DATE: 18 JULY 2017
TO: info@msc.qld.gov.au
CC: AlanP@msc.qld.gov.au, NipperB@msc.qld.gov.au>, KevinD@msc.qld.gov.au, MaryG@msc.qld.gov.au, AngelaT@msc.qld.gov.au, LenoreW@msc.qld.gov.au, TomG@msc.qld.gov.au, Peter@msc.qld.gov.au, brianm@msc.qld.gov.au, carle@msc.qld.gov.au, environment@ministerial.qld.gov.au, sdnrm@ministerial.qld.gov.au, Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au, barron.river@parliament.qld.gov.au, thepremier@premiers.qld.gov.au, Larissa.ferguson@coordinatorgeneral.qld.gov.au, Michele.Bauer@coordinatorgeneral.qld.gov.au, Karen.Oakley@coordinatorgeneral.qld.gov.au, Steven.Tarte@coordinatorgeneral.qld.gov.au, Kuranda Region Planning Group – filing
This is a current commentary of the state of ad-hoc planning thus far for the Kur-World development:-
- Until the end of June 2017, Mr Lee’s proposal for a ‘Kur-World’ mega-development was being assessed only by the State Government via an ‘integrated assessment’ process.
- On the basis that the matter is currently out of Council’s hands, our local Councillors have been refusing to engage with us (their own electorate!), even by email, about the proposed development of Mr Lee’s Myola land – at least until the integrated assessment process has run its course.
- Meanwhile the official assessment process has been proceeding rather bumpily. The contacted community reference group has only met twice and community reps are dissatisfied with the process. The developer recently submitted a revised Kur-World ‘Master Plan’, which among other things increases to THREE the number of helipads proposed. (Would the skies of Kuranda become as noisy as post-2001 Afghanistan if Mr Lee gets his way with this most recent absurdity?)
- Just before the end of June, Mr Lee submitted notice of an alternative development proposal directly to Council, which is intended to be a fall-back in case his Kur-World proposal is unsuccessful (for whatever reason). This proposal is essentially a straight-forward subdivision to transform his property (originally formed from 11 contiguous rural blocks bought at auction, which he subsequently asked to be consolidated into one property) into 186 new residential blocks that could be sold separately.
- Mr Lee’s application to Council was submitted before the end of June 2017 and it’s been insinuated this entitles him to submit a development proposal under the old (2004) MSC Plan, which was superseded in mid-2016 by a new 10-year Shire Plan.
- Under both the new and old Shire plans, Mr Lee’s property was zoned rural. There had been a proposal in the early years of the century to develop Myola intensively but that proposal was eventually rejected by the State Government around 2008. It has been suggested this gives Mr Lee the right to propose subdivision to into residential blocks.
- To be precise, Mr Lee did not submit a detailed rezoning application to Council before the end of June; he notified Council that he intends to submit an application. (Rather like notifying teacher – after her deadline for homework has expired – of one’s intention to submit homework later. Brazen?)
- Even if the developer is still technically able to submit a subdivision proposal to Council under the old Shire plan, this all amounts to a blatant and offensive breach of due process. Our own councillors have insisted on a hands-off approach to their own constituents while the State Government has been running an integrated assessment process. Now councillors are being asked to consider a new proposal direct from the developer. To do so would not be fair or even-handed.
- This latest application by Mr Lee must surely lay to rest improbable notions, once promoted by the MSC’s Mayor, that Mr Lee is a “visionary” with a genuine interest in “eco-development”. Mr Lee’s core concerns are now laid bare. He is clearly after easy money and he seems to feel entitled to overturn our local planning framework and community sentiment to make fast bucks via subdivision of the land. The ambition to create an “Eco-Resort” is only greenwash. Subdivision is his real goal.
- Like most developers, Mr Lee wants the windfall profits of subdivision to accrue to him, not the community. That is despite the fact that he purchased the land zoned rural, which precludes subdivision down to rural residential blocks (or any other form of subdivision as intensive, or more intensive, than that). He took a gamble. Does that mean he can now parlay his speculative purchase into some kind of moral obligation to let him subdivide the land? Surely not.
- The key issue, surely, is not whether the developer and his agents can make a case that their development plan can reasonably morph into two parallel development proposals (one pitched at State Government, the other at Council) – or that intensive development might be technically acceptable under a superseded form of our Shire Plan. The key issue is what our local community actually wants.
- There is a lot of evidence that in general, the community in the Kuranda area wants what’s conducive to genuinely sustainable development. We want to conserve Kuranda’s exceptional biodiversity, scenic beauty, cultural heritage and much-loved nature-loving way of life.
Thanking You,
Steven Nowakowski