October 12, 2016
A decision that will let a developer offload a $50,000 cost onto the shoulders of ratepayers split the South Burnett Regional Council 4-2 on Wednesday.
In July, Council approved a 44-unit retirement village development on a five acre block between Markwell Street and Logan Road in Kingaroy, subject to a range of conditions.
The developer – Salt Enterprises Pty Ltd – then lodged a Negotiated Decision Notice asking for several of the conditions to be removed.
These included a requirement they provide separate parking spaces for an ambulance and a semi-trailer; seal part of Logan Road at the rear of the property; and build a footpath and pram ramp in front of the development.
Council officers recommended all four conditions be dropped.
But Councillors Ros Heit and Roz Frohloff moved an amendment that would have kept the footpath and pram ramp conditions.
Quoting former Prime Minister Paul Keating’s observation in 2006 that “local government is the only sentry between the interests of developers and the interests of the community,” Cr Heit said she wanted to encourage development and was willing to see two conditions lifted.
Since Logan Street was the back entrance to the property, she thought removing the requirement to seal it was reasonable. So was allowing the ambulance and semi-trailer parking space to be shared.
But she thought the requirements to build a footpath and pram ramp were reasonable, and should be kept.
“Developers obviously want to spend as little as possible to bring their developments to fruition, but our role is to consider the interests of the community,” Cr Heit said.
“This development is about 1km from the town centre and is a retirement village. It is only logical to presume many of the residents of the 44 units will be less than fully mobile and many will have mobility scooters to get to town.
“As a result, pedestrian traffic on this part of Markwell Street will increase, and for safety reasons there should be a footpath on this road.”
Cr Heit said there was already an existing footpath all the way from First Avenue to the town centre that was 200m from the development.
“As this development will cause a significant increase in pedestrian traffic along this 200m of road, I think it is fair and reasonable the developer pay for this footpath, which is estimated to cost $50,000,” Cr Heit said.
“If we don’t get the developer to pay for this, we can be sure that as soon as residents move in they will lobby Council for it. And because it will be a safety issue, then Council – and ultimately South Burnett ratepayers – will have to build and pay for this footpath.
“I do not believe that is fair to our ratepayers.”
Cr Roz Frohloff, who supported Cr Heit’s amendment, said she “totally agreed”.
“It’s only fair,” Cr Frohloff said.
But Crs Duff, Potter, Jones and Mayor Keith Campbell disagreed.
Cr Duff said she was against the amendment because the project was a major development.
“If we had developers coming out of our ears we could be hard,” Cr Duff said.
“But we don’t, and we have to change our attitude to get things happening. That’s why I support the original recommendation. I think we run the risk of being penny wise and pound foolish.”
Cr Danita Potter agreed, saying she didn’t want to see a major development put at risk for the sake of a footpath.
Cr Spud Jones said he, too, agreed with the original recommendation.
“As this stands we’re looking at a $1 million, two-year project. And everyone in business knows you have to spend money to make money,” Cr Jones said.
“So if we have to spend $50,000 to bring a $1 million project to the area, that’s a good return.
“Once this development is built and fully occupied, the rates we’ll get from it will recover the cost of the footpath very quickly, and then they’ll go on to cover the costs of other things in the region.”
Cr Heit’s amended motion was voted on, and defeated 4-2, after which the original motion was carried by the same margin.
Note: Cr Terry Fleischfresser was granted a leave of absence from Wednesday’s meeting and did not vote on this issue.
- Related article: Council Approves Retirement Village
It would appear this project has gone the way of many things lately. The site is back up for sale (with DA approval for 44 units) for almost a million dollars! The site sold in June this year for $200,000 so the council’s rubber stamp was worth around $800,000, in the unlikely event of it selling. It’s a shame, a good-sized project like this would have given the town a boost but at that price I doubt it.