Why Gympie should accept three, four storey buildings

It’s time the region looked at other ways to help put roofs over people’s heads and save the koalas, because simply saying “no more growth” is not an option.

Allowing three and four storey developments in Gympie is a viable alternative to the perpetual housing-environment clash that has been going on in a region known not only for a koalas and wildlife but a ridiculously tight rental market too.

Gympie, it’s time to go up. It’s time to revisit the region’s height limits.

I’m sure simply making the suggestion has provoked gnashing of teeth and social media outrage so let’s be clear: I’m not proposing we build the second coming of the Empire State Building in Imbil or erect the Eye of Sauron above the council’s chambers.

I am, however, offering three and four storeys as a solution to the perpetual clash between housing and environmental needs.

This battle rolled on this week with reports more than 20ha of land has been legally cleared in Gympie in recent months, primarily around the Southside and Pie Creek.

Some residents are understandably unhappy.

The council has said the region needs more housing.

Gympie is restricted to two-storeys almost entirely, with the exception of a three-storey limit along Mary St and a six-story limit in a small part of Rainbow Beach.

Given Gympie has one of the tightest rental markets in the state and a not small homeless population (289 at the last census in 2016, up 71 per cent from the census before), it’s hard to argue the point.

So rather than urban sprawl, which requires land, land, and more land, maybe we should start looking in a different direction.

Right now Gympie’s planning scheme lays down a two storey law for almost all of the region.

Mary St has a three-storey limit but it’s mostly heritage and can’t be touched without a handwritten letter from the gods, while a small part of Rainbow Beach has a six storey limit thanks to an old development proposal.

The clearing of more than 20ha of land for housing developments is an ongoing frustration for conservationists.

I’ve seen suggestions already cleared farmland should be used for new housing developments.

It’s a noble idea but one that hits some planning scheme hurdles thanks to the desire for good quality agricultural land to be kept in one piece.

Ask the Wasons about it.

In 2017, the Mother Mountain couple was forced to spend more than $50,000 in legal fees to be allowed to split their rural land, despite the block already being cut in two by a road.

Subdividing agricultural land, even land that already has a road through it, can be costly, as Lee and Colleen Wason discovered in 2017.

Going down is another option – but we’ll all have that address sometime in the future so why rush?

There’s also the option of simply saying “no more growth”.

To be blunt I can’t think of a more elitist or snot-nosed policy: “Hey, check out Gympie, isn’t it wonderful? Oh but we don’t want you to actually move here. Find somewhere else to live.”

Personally, I wouldn’t want to live in a place with people like that, which is why Noosa can take a hike.

The ironic thing about creating a lovely place to live is people want to live there.

And yes, backyards are good. But not everybody wants or needs one.

For my five years in Gympie I’ve had the proverbial postage stamp of grass out back, and it’s suited me fine.

People have different needs and wants. One size never fits all.

If going to three or four storeys saves some of the region’s greenery while putting a roof over more people’s heads, then surely it’s worth having the conversation.

Originally published as Why Gympie should accept three, four storey buildings