Recent applications to Council show a distinct possibility of opportunities
for corruption.
Phone 07 3371 9355 or Email
20 December 2004
The first involved an application at 61 Lambert Road where
no advertising
sign was placed on the frontage to Lambert Road and the sign in the
adjoining Kew Street was almost hidden from view ie as far as possible from
view from the dominant traffic route in Lambert Road.
This appears to breach the requirements for giving public notice, yet
Council has ignored objections and submissions and decided to approve the
development ... see attachment.
The second example is at the corner of Harts and Indooroopilly Roads.
Here a multiplicity of relaxations was sought by the developer ... so many
that virtually the whole development depended on relaxations.
It needs to be understood that relaxations effectively give approval to
otherwise prohibited proposals and should therefore not only be granted
only in very specific cases, but also only where very good grounds exist
for so doing and where these grounds form part of the approval and are made
public to avoid suspiciion of corruption, incompetence or negligence.
Reasons should also be given to objectors or people who make submissions.
In this case, none of those grounds exist No reasons were given. The
development was approved. It appears some who lodged submissions may not as
yet have even received notices from Council yet the demolition work is well
under way.
What opportunities exist for corruption?
Firstly, the community is prevented from checking the approvals comply with
the rules. An extreme example is the VERY high house in Graceville Avenue
APPROVED by Council but clearly ILLEGAL ...! There are many others where it
is claimed the final result is not what was originally sought.
But Council chose not to require demolition on the basis of a Council error
... but arguably, the beneficiary could easily have paid money to Council
or officers.
Why should the developer have no responsibility to comply?
Why should such applications not be subject to public scrutiny if ANY
relaxations are involved?
Similarly, if Council officers can permit a development to be advertised
with less than normal signs, surely there is an opportunity to pay the
officers concerned?
And again, if copious relaxations can be made (effectively allowing
prohibited development), then money can easily change hands if there is no
public scrutiny.
And what if the work commences on site and appears illegal?
How can the community be informed as to what has been approved if the
approval officer is able to permit otherwise illegal construction in secret
and not subject to legal appeal?
It is clear that Council's planning processes are corrupted ... there is
secrecy with protection from public scrutiny. There is no transparency.
It seems Council's officers know they are subject to no public scrutiny at all.
If this is the case, then there can be no doubt that the process is
corrupted ...
The real problem is to be able to find the corruption when no particulars
or reasons are provided for rebutting or refusing the submissions and
objections.
The first step is clearly to have full and detailed reasons always provided
to support the Council officers refusal to accept submissions and objections.
The second is to restore the expectation that relaxations are normally
unnecessary.
The third is to restore appeal rights ...!
Finally and in an interesting example of how poorly the Council's planning
system works, a number of submissions drew attention to the traffic
problems likely to arise at the intersection of Indooroopilly and Harts
Roads. The developers consultants said there would be no impact. Council
apparently agrees!
But then comes the 300 condos at the IGC ... and they too cannot cause
traffic problems at this intersection ... and if they do, guess who pays
for the improvement?
The developers ... or you and I through rates?
Arguably, if the Council planners know that applications for 300 more
condos are likely and will be approved, then they have an obligation to
have the roads improved incrementally and in advance as developers carry
out their developments ...
In this case, that means that this intersection should be designed for the
ultimate traffic capacity permissible under the Town Plan ... and not based
on current traffic while deliberately ignoring the huge potential growth in
traffic it seems Council wants to encourage ... but wants us, not
developers, to pay for ...!
Corrupt?
Yes ... in the sense that Council is not approving the current applications
and taking into account future costs ... it is subsidising the developers
... and given the lack of scrutiny and transparency, opens up a lot of
opportunities for the "brown paper bag".
Yes ... in the sense that there is no clear "plan" for the future of areas
of Brisbane (such as this) ... and therefore the current process is not
"planning", it is about charging developers while allowing the developers
maximum flexibility without any scrutiny by the public and without appeal
rights.
Thus the problem is not whether or not there is corruption but rather it is
the complete lack of support for local community scrutiny and transparency
which clearly allows corruption to occur undetected.
Michael Yeates.
WTN RAG