Toowoomba council slammed by Homecorp chief executive Ron Bakir over rejection of 171-lot Essence Estate

A high-profile Gold Coast developer has accused the Toowoomba council of “chasing votes” after it rejected his $105m subdivision proposal.

A prominent Gold Coast developer has slammed the Toowoomba Regional Council’s refusal of his $105m subdivision in a fast-growing suburb, calling the move “pathetic”.

Homecorp Constructions’ Ron Bakir says he will appeal the council’s decision at the December 20 special meeting, where councillors voted 9-2 to knock back the remaining 171 lots of Essence Estate in Cotswold Hills.

The motion went against the council’s own planning department, which had recommended approval despite opposition from hundreds of residents in the surrounding area.

Key concerns from locals were based on the lack of vegetative buffer zones between Essence and existing rural-residential homes, perceived flooding impacts, the loss of amenity for current locals, traffic increases and the fact about quarter of the lots proposed were 450 sqm.

Ron Bakir, CEO, Homecorp. Photo: Regi Varghese

Mr Bakir said Homecorp would lodge an appeal, accusing the council of chasing votes.

“It’s pretty disgraceful in my view,” he said.

“We talk about housing shortages and adding value to people’s lives, and the council completely disregarded that approach.

“We’ll definitely be appealing it and the council should be thinking about how to develop more housing rather than trying to get votes.

“The councillors do not even understand the detail, they understand votes as opposed to housing.

“The application before council was for 170 lots; it’s about $105m we were ready to invest — that’s what the council has rejected, it’s pathetic.”

Mr Bakir acknowledged he could’ve avoided the ordeal had he made all the lots a minimum of 500 sqm, which he said would not have resulted in a “material” reduction in total allotments.

Doing so would’ve made the application “code-assessable” and not required it to go to a special meeting.

But Mr Bakir noted the council’s planners supported the move and were happy with Homecorp’s responses to issues like traffic, buffer zones, stormwater and other planning matters.

“It would make sense if they rejected the application because we had not adhered to the officers’ requests (but) we had navigated the process — we can’t get any more guidance than what the officers gave us,” he said.

“If council officers were not supportive of the application, we would’ve submitted a different application.

“We could have made them 500 sqm, but we’re talking about 26 per cent of the application being under the 500 sqm.

“It’s a very acceptable outcome, we’re talking about 50 sqm – it makes zero difference to the people living on those lots.”

The move to appeal was foreshadowed by Kerry Shine, who was one of just two councillors to vote against the decision to reject the project.

“What we’re being asked to give effect to is very similar on an issue that’s already been determined by the court,” he said at the meeting.

“It would be an exercise of a triumph of hope over experience to think that the court on this occasion will arrive at a different decision.”

Planning and development chair councillor Megan O’Hara Sullivan said the TRC had not received an appeal from Homecorp.

“The proponent is entitled to appeal the decision through the Planning and Environment Court,” she said in a statement.