bacon lodged plans back in 2018 to subdivide their rural residential lot at Mount Rascal into two.

According to council planning officer Tamar Katai, the site’s steep slope created a range of issues to allow a reconfiguration to occur.

“The site is constrained, with steep topography, a gully and overland flow paths, and proposed stormwater easements burdening approximately 50.85 per cent of the site,” she wrote.

“This limits usable site area, particularly an area demonstrated to be suitable for on-site effluent disposal clear of watercourses, consistent with the Queensland Plumbing and Wastewater Code.

“Submitted on-site effluent disposal reporting and stormwater modelling are not considered to have demonstrated that the development complies with or can be conditioned to comply with relevant assessment benchmarks, including those from the Rural Residential Zone Code and the Reconfiguring a Lot Code.”

Originally published as Toowoomba council refused four projects in past two years, including major housing estate