A LONG-TIME Raby Bay resident has launched a scathing attack on Redland City Council’s proposed town plan amendment to increase the minimum subdivision size in the canal estate from 400 square metres to 600 square metres.
Former senior public servant and Raby Bay resident Zrinka Johnston has lodged a detailed submission with Redland City Council CEO Louise Rusan, urging Council to abandon the proposed change and restart consultation from scratch.
The proposed amendment forms part of two major amendments to the Council’s City Plan, which were publicly consulted on between March 2 and March 29 this year.
The amendments relate to the canal and lakeside estates at Raby Bay, Sovereign Waters and Aquatic Paradise.
Council said the proposed changes aimed to “protect their character, amenity and lifestyle” amid increasing subdivision activity.
According to Council, increased subdivision into two lots had intensified dwelling density and created “negative impacts on streetscape, amenity, privacy, solar access and on-street parking, as well as the safe use of the canal system”.
The proposed amendment would affect subdivision rights across the prestigious waterfront estate, where many existing blocks are currently eligible to be subdivided into 400sqm lots.
Ms Johnston said she only became aware of the proposal “accidentally” after speaking with a real estate marketer earlier this year.
“I consider this consultation process a farce,” she wrote in her submission.
“To speak in generalities and direct residents to a complicated pathway to find out if they were affected and how they are affected through a website maze is simply not community consultation.
“Council’s consultation process on this important change was crude and rude. It was a failure.”
Council, however, said consultation was undertaken in line with statutory obligations under the Planning Act 2016 and followed a communications strategy approved by the Director-General of the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning.
Council said letters outlining the proposed amendments were delivered to all residences within the three canal and lakeside estates and sent to relevant residential associations, with additional information provided through Council’s website.
Other communication activities included notices at Council administration centres and libraries, publication in the Queensland Government Gazette, a media release and social media posts.
Despite this, Ms Johnston claimed many residents remained unaware of the proposed changes.
“I didn’t get the letter and neither did several of my neighbours,” she said.
“Obviously none of them knew what the change was and obviously they didn’t make submissions in the consultation period which ended in March.”
Council said its City Plan Major Amendments consultation webpage received about 4600 visits during the consultation period, and 49 responses were received.
Ms Johnston argued the relatively low number of submissions demonstrated a lack of genuine community engagement.
“It is not surprising that Council got only 17 submissions from over 1100 residents in canal and lakeside estates,” she wrote.
“Comments from 17 residents cannot be considered representative of the community’s views.”
At the heart of the debate is whether increasing the minimum lot size would effectively remove subdivision rights from most Raby Bay property owners.
Ms Johnston claimed only a small number of very large blocks would still meet the new subdivision criteria if the changes proceeded.
“So, 900 blocks would be excluded from the higher land valuation benefit they presently enjoy due to subdividability of their blocks, while five to 10 would continue to enjoy it,” she wrote.
Council said the amendments acknowledged “the need to increase housing supply and diversity” and did not conflict with broader Queensland housing objectives.
Council also noted the Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Industrial Relations had approved the proposed amendments as being consistent with State Planning Policy, including housing objectives.
Ms Johnston challenged the original reasons reportedly provided for the proposed changes, including preserving streetscapes and maintaining larger canal frontage for pontoons.
“Many enhancements to our streets have occurred in the past six years and been brought about by subdivision of large blocks into 400sqm blocks,” she said.
“Houses built on them are more modern and beautiful than the old houses, especially in the older streets of Raby Bay where I live.
The submission also frames the issue as part of broader demographic change occurring across the estate, with older residents downsizing and younger families moving into the area.
“There is a large-scale generational changeover happening in Raby Bay,” Ms Johnston wrote.
She argued smaller blocks supported broader South East Queensland planning objectives of urban consolidation and densification.
The proposed town plan amendment remains under consideration by Redland City Council.
