Toowoomba council rejects Plymouth Brethren Christian Church’s proposal at Top Camp after resident backlash

A controversial proposal for a new church south of Toowoomba has been knocked back following a backlash from locals — but the matter could find itself in court soon.

A controversial plan for a small church in a quiet rural-residential area south of Toowoomba has been sensationally rejected, in a move that could land the council in court.

More than 170 residents voiced their opposition to the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church’s proposal for a 148 sqm church building with 21 sealed car parks along the New England Highway facing Schmidt Court in Top Camp.

This dissent wasn’t lost on the Toowoomba councillors, with seven of them going against the council’s own officer recommendation and knocking back the plan at a special meeting on August 16.

Both officers and the applicant believed the development, which would’ve hosted up to 50 people for prayer sessions on Sunday mornings and Monday nights, could be conditioned to comply with the council’s planning scheme.

The argument for the project hinged on it meeting higher levels of the scheme and presenting conditions around traffic, noise and amenity.

The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church lodged plans to build a new place of worship on Schmidt Court in Top Camp, which has been opposed by more than 170 residents in a petition to the Toowoomba Regional Council.

This is despite it not seeming to comply with performance and acceptable outcomes related to the rural-residential zone.

Precinct Urban Planning’s Paul Kelly said the expected extra vehicle movements created by the church, about 21 per day on average, was comparable to a rural-residential house in the same street with a granny flat attached (about 20 per day).

“In terms of traffic generation and volumes, it really isn’t that inconsistent than what can be there now,” he said at the meeting.

However residents, represented by Schmidt Court homeowner Geoff Reid, said the church would introduce non-local traffic to a local road and would impact the amenity of the neighbourhood.

“They claim they will be quiet, but that is a hard claim to keep,” Mr Reid told councillors.

“This development is in the wrong place and based on the wants, not the needs of the applicant.

“If they want another one, it should have been proposed in a street away from houses — this one is not safe.

“Does the council want to create a community where the wants of the few override the rights of the many?”

Mr Reid also pointed out the PBCC already had an existing church 700m away off the New England Highway.

Mr Kelly countered that point by arguing the organisation liked to keep its church congregations small, describing them as “new neighbourhood hubs”.

The rejection could be appealed by the applicant in the planning and environment court, in line with other projects that have been knocked back by councillors despite being recommended for approval.

This fact appeared to be front of mind for councillors, who adjourned for several minutes to draft a new motion that pointed to key areas and outcomes of the planning scheme to identify noncompliance.

Motion mover councillor Rebecca Vonhoff was specific in her reasons to refuse, pointing to the 175 residents who had either lodged a submission or signed a petition against it.

Councillor Rebecca Vonhoff. Picture: Kevin Farmer

“This assessment hinges on whether or not it meets the requirements of PO and AO, does it meet the requirements of the day-to-day needs of local residents?” she said.

“This is subjective, so I think it’s defensible for us to oppose the recommendation.

“We have 175 locals who have said they are in opposition to this development, so surely they are best placed to make an assessment as to whether this application meets the day-to-day needs of local residents, and they have said no.”

Ms Vonhoff also noted the number of car parks and impacts on neighbourhood amenity as reasons for refusal.

“I do not agree with the idea that 21 formed car parks is consistent with the scale and nature of what we see up there,” she said.

“What we are considering here we have to make sure is defensible should this end up in court, and I’ve given three reasons.”

Councillor Tim McMahon supported the original motion, calling on his colleagues to listen to the expertise of the TRC’s planning department.

“We have these parts of our planning scheme for a reason, and then we come here and over-process it and pick holes in it — everything the officers have asked for has been met,” he said.

Mr McMahon, Megan O’Hara Sullivan and Kerry Shine were the only councillors to vote against Ms Vonhoff’s alternate motion.