Vote to reject golf course estate plan unanimous

Councillors have made a final vote on two controversial northern projects, rejecting the Arundel Country Club development but backing a new luxury unit complex at Sovereign Islands.

The vote at a full council meeting on Thursday was unanimous in refusing an application for a $150m residential estate at the rundown Arundel Hills golf course.

Council planning committee chair Mark Hammel has described the nine-page refusal written by City officers “as the strongest I’ve seen”.

He said the planned residential development would result in the removal of 75,000sq m of vegetation and four waterways, with the impact on existing fauna being “catastrophic”.

Cr Hammel congratulated the role of Arundel Hills Golf Course Community Reference Group. Their members packed the gallery and applauded Cr Hammel when he said the refusal would be strongly defended by the City if the developer launched a legal appeal.

Mayor Tom Tate said the developer should consider spending their money on fixing the rundown golf course.

“They should clean up the place, open the doors and play a bit of golf,” he said.

The city had received 1163 objections, most of them from nearby residents, and individual accounts rather than a signing off on a pro-forma letter.

Only 119 submissions were made in support.

Division 7 candidate for this year’s council elections Joe Wilkinson, who had worked with residents to voice their concerns, said it was an “outstanding result”.

“This reflects the community’s sentiments and sends a strong message to developers,” he said.

In their report on Sovereign Islands, officers had recommended approval of the two unit buildings, which feature rooftop pools as part of an improved neighbourhood centre.

More than 200 residents in submissions opposed the development. Some have warned they will take legal action against council.

Cr Hammel acknowledged residents were concerned about not just height but bulk of the buildings on site.

He said two buildings separated by 17m was a better outcome than “one large bulky building”.