Snippets from Gold Coast City Council meetings

Meeting 455 - 20th August 2007

Councillors debated a resolution which proposed to repeal an earlier resolution which had rejected a development application at Hope Island " ... on the basis that the development has insufficient central communal open space allocation, with an area of only 849 sq. metres which, including the public open space, represents only 7.2% of the net site area ".

One councillor declared a conflict of interest in the matter and asked to be excused from the debate. However, before actually leaving the chamber, he was permitted to present a lengthy submission. This submission included supplying additional documentation in the form of maps and large photographs to each councillor, and praising similar developments in other locations both in Australia and overseas. In an all too familiar scenario, it was once again left to vox populi, Councillor Crichlow, to express concern at that incident.

The mayor was then quite vocal in urging a reversal of the previous refusal, making a presentation of his own which included photos etc on the large screen. He gave his suport to the new proposal as a means to help the developer comply with meeting their communal open space allocation. The new solution was that " Council will licence back to the developer.... the land shown as " Park "... " and that " the term of the licence is to be 99 years and as the developer ... will be responsible for all maintenance and costs the rent will be at a nominal rate only ". In other words, the Council would lease to the developer, at a nominal rate, land which would be owned by Council so that the developer might reach their required committment! Perhaps we should call this Council property Clayton's, the land you have when you don't have land!

Additionally the resolution included the clause " that in consideration of communal open space shortfalls, the Applicant shall provide a cash contribution of $20,000 towards the provision of playground equipment in parkland in the vicinity of this development. " In ten years, not only will that playground equipment be worth nothing, but Council will probably have the responsibility of maintaining and replacing it. Does Council seriously consider that some playground equipment that will depreciate to zero is better value to the city than land which will appreciate?

The Town Plan is a farce, and worth nothing when it's provisions will not be enforced. Council has confirmed that there is absolutely no area in the city which can be restricted purely to residential occupancy. Business always finds a way in, regardless of the effect on residents.

It's no wonder that residents become alarmed at the funding of candidates by lobby groups in Council elections.