12:00a.m. 22nd July 2008
An internal legal paper prepared for Sunshine Coast Council is using the disastrous planning outcomes at Chancellor Park as hard lessons for the future.
The lack of a master plan for the estate, which is really an amalgam of seven separate developments, has left the council with infrastructure headaches.
These range from lack of open space playing areas for the suburb’s burgeoning youth population and poor road connectivity, to a failed lake system which will require a vast amount of money to restore.
So naive was the process that the open spaces of Palmview to the south of the suburb were not considered during planning because it was in Caloundra City.
With the state government now demanding the fast tracking of development approvals for that greenfield site, it is certain council will want the lack of road connectivity both within Chancellor Park and road network access to Palmview addressed in fine detail before the bulldozers move in.
But even though the document “Lessons to be Learned” about the history and legal issues associated with Chancellor Park now informs council’s whole development application team, regional director of strategy and planning Julie Edwards said there was still a learning curve on all development.
Ms Edwards said the state government’s original intent to put the regional hospital in the suburb would have led to chaos in terms of the road network.
The belated rectification of planning shortfalls started with the establishment of the Sippy Downs Town Centre which has relied on a Stringybark Road crossover and motorway access.
Retrofitted road networks pushed hard by then divisional councillor and now Kawana MP Steve Dickson will help untangle some of the mess but the solutions are expensive and left to the community to bear.
That cost is something of which council environment manager Doctor Steve Skull is acutely aware.
His team waded through through the contents of cardboard boxes containing the 100 separate planning files relating to Chancellor lakes to get a handle on how that mess was created.
One thing is certain. Council is now much more circumspect with the advice it receives from experts engaged by developers.
“Information is only as good as you accept it to be,’’ Ms Edwards said.
“Council can’t afford every type of expert but we now have in-house traffic and environment teams.
“It helps as we try to preserve independent thinking (about development applications).”
The history of the area that now is called home to several schools, a university and a resident population of 6,900 people showed that the old Maroochy Shire Council had originally wanted nothing to do with development on what was effectively drainage problem land.
Ms Edwards said the council said no to an application to develop the western half of what is now Chancellor Park. The developer appealed, there was an election and a change of council with the incoming administration deciding to settle the matter with an agreed set of conditions.
The council again changed at an election and an application to develop the eastern portion was refused outright.
The Planning Court appeal was lost by council leaving it with a subdivision which was in effect in two halves with no master plan to pull it together.
It is a sequence of events that the new regional council is determined won’t be repeated.
The “Lessons to be Learned” paper makes clear that development conditions need to be explicit and not just understood.
Dr Skull’s unenviable task to find a cost-effective way to restore water quality within the failed 10-lake system which forms the estate’s drainage train, is being watched with keen interest across Australia by an industry that has developed around artificial waterway management.
He said it would be an easy position to take to simply ban future artificial waterways.
“There are now smarter ways to work it,’’ he said. “You wouldn’t build a chain of ponds today. You would deal with drainage differently. The science around lake systems hardly existed at all when the lakes were designed.’’
Recent Comments
Chancellor Park was always going to be a problem the moment they allowed one road in and one road out. Council built houses, lakes, shops, Uni and schools without ever making plans for the roads. Don't build it unless you have the infrastructure then you won't have to retrofit. What do we learn from this? A popular elected person does not necessarily have the skills to make the right decision.
If the lakes cannot be fixed with a definate outcome, then they should just be filled in and people who bought waterfront should be compensated by the developers. With the amount they made for the development they would still come out on top and for most, it would be a "win win" outcome.
I remember saying a few months ago right here in these columns, that one day Chancellor Park would make a good case study in "How not to do a development"
And lo and behold here it is. WOW! Thanks for listening. GUYS!
I didn't think from past experience anybody in council would have such a good idea all by themselves.
Maybe something has changed.
Oh yes and....
"WE HAVE TO INCREASE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE -ALL OVER THE COAST, NOT JUST CHANCELLOR PARK"
(....are they reading this?....)
Old Maroochy shire must have the least amount of (non beach) parkland of any region in Australia - and we wonder why kids cant be kids anymore!!
I don't mean this personally at all, and don't think me elitist. But what has happened to the sunshine coast over the last 30 years is that people have come to the sunshine coast from far less "nice" places, but have put up with just about anything, in terms of living conditions to live here.
Some of the early stages of Sippy Downs are great, and were easily access able. But, We all know why this article was written.
The original "theme and mood" of the coast is now almost gone, and is certainly not reflected in Developments like Sippy downs.
Nobody can possibly say they are totally comfortable with living in some parts of the development where they are on 550sq m of land with 2 adults and 2-3 older kids. You only have to drive around at night to see the number of cars forced onto the street as families grow in a cramped and sometimes tense neighborhood.
In case of a civil emergency or Major flood I am sure lives in those areas would be at risk,- as there is only now 2 lengthy ways out.
Not to mention the potential for post traumatic stress such an emergency would cause. Can anybody put a price on that??
I am sure this is way better than "living in inner Sydney" for example but it could easily have been better than what it is now.
I guess what I am trying to say - people need to have higher expectations and council and developers need to set the bar higher.
Yes this is expensive in cost and land, but what price do we pay for stress, cramping, poor lifestyle and healthy environment to bring up kids? That is what people come here to get away from but developers have delivered more of the same at the expense of the character of the coast. - And people have bought into it because it is there.
Developers and Council need to work with open space and preserve what waterways and natural vegetation is left, and it may mean development spreads out to the hinterland - that is inevitable, but can have significant islands of natural vegetation in between to break it up. Space and Recreation areas for people to be people and Efficient roads to link it all with the beaches and shops.
Or we can go for something like Lutwyche or Chermside........
That would be one of the 'Lessons to be Learned".
We can expect, then, if it is not supported by science then it won't be approved.
Nice.
Have your say
We welcome comments on our stories and blogs - after all it's your site. Please note comments should be on-topic and not abusive. Comments are checked before publication.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts
Your comments will be checked, for legal reasons, before being posted live.
Thanks again for contributing to the Daily's online community.
We value your views.
Comment again