Battle over bid to develop rainforest
A DAVID and Goliath battle is shaping up as determined Aeroglen residents mobilise to stop subdivision of land that has been mooted for development over 16 years.
The 7.82ha block at 29 Magee St is zoned environment conservation and management but Hamilton Mews Pty Ltd – whose directors are Darwin-based Andrew Liveris and NT builder Paul Winter – wants to create 11 lots ranging in size from 646sq m to 2488sq m, maintaining they are using only the lower portion of the site.
Aeroglen residents have started a petition, saying the development would destroy part of Mt Lumley and create terrain that would flood the little suburb.
John and Jacqui Wyatt, who live on a property that was originally bought by Jacqui’s parents in 1956, are among those campaigning against the development.
“We had a big thing back in the ’80s and ’90s with uncontrolled hillside development and we seem to have learned nothing from that,” Mr Wyatt said.
“It is zoned conservation and back in 2010 they had to do a vegetation study and they found a lot of important native trees and shrubs, which were protected, and I think that is one of the reasons it never went ahead, it was not economically feasible.
“The land traversed by the proposed road is very steep, there’s a real potential for landslip, and that it could cause flooding to existing homes.”
Jane Kugelman, who Jacqui’s daughter and is organising the petition, said she grew up in Aeroglen and had a strong connection to the hillside. “I’m very aware of how many tiny little creatures there are in the forest there, there used to be mango trees and occasionally cassowaries, and all us kids would bolt back to the house,” she said.
“We had Indigenous people show us how to find witchetty grubs and yabbies in the creek.”
Hamilton Mews applied to Cairns Regional Council for the subdivision last July – and council took a very dim view of it. It said the proposed development was “significantly noncompliant with the relevant assessment benchmarks”.
“A preliminary review of the application suggests that the noncompliance is unlikely to be overcome by the proposal, even with the addition of further information. It is suggested that the applicant consider withdrawing the application,” it stated.
Council said the conservation zone code meant land within the zone was generally not suitable for further development.
The developer responded on November 22 emphasising only the lower portion of the land would be used and the rest would be a reserve.
“The proposal has been designed to minimise visual and ecological impacts by limiting development to the lower portions of the site adjacent to existing residential development,” the document states.
Public submissions can be made to the council by December 9.