12:00a.m. 5th June 2008
State government plans announced yesterday to accommodate at least 75,000 more people on the Sunshine Coast are in conflict with the regional council’s mandate to slow growth to the national average.
Coast mayor Bob Abbot said last night he had received a 70 per cent mandate from the electorate for a policy platform of sustainability and slowed growth.
Mr Abbot said the council and the state were already struggling to keep pace with the infrastructure needed for existing growth. “It’s just madness,’’ he said.
Premier Anna Bligh has announced that residential development at Maroochydore, Meridan Plains, Palmview and Caloundra South would be fast-tracked in what she described as a bid to tackle spiralling housing affordability in south-east Queensland.
“We have to accelerate land becoming available so that first home buyers can actually take advantage of our stamp duty cuts in the budget yesterday,’’ Ms Bligh said. “Ensuring that houses remain affordable, particularly for first home buyers, means tackling supply, and then tackling demand. We need to make sure that there is sufficient land coming to market.’’
The question the government could not answer last night was whether developers would be required to meet a land release deadline for approvals achieved through fast-tracking.
Mr Abbot said the decision had come out of left field, would not address housing affordability and may even increase speculation. There were no council blockages to development approvals which were being processed normally.
“The only way to guarantee affordable housing is for state, council and developer partnerships to build good standard homes that would be managed by someone like the Queensland Housing Commission and offered at 15% under market rents,’’ Mr Abbot said.
The four Coast sites named for fast-tracking are among 17 greenfield sites identified by a review commissioned by Ms Bligh last year. Maroochydore and Meridan Plains were already in the approval system while Palmview and Caloundra South had previously been slotted for development after 2016.
Meridan Plains would accommodate 10,000 people, Palmview, between 12,500 and 15,000, and Caloundra South, 50,000.
Planning portfolio chairman Russell Green said the infrastructure needed to service the developments would cost billions of dollars and take years to build.
“It is a case of when and how and who,’’ he said.
“What sort of short cuts will occur to achieve these outcomes?
“Will they not require environment impact or traffic studies? And when the approvals are given, what are the implications of this volume of people arriving when our infrastructure is already depleted?’’
The government will also seek other greenfield sites inside the urban footprint of the SEQ Regional Plan that may be suitable for fast-tracking.
Ms Bligh said an implementation team would remove impediments by Christmas to development at 12 SEQ sites, including:
200ha along Maroochy Boulevade, Maroochydore, and;
600ha at Meridan Plains bordered by Parkland Boulevarde and Meridan Way.
By this time next year, she said the government and council would have approved for development:
800ha at Palmview off Bellflower Road, and;
3200ha at Caloundra South, off Bells Creek Road.
Recent Comments
Who believes that this really had anything to do with housing affordability at all? Not me !
Is our new infrastructure going to cope with the additional people in this short timeframe? Will it even cope with the current population? Pretty unlikely !
Are we going to start another round of infrastructure catchup with years of mess, gridlock and inconvenience? Yep !
Are the urban developers and builders pleased? You betcha !
Is anyone really surprised with any of this?
****** !!
Yes, I'm very critical of the rot that is originating from George Street and there's no way that I could support the ALP Government. It appears to me that the ALP has a policy to pack Australians into this country's capital cities like sardines in a can. I have a feeling that ALP governments are continuing with a similar policy to which Brian Howe was a former Housing Minister under Whitlam or Hawke.ALP governments have and always will, manage to ruin things. This country is missing statesmen that are there for the people, hearing and addressing their needs.
I heard that the NSW government is wanting another 1 million to settle across Sydney. Even here in the Moreton region, more houses at Northlake and just off Morayfield Road. We recently saw changes to this state's electoral boundaries where some have been extended outwards and Redcliffe is one. It's all about allowing developers to get their way. Whilst I fully agree with the comments from atapro from Noosaville, it's about time that consideration was given to sustainability within our local areas. What's the point of having local councils when the government can do what it likes???
I thought if you were looking at affordability that is exactly where you’d look. I don’t know about 200 ha along Maroochy blve, but it appears on it was coming on line anyway.
In March this year I heard all elected councillors talk the motherhood statements about housing affordability. Well don’t sit back and procrastinate DO Something.
The devil will be in the detail. Is the State Gov or Council going to make the developers hand over land to housing commission or similar?
Many from within council are saying the various levels are regions are not co-operating and there appears to be a lack of leadership at a senior level, (not political).
If we sat back and waited we would be talking about the same issue come the next election.
Governments get criticised if they sit on their hands and do nothing and this time they get criticised for trying to do something.
Only when we have one person to blame will the truth about house affordability come out. As it is the developer blames both arms of government for not releasing enough land and the government blames the "developers" for being cash grabbing money making machines
Unless conditions are placed on the developments ensuring they are done for their target market, this is nothing more than putting money in the pockets of those who already have it. This isn't putting the horse before the cart; it's just letting the horse run wild. I wonder how much the government stands to make from this in the long run - reckon it will be substantial.
The current infrastructure does not meet the needs of those living here so how can the government deduce we need more bodies? We need more infrastructure first - and now, not in three years time when everything collapses under the strain.
Every governments' attempts in all countries to fast track affordable housing has ended up with slums or ghettos in a very short time.
The trouble with this State Govt is that they grasp at straws after years of neglect and expect the public will believe they are doing something. Talk, talk, talk....they are very good at that but in the end can only drag out the old socialist mantra which every Communist Govt has relied on in the past.
A message to all - VOTE this SORRY LOT OUT OF OFFICE and give the other a lot a chance, they surely couldn't do worse!
Another 75,000 people in Caloundra? Where are they going to work? How are they going to get to work???
Nightmare...
We should all read the budget document and see exactly how little the Sunshine Coast region is regarded.
Can we then impose some sort of covenant upon the purchasers so that they can never sell the properties at maket value? If we don’t, then we have given one small group of people cheaper housing (who are probable speculators who have smelt a good deal) while making no difference to the ongoing problem of affordability.
Let’s tackle demand first and foremost.
There is plenty of space available for development on the Coast, but we don't have the water resources for growth. As well, water will be syphoned off to sustain Brisbane.
As Bob Abbott pointed out, we do not have the economic resources to sustain a large population. There is little manufacture and not everyone can work in a fickle tourist industry. Some sectors will expand - education and government services [hopefully]. But a growth in population will not expand tourism. Indeed, if the Coast becomes another giant dormitory suburb, it will smother tourism.
There are questions about the available space for housing development. At a time when climate change could bring drastic changes, the dead cane farms are being eyed off for housing development. On a flood plain. Even if sea level rises were not to be as drastic as predicted, we could see increased flooding as we have seen this year with new weather patterns.
Recently, there have been proposals to localise fresh food distribution. On a global level there is now serious talk about the ability to feed the world's population. While this happens, all around this country, prime market garden land is being assumed by housing development. If this happens on the Coast, the opportunity to provide locally grown produce will fail to satisfy the regional demand and prices will rise anyway in contradiction to the stated aims of the visionaries who have put forward the proposal for a localised, regionalised, fresh food economy.
Accelerated regional growth will only be well-planned if there is immediate and mammoth commitment to infrastructure on the Coast. With higher fuel prices as an ongoing characteristic of future life in the western world it is absolutely essential to pour into the regions the hundreds of millions of dollars required for, first, rapid transit systems within the Coast from Noosa to Caloundra and to the Range as well as rapid transit rail to Brisbane. Then, the Government should - as a secondary priority - look to improving the road infrastructure. All arterial roads should be divided highways.
These are just some of the complex issues that dog the future of the Sunshine Coast. They require no one-dimensional action from planners or simplistic reaction from those who fear the future.
The present Government [Federal and State] HAS to take some action to manage the population growth, over which they otherwise have little control. But, they cannot dump unsustainability upon a local government that has [at least in some areas] a history of balance in managing growth and natural resources. To reduce this question into partisan drivel and simplistic solutions makes only a pathetic contribution to community debate. The issues lie beyond emotive party political point scoring and personal attacks upon the Premier.
Do you believe otherwise? By the way I haven't noticed any personal attacks as referred to by you. This is the place for people to have their say at what is cllearly an unacceptable approaach by this State Govt. By the way, none of this planned activity falls within Federal Govt remit, other than the Bruce Highway.
You're on the right track. All this will do is encourage more people to move here, not give opportunity for the battlers already living on the coast.
Let us see the Dwelling density increased in the rail towns, and get more people living, and working within walking distance to each other. I know if Nambour could have another 1000 or so people living within 500m of the rail station you would create a more sustainable township, were people work and live within a centralised community, then building another estate miles from any services that can only be access by Car.
If the state government were serious about the environment and sustainable communities they would be actively encouraging infill urban development. Around the world it is now becoming clearer that those towns and city were people can work and live in the same place are becoming the greatest benefit to the environment and to the community. In turn becoming the most desirable place for people to live.
Trevor Thompson Yandina
I don't have a problem with the development so long as appropriate infrastructure is in place and environmental assets are sustained.
Same logic from the same arrogant source as that new dam to be not far from here.
Is it payback for not having party members elected in the region?
Now lets look at the demand side- some simple back of the envelope numbers based on population growth from 2001 to 2006 show that demand for land was about 158 ha per annum assuming 15 houses per Ha (but probably less with high rise).
I assume that developers believe in rational economics and won't force land prices down by over supplying a market (and spending all those infrastructure costs without a sale in sight). They already have their land bank based on future population projections and are also looking at what their competitors are doing.
Nothing will change. Smoke and mirrors and undoubtedly continuing congestions costs and lack of infrastructure for the coast.
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