Page 8 - NLN Dec18
P. 8

JOIN US

        FB: SaveNorthLakesGolfCourse
         E: savenorthlakes@gmail.com





       LOCAL VOICE: Save North Lakes Golf Course




                        Local resident Phillip Carlson’s second address to Moreton Bay Regional
                                Council on the sale of the North Lakes Resort Golf Club.


       When I spoke last, Save North Lakes Golf Club Inc.(hereafter  going to go against a recent unanimous decision of the Court
       ‘SNLGC’), on behalf of its more than 4,500 members, requested  of Appeal; and VRG will then have to go to the Court of Appeal
       Council to issue a public statement denouncing any developer’s  in the hope that the court has changed its opinion. This option
       ability to re-zone the Open Space precinct on which the golf  will be extremely expensive as Council will be required to spend
       course sits on part. SNLGC asked for this because we were  money assessing a DA which it should know is prohibited and
       (and remain) of the opinion that the Mango Hill Infrastructure  then spend more money fighting the battle in not one but two
       Development Control Plan (hereafter  ‘the MHIDCP’) is a  courts. These exorbitant expenses are borne by all the ratepayers
       document that brings clarity to land owners about what can be  of Moreton Bay.
       built around them within the suburb of North Lakes.
                                                             The second option is considerably different and costs very little.
       On  12  October  2018,  the  Queensland  Court  of  Appeal  Council can decide to advise any and all developers who want
       unanimously reached the same conclusion as SNLGC in the  to develop in the Open Space precinct of North Lakes that it will
       matter of Springfield Lakes Land Corporation Pty Limited v  not accept any DA that is for a prohibited development. Council
       Cherish Enterprises Pty Ltd and Ipswich City Council [2018] QCA  has every legal right to take this action and the Court of Appeal
       266 (hereafter ‘the decision’). This decision confirms that North  as well as the current and past Queensland planning legislation
       Lakes and its very detailed planning system are not like any  confirm this. If Council adopted this course of action there
       other area in the Moreton Bay region and careful consideration  could be no mention of actual or perceived bias by Council as
       needs to be given to any planning applications moving forward. all developers would be treated exactly the same – the process
       The decision confirms the interplay of the myriad of current and  would be entirely open and transparent.
       past Queensland planning legislation and how, the only three
       Development Control Plans (hereafter ‘DCP’) which have been  Accordingly, SNLGC again requests Council to issue a public
       specifically retained by the Queensland Planning Act 2016, are  statement to all developers  who are considering developing
       to be interpreted. The decision confirms that the wording of the  outside of the requirements of the MHIDCP on North Lakes’ Open
       legislation is ‘grammatically correct’ and ‘unambiguous’ which  Space precinct – DO NOT waste your time or money as there is
       significantly limits how a DCP can be interpreted. Further, the  no ‘right’ for any developer, including what has been proposed
       decision confirms that if there is any inconsistency between a  by VRG, to lodge a DA for prohibited development in the Open
       DCP and the planning scheme that adopted it, the DCP takes  Space Precinct of North Lakes.
       precedent. Lastly and most importantly the decision confirmed
       that the Ipswich City Council was wholly correct in refusing to  I accept that Council will choose which path it will adopt. It
       even accept a Development Application (hereafter  ‘DA’) for  will be noted going forward though, that today, Council was
       something that was prohibited by its DCP.             informed that it has every legal right to refuse to accept a DA for
                                                             a prohibited development.
       SNLGC are of the opinion that Council has only two options
       available to it in regards to the proposed development by Village  Lastly, I would like to say that a public statement made by Council
       Retirement Group (hereafter ‘VRG’):                   would greatly assist the North Lakes community by restoring the
                                                             planning certainty that ought to be unquestionable.
       1. to receive, assess and reject the DA as it is a prohibited
       development according to the MHIDCP; or
       2. to refuse to receive any DA which is a prohibited development
       according to the MHIDCP.
                                                                   To join the discussion and keep up to date with our
                                                                          Community Action activities, visit
       The first option will result in ONLY one outcome. VRG will appeal
       Council’s decision to the Planning and Environment Court;   https://www.facebook.com/SaveNorthLakesGolfCourse/
       VRG will most undoubtedly lose because the lower court is not
   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13