Toowoomba council votes to approve controversial three-lot Highfields subdivision after heated discussion

In a move one councillor said would ‘erode away’ the community, the controversial subdivision of a large lot north of Toowoomba has been approved by the council.

Aerial of Toowoomba 2008: The expanding suburb of Highfields, north of Toowoomba, features Reis Road running along the bottom and the New England Highway on the left. The Chronicle Archives

A highly controversial subdivision of a rural residential lot north of Toowoomba has been approved, in a move one councillor said would “erode away” the fabric of the community.

The Toowoomba Regional Council agreed with its officer’s recommendation at Wednesday’s special meeting to allow applicant Lennox Geoffrey Wildman to turn his 6400sq m parcel on the corner of Kuhls and Cawdor roads in Highfields into three separate lots, just over 2000sq m each.

The land is located in part of the original settlement of Highfields, featuring large lifestyle blocks and extensive vegetation.

The proposal, which was impact-assessable due to the lot sizes not meeting the planning scheme’s accepted outcomes, generated an extraordinary number of submissions from the public.

Applicant Lennox Geoffrey Wildman has lodged plans with the Toowoomba Regional Council to subdivide a 6100sq m lot on the corner of Kuhls and Cawdor Roads in Highfields into three even parcels.

Out of the 23 submissions, 10 supported the project and 13 were opposed.

The controversy didn’t end once inside City Hall, with councillors raising concerns about the clearing of dozens of trees on the site as well as the existing road infrastructure and proposed on-site effluent systems.

Landscaping designs suggested between 25 and 34 trees could be removed from the site, which included large diseased trees, invasive pests and mature natives running along an area of Cawdor Rd that was being reclaimed by the council for a future road widening.

The issue of the trees was of such a high priority, some councillors considered imposing a covenant onto the land to ensure they couldn’t be removed – a move planning and development general manager Nikola Stepanov said would be unprecedented.

Speaking for the applicant, Precinct Urban Planning’s James Williams said most of the trees would only be removed in a “worst-case scenario”.

“It was identified that there were a number of trees that were weeds and a number that are infected with white ants, which (the applicant) would remove to stop that infestation,” he told councillors.

“There would be no trees cleared within the onsite effluent, there would be no need to unless there were conditions attached to council.

“The majority of trees cleared is because of council requiring land dedication.”

Councillor Bill Cahill moved an alternate motion during debate to reject the subdivision, arguing it would set a precedent for the wider community.

Councillor Bill Cahill. Photo Bev Lacey

“What we’re doing is eroding it away by making it more in common with the sizes of lots to the west of Kuhls Rd and then they go even smaller into sewered lots,” he said.

“We’re eroding away a living choice and the fabric of this community by allowing infill into this area with grossly undersized lots.

“It affects the amenity of Highfields potentially — if we think it will stop at one lot, then we’re kidding ourselves.”

After colleague Tim McMahon was denied a chance to speak for the motion by chair Megan O’Hara Sullivan due to council protocols (no one had spoken against it), Mr Cahill made a comment that drew the concern of councillor James O’Shea.

“I’m sorry, do you mind repeating that comment, Councillor Cahill, I took offence to that,” he said.

Mr Cahill replied: “I suspect after my courteous email to councillors well ahead of time (of this alternate motion), there’s most likely been some discussion and deliberation about the matter (outside the chamber).”

“I’ve been around the table for a while and experienced that before, so I can only assume, I might be wrong.”

After several councillors rebuked the claim, Mr Cahill apologised.

His motion was defeated 3-6 after earning the support of Mr McMahon and councillor Rebecca Vonhoff, with the original motion then moved by the same margins.