News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 Court battle looms over Russell resort 

Court battle looms over Russell resort

DANIEL HURST
15/05/2008 3:35:00 PM
A DEVELOPER will soon launch legal action to seek approval for a multi-million-dollar resort on Russell Island.

Redland City Council this week stood by its decision to refuse the development application, despite an offer from Canaipa Developments to further scale back the design.

The $185 million resort plans originally included buildings up to five storeys high with 245 apartments on two separate sites on the northern tip of the secluded island.

Council officers last month recommended a preliminary approval be granted after they negotiated a decrease in height to three storeys for a total of 225 units.

Mayor Melva Hobson and most councillors voted two weeks ago to reject the proposal, pointing to conflicts with planning scheme guidelines including the scale of the development.

Canaipa Developments director Ian Larkman said he offered to further reduce the number of apartments to 177 to avert a legal battle when he met with the Mayor last week.

Cr Hobson and two councillors supported a motion on Tuesday to back away from the refusal and defer the decision to a future meeting.

The Mayor said various issues still needed to be resolved, but the developer was prepared to remove at least two buildings and negotiate in good faith.

The motion was defeated because seven councillors decided to hold firm.

Mr Larkman said his scale-back offer was generous.

“We think we have a bullet-proof case in court considering the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Natural Resources and Water, the Federal Environment Department and the council officers all approve of it,” he said.

But Division 5 Councillor Barbara Townsend said the number of carparks and the height of buildings still breached zoning rules, while a social and economic impact report had not yet been prepared.

“The councillors believed there were still too many issues outstanding,” she said.

Voting with Cr Townsend to stand by the refusal were Crs Toni Bowler (Div. 6), Kathy Reimers (Div. 8), Helen Murray (Div. 10), Debra Henry (Div. 4), Wendy Boglary (Div. 1) and Murray Elliott (Div. 7). Voting to withdraw the decision were Crs Hobson, Karen Williams (Div. 9) and Peter Dowling (Div. 4). Cr Dowling declared a conflict of interest because of an election gift. Cr Craig Ogilvie (Div. 2) was out of the room when the vote was taken.

Send to a Friend
Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

Comments


This council is shaping up to be a monumental disaster. What is really scary is that some of those voting against profess to be business people and stood on their ability to run the council as a well oiled progressive council. No sign of that happening here, and I am even more concerned when the chair of the finance committee declares that $23 million is a drop in the ocean when rejecting the sale of council owned land. The question remains for Cr. Townsend, if voting on this when it was first put up to council was a conflict of interest, then what has changed since that meeting and the meeting on Tuesday? Assuming that there will be legal cost of circa $500000 and budget shortfall 2007-2008 of $1.1 million through loss of land sale revenue, where does the good councillor feel that the extra income can be raised to cover these two doubtful decisions of the last month. On top of this the decision to attempt to withdraw the LGMS will add extra costs to the council budget. The Gold Coast City council has been advised the they do not have the power or authority to withdraw their LGMS, (Gold Coast Sun 7/5/08 Cr. Peter Young, a green councillor) may be the Redland City Council should seek another legal opnion before they trip off down the yellow brick road.
Posted by thermopylae on 15/05/2008 4:06:47 PM
Cr Townsend says she has now withdrawn her submission to the council opposing the resort application, relinquishing her appeal rights. She says this is why she did not declare a conflict of interest at the latest meeting.
Posted by Blog Admin on 15/05/2008 5:24:42 PM
As a rather large stakeholder on the island I am bitterly disappointed with this body of councillors, their short sightedness and their appalling inability to make the right decisions to support the growth of the Bay island's region. This total lack of entrepeneuril flair displayed by the Council is embarrassing. I will be addressing my legal team to assist in supporting Ian Larkman to successfully complete this important project.
Posted by hurricane on 16/05/2008 12:25:12 PM
we get little enough now for our rates, wonder how we'll go after all the legal costs come in. its going to cost us a fortune for this lot to show off their misguided low/no development stance.
Posted by minjerriba on 16/05/2008 1:17:33 PM
With the loss of jobs from Fisher & Paykel I suggest this was an ideal opportunity to generate some replacement employment and business growth in the City -where does this council expect to generate sustainable growth in the city to prevent the outoging roads ebcoming totally clogged. Why was Cr Ogilvie out of the room when this vote was on - "Days of our lives" is on later in the afternoon!
Posted by TheWatcher on 16/05/2008 2:54:03 PM
Why was Cr Craig Ogilvie (Div. 2) out of the room when the vote was taken. Was it not possible for the Chair to simply wait for Cr Ogilvie to return before taking the vote. Surely Cr Ogilvie understood the importance of this vote given that the developer was prepared to remove at least two buildings and negotiate in good faith.
Posted by Mark Kane on 19/05/2008 1:51:11 PM
All you people are so full of rubbish, I own 2/3rds of the island and I dont want any of that.
Posted by MayorOfRussell on 17/06/2008 10:30:38 PM
If it wasn't for the likes of Ian Larkham investing money into the Bay Islands then nothing would get done. The current councillors we have are like "petticoat junction". We need a certain amount of development to take place on the island so we become self sufficient and also to promote job opportunities closer to home as the islands are no longer just for the pensioners and retirees.
Posted by mary davis on 19/06/2008 12:41:14 PM
1

Post A Comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
RESORT: A recent artist’s impression shows part of the proposed tourist resort on Russell Island. Redland City Council is standing by its refusal of the plan.
RESORT: A recent artist’s impression shows part of the proposed tourist resort on Russell Island. Redland City Council is standing by its refusal of the plan.

  Virus claims another horse at Redlands ...
  65 chase CEO job
  Students join Olympic band
  A stately Storm sails in
  Young readers triumph
  Thousands wait for public housing
  Families from afar

Save on interest - you deserve it

1:06 PM AEST | The great contradiction of life in a modern capitalist economy is that to be a winner you have to resist most of the blandishments of the capitalists.
  A paper not that green
  All nations should heed Garnaut
2008 Redland directory
 
Domain.com.au