Councillors divided after vote to cut project delays and speed up approvals of big projects
Only nine out of 2,222 developments qualified as ‘major assessments’ in five years, yet council’s move to fast-track them has sparked fierce debate. This is what it means for major projects like the beach bar and cableway.
Big development projects regarded as “major assessments” are to be fast tracked by the City, in a surprise move. Not explained was how this impacts on the cableway or beach bars.
Will the planning changes mean less scrutiny and a free ride for developers?
Deputy Mayor Mark Hammel, who put forward the plan at a recent full council meeting, has been in talks since with the Community Alliance about major assessment (MA).
He confirmed that he told community leaders that an MA would not be applied to the planned Kurrawa bar or the Springbrook project. The Alliance still remains opposed to these changes.
Your columnist asked about the Gold Coast Arena – and was told it would not have MA status.
It appears any council-led project must continue to go through the Planning Committee where it will be debated by councillors. To do otherwise, would great too many conflicts.
Only nine of 2222 development applications in the past five years have had MA status.
Some were controversial – the Boral quarry at Reedy Creek, the Wave Pool at Parkwood, the Turf Club’s expansion and Dreamworld project – and landed back at committee.
The criteria for MA status covers big projects, employing 100 people, worth $30 million.
These planning changes, voted on at full council, are the first in a decade.
The special delegation assessing an MA includes the mayor, deputy mayor, CEO Tim Baker and the senior planning officer. Their vote must be unanimous.
Mr Hammel was at pains to point out that if the divisional councillor wants the application to go to committee, it will be debated at his planning committee.
“This isn’t about weakening oversight – it’s about cutting red tape, reducing unnecessary delays, and avoiding added costs to both applicants and ratepayers,” Mr Hammel told your columnist.
Voting against the changes were Peter Young, Naomi Fowler, Donna Gates, Brooke Patterson, Josh Martin and Dan Doran. The debate went on for more than an hour.
It was obvious, from the questions from many councillors – Glenn Tozer asked a lot – that there was little prior briefing and they needed more information.
Ms Gates, the former Deputy Mayor, was concerned that only the mayor or divisional councillor could refer a development application back to the planning committee.
“That’s our job, to look at planning applications thoroughly, in particular major assessments,” she told councillors.
Mr Hammel raised the issue because a subdivision at Ormeau in his division, which ticked all the boxes through planning, could be delayed for three months.
His argument was the City needs housing stock, and red tape would cost the builder hundreds of thousands of dollars, ramping up prices for the buyer.
“I do apologise, Mr Mayor, I didn’t think this would cause such a big ruckus,” he said.
Mr Hammel steps into the mayoral boots in the next few weeks. He has an appetite for detail.
There was a clear lesson here. You can have what you believe are the best plans about planning – but in politics, it’s all about the execution.
More Coverage
‘A mark of a good team’: Mayor, CEO defend holiday plans
