Community Comment – Newport Marina

Following is the Community Comment made to Council by our President on August 2, 2023 to Moreton Bay City Councillors:

Good morning Mayor Flannery, Councillors, Mr Martins, Council Officers and friends.

Four years ago Council rejected a development application to change the use of Newport Marina  from marine industry designated land to multi level  residential accommodation.

The application was rejected because it did not meet the requirements of Council’s Planning Scheme nor its Strategic Framework. Council’s reasons for rejection were supported and strengthened by the various experts employed by both Council and the Newport community when responding to the developer’s unsuccessful appeal.  

Council’s Strategic  Framework and Planning Scheme have not changed. The Newport community’s expectations and commitment have not changed.

What has changed is the developer’s approach.  A development application has been lodged with Council to change the zoning of Newport Marina so that multi level accommodation along with the addition of a hotel, bar, shops, function centre, indoor sports facility and various commercial activities can be constructed. If you think this sounds similar to the developer’s withdrawn 2018 application, you would be right, it is.

Why this change in approach?

This proposal, if approved, would lower the levels of assessment for future development, making accommodation along with the various retail and commercial uses code assessable rather than impact assessable. Relying on new or modified  Performance  Indicators created by the developer for future assessment, the community’s ability to have a say on future development for the Marina would be nullified.

Newport Marina is geographically and culturally central to our community. Whatever is developed at the Marina will have impacts on the whole community. Our expectation is that whatever is built on the Marina  would fit within the requirements of  the Marine Industry Precinct . We are prepared for those impacts.

To remove our ability to comment on development applications that do not comply with the current zoning requirements would remove our confidence in the integrity, accountability and transparency of the Planning Scheme.  A community’s voice should not be muted when it is a key feature  like the Newport  Marina  at stake.

The proposal  conflicts significantly with Council’s Strategic Framework. It has striking inconsistencies with Council’s Place Model and requires a quantum policy shift of Council’s strategic intent for the Marina.

The proposal’s assertions that it meets Council’s planning needs are simply false.

The inconsistencies, contrasts and non compliances that this development application has with Council’s Planning Scheme are so many that it would take me hours, not 5 minutes to outline. The Town Planner’s report  we have provided for you today identifies these in detail and we sincerely hope that you can find the time to read it.

From Town Planning non compliances to simple practicalities, this proposal is fraught with impediments.

For instance, the Marina does not have street frontage, rather it relies upon  a narrow, 80 metre long easement which it shares with 38 homes for access.  At times, this easement narrows to a confined, single lane.  Such access does not match the requirements of the proposal nor the health and safety issues it raises.

 It should be noted that the developer has not sought approval  from the other owners of the easement for this proposal nor indeed has the developer consulted with the local community.

The Marina is also built on reclaimed land, which has proven to be unstable in the past, when slumping occurred. It is supported and bounded by revetment walls, which in turn, rely on revetment wall batters for their support. These batters have slipped significantly in places, making the revetment walls vulnerable. The extensive engineering and heavy earth works required for the type of construction intended by the proposal on this site,  has the propensity to cause significant, permanent damage and undue duress  to those homes and canals surrounding the Marina.

Who will pay to fix the problems?

In 2018 and 2019 the Newport community identified, in detail, the  impacts that a proposal such as this  would have on its low rise suburb. Those impacts have not changed.  If this proposal  to change the zoning is approved , making any future development application code assessable, impacts identified by the community will not be heard and it will be that same community which will bear the heavy and permanent  cost burden, without the right to appeal.

This proposal does not represent why the residents of Newport chose to live here. It does not represent our expectations of the Marine Industry Precinct nor the expectations of future generations of boat owners.  It does not represent Council’s Strategic Framework  and Planning Scheme.

The current zoning of Newport Marina is right, it is the development application  that is misguided. This proposal does not belong in Newport.

SAVE NEWPORT MARINA

PLANNING ALERT – NEWPORT MARINA

A developer has applied to change our Town Plan so that he can construct a hotel and short term accommodation on land that is not zoned for it.

In 2018 this same developer started by applying to build two ten storey towers – a hotel and units (withdrawn) and then a six storey unit tower at Newport Marina. This application was refused by Council. It did not comply with the zoning.

The developer now wants Council to change the zoning of the Marina to allow multi-storey construction including a hotel and short term accommodation – both STILL not allowed in the current zoning.

This application undermines the role of the Town Plan and the expectations of our community.

If this developer can get this change in zoning approved, what’s to stop any other developer from using this approach to change the zoning of the land they acquire? What would the point of having a Planning Scheme be?

Newport Marina should stay as Marine Industry Precinct and not lost to development that could occur in areas already zoned for it.

You can view the application at:

https://www.moretonbay.qld.gov.au/…/DA-Tracker/10048193

The submission period has now ended. The following draft submission may provide useful information.

WHAT COULD BE

AN EASEMENT THAT DOESN’T WORK

Access to the Marina from Griffith Road, Newport is via an easement which is shared by the Marina with 28 Town Houses that adjoin the Marina property on its Eastern side.

The easement now also has ten new houses constructed on its western side. These houses also adjoin the Marina. This easement is not a road. All access to the Marina is via this easement and past 38 homes.

This narrow easement sometimes narrows to a confined, single lane.

We question the suitability and safety of using an easement to access a multi-storey hotel, bar, shops function centre, indoor sports facility, various commercial uses and accommodation developments.

COMMUNITY COMMENT TO COUNCIL 01 MARCH 2023

Good morning Mayor Flannery, Councillors, Mr Chemello and Council Officers.

The principles of justice, integrity and faith lie at the core of my comment today.

When Newport Waterways was first established  it had two asset owners, one, the State Government which, through its various departments owns the canal structure and the waterways themselves and the other, private land owners whose land abutted the waterways.

An  agreement between the  State Government and Redcliffe City Council, gave Council the responsibility of maintaining and repairing the State Government’s Asset.

One of those responsibilities is, to use Council’s own words :

 “maintaining the revetment walls and beaches in their originally constructed condition.”

To support Council in its commitment, property owners have been contributing a canal levy to Council  since 1984.

In later years of course Council also became an asset owner when the canals were incorporated into its  Storm Water Drainage infrastructure.

Sadly, over the 40 odd years since making its commitment, the maintenance and repairs that were promised have not been achieved.

Unmitigated deterioration to both revetment walls and beaches has occurred.  The many causes of which are contained in the folder provided to you today.

Council Officers have found a solution to the problem however by proposing a Local Law titled ‘Maintenance of Works in Waterways Areas’. This name is a misleading misnomer, the proposal focuses on only part of structure of the waterways. It sets out to pass all responsibility for the revetment walls’  repairs and maintenance onto the private land owners.

What an easy solution…for Council that is.

To achieve this goal and to empower Council Officers this 86 page proposal:

-gives Officers the right to enter our properties without notification or approval

-contradicts the QLD Government’s sale of real estate laws, without justification

-anoints Council Officers with the power to demand that residents repair revetment walls to the exclusion of any other stakeholders and users of the canal, including the Council itself

The premise that has been used to underwrite the proposed law is that there is only one stakeholder who really benefits from the waterways. The land owner. This premise is wrong. This is not a private gated estate.   

Stakeholders of the waterways are many and varied, not least, Council itself.

Council relies on the waterways in its essential storm water infrastructure and we wonder how effective storm water drainage would be if the waterways were not operational.

The Queensland Government, as an owner and stakeholder, proudly assisted various boating clubs to  construct  club houses built for use on the waterways.

Council itself has assisted different sporting users of the waterways.

There are many other stakeholders including schools, tourists, recreational boating enthusiasts, fishermen, paddle borders. The list goes on. All members of a broader community, not solely property owners but all expecting the waterways to function as they were designed to.

All overlooked by the proposed law.

This law relies on the assumption that the revetment walls are constructed on private land.

This reliance is misplaced.

Recent surveys and historical records show that the walls are either only partly on private land, the rest being on State Government land or they are wholly on State Government owned land.

There can be no justifiable or valid reason for Council to then claim that private landowners should be solely responsible for the maintenance of infrastructure on government owned land, that is relied upon by a wide cross section of the public and the Council itself. This proposal as currently drafted is flawed.

In the drafting this proposal, essential understanding and knowledge which should have been employed was overlooked.

It was written written with:

-very little consideration for the community

-no understanding of who the stakeholders really are and no adequate consultation of the stakeholders

– a lack of respect for the historical commitments already given, and

-an apparent desire to abrogate Council’s responsibility to maintain necessary infrastructure.

Its implications and impacts will be devastating.   

If this law is approved, the processes employed and the used could be the catalyst for the creation future laws that may impact every Division in this Council.

This is not justice. This is not a display of integrity.

Our faith in Council and its operations has been severely shaken.

We are here today to ask you, Councillors, as our lawmakers and guardians to instruct the relevant Officers through the CEO to remove the timeline on this law, disregard the current proposal and create a proposal that is reflective of how the waterways function and who the owners and stakeholders really are.

We want our faith in Council restored.

NAG SUBMISSION to MBRC on Proposed Local Law- Canal Management

21 November 2022

ATTENTION: Local Laws Review

Response to Moreton Bay Regional Council Proposed Local Law – Revetment Walls

Over the past few weeks, since having the proposed Local Law on revetment walls being brought to the attention of Newport Action Group (NAG), we have canvassed our members and make this submission on their behalf.

For ease of understanding, the following subheadings reflect the various areas of concern:

  1. Retrospection
  2. Application
  3. Consultation

1. RETROSPECTION

Applying a law such as this is in effect, applying a retrospective law for which current owners should not be responsible.  The proposed Local Law is retrospective in its nature, and does not take into account historical matters which have a huge impact on every waterfront property owner.

 A Factsheet created by Moreton Bay Regional Council (MBRC) on Canal Revetment Walls advises that canal walls located in front of private property are the responsibility of the property owner, including maintenance and ultimate replacement.  We are however, unable to find any documentation to support this claim:

The original Newport Waterways subdivision plans submitted by Redcliffe Seaside Estates and approved by Redcliffe City Council (which has since been amalgamated into MBRC) included approval of the revetment walls.  There is no record available to NAG that outlines the responsibility for the ownership, maintenance and replacement of revetment walls, or for that to be  passed on to future owners.

It should be noted that in the contract of sale of land for each block in the subdivision, no reference was made to the responsibility of the landowner for the revetment walls.  No contracts for later resale of the land included the responsibility for the cost of revetment walls.

MBRC’s Factsheet claim appears to be erroneous and based on assumption rather than fact.  An attempt to make this Factsheet into law is presumptuous and not acceptable.

Notwithstanding this, we offer the following:

The original revetment walls in Newport are almost 50 years old, and canal revetment walls have a design life of 50 years according to MBRC documents. Canals in original development area (Kingfisher, Sandpiper, Pelican, Petrel, Cormorant Canals) were constructed in 1978, and hence are approaching their design life.  The mid-development stages around Falcon, Jabiru, Swan, Kite, Hawk Canals) were constructed in and around 1997, and hence are at half design life. 

The impact of this Local Law on each resident is substantial.  In summary, using MBRC provided figures:The valuation on the revetment walls show a total length of walls of 15,000m, and a total replacement value of $195,418,297.

This means that replacing canal walls is expected to cost $13,027.88/metre.  It is unclear whether this construction cost only, or construction and demolition and removal of the existing wall.

Many canal residences in these canals have a minimum canal frontage of 20 metres, meaning that those residents would be subject to renewal costs of approximately $260,557 for their revetment walls.  This is a cost that may be able to be borne by some, but not others.

Some revetment walls are contiguous across adjoining blocks, and are not separate for each block.  The factsheet clearly shows a lack of understanding of the original plans and the original design and method of construction of the revetment walls.  This proposed law does not take this anomaly into account.

Note that visual representation of some of the following points can be accessed in Attachment A.Over the years, management by not only canal block owners, but also Council and other users of the canals have caused impacts to the revetment walls.  For example, Council actions over many years have caused stress to revetment walls by:

Allowing the beach or rock wall level to erode or reduce below design profile.

For example, rock wall profiles in Stage 20 show the rock wall beach to be built to the top of the revetment wall.  Current levels of rock wall beaches (eg along Albatross Canal) show that the rock wall is seeming to not continue to remain at those levels consistently

)Likewise, the relatively recent (approx. 2015) reprofiling of the original sand beaches in Kingfisher, Sandpiper, Pelican, Petrel, Cormorant Canals and replacement with gravel has caused the beach levels to be reduced at the revetment walls be approximately 600mm – as can be seen by the marks on the revetment walls.  This is likely to have placed additional stress on the integrity of those walls.Maintenance of the canals over the years have also had an impact, particularly along Albatross Canal, where the tidal and stormwater flows can reach approximately 6 knots.  Scouring has been caused, which affects the integrity of the revetment walls.

Note that the land cross-section in the Australia Court, Courageous Court and Southern Cross Drive Council-approved developments had a profile where approximately 67% of the land sloped towards the canal, and 33% towards the road, creating excessive rainfall runoff into the canals.  This was reversed in later development stages, reducing rainfall runoff.  Impacts that were not of the landowners’ making have already occurred.Another issue that affects the integrity of revetment walls is fortunately uncommon in Newport.  This is the incidence of “slip circle” failures of the marine mud substrate of the canal locality.  Although uncommon, it has occurred at least twice along Albatross Canal at the western edge of the Newport Marina carpark in approximately 1999, and again along the north-eastern edge of the embankment near the Kay Cottee Bridge on Griffith Road in approximately 2002.  (Photographic evidence is available if required)

Evidence shows that public water traffic usage of the canal system over the years has caused wash and scouring which affects canal revetment wall stability and maintenance.  This is particularly noticed along Albatross Canal which concentrates all water traffic entering and exiting the canal system.  Albatross Canal is also where larger commercial vessels operate, with larger turning circles, larger propellers and more potential for scouring (photographic evidence is available if required)

The making of this local law does not acknowledge the interaction between the revetment walls and the activities that occur on the outside of the wall that may affect the integrity and/or stability and strength of the wall.  These processes may include:

-Slumping of the beach profile

-Slumping of rock wall armour

-Reprofiling of beaches (as in Kingfisher and Sandpiper Canals circa 2015, resulting in approximately 600mm of beach removed against the outside of the wall

-Dredging and canal maintenance affects

Revetment walls form the waterside boundary of each block.  They have two sides – one side being the canal block retained by the wall, and the other side being the canal rock and sand/gravel beaches, which supports the wall and for which Council is responsible, and which is used for public access.

It would be egregious to assume that only one party is the beneficiary of, and responsible for the maintenance and replacement of the revetment wall.

Although canal block owners pay a levy to MBRC to help with the canal and beach maintenance, they have no control over activities outside of their own block which may impact the revetment wall.

Some residents have purchased canal properties that, given their age and the various activities which have impacted the revetment walls, may very likely have inherited revetment walls which are damaged or compromised.  This retrospective law would  be grossly unfair. 

Conclusion

It is unreasonable, given the historical evidence available, to expect owners, some of whom will see the lifespan of their revetment wall ending shortly, to be solely  responsible for something which they did not have total control over. 

2. APPLICATION

The proposed Local Law requires current owners to advise prospective buyers of any maintenance issues regarding the revetment wall bounding that property. 

This has the likely effect of opening a “Pandora’s Box”. 

The questions one must ask are:

What happens when a current owner in good faith, sells their property only for the new owner to experience a revetment wall issue after the sale?  What recourse is available to the new owner?

There is a possibility that one revetment wall can cause damage to another adjoining wall.  Will fixing one revetment wall detrimentally affect the revetment walls of neighbours on both sides?  Where does the responsibility start and finish?

With the current proposal, the answers to these questions are open-ended.

We see the only solution to these dilemmas is Council eventually requiring a prospective seller to obtain certification from a suitably qualified engineer

Currently, with the sale of any property, caveat emptor is applied, whereby the prospective purchased has a responsibility to ensure that structures meet with their standards.  This often means that prospective purchasers employ qualifies builders for that purpose.

This new proposal places a responsibility on the seller, which contravenes current contract of sale understanding.  This proposal is not in keeping with standard practice.

Conclusion

It is unreasonable, unjustifiable and unfair to place such a burden on current owners by imposing this proposed law when it is not reflective of current sales practice.  There are too many mitigating issues in the maintenance of canals, their beaches and revetment walls that make this law unacceptable.

Further, there is a question whether this local law can be applied to revetment walls.   Arguably, this local law establishes an “alternative development process” which is covered by  Section 37 of the Local Government Act 2009.  It states:

“37 Development processes

(1) A local government must not make a local law that establishes an alternative development process.

(2) An alternative development process is a process that is similar to or duplicates all or part of the development assessment process under the Planning Act.

Further legal consideration must be given to the impact by such a law on this Act.

3. CONSULTATION

MBRC notes that extensive local consultation had taken place prior to the drafting of this proposed Local Law.  We acknowledge MBRC’s good intentions, however NAG has been unable to identify any waterside property owners in Newport who were consulted prior to this proposed local law being drafted.

We note that in its explanatory notes, MBRC states: “Council sought the community’s feedback on Local Law issues from 1 March to 5 September 2021. During this time, Council undertook targeted consultation regarding the maintenance of seawalls. This consultation took the form of a public survey, and Council invited submissions from relevant peak body organisations and state departments …”

Given the impact that such a law is going to have on the over 600 canal front property owners, plus the Newport lakeside property owners, and in the knowledge that  this represents a defined group that could be easily canvassed, we are extremely disappointed that adequate representation of the affected owners was not sought.

Given the consistent responses from our members, it is clear that a public survey combined with input from “relevant organisations” was not adequate. The resultant outcome does not adequately represent the relatively small number of MBRC constituents who will be specifically affected by this law.

Our previous experience with Council belies this most unfortunate consultation process.

Given the many concerns raised, we sincerely request that MBRC withholds this proposed local law on revetment walls until more representative consultation has taken place. 

We ask Council to understand that not every resident of Newport is a member of an ‘organisation’, not everybody accesses Facebook and other social media platforms, yet every  Newport resident who will be affected by this proposed law should be consulted and in so doing, be treated both fairly and decently.

CONCLUSION

We would be more than happy to assist MBRC in facilitating a consultative process and look forward to a successful outcome that is a true reflection of the community affected by this proposed local law.

Yours sincerely,

Kenlie Williams

President

ABOUT US

Newport is unique because of its beautiful bayside surrounds and its warm and cohesive community. Residents and visitors connect and identify with its special character.

Newport Action Group (NAG) is not against development. It is against inappropriate development that erodes or is inconsistent with Newport’s character and environmental amenity.

NAG was formed as a grass-roots response to a concern that Governments may endorse the sacrificing of a unique neighbourhood in the name of ‘progress’.

Our Objectives

  • To conserve the Character of Newport;
  • To protect the amenity of the environment of Newport;
  • To represent a community voice in relationship to government decision making; and
  • To monitor and evaluate major development proposals.

Since 2018 NAG members have committed to ensuring that the lifestyle and amenity that Newport offers its community are not overruled by inappropriate development or forgotten by its representatives.

LODGE A SUBMISSION OPPOSING 6 STOREY TOWER DEVELOPMENT AT NEWPORT

Please help to oppose inappropriate development from destroying the lifestyle and amenity of our Community. Help to stop dangerous precedents being set for the rest of the Redcliffe Peninsula.

By lodging a submission opposing the Aqua Street, Newport development application your voice can be heard and counted.

For more information on this development, please read our Latest News.

We have prepared a Draft submission for you to use.

Your submission can be emailed to: mbrc@moretonbay.qld.gov.au.

or it can be mailed to the address on the Draft Submission

Download your submission here:

Presentation to MBRC 19 November 2019

Mayor Sutherland, Councillors.                                                                                                     

When I last spoke to Council I referenced a block of land in Newport, located in the original Stockland subdivision. In flagrant disregard of the block’s 8.5 metre building height restriction, it was being marketed for sale with the potential to construct high rise units.

Council has now received a development application for that block. It includes a proposal to construct a 6 storey tower, being only Phase 1 of two stages. Phase 2 also includes a 6 storey tower.  

If these two towers are to fit within the 8.5 metre height restriction quite frankly, the only people capable of living in them will be Lilliputians. Clearly, a breach of regulations is being sought to increase the height to an actual 20.5metres.

Our community agrees with you – Six Storey towers are out of synch with the future you have planned for Newport.

Before Council zoned this land Next Generation Neighbourhood , the whole community, including the owner, was given the opportunity to have input before the plan was finalised

Yet still, this development application’s density of 110 dwellings per hectare is 35 dwellings more than the maximum of 75 allowed.

The 6 Storey Tower itself has a density of 166 dwellings. A staggering 99 more than the maximum allowed. 

This high concentration of dwellings in this extremely over height construction is not what the Council envisaged and not what the community expected or wants.

This site has been described as a ‘Superlot’. Special consideration is being sought. It is larger than the other lots. It could however be reconfigured. Its size does not preclude or excuse it from complying with zoning restrictions. Superman might be able to ignore flying regulations but he’s a fantasy character for a reason.

‘Superlots’ don’t get to ignore building codes. Nowhere in your Strategic Plan is provision given for special considerations for superman or ‘Superlots’.

The ownership of this estate is now comprised of hundreds of residents, not just the original owner. Their voices and opinions are curiously absent from this development application.  

The development application claims that these silenced people- who chose to live in Newport for the lifestyle it offered –  knew that these towers would be constructed. That the three D model in the Sales Office and ‘fly overs’ prove this. This would be more believable if the three D model in the Sales Office and ‘fly overs’ had actually reflected these high towers and their true scale and proportion, it would also be more believable if the height restrictions on the block actually permitted structures like these. The claim that people in the community ‘knew’ has been actively refuted by those very same people.

The complete lack of community engagement or consultation on this proposal flies in the face of good governance, community spirit and the MBRC. The developer didn’t seem interested in knowing the community, but we know, you are.

The Negative Impacts of a concentrated, high density, high rise population bubble on the surrounding unsuspecting neighbours would be significant: dominating, overshadowing, loss of privacy, parking congestion, traffic congestion and lack of pedestrian safety. Right next to a children’s playground.

Adding six storey unit towers , with their multi-car owning residents and visitors to an already busy community– it’s clear why  you had the foresight to recuse this kind of building from the Next Generation Neighbourhood. You planned for the community’s liveability and safety and we thank you.

In the Stockland subdivision is a six storey building. We acknowledge that Council gave approval for this for special reasons-  Retirement Living.

It is flawed however to assume that because there is already a six storey building in the area then this next application should be automatically approved. With that logic, we would have six storey buildings anywhere and everywhere. If a boat takes on water and no action is taken to stop more water from being added, the boat will sink.

It is also flawed logic to claim that because the original subdivision chose not to make use of the maximum 75 dwellings limit, then this block of land should be able to compensate by increasing its capacity. If a boat has a 75 person limit but only takes 50, that doesn’t increase its capacity the next time to take 100 people. The boat will sink.

Our planning scheme is there to protect us.

MBRC is our community’s lifeguard. The future of our neighbourhood rests within your Strategic Plan and the faith you have in your own foresight.

Kenlie Williams

Stockland Proposal Threatens Newport

An application has been lodged to construct two six storey towers in the Stockland subdivision at Newport on Aqua Street.

Along with 108 units, it is also proposed to construct 45 townhouses and 6 villas.

The applicant is, according to News reports, Traders in Purple, identified as Newport Waterfront Unit Trust in the development application and the owner of the land is Stockland.

This application is in breach of Moreton Bay Council’s Planning Scheme and is not reflective of Newport’s low rise residential buildings nor the community’s expectations.

The land is zoned Next Generation Neighbourhood which has a height limit of 8.5 metres and a population density limit of 75 dwellings per hectare. The application has a 20.5 meter height limit and a population density of 110 dwellings per hectare.

The towers will overlook a significant portion of Newport’s homes.

 Development Application

This is devastating news in particular for those newest members of our community who have invested their savings, hopes and dreams in the construction of their homes in the Stockland subdivision. They moved to Newport because of the lifestyle of this low rise, residential community.

The negative impacts of such a congested population bubble on the already stretched infrastructure and amenities of Newport will be significant.

Whilst we encourage growth and development, we will make every effort to ensure that Newport is protected from inappropriate development.

This is inappropriate development..

We need to send a very clear and strong message to our decision makers and the developer.

Newport Says NO !

Please join us in Saving Newport.

Go to the JOIN US button on this home page.

Membership is free, without obligation and open to residents of Newport and its surrounding suburbs.

You will be kept up to date with what is happening and more importantly, you will be joining the other members of our community who are committed to protecting the lifestyle and amenity of our beautiful area.

Newport Action Group is a large group of residents who care very much about our home, Newport. We are careful and thoughtful in all our approaches and treat everyone with respect.

NEWPORT MARINA UPDATE

Last week Moreton Bay Regional Council voted to reject Kindred Development’s Application to change the use of Newport Marina.

The community of Newport, which has been vocal in its opposition, lodged 676 submissions with Council opposing this development.

The Councillors who ensured that the use of Newport Marina’s land will stay as Marine Industry are:

Matthew Constance

Peter Flannery

Adam Hain

Brooke Savige

Denise Sims

Koliana Winchester

These Councillors listened to the Community and supported their Strategic Plan.

This is a great outcome not only for Newport but also for the future security of Moreton Bay Regional Council’s Strategic Plan.

MBRC TO VOTE ON TUESDAY

Town Planners Support Kindred Proposal – ACTION NEEDED

This Tuesday, at Council’s General meeting, the Town Planning Department of MBRC will be recommending to Councillors to vote in favour of Kindred Development’s Plans for Newport Marina.

This is despite Town Planning Reports pointing out every contravention of the zoning and building codes governing the site.

This is despite 676 residents lodging submissions opposing the application.

The Town Planning Department offers no good reason for approving this proposal.

It also does not mention that of the 800 odd submissions received, 676 opposed the application!!!!

In the next 42 hours we will need to do everything we can to send a strong message o our Councillors who will be voting on this!!!! You can find their contact details at the end of this report.

 Please email them NOW to urge them to vote NO.

We need as many people as possible to attend the Council meeting on Tuesday to show our Councillors our opposition and encourage them to vote NO. 

The meeting information is:

Time: 10.30am

Address:   Strathpine Chambers of MBRC

220 Gympie Road,

Strathpine

 MBRC COUNCILLOR CONTACT DETAILS

Councillor Brooke Savige – Division 1 Brooke.Savige@moretonbay.qld.gov.au

Councillor Peter Flannery – Division 2 Peter.Flannery@moretonbay.qld.gov.au

Councillor Adam Hain- Division 3 Adam.Hain @moretonbay.qld.gov.au

Councillor Julie Greer – Division 4 Julie.Greer@moretonbay.qld.gov.au                

Councillor James Houghton- Division5 James.Houghton@moretonbay.qld.gov.au

Councillor Koliana Winchester – Division 6 Koliana.Winchester@moretonbay.qld.gov.au

Councillor Denise Sims – Division 7 Denise.Sims@moretonbay.qld.gov.au

 Councillor Mick Gillam- Division 8 Mick.Gillam@moretonbay.qld.gov.au     

Councillor Mike Charlton- Division 9 Mike.Charlton@moretonbay.qld.gov.au   

Councillor Matthew Constance – Division 10 Matt.Constance@moretonbay.qld.gov.au

Councillor Darren Grimwade- Division 11 Darren.Grimwade@moretonbay.qld.gov.au

Councillor Allan Sutherland – Mayor mayor@moretonbay.qld.gov.au     

FEDERAL Luke Howarth luke.howarth.mp@aph.gov.au    

STATE Yvette D’Ath redcliffe@parliament.qld.giv.au

You can read the Town Planning recommendation on page 24 of the council agenda

Council Recommendation

     https://www.moretonbay.qld.gov.au/files/assets/public/council/meetings/2019/gm20190813-agenda.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0RdFJ39EWzoOK3c8I55wMoF3uTcwA3v21cJFWihowqJ2Z5R0AEF0e75CY#page24