City ditches fight to clip super towers
Council reforms in disarray
City Plan reforms which would have reduced high rise towers in coastal suburbs will be put on hold – wasting millions of dollars in officers’ work and years of community consultation.
But council planning officers say they have had to “draw a line in the sand” because State Government bureaucrats refused to accept a major amendment.
A super majority of councillors at a full council meeting reluctantly backed a recommendation from officers for work to stop on the City Plan package.
Councillor Hermann Vorster, who voted against the recommendation, told colleagues: “My time in this chamber on this issue has been wasted.
“Eight years on this policy issue have been wasted – it is genuine frustration because not only has the State’s dealing with our local government wasted my time, it has wasted the professional capacity of City officers.
“It has wasted millions of dollars, millions of dollars of ratepayer funds, and it has forced good Gold Coast families into housing poverty.”
The State Government had refused to back an “A” amendment which put “B” and “C” in doubt.
Those reforms covered lower densities on Chevron Island, Main Beach east of Main Beach Parade, Labrador, Sovereign Island and Jefferson Lane at Palm Beach.
Other minor planning changes were at Currumbin, Pimpama, Nerang and Southport.
Also lost were better setbacks and more space around buildings on the light rail
route. The Main Beach Association had highlighted, at the time with graphics, how without the reforms their suburb would have turned into a mini Hong Kong with light rail allowing towers four to five times the normal height.
The Government in 2022 approved 20 amendments to the City Plan to allow council to approve hundreds of housing lots but the Planning Department believed 13 other amendments would have “unknown or negative impacts” on housing supply.
Housing Minister Meaghan Scanlon said making changes to housing regulations without understanding their impact on supply was irresponsible.
“We support improved urban design, but the council must show evidence on how planning changes impact housing supply, diversity, and affordability,” she said.
“I am optimistic Cr Mark Hammel will be a far better planning chair for the Gold Coast and take on the opportunity the state and federal governments are offering to fast-track approvals to unlock supply.
“Hermann Vorster may be content with dithering for years while people needed housing, but I’m interested in real outcomes.
“If the LNP is serious about housing, they must stop blocking funding in the parliament that would actually help people own their own home,” she said.
In early 2021 councillors had backed slashing growth targets in Biggera Waters, Southport West and Labrador by 41 per cent after an unprecedented number of community forums.
But it put pressure on the council to meet the Government’s Shaping SEQ plan of accommodating an extra 158,000 dwellings by 2041.
Acting CEO Alisha Swain at last Thursday’s full council meeting briefed councillors about the need to halt the planning work after emails from the State Government.
“We don’t say that lightly. We have to draw a line in the sand,” she said.
Cr Hammel said he understood the fatigue of council officers, councillors and the community but he agrees on starting a new City Plan.
Cr Vorster said he understood Cr Hammel’s position, and the need to move forward, but he doubted community confidence in future consultation.
“Why would any of the thousands of people who have made submissions into earlier amendment consultations, why would any of them trust us and the State Government this time,” he said.
Cr Hammel said planning officers would start on the Shapingseq Alignment amendment as a soon as possible, making immediate changes to the City Plan.
“This amendment is intended to unlock additional housing supply.
“We have been given until the end of 2024 to have this work complete,” he said.
“(It’s) a massive task given we are already at the end of January and have local and state government elections this year.”
Division 7 candidate Jenna Schroeder, involved in a grassroots campaign and state petition against parts of the amendments, welcomed the pause and more consultation.
“The council’s move to stop work on the amendments is a significant development, especially considering the nearly seven years of effort that went into them,” she said.
“As someone involved in the grassroots campaign and state petition against parts of the amendments, I see this as a victory for community voices.
“Labrador was on the brink of losing its identity with almost no low-density areas left. This was a major concern for our community.
“Residents are eager to participate in shaping their neighbourhoods. The previous process left many feeling sidelined and unheard. We need a council who is inclusive, collaborative, and truly listens to the community’s needs.”
“
Eight years on this policy issue have been wasted – it is genuine frustration because not only has the State’s dealing with our local government wasted my time, it has wasted the professional capacity of City officers.
telling the State Government. You can’t just ignore the input of the community into what they want to see in their neighbourhood. Set your population and dwelling targets, but trust us to do the work on what that development looks like in different parts of the City based on community consultation.
It is one of the clear messages we have been telling the State Government. You can’t just ignore the input of the community into what they want to see in their neighbourhood.
GCB: Was about half of the package not supported by the State?
MH: A large part of major amendment 2 and 3 was supported by the State and commenced in City Plan Version 10 in July 2023. For me it was the parts not accepted by the State that the community had the most interest in and had been the most vocal on. Some of these elements are connected to Targeted Growth Areas, Neighbourhood framework planning, low to medium residential zoning, height changes in some areas, setback provisions, impact triggers.
GCB: Are you disappointed by that?
MH: Disappointed, frustrated, confused at how the State has approached this issue. And I have only been a part of this for four years. I think these feelings are considerably stronger for other councillors and City officers who were part of this for eight years and went through the extensive consultation with the community.
GCB: But is it possible that the consultation, what was obtained there, can be used to frame the next City Plan. MH: The short answer is yes, this planning work and consultation isn’t just thrown away. There is some incredibly useful information that will be reused in our new Planning Scheme. We will just need to make sure that it aligns with the most recent intent set by the new SEQ regional plan. The last thing we want to do is repeat this saga again.
GCB: What will happen with the progress of the next City Plan.
MH: Council has formally resolved to stop all work on amendments to the current City Plan and redirect all these resources to commencing a new planning scheme. Officers will now prepare a plan of what work is involved with this, the timing to complete this work, and the resources required. My expectation is we will have this report in April or May this year for the new council to endorse.
GCB: And a need to have rethink, hit the pause button? MH: My hope is to give community members and groups right across the Coast a chance to “take a breath” over the next six months, accept that some of the outcomes that they fought for over the last eight years are not going to happen right now, digest the new Shaping SEQ regional plan and get ready to re-engage in strong community consultation on our new planning scheme.