Toowoomba council accused of stopping development of 100 new affordable homes in Glenvale over earthworks opposition

The development of about 100 new houses for first homebuyers is being stalled, with the developer saying the hold up is due to Toowoomba council red tape.

A Brisbane developer has slammed the Toowoomba Regional Council for holding up the construction of 100 houses for first homebuyers, over requirements he has described as “stupid”.

Nexus Property Solutions’ Terry McKinnon says he is considering legal action due to council red tape stopping him from moving ahead with the balance of homes in the Glenvale Heights estate, a subdivision located off McDougall Street and behind Glenvale State School.

Mr McKinnon, who has taken over the project on behalf of lenders to the previous developers after they ran into financial troubles, has been battling the council over his engineering team’s plan to level the site to ensure the homes for the final stages could be built on slabs.

“Our objective is to sell lowset homes for under $750,000 — the land price is $300,000, and the house is $400,000, and the state government is encouraging us to move ahead with these,” he said.

Nexus, through its partner ADG Engineers, has argued that the only way to achieve level building platforms for stages four and five is to cut into a parcel of land to the west that has been designated as a future open space.

This requirement is dictated by the grades (steepness) of the proposed road network and council’s maximum retaining wall height parameters.

It is understood the council is not planning to move ahead with creating a new park on that lot for another 15 to 20 years, depending on population growth in the Glenvale area.

In total, the proposed $3m earthworks plan involves cutting about 30,000 cubic metres of material and using 5000 of that for fill in the subdivision, with the balance to be taken off-site, with retaining walls to be installed on the western side of the proposed park.

Developer Terry McKinnon.

But despite multiple meetings with council officers, including one just this week, Mr McKinnon said the parks and gardens team did not support the proposed earthworks plan due to the amount of cut required to establish a future playground node.

“(Our engineer) was asked by the council to provide a different design for consideration, however, council officers were unable to confirm what they actually wanted to see,” he said.

“Given the engineering constraints on the site, he said “this was the end of the road for us.

“The only (other) solutions are to lose eight or nine of those lots and bring the road further down hill, or build homes that will cost more (by putting them on stumps).

“They don’t like the fact that to extend the existing road, we have to lower the level of the lots to reduce the slope of the road.

“It’s a significant cut, but when we’re finished with it, and we’ve rehabilitated it, nothing changes — they won’t know we were even there in 15 years.”

Mr McKinnon, who has nearly 35 years of development experience across Queensland, said it was the first time he’d had to go public about a council dispute.

He believed it would be his first appeal to the planning and environment court unless the council officers changed their minds, calling the council’s attitude on the issue “intransigent”.

“Their engineers agreed this was the only solution (but other elements of the council) simply do not want to negotiate an outcome that allows us to build affordable homes for young people in Toowoomba,” Mr McKinnon said.

“I can’t understand the council’s decision to prioritise the park over homes — I’ve never come across something as stupid as this.”

Following the latest meeting, it is understood the council will return a draft set of conditions but there are no guarantees that they will be workable.

In response to a series of questions by News Corp, councillor Kerry Shine said the TRC could not comment while the matter was under assessment.

“As the application is still under assessment council cannot provide any comments, however the development application can be reviewed through publicly available information,” his statement said.

“The land will be used for park purposes when the land has been dedicated to council.”

In a May 15 letter to the developer, council officers argued the proposed amount of earthworks was “excessive” and far beyond what was approved for the original subdivision master plan back in 2015.

“Lot 902 is intended as a trunk park and the proposed earthworks will result in the removal of trees within the exclusion zone, the creation of a cut face with a 1-in-4 to 1-in-3 batter (angle) and the requirement for stormwater works including rock batter chutes to protect the cut face,” the letter said.

“These elements are not within council’s expectation for a trunk park.”