High-rise plans knocked back

Plans for a new 10-storey development on Redcliffe’s waterfront have been narrowly rejected by Moreton Bay City Councillors.

The proposal for 78 apartments on a block covering 88-90 Hornibrook Esp and 20-24 Lane St, Clontarf was turned down by six votes to five.

Councillors’ concerns centred on height and traffic around the 2700sqm site, with car entry and access to be from Lane St, not the four-lane Hornibrook Esp.

Stepped from 10 storeys down to seven, the building would be 36.85m high, almost 17m above the planning scheme guideline of 21m maximum.

Public submissions also raised issues over “parking, waste management, flooding, character and the public notification process”.

Council officers recommended the development application (DA) be approved, but Cr Karl Winchester (Div 6) said: “I can’t support this DA in this form.

“I share the concerns of residents that this network of small local streets is already facing parking congestion and issues with line-of-sight,” he said.

“I believe this development would be better served by allowing vehicle access directly on to Hornibrook Esp, which would reduce vehicle movements and conflicts on Lane St.”

Cr Winchester said the adjoining land was also owned by the “proponent” and “will be developed at high-density as well”.

“I had considered putting forward a condition that these two developments work to share an access way to Hornibrook Esp,” … but admitted it would be difficult to enforce.

“Similarly, there are concerns regarding height,” Cr Winchester said, noting “the building directly to the west is also above the 21m maximum”.

“With modern conditions, (buildings) must be tall enough to accommodate those standards, I do not believe this is justification enough for going above the maximum height to the degree it does," he said.

“I support density and exceeding height where appropriate, (but) I am finding it difficult to support high-rise when there is a negative impact on neighbouring high-rise apartment buildings.”

Cr Sandra Ruck (Div 5) agreed: “I don’t know why developers continually buy pieces of land and then submit plans for buildings that are well over size.

“The town plan is a guide. We do allow, as precedent shows, buildings that might well go over. But this is excessive. It’s far too high.

“We can’t allow these buildings to continually go over size. I’ve seen in my area, particularly Scarborough and Newport waterside, buildings that are way over height.”

Cr Adam Hain (Div 3) asked: “Where does it end? You’ve got controls in your planning scheme for a reason, otherwise just throw it out.”

But Cr Matt Constance (Div 10) had “absolutely no issues with density or height at this location".

“I think it is absolutely what we want and should be capitalising on as part of this City,” he said.

“I struggle to see legally anything we can really push back on to decline this proposal.

“I think we need to work towards more advocacy with the State Government in terms of giving us more power to force the hand - so to speak - and be protected better when we do decline things and want to negotiate more with developers.”

While sympathetic to residents, Cr Jodie Shipway (Div 4) said: “With the demand for housing I like we are finally seeing some increase in height where I envisage developers will want to build and get a return on their investment.

“It is the way we need to move forward and height is our way of protecting 75 per cent of green space we have.”

Cr Yvonne Barlow (Div 7) supported the Deputy Mayor saying she “would prefer to go up, rather than urban sprawl.”

Deputy Mayor Shipway said she would “talk to the Mayor (Peter Flannery) about advocacy to the (TMR) minister” over traffic being pushed back on to local roads.

“This is happening far too often for us and it’s happening across all Councils about how we deal with these types of outcomes,” Cr Shipway said.