It’s high-time residents get to have their say
How many storeys are too many storeys, on our magnificent, much-loved Strand? If you’re looking outwards from inside the 14-storey Aquarius building, who cares? The view is amazing, with nothing able to block it.
But back in 1972 when the building was opened, the public weren’t happy, staging protests against towering eyesores along The Strand, which resulted in the then Council bringing in strict height limits of five storeys for future developments.
Strict? There is a seven-storey restaurant and hotel development proposed for The Strand and awaiting final council approval.
Is it too high? We thought so decades ago, but should we now accept that visitors want to stay close to our city’s most photogenic angle?
Or should we also have to consider the residents of neighboring homes, whose value, aspect and sunlight will likely be compromised?
Because our town continues to vote for a ‘Team’ bloc of a Council rather than individuals, a donation by one of the developers has rendered eight out of eleven councillors unable to vote on this significant issue.
And despite the Palaszczuk government banning property developers from donating to political entities in 2019, the donation to
Team Hill was made in 2016, leaving the majority of Councillors with a conflict of interest.
Do we even need a council when final decisions are left to the unelected CEO, which also happened although for a different reason in 2019 regarding the Anelay development, where the inane ‘Team Hill’ status required the then CEO
step in?
And what happens if you live near a development hot spot?
When I used to fly into Cairns regularly, it was sad but inevitable seeing the traditional Queenslander homes along their Esplanade disappear one by one, forced out by increased, unaffordable rates and offers too good to refuse, to make way for towering high-rises.
The same will no doubt happen here, the only question is, how high will we go?
Will approving seven storeys now, pave the way for ten or fifteen-storey developments in future?
And if the height restrictions are
obsolete, what are the new guidelines exactly, and shouldn’t ratepayers, not CEOS, decide?
Because when residents object to their loss of view, or light, or privacy, it’s all too often, ‘too bad, so sad.’
The Townsville Golf Club redevelopment is a good case in point – residents who once enjoyed a stunning river and golf course outlook are now confronted with views of the relocated carpark and industrial bin storage area on one side, and fences overgrown with weeds to disguise two water storage tanks on the other.
Shouldn’t developers be required to address resident’s concerns, and make every effort to minimise adverse impacts?
We haven’t heard from the Cowboys diehards who purchased or built to be near 1300 Smiles Stadium, what will they make of their new neighbor, the ‘state of the art’ police precinct?
Despite the site being ‘gifted’ to Townsville residents, we didn’t get a say about that either.
It’s inevitable that developments will transform our city, but if done with consideration for and input from residents instead of a sledgehammer approach, that’s a communitybuilding exercise.
And who wouldn’t want that?