.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
This piece was going to be titled The Developers' Lament but it seemed obvious that there was little difference: planners appear to be on the developers' side and enthusiastically argue their cases for them, when they should be implementing the plan with a careful and determined rigour - (see attached article): https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/nimby-threat-to-brisbane-s-olympic-ambitions-20260114-p5nu2k. The trouble is that there is no clear or specific plan, with planners complaining that projects are receiving an increasing number of objections from what they label as the NIMBY crowd - self-interested whingers who object to everything.
.jpg)
.jpg)
What seems to happen with development submissions is that developers arrive at the approving planners' doors with proposals that are discussed, negotiated, and agreed, to both the planners' and the developers' satisfaction, a gathering that can, apparently, also include the local Councillor or Councillors. It appears to be simply not true that Councils are involved with the community in any meaningful way. Councils shrewdly issue Have Your Say sites and receive submissions, but with all the feedback we have given Councils over the years, we have heard nothing, nothing at all, and nothing seems to ever change, apart from what looks like Council’s satisfaction with all the boxes being ticked, leaving it free or isolated from criticism - (see NOTE below). Indeed, one can record that communities seem to do battle with Councils more than anything else.
.jpg)
.jpg)
One is reminded of a major road development proposed by a government department that had set up drawings, models, etc., in a shopping centre to inform the public and get feedback, as the process required. The box was ticked; this significant project started work on site two weeks later. Everything must have been agreed to with the contractor, and signed off at the time of the display. There were no changes to the project as presented. The information/feedback process was a charade, merely enacted to finish off the checklist: public consultation complete; now the project can go ahead.
.jpg)
The greatest problem with development is not NIMBY or BANANA; and YIMBY is not the answer. The trouble is the lack of a defined and precise Town Plan. The public response that is disparagingly blamed on the NIMBY interest group is simply the way that the community seeks to impose rigour on the development/approval process. Planners have their formal plans, but these are really published motherhood statements of possible intent, suggestions, and other fuzzy maybe, might, could be possibilities# that become broad, flexible, adaptable guidelines to be used and enforced only when it suits Council - 'to the Council officer's approval' is the type of statement used. +
.jpg)
It seems that Councils will approve whatever they choose to agree with. They might complain about objections, but over the years we have discovered that whatever the numbers might be, Council will always find a way around what it seems to see as 'nuisance hindrances.'##
.jpg)
.jpg)
One strategy that was developed to dismiss objections was for Councillors to encourage friends, mates, and community supporters to put in statements in favour of the project, turning the formal objection process into a 'for and against' numbers game instead of addressing the real issues being raised, which are very rarely considered relevant or significant. Councils sometimes just ignore objections and approve whatever they want in spite of the rigour of the submissions that are all, so it seems, assumed to be frivolous nuisances rather than serious reviews. Facts seem to mean nothing other than obstacles to be overcome - somehow, anyhow, if Council wants a preferred outcome: (for a new twist on this, see NOTE below).
.jpg)
.jpg)
The answer to this situation is to have a precise plan that can be, and is enforced to actually give what has been planned as the outcome, rather than having surprises like random extra storeys; different improvised uses and densities; and parks becoming locations for stadiums for 63,000; and with residential A areas being turned into residential B and C development areas piecemeal, randomly. The problem is the ad hoc decision-making, not the so-called NIMBY syndrome. This label is used only as a put down to dismiss protest in much the same way objections are disregarded.
Dealings with Councils over the years shows how Councils use their power to block and dismiss complaints on even obvious failures and problems: see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2026/01/olympic-park-brisbanes-green-development.html ^^ carport and turning issues. As for town plan compliance, one can reference Palm Beach (Queensland) where projects with an extra 14m and 21m height have been approved: go away silly boy. One is brushed off if one complains - it's done; don't waste my time again.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Gold Coast high-rise approved despite height limit as acting mayor says 'precedent is gone'
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-28/gold-coast-high-rise-approved-despite-height-limit/105943282
It’s 21m too tall – but this Palm Beach tower got the green light
.jpg)
.jpg)
Planners might whinge about NIMBY and objections, but it seems that submissions only become a problem because of the nuisance value - more work - that frustrates what could be the easy private agreements that the planners and Council might have with the developers. Councils and planners do not seen to like to lose face, and will apparently go to just about any length to save it. The adage is that power corrupts.**
.jpg)
The rigorous role of approving planners should turn them into enforcers, not private negotiators who involve themselves in the development process. They need to be assessors ensuring that the plan is adhered to rather than enjoying chatty times trading with developers; but all of this needs a good, clear, unambiguous plan. With such a document, even the community would know what the future might be. The objections pour in only because of the startling surprise that imposes new, unexpected and extreme limits and uses on everything, with Councils seemingly colluding with developers, instead of properly managing the developers' ambitions, intentions, and actions. It is not surprising that the community objects. The trouble is that Councils appear to respond by ignoring and dismissing. We have had several matters concluded with Council simply writing that it considers the matter closed and will not respond to further communications, when everything is clearly wrong and unresolved.* On one occasion the Lord Mayor added his own personal, hand-written rebuke.
.jpg)
.jpg)
It is this same 'brick wall' approach that Council and planners present to objectors. The position appears to be that all objections are seen to be pointless frustrations, hindering the process of approving whatever Council wants/has agreed to when the core role of objections is community input, that involvement that Councils seems to seek to turn into a 'box ticked' category in a similar way to that in which it can be seen to defuse objections with a series of specific special conditions that try to logically and systematically annul every objection of critical substance, which is most of them. When this strategy becomes too difficult, the remaining objections are simply dismissed or perhaps discarded, or considered to be out-voted by those in favour.
.jpg)
.jpg)
It is all a serious mess that is rooted in what looks like the lack of any intention to have a defined, predictable, and enforceable town plan. Because of this complete, ad hoc shambles, my position for many years now has been that unless there are significant changes, the profession of town planner should be abolished. It seems that we could not be worse of without planners, given the current situation where they appear to be the developers' agents.
.jpg)
.jpg)
In the past we have seen development submissions that have listed the assessing planner as a consultant; nothing happened! The Ombudsman responded saying that it was a matter that did not concern the office.++ We have seen submissions where sites have been ill-defined or in error - no worries; approved. We have commented on the problem with statistics/dimensions that try to prove everything was OK: no worries; never checked; approved: (see note below on lack of tools to check**). The muddle goes on and we wonder why our suburbs, towns, and cities are in such a mess. One gets the sense that the approving planner is only interested in the process of approval, never any outcome. There never seems to be any feedback or review of completed projects that might help understand the implications of decisions and modify futures, other than in a negative sense of learning how to overcome objections.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Very few want to know about this mess. After enduring a talk by a local planner that showed everything was rosy, I requested time to show things otherwise; it was never given: the matter was considered closed, which is the final Council position when things get too close to reality that can be seen as a mess. Planners appear to believe that they have nothing to lament other than NIMBYs, not even the apparent failure of their professionalism that appears to have no responsibility for the general public. They seem to have become the developers' lackeys, as the article suggests. We need better than this if we are to get better outcomes: rigour.
.jpg)
#
One remembers the requirement for the setback from a side boundary in one plan that read something like this:
shall be 1.5m
may be 1.0m
could be 0.75m.
Special approval from a Council officer is required for setbacks less than 0.75m.
The plan was effectively saying that anything could be approved, in a format that looked like rigorous, formal regulation.
+
Council had LAPs, Local Area Plans, that went into such detail as the colours that could be used on homes. Council took one lady to court because she argued about her orange house that had been complained about, but Council has done nothing about the purple or the black house, when the approved colours for the bush area are beige and pale olive green.
Council's lack of action on obvious issues remains astonishing. There has never been any action on:
the development that has taken a metre of footpath space, excavated it and built a retaining wall;
the realignment of the fence to grab public land;
the four-metre high side fence;
the deck over the carport in the front six metre setback;
all in one small street: no action - who cares?
Council knows about all of these, but does nothing. If one raised these matters with Council, one can expect the response given to the complaint about the four metre deep carport: all OK approved; go away; there will be no further correspondence on this matter.
It seems that Councils are always right. The problem with an intersection where parked vehicles block the view of oncoming traffic was responded to with: there has been no accident here; no worries; no problem; go away. One still cannot see the oncoming traffic.
The response to the complaint that mature trees had been cut down from public land: no worries; these trees has been 'wrongly planted' - over seventeen years ago! Go away silly boy.
And when there is a problem with an installation in a public place, the problem, whatever it is, be it lighting, decorative paving, or major artwork, is simply removed: no more worries. Council knows best; and Councils have the sheer cheek to suggest that they are engaged with the community?
Note:
Council planners have told us that they 'assist' developers with their application in order to make the process more efficient. This is not the planners role. If an application is inadequate, it needs to be rejected with the reasons why. The applicant might then correct/ revise the submission and resubmit it as a new application with another fee after getting proper advice from a source other than the approving planner; anything else places the approving planner in a colluding role rather than one of enforcement. Again, this application should be rejected if problematical, not corrected by the approving planner.
Councils and planners do not exist to help developers in any way. Preliminary chats to devise a scheme that is 'likely' to be approved is unacceptable when applicants can get professional help in interpreting the plan. The issue, as noted previously, is that there is no plan that can be readily interpreted without Council/planners' input; such are the plans we are burdened with.
*
One case involved the disappearance of a formally lodged objection that highlighted serious issues with a development. The documents were hand-delivered and Emailed to Council on time. When no response had been received on the approval of the project, the matter was raised with the planner who couldn't care less. Nothing happened. It seems that Council simply binned the objection: worries gone - perhaps NICBY: now in Council's back yard - buried; burnt?
##
The most recent case is the local Council's response to its ambition to construct a cable car up to its World Heritage hinterland. There have been three attempts at this over many years, with each failing because the local community does not want this.
Now Council is still trying. It is purchasing land to increase its chances, and now plans to spend public money to get all of the reports and research done so that every objection can be quashed, so that a developer can than move in with the confidence that the community will have been silenced. The worry is that one usually gets the preferred report one has paid for.
This approach is the opposite of community consultation. Council is also planning to get all necessary agreements with the indigenous owners of the land, and with the Commonwealth government that will have to give its environmental approval all prior to engaging any developer, apparently to remove the challenge of community objection.
It is a sad case of seeming belligerence on Council's part; appearing to turn nasty and spiteful because community action in the past has been so successful. Council seems determined to get its own way - as appears usual.
++
After the meeting, the Deputy Ombudsman left with the Mayor for lunch. No worries?
**
Note: In discussions with Councils we have been told that Councils do not have the tools to check all of the figures that developers provide, and expressed no concerns when the proof was put to it that the critical figures were wrong. As part of these discussions, we were advised that Councils get involved in negotiations with developers to stop any possible court action, where a judge will end up deciding the outcome. Apparently Councils would prefer to maintain some control.
2 FEB 26
NOTE
Here is a recent case of approval with ‘conditions’:
After receiving more than 100 submissions . . . . mostly from objectors to the proposal, it was determined that the project was in the broader public interest. . . . that the Wallaroo farm would create jobs and attract investment in local services.
She also dismissed arguments about potential adverse effects on the landscape and agriculture, finding the land could still be used for grazing . . . as if the two were the same.
Yet, in spite of this decision, the approval came with conditions:
The planning commission’s consent imposed conditions on construction, including tree planting for visual screening, road improvements and detailed decommissioning plans.
The visual screening seems to be a response to the landscape argument; the road improvements appears to be a response to the concern about the increased traffic on narrow country roads; and the decommissioning plans are likely the response to the objection that is concerned with the end of life issues – all boxes ticked.
One would have to be concerned with the implementation of all of these conditions. Exactly what has been detailed for ‘tree planting’? Precisely what ‘road improvements’ have been specified? Who is going to enforce the end of life conditions if the company walks away? Has the developer had to make a payment for this work prior to commencement?
Our experience with conditions is that, while they look good on paper, they are effectively meaningless, difficult to get enforced, and easily varied with future private negotiations. Like effective town planning, these conditions need to be rigorously itemised with a precise definition, along with all of the desired outcomes being made crystal clear. The conditions should also have some financial impact, with hefty deposits being required to ensure that they are truly implemented and do achieve the stated outcomes.
Only too often have we seen conditions just fade away. One tree clearing approval came with the requirement to plant another 15 native trees. They were planted, and subsequently poisoned. Remarkably Council insisted on the proper replanting and the installation of a watering system. The latter was never used; all the plants died. Council has closed the matter declaring it will no longer communicate on this matter.
How can one have confidence is any conditions? The worry with this solar farm decision is the statement that the project was in the broader public interest . . . and would create jobs and attract investment in local services. This seems to be a new strategy that could be applied to just about any development. How can one prove this? How can one assess impacts on lifestyle against financial outcomes? The proposition is that local communities can have no say in the matter because there is a greater need for the development that quashes all objections about impacts. On top of this, it seems to be a matter of 'just in case,' it is made sure that the objections are truly nullified with a set of special conditions – matter resolved: approved – next. Might one predict that this argument is likely to be used for the cable car proposal that has failed three times on other arguments?
The major concern with this approach, apart from the dismissal of all local concerns and impacts, is the one that is seen repeatedly in planning: the lack of any follow up. Real outcomes seem to mean very little for planners.
.jpg)
THE ARTICLE
NIMBY threat to Brisbane’s Olympic ambitions
Brittney Levinson Queensland reporter
Jan 26, 2026 – 12.15pm
The Queensland government cleared one hurdle when the federal environment minister rejected a bid to place emergency heritage protection over the space earmarked for Brisbane’s multibillion-dollar Olympic stadium.
But the failed bid could be just the beginning of challenges to Brisbane’s Olympic transformation from rising “not in my backyard” sentiment that is threatening to delay or kill off major projects.
Environment Minister Murray Watt earlier this month dismissed one of five applications seeking to declare Victoria Park, on the fringe of Brisbane’s CBD, a significant Aboriginal heritage area. Decisions on three other applications for long-term protection orders are still pending, while another has been withdrawn.
The 64-hectare park was chosen for Brisbane’s new $3.8 billion stadium in March 2025. Early architectural designs showed open-air concourses inspired by Queensland verandahs and greenery cascading down the 63,000-seat venue.
Critics such as the Save Victoria Park group said the parkland site was not suitable for a stadium because of its cultural significance to First Nations people.
Parts of Victoria Park, also known as Barrambin, were entered into the state heritage register in 2007, recognising the park’s Aboriginal importance, its horticultural significance and a long history of non-park uses such as temporary housing during the Great Depression and as a rifle range in the 1800s.
Yagarabul elder Gaja Kerry Charlton, whose application to protect Victoria Park remains under consideration, said Save Victoria Park was “pro-Olympics” but wanted to protect Barrambin in perpetuity.
Deputy Premier Jarrod Bleijie labelled Save Victoria Park “loopy” and “a bunch of NIMBYs” when asked in January about the group’s claims.
While not commenting on Victoria Park specifically, the Property Council of Australia’s Queensland executive director Jess Caire said rising anti-development sentiment was making it more difficult to have constructive conversations about growth and density.
“In some cases, tactics are deployed specifically to protract development timeframes to the point where otherwise viable projects become infeasible,” Caire said.
This has so far been evident across residential and commercial accommodation proposals, which are ramping up in a bid to fill housing and hotel shortages in the lead up to the Games.
A plan to build three residential towers of up to 58 storeys in the riverside suburb of Toowong has so far received more than 500 public submissions – among the highest number of responses to a development application in years.
Artemus Group, the owners of the Howard Smith Wharves precinct under the Story Bridge, submitted an application in September 2024 for a major expansion, including a 77-room hotel. The council received nearly 200 submissions and recently extended the decision deadline to February.
Caire said Queensland was “staring down the biggest infrastructure pipeline in our state’s history” and housing developments in particular would be vital to long‑term success.
“Every development that is killed because of delays and every extra month a project is tied up in objections is another month families wait for a home they desperately need.”
NIMBY groups have been prevalent in Brisbane for at least a decade but are becoming more organised and co-ordinated, said Natalie Rayment, a town planner and executive director of consulting firm Therefor Group.
Rayment founded YIMBY Qld, part of the “yes in my backyard” movement, almost 10 years ago. At the time, the more appropriate acronym for community sentiment was BANANA, “Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything”, she said.
With time, Brisbane residents had come to understand the need for more housing, Rayment said, but added there was still the general feeling that it should be built elsewhere.
“It’s become very co-ordinated. People will pay professionals or planners to draft [a] negative submission and then share it. So there’s more resources going into submissions and going into appeals to the court and to influence policies.”
A recommendation to use citizen panels to improve community consultation and trial local community-led zoning decisions was recently knocked back by Queensland’s Liberal National government.
In one of 64 recommendations from its report into the construction sector, the Queensland Productivity Commission said the government should look to “more fully represent the community, so views are better understood and incorporated into plans”.
The government rejected the recommendation, saying local governments routinely engaged with their communities and that citizen panels would be costly and duplicative.
Housing Minister Sam O’Connor said he had faith in local governments and the recommendations would not have necessarily improved the community involvement process.
“We think there are adequate processes already for community consultation in planning matters,” he said.
9 FEB 26
This article illustrates the situation. This development application has received many submissions, mostly objections, with some in favour. The worry is that the applicant appears to dismiss the local concerns:
McDonald's takes Aussie councils to court after new restaurants rejected: 'Extremely disappointed' - Yahoo News Australia
Redfern local Brett Liebenberg told Yahoo News Australia he wishes McDonald's accepted the original ruling and moved on.
"I’m extremely disappointed that this is being pushed again, particularly given the strong and well-documented community opposition to the original proposal," he said.
"The rejection reflected genuine local concerns, and it’s frustrating to see those dismissed rather than respected."
. . .
The council received 269 objections to the proposal, with just 17 submissions supporting it. There was a similar response to the Manly Vale DA, with the community raising crime and traffic congestion concerns.
In this particular case the applicant is a commercial outlet. The situation becomes far more concerning when it is the local Council that is pushing for a development against the local’s wishes.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.