Division 3 Councillor Paul Golle has rejected claims that concerns about the Luke Street pedestrian path at Thornlands were ignored or mishandled, saying the project was not council-delivered and long-standing planning decisions limited what could be changed once construction began.
The concerns have been raised publicly by Lynn Roberts, president of the Eprapah Creek Catchment Landcare Association and a long-time critic of development impacts on the local environment.
Ms Roberts has lodged petitions with council and written extensively about the Luke Street project, arguing the path has caused unnecessary damage to mature trees and koala habitat.
Cr Golle said he did not support the original bridge and pathway proposal when it was voted on at a council meeting in 2018.
“I didn’t vote for the bridge or pathway,” he said.
“The project was voted on in a council meeting in 2018, moved by former Cr Murray Elliot, seconded by former councillor Paul Gleeson and voted for by Crs Mitchell, Elliot, Hughes, Talty, Gleeson and Williams.
“Those who voted against were Crs Boglary, Golle, Hewlett and Bishop.”
Cr Golle said he first became aware of concerns raised by Ms Roberts about the Luke Street pathway and its potential impact on mature trees and koala habitat in mid-2016, but said no formal contact was made until after construction commenced in 2025.
“This is not a council project,” he said.
“However, Ms Roberts hadn’t made any contact about the project until after construction had already started in 2025.”
He said Ms Roberts identified herself as president of the Eprapah Creek Catchment Landcare Association, which he described as being aligned with Redlands2030.
“In 2025, residents were also contacting council seeking information about the timing, delivery and intended use of the new pedestrian accessway, suggesting that having to wait for the inclusion of the new pedestrian access way for 15 years was not acceptable,” Cr Golle said.
“Council officers responded to correspondence and addressed the matters raised within the scope of the project approvals and operational responsibilities.”
He said concerns were later formalised through petitions lodged with council in August and September 2025 and were addressed through the CEO’s office.
Addressing questions about compliance with Australian Standard AS4970:2025, Cr Golle said technical matters were not within a councillor’s remit.
“Advice provided to me by council officers was that the Luke Street pathway is being delivered by the developer, not council, under an existing Infrastructure Agreement and approved planning framework,” he said.
“As a councillor, I do not receive or provide technical compliance certifications.
“Matters such as arboricultural assessment, construction methods and compliance with relevant standards — including Australian Standard AS4970:2025 — are managed operationally by the developer and their contractors, with oversight by council officers in accordance with the approvals in place.”
On claims that an alternative route via Marcoola Street should have been pursued, Cr Golle said the Luke Street alignment was the result of long-established planning decisions.
“While alternative routes, including via Marcoola Street, have been advocated for more recently once construction had already been started, the Luke Street alignment reflects planning decisions and development conditions that were established well before the current stage of construction and before my current term,” he said.
He said the alignment formed part of long-term planning for the area, including the South-east Thornlands Structure Plan adopted in 2010, and was confirmed by a council resolution on December 15, 2021, following assessments covering environmental impacts, flooding and CPTED principles.
Cr Golle also disputed claims that requests for meetings were cancelled or ignored.
“I do not accept that requests for meetings or information were cancelled or ignored,” he said.
“During 2025, I attended the site and spoke directly with residents of Luke Street about the pathway and its purpose.
“Feedback from residents at that time was mixed, with a number of people expressing support for the connection because it improves pedestrian access to the Lakeside district and links into the existing pathway network.”
He said correspondence and phone enquiries were acknowledged and that operational and technical matters were referred to council officers and then to the site manager, with the contractor providing residents with a direct contact number.
“Where additional meetings were not progressed, this reflected the fact that the project had already been approved and was under construction, and that it is not a council-delivered project,” he said.
Responding to allegations that concerns were dismissed and that the complainant was criticised personally, Cr Golle said he rejected that characterisation.
“I do not accept that concerns were dismissed or that any individual was criticised personally,” he said.
“My engagement has consistently focused on the planning history of the project, the roles and responsibilities of council and the developer, and the limits of what can be changed once infrastructure is approved and underway.”
He said disagreement about outcomes or process should not be interpreted as disrespect and suggested confusion arose around a submission process relating to a state Priority Development Area.
Cr Golle said council would assume responsibility for the pathway once construction was completed and formally handed over.
“This includes routine inspections, arboricultural assessment where required, and management of any public safety risks associated with trees adjacent to public infrastructure, in line with council’s established practices,” he said.
