Council’s letter to residents called a disgrace

A COUNCIL letter to residents saying it did not want to approve an unpopular redevelopment of a bowls club and that it could be “called in’’ by the State has been labelled “disgraceful’’, “nonsense” and “devious”.

Retire Australia CEO Alison Quinn wants to redevelop the Tarragindi Bowls Club into a seniors living complex. But it is being met by some fierce community backlash. Picture: Russell Shakespeare

• Residents threaten to sue
• Development gets the tick
• What the fuss is all about

A COUNCIL letter to residents saying it did not want to approve the Tarragindi Bowls Club redevelopment and that it could be “called in’’ by the State has been labelled “really disgraceful’’.

Labor MP for Miller, Mark Bailey, said last week’s letter was an attempt by the Council to try to shift blame after it approved a five-level aged care plan in a low-density area, despite 1800 objections.

“They know it’s incredibly unpopular and they are trying to blame someone else, even though everyone knows local developments are the responsibility of local councils,’’ he said.

Mr Bailey said it was a “devious suggestion’’ the State Government could call in the project because the only way that could happen was if there was a state interest in the matter.

“Council knows this is just nonsense,’’ he said.

Mark Bailey says Council knows the state Government cannot call in the bowls club project. Picture: AAP/Darren England

Federal MP for Moreton, Graham Perrett, and councillor Steve Griffiths (Moorooka) have both campaigned against the project.

The plan, approved in January, was described then by Planning Committee chairman Julian Simmonds as “critical” for the southside. Cr Krista Adams hailed it as “a win for the community and the city”.

“A month later, Lord Mayor Graham Quirk and Cr Adams have written to residents trying to distance themselves from the development,” Opposition Leader Peter Cumming said.

The Council letter said, as with a townhouse project on Weller Rd which had not led to similar applications being approved in the area, “neither will this retirement proposal’’.

“Council’s preference is to have no development on the site at all, but under State planning laws, lodging development applications on this site is allowed,’’ its letter read.

The Tarragindi Bowls Club. Picture: John Gass

Full letter to residents from Council:

Dear resident

You may have recently seen a letter from your State member, Mark Bailey MP, about his concerns with the redevelopment of the privately owned Tarragindi Bowls Club into a new bowls clubhouse and retirement living. He outlined concerns about this setting a precedent for development in Tarragindi. We wanted to remind you that, just as the townhouse development on Weller Road has not led to similar applications being approved in the area, neither will this retirement proposal.

Council’s approval of the scaled back development (with a significantly reduced height) was based on a number of factors, including a previous decision by the Planning and Environment Court which overtimed Council’s refusal of residential development on a former bowls club.

Obviously, Council’s preference would be to have no development on the site at all, but under

current State Planning laws, lodging development applications on this site is allowable.

Additionally, refusal was always likely to result in a costly legal battle, which we were advised we would have little chance of winning.

As you may be aware, under the State Government’s South East Queensland Regional Plan, Council is required to provide more than 188,000 new dwellings in the Brisbane City Council area. It was considered that a retirement development would have far less impact on the community than other residential development, while also retaining an improved community use on the land.

It should also be noted that the city has a critical shortage of retirement and aged care

accommodation, which is a serious problem facing our city and for those residents who want to retire in their existing communities.

We take exception to the fact that the local MP — an influential Cabinet Minister in the State

Government — continues to encourage residents to take the matter further when the State

Government has the ability to call in the development application for reassessment. Such a decision cannot be appealed by the developer.

We have written to the State MP saying to him that, if he is genuinely concerned about the

retirement facility, he can use his influence to call in this development. It is time for him to either deliver on the rhetoric or admit that he has simply been playing politics with this issue.

Yours sincerely

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk, Krista Adams