This is a story of an investment gone wrong, a great deal of Council time and energy expended (and therefore ratepayers money squandered), Trauma to residents that can’t be measured, and the possibility of Council being sued for wrongful decision.It is a story of submissions and re-submissions, a story of decisions and rescissions and a story of amendments and additions, all originating from the desire of the developer under the management of CEO, Mr Tony Ellis, to alter the planning structure at Traveston to accommodate housing development.

The first application involved urban housing on a flood plain passed by Council and the next week rescinded because one Councillor had a change of mind. The residents warned the mayor (when the rescission prompted the developer to sell the lots) that such sales on a flood plain would be to the detriment of the purchasers, and the mayor responding that Council would not issue building approval if the area floods. The sales continued until a small flood exhibited the flood plain characteristics in no uncertain terms and the sales had to be abandoned.

Then came public presentation of duck ponds and attractive artist’s impressions supporting a development that was not disclosed in plan or housing numbers until much later when the community discovered that approximately 100 houses were planned for a rural zoned lot. The only infrastructure mentioned was a clubhouse (of house style), the house and land remaining the property of the developer.

A meeting called by the Traveston Action Group (for-runner of the Traveston Residents Association) (TRA) saw of in excess of 120 concerned residents overwhelmingly pass a motion of ‘no confidence’ in the Council representative (CR Nissen, a friend of Mr Ellis). The Major then declared a conflict of interest in that Mr Ellis had given him $4000 toward and had assisted him in, his election campaign. Through a report in the Gympie Times the mayor reported that he had thought about it and then handed the donation back.

Then came a change of tack whereby the developer applied for a Reconfiguration of a Lot (rearrangement of boundaries). This was to enable the developer to transfer lots from the flood plain to a higher lot. TRA objected on a number of grounds citing that the development constituted a new subdivision rather than a boundary alteration, as well as danger of road access of so many lots onto arterial and sub-arterial roads on safety grounds.(no internal service roads intended). Several amendments were made, one to avoid a Council requirement to seal a portion of an adjoining road. Approval was granted.

TRA found that to oppose the application in court, a sum of $30, 000 was estimated as a starter. This resulted in TRA having to abandon any further actions. However then enter the State Government naming the Council as Respondent and the Developer as Co-Respondent. The State Government also had decided that Council was wrong in their decision.

The upshot of the Government action on Council deliberations was not for the community to hear, as the discussions were held “in committee” however the result of such discussions has to eventuate into the public arena in the form of a motion or declaration of the conclusion. The following resulted:

“Recommended that King and Company Solicitors be instructed to inform the developer/co-respondents solicitors that in the absence of any valid views to the contrary, Council no longer intends to oppose the Departments application to the Planning and Environment Court. Further that Council be advised of the developer/corespondent’s  response”.

It would be to the ratepayers further detriment if the developer decides to sue Council for wrongful decision.

Jeff Lambert