Bob Abbot made it super clear at the last election that he was there to represent the community – not developers.

In recent days he has sent a clear message to that effect, with his comments hitting back at Investa’s criticism of the council’s refusal of another three stages of the Bellflower estate at Chancellor Park.

Investa property development manager Michael Hopkins accused the council of playing politics with the state government through the refusal of the application, which he argued was a natural extension of the existing estate and would provide much-needed affordable housing on the Coast.

But Mr Abbot used a general council meeting as a forum to declare he could not care what developers thought of him.

He pointed out, quite rightly, that it was costing ratepayers at least $4 million to fix the Chancellor Park lake system and millions more to get the road network functioning.

When it comes to master-planned communities, Chancellor Park has been a disaster – not just for residents, but also for developers trying to get approvals. It’s left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.

A lot of promises were made when Chancellor Park was first being put forward, and unfortunately the developer failed to deliver on them. This has left residents with an estate for 10,000 people with one road in and out – until recently.

While you can see the council’s argument on Bellflower, given the neighbouring Chancellor Park mess, it should be careful it does not tar everyone with the same brush.

The council, must, as part of its core duties, have a real and genuine commitment to housing affordability, and that means not putting up unnecessary hurdles along the way.

Investa could well argue it has already developed the first stages of the estate and has the proper infrastructure in place, with the new stages just an extension of what is already there.

Sure, the council should get the planning right. It should take the time to consider the pros and cons but also consider the impact of unnecessary delays and red tape on end users – that is, higher prices.

The Bellflower decision, right as it may be, will mean a 12-month delay for the project – and disappointment for 600 people on the waiting list for blocks starting at $190,000.

Investa’s criticism of the council represents the start of a battle that will no doubt unfold more and more in the public arena as the growing disquiet from builders and developers bubbles to the surface on the Coast.

In yesterday’s Daily, Scott Rushton a former Maroochy Shire Council employee who runs his own business, Suncert Building Consultants, hit out at council assessors, criticising them for unnecessarily holding up what he believes are simple and straight-forward development applications from Coast mums and dads.

Over-cautious council staff were delaying approvals that should take just a few weeks, in one case stretching it to many months, he said.

No doubt many council staff are probably still trying to come to terms with the new regime and working out the political direction of the new council.

While the council should weed out bad projects, it also must encourage the good – particularly those projects which are going to bring new jobs to the Coast and reduce our chronic dependence on building and development in the long term.

Bob Abbot has always maintained he is not anti-development or anti-growth. And I don’t believe he is.

But that’s the clear image that some in the development industry see the council projecting – including at a planning staff level.

And the end result is that the Coast could be overlooked for valuable projects, including light and hi-tech industries, because we are being seen as against all development, whereas areas like Logan, Ipswich and the Gold Coast are happy to encourage it.

While some residents who have had enough of the Coast’s rapid development may think that is no great loss, at the end of the day, we have to provide long-term jobs for our kids beyond tourism, retail, development and real estate.

The best way to do that is to send a clear message that the Coast is open to innovative projects, including those from “developers”.

The danger of us, as a community, knocking all development is that we could find ourselves sending the building and development industry into such a slowdown that the local economy and jobs are affected.

The end result is that as construction and development jobs go, the anger builds – and the community may back a pro-development council next time to put things straight.

Then we would see a return to some of the bad planning decisions of the past and the whole cycle will repeat itself.

What we really need is a council that is there to find the balance – to listen to both sides of the argument and steer a clear middle ground.

We need to provide affordable housing and jobs for the future, and developers will play a vital role in achieving that goal.