When are our voices going to be heard? More than 800 submissions, several public protest meetings and a comprehensive campaign by ‘Protect Taringa’ and still the reasonable concerns of the community were not addressed.
The Residential Care and Retirement Facility, which was proposed by TriCare at 52 Seven Oaks Street, Taringa received major backlash when it was made known that Brisbane City Council (Council) was being asked to approve the construction of 3 high-rise buildings. The community identified many concerns about the development including the height, scale, bulk, traffic, parking and removal of existing protected vegetation onsite. These issues conflicted with several codes within the Brisbane City Plan 2014. Now, community members are opening up about the lack of involvement they were entitled to in the development application assessment process.
Community notification or appeal not permitted
Monique Mayze, a corporate communications practitioner who led the ‘Protect Taringa’ campaign, believes the planning process did little to engage the community. This was mainly due to the code assessable rules the TriCare development was classified under. These rules don’t require the developer to give public notice of its application and don’t allow the community any right of appeal against Council’s decision.
Despite this, the community did everything it could to make its voice heard. They voiced their concerns through a coordinated campaign of community meetings, social media, letterbox drops, informal submissions to Council and media engagement. The community tried everything.
The Protect Taringa community group also invited representatives of the main political parties (LNP, Labor and the Greens) to speak at its community meetings which saw more than 300 members of the public attend. In response to this outpouring of community concern, Council was forced into action. It initially refused TriCare’s application despite some amendments being made by the developer.
“If the community did not take action, the Council would not have responded,” stated Monique Mayze.
Yet this support from Council didn’t last long because, when TriCare commenced legal proceedings against Council, Council backed down and a negotiated deal was made between Council and TriCare with no opportunity for involvement by the community. For the community the new deal did not adequately deal with the height, bulk and scale of the development and still allowed for the removal of protected vegetation.
Despite the local councillor at the time, Cr Julian Simmonds, assuring the community that Council would defend its refusal vigorously to the Court, it failed to do so. The Planning and Environment Court was not given the opportunity to assess the development on its merits, but rather on whether the amendments to the plans, agreed between Council and the developer, represented minor changes. The Court found the changes were minor under the terms of the Act. The community’s concerns were not addressed as part of that decision.
The community had no knowledge of this deal until a judgment was posted on the court website. The community’s reasonable concerns were not properly addressed in this final decision. Instead, they were completely shut out.
Concerns Not Answered
What was the purpose of making submissions if our concerns were not going to be listened to? Howard Briggs, a resident of the Taringa community stated that reasons given for a decision are rarely communicated in a form that indicates that the issues being raised have been addressed. The TriCare development was a clear example of this. Putting aside the fact that this was a code assessable development, the concerns of the community, made through submissions, were not all and clearly responded to by Council.
Council did not justify the appropriateness of the reduced height, bulk, scale, the removal of 2 significant landscape trees, amenity or why some codes failed to be upheld – especially those mentioned in the Council’s refusal. So, the community is left in the dark as to what grounds actually led to the final approval of the TriCare development.
Most of the community’s submissions raised relevant concerns that Council and planners should have taken into account. Community members agree their role in planning decisions should be taken more seriously, especially if they have the right skills and knowledge to comment on the suitability of the development on the intended site. Howard Briggs stated that this is a fundamental concern to consider due to there being no previous technical investigation undertaken on most developments.
The TriCare development is one example of poor planning made without regard to the community’s voice. Because this controversial development application was classed as code assessable, there were no formal avenues through which the concerns of the community could be heard: the community was excluded from the process from start to finish. The Taringa community is fed up with the lack of community engagement it had in the overall decision-making process.
Proposed Building/Development Elevation.
Suitability for aged-care residents?
One major question that was raised in the community’s submissions is whether a high-rise development is suitable for aged-care residences. Based on best practice research into aged-care facility design, the Taringa development is not suitable for the vulnerable elderly. The Protect Taringa campaign made it clear that aged-care accommodation should be more low-set and home-like for these patients. They deserve a safe, secure and harmless site to wander around in and complete their daily routine, especially for those with a Dementia diagnosis – which is more than half of all aged-care residents.
How are the elderly meant to be safe in these high-rise buildings? What happens if a fire breaks out, how will the manager get all these residents out in time? Where are the safe places for walking and needed for quiet time? These issues, which should have been considered when making a decision on the development application, were not completely addressed. The aged care code in the Brisbane City Plan 2014 was silent on these matters. It was more “building” oriented than “user” oriented.
Planners should seek external advice from professionals who have the skills to comment on the suitability of a development. Here, planners should have sought medical advice on what is an acceptable development for these residents. High-rise buildings are not the answer.
Seven Oaks Street is known for being busy due to the surrounding schools and the University of Queensland. There is usually constant traffic near the site. So again, the issue of safety for elderly residents looms large. Not convenient at all! Aged-care residents need to be in areas where it’s safe, secure and quiet. As the community knows, that is not the site at Taringa!
Now, community members are wanting a change to the current planning law and system so their voices will be properly considered when these planning decisions are made. A time for change and a time for community voices to be heard!
Written by
Anne-Maree Lofipo
Griffith University student
Acknowledgment
I thank Howard Briggs and Monique Mayze in helping me establish the story behind this development, and how the Taringa community has been greatly affected by the overall proposal and process of TriCare.