A council spokeswoman said the document did not guarantee approval of Cedar Woods development application but rather, was a bid to protect the sites significant ecological and waterway corridors. Nothing in this deal was about protecting the environment. It was about taking away environmental protection. The backroom deal done with this developer was discussed at the per-lodgement meeting where Council was supportive of an application to be lodged prior to the draft new taking effect…We (Council) give in principal support for a request to be assessed under the Superseded Scheme (City Plan 2000)” The reason for this support appears to be given in the preceding and following dot points: “(biodiversity) offsets under the current City Plan (2000) are more open to negotiation than will likely be the case in the draft new City Plan. The draft new City Plan (2014) considers potential value of the land not what currently exists” AND “Proposed development within “Habitat areas and ecological corridors” is to be offset on the basis of development area. On other development sites Council has recently agreed to offset ratios of the order of 3:1. Under the new draft City Plan biodiversity offset codes specifies offset ratios up to 6:1. i.e. 6 times the area to be developed.” Council has actively supported and encouraged an option for development that would explicitly provide poorer environmental outcomes and possibly preclude council applying contemporary environmental standards on any future development application on this site. On what basis did Council form the view it would be better to deal with this DA (one had not even been lodged at the time of this meeting!) under the old city plan??? Read more: brisbanetimes.au/queensland/mega-suburb-land-value-jumped-after-deal-20140929-10nrfq.html#ixzz3Ejim8bEs
Posted on: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:02:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015