Community survey supports redevelopment of water-front precincts


A community survey on the Redlands’ two waterfront redevelopment projects has shown overwhelming support for development at Weinam Creek and Toondah Harbour and for government to work with commercial partners to fund the critical infrastructure.

The full survey can be found on Council’s website >>

Redland City Mayor Karen Williams said the survey also supported more foreshore parks, boating facilities, bike and pedestrian walkways and small businesses.

“One of the key findings from the survey of 300 residents was that something needs to be done at the two sites, with people preferring the projects be funded through private partnerships,” she said.

“More than 76 per cent of respondents said they wanted Council and the State Government to look at opportunities for commercial partnerships to pay for the projects rather than ratepayers having to foot the bill.

“Council has already started looking for these commercial partnerships with several potential investors visiting the Redlands and this will continue during the Expression of Interest phase.

“Another key finding is that people support more foreshore parks (82%), and I am pleased that the draft planning schemes recognise existing green space and plans to improve access to the bay for residents.

“The majority of survey respondents wanted both Priority Development Area (PDA) sites to include better boardwalks along the waterfront, cafes and restaurants and a pier or promenade.

“A key point to take from the survey is that overwhelmingly people want to see something happen at these areas, with only 10 per cent of people wanting Toondah Harbour left ‘as is’ and 11 per cent not wanting any improvements at Weinam Creek.

“This sentiment has also been clearly expressed throughout the rest of Council’s engagement on these projects, which has included speaking with more than 2000 people at 10 community sessions since May last year.”

Division 5 Councillor Mark Edwards said the survey also showed one of the key considerations for the Weinam Creek project was parking.

“It is obvious car parking is considered critical to the future of the Weinam Creek area. We also want car parking to be considered and this has been included in the draft planning scheme,” he said.

“The aim has always been to achieve a sustainable, long-term solution through a mix of parking options and to deliver a project at Weinam Creek that will be of benefit to the whole community.”

8 thoughts on “Community survey supports redevelopment of water-front precincts

  1. Tom Taranto

    Your survey does not truthfully express the extent of Council’s plans. It does not ask – Do you approve G.J. Walter Park should be sold to developers to use for 15 storey buildings instead of retaining it for use by the whole community? Develop the Harbour not the Park.

    Reply
  2. Bryn Maidment

    How wonderfully transparent. Only 300 surveyed. Don’t have to guess at what loaded questions were included. Overwhelming! 82% want foreshore parks. They’ve got a great one at GJ Walter Park but it will be bulldozed and turned into a “bigger”, “enhanced open space”. Bet there’ll be no ball games, no cricket, no BBQs, one swing, a dog cage and no nature. Enjoy your skinny, half-strength cappuccinos as you feel the concrete surround you and gaze over a sterile vista. Progress.
    Upgrade Toondah Harbour, hands off GJ Walter Park.

    Reply
  3. Chris Walker

    The survey did not include any questions that would reveal if respondents agreed with total destruction of coastal ecosystems as would happen if an 800 berth marina were developed in an area of mangroves, tidal mudflats and seagrass beds.
    Nor did it include questions which would reveal if people in this area are happy with reducing current areas of open space parkland to facilitate extensive real estate development.
    So the survey questions were biased to achieve a desired outcome and the above “story” makes selective use of the survey’s “findings” to deceptively claim support for a poorly conceived plan.
    Here is some hard data. A petition calling for withdrawal of the Toondah Harbour scheme has been signed by more than 1,200 people in three weeks. Fact. Undistorted. Why does the Council not include stories like this on its website?

    Reply
  4. Peter Turnbull

    A closer read of the results more closely reflects the findings of the stakeholder engagement for the Toondah Harbour PDA and the Community Plan 2030.
    Selective use of some wording contained in such a small generic survey is cheap politics

    Reply
  5. Peter Turnbull

    “Here’s one we prepared for you earlier”. Has anyone else noticed the similarities of this development project with the failed Don Seccombe mega – project for Toondah in 2007. Guess what, it failed too because it was implausible and could never be funded or built. Can we never learn from such clangers ? or are our memories too short to learn from these awful mistakes ? Could Council stop these distractions and start doing some legitimate planning for Cleveland.

    Reply
  6. Chris Wheeler

    I have lived on Macleay Island for the past 15 years. When I first came to the island in 1999, it had a population of about 1250. Today it’s population is over 3000.
    In 1999, much of the day to day conversation of Macleay Islanders was about the need for improved parking facilities at the Macleay Island and Weinam Creek jetties.
    Today, much of their day to day conversation concerns exactly the same need. Over this 15 year period– which is a lifetime in the eyes of any 15 year old teenager– Council have been made fully aware of this need by countless submissions, surveys and islander representations.
    Despite all this, they remain in denial. They will not accept that the need for improved parking facilities at Weinam Creek overrides the desire for waterfront parks and foreshore beautification, and is the priority.
    They’ got it all back to front. The need is– parking first, parks second– and not the other way round.
    Let them tell us where those 300 survey respondents reside—not on the islands for sure.
    Over the years I have walked in and along the existing park adjacent to the Weinam Creek Ferry Terminal, and have been the only person there. So from my own personal experience I know it is not being used by mainlanders. Just how many ratepayers do Council anticipate will have a greater need for a park, than the urgent need that countless islanders have for parking?
    In my time as an islander, I have seen nothing to dissuade me from the view that the Councillors and Officers of the Redland City Council, lack the skill, aptitude, experience and determination to resolve the problems created when Council took over the administration of SMBI from the Queensland Government, and that simple issues like providing more mainland parking for islanders in a timely manner are beyond its competence.

    Reply
  7. Gayle Nemeth

    Russell Karragarra Lamb and Macleay Islanders over the past years you have well and truly informed Redland City Council of your need for a parking foot print co-located with the ferry terminal at Redland Bay This foot print should also provided enough scope for future expected population expansion
    United as one we will stand as always for our undeniable parking needs
    Gayle Nemeth on Macleay

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *