Print this page

Saving Greenbank from unsustainable development

Saving Greenbank from unsustainable development

GREENBANK_high-densityIn the face of Queensland state government legislation, planning as per SEQRP South East Queensland Regional Plan, and rhetoric which talks about sustainable development, affordable housing, sense of place - other words,  the community has rallied to the SAVE GREENBANK CAMPAIGN.

Community has collected thousands of signatures to support the submission objecting to the Teviot Downs proposal to build a high density ULDA-guideline development in the midst of what has been a pleasant acreage living community. This proposal seeks to change what is currently approved  - with a MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE or MOU.

In reality the rhetoric or words are not matched with real life ground truth actions. Words do not come close to what happens on the ground. How can you have sustainable development when human settlement activities continue to wipe out essential habitat for resident and migratory wildlife species - without any local provisions for long term survival of the species - rescue actions funded as part of development - not left to volunteers to rescue and rehabilitate at their own personal expense.

You can view the submission made on behalf of community here.

It is the intention of this document to seek the denial of any approval for this development on the following grounds:

• The identified lack of transport facilities to cater for the increase in population density

• The current lack of identifiable educational facilities and recreational infrastructure

• The current lack of identifiable employment opportunities in the demographic.

• The prescribed area for development is potentially flood prone.

• The community concerns in regard to health and safety issues

• The non compliance with statutory requirements in regard to assessment of the impact of the proposed development on listed endangered species.

• The disparity of certain key report documents and perceived bias.

• False and misleading information pursuant to s. 52 of The Trade Practices Act 1974, as provided by the developers to prospective purchasers

• False and misleading statements pursuant to s.141 of the Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007

• Non conformance with application protocols and procedures by the developer.

• Lack of transparent consultation with the community-at-large by Logan City Council.

• Denial of Natural Justice in that the Act is unduly prejudicial to the rights of the stakeholders.

LACA has also made a submission  available to read here.

We encourage you to make time to read these submissions if you value what we have within the legislated ULDA GREATER FLAGSTONE URBAN FOOTPRINT. Regardless of the rhetoric it is really business as usual. Genuinely ecological sustainable development has principles and values to be met and cannot come to fruition without engagement of progessive industry partnerships where quadruple bottom line values are practiced.

This not even on the radar with ULDA!

Read 2514 times Last modified on Wednesday, 24 July 2019 04:44