Logan & Albert Conservation Association

Bookmark or share this site

Like us on Facebook or Google Plus


year of pulses


Science Alert

Mini Calendar

< >
April 2017
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

Follow Us on Facebook


North Maclean Protest

  • NMEP-view-area-east-end-RosinaEd-west-side-precinct.jpg
  • NMEP-view-area-east-end-RosinaEd-west-side-precinct2.jpg
  • NMEP_CrowsonLane_NEcorner.jpg
  • NMEP_CrowsonLane_NWcorner_Allocasuarina_GlossyBlackCockatoo-habitat.jpg
  • NMEP_CrowsonLane_propsed-industry-site.jpg
  • NMEP_CrowsonLane_South-of-GreenhillRd.jpg
  • NMEP_CrowsonLane_South-of-GreenhillRd2.jpg
  • NMEP_KoalaRefuge_267CrowsonLane.jpg

SPRP was written by planners for planners?

Last Updated on 03 March 2017

SEQ Regional Plan – jargon, omissions and bias

There is a need for a return to regional plans that are understood by the community, have a realistic chance of being implemented and hopefully that the community will hold in high regard.

Is there bias of the regulatory provisions?

The focus of the Shaping SEQ seems to be locked in on facilitating urban development through the next fifty years. Despite lip service to other uses the plan does little to ensure that the other uses will be sustained in the face of pressure for urban activity. For example the draft plan notes that “there are a number of areas that have been in the Urban Footprint for some time but have not yet been developed. One way that we could help get things moving is to investigate these areas further, and provide some rules in the state planning regulatory provisions that will allow these areas to be developed sooner“.

The heavily loaded question is then followed with a simplistic “what do you think?”

Make this article your submission

The SPRP is a legal minefield, especially for non planners but clearly the community can ask that the provisions be improved and made legible. The SPRP usually escapes scrutiny from the community although it is carefully scrutinised (rightly) by the stakeholders reliant of legal provisions especially the land development industry.

If you have additional comments or disagree with the suggestion outlined, it is suggested your own comments be added. But let the Government know that there are problems with the SPRP and how these critical provisions are introduced through the Regional Plan.

To raise the level of community concern about the implementation of ShapingSEQ it is suggested this article be sent either:

  1. as an email hyper link using the email “logo” at the top of the page to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  2. copy the text of this article into a standalone email and send to the This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Many thanks to the community REDLANDS2030 for their informative articles on the draft SEQRP especially this one used and linked here.  http://redlands2030.net/seq-plan-jargon-omissions-bias/


KOALAS - not considered in draft SEQRP

Last Updated on 03 March 2017

How can we better 'protect' koalas in SEQ?

Unless we take actions NOW the days of seeing koalas moving freely in the wild ie open bushland areas are numbered - and reducing daily where people and our human needs do not also consider other species in our "business as usual" daily lives.

That there is no koala chapter in the draft SEQ plan is incomprehensible and totally unacceptable Logan and Albert Conservation Association [LACA] members and Wildlife Logan members believe.

That public display depends on the Koala Inquiry and DEHP's Koala Unit is unacceptable. Regardless of any recommendations from these other bodies our iconic koala and its protection MUST be included in any planning / visionary planning for SEQ and other areas of Queensland where koalas are still surviving.

Statements in draft SEQ plan include:

"Koalas in SEQ: To ensure koala management in SEQ is informed by evidence and renowned expertise. Implementation actions are underway." with EHP (lead) and DILGP SEQ LGs DNRM involvement.

Consider making and emailing a submission to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

for koalas.

Why are koalas not considered in Measures that Matter?

The following are our recommended actions to be included in Table 22 - and funded!

Some recommendations from LACA and Wildlife Logan members include

  • The Koala should be declared Endangered in SEQ and vulnerable elsewhere. The protection of Koala Habitat is not there in the SPP. The redefinition of High Value Regrowth as a major habitat warrants mapping, documentation and  immediate protection.
  • Tipping Point Koala Population Surveys should occur as well as updating of Moggill EHP and 3 other database statistics
  • The mapping of the remaining koala habitat should occur in Somerset, Scenic Rim, Toowoomba,  Lockyer, Logan and BCC and Sunshine Coasts hinterlands and either side of the Bruce Highway etc using SEQ Catchments koala mapping  methodology.
  • A separate map is needed in the Plan. Protection of Koala Habitat is needed in the SPRP       
  • The accurate Essential Koala Habitat Mapping by DEHP should be retained to contest the one day surveys by consultants where no koalas are found.
  • Stopping land clearing should occur under the Vegetation Management Act applying and using TPIs or Temporary Local Planning Instruments for Vegetation and new instruments in  Planning Schemes  
  • ROAD KILL needs to be factored into road infrastructure with provisions for koala proof fencing, fauna overpasses, road speed down speed changes, flashing signage and road and street furniture or Green Fauna Infrastructure.
  • Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices MUTCD needs to be harmonised for koalas and another wildlife movement corridors!!  
  • Many Major Arterials - Boondall, Bruce Highway, Warrego Highway, New Toowoomba Bypass, Mt Lindesay Highway, Logan Motorway, Ripley Road and Brisbane Valley Highway  require retro fitting and fencing. Overpasses and dry cell underpasses like Brisbane's Compton Road facilities at Karawatha-Kuraby have proven to be successful.  
  • Reducing the ninety percent Euthanasia rates at the 4 Koala Labs with legislative / protocol and permit changes facilitated by vaccine availability, splint and bone/joint devices availability and enhanced carer support and recovery incentives.   
  • Core areas MUST be created for new private National Parks with  broad hectare acquisition in the  Koala Coast, Somerset, Coomera, Ipswich  Mt Forbes /Warrill creek and Scenic Rim areas.
  • The creation of planted corridors cross country in Ipswich,  Somerset,  and Koala Coast etc on easements, riparian zones, road reserves and with new tenures and freehold agreements and fencing is urgently warranted. The success of the planted  Doraghys corridor in NQld linking lake Barrine National Park across freehold  and to another NP  has Cassowaries using it. 
  • The policies on domestic dogs should  be enhanced  and trapping programs for wild dogs upgraded x agencies. 161 of 281 dead koalas were killed by dogs during construction of state government project for Moreton Bay Rail. This is totally unacceptable - and preventable with better management.                                                                                                               Your submission - to be considered must be 'properly made' and include your name address signature and date.      

Thanks must be given to Ted Fensom from Wildlife Logan and BREC ( Brisbane Region Environment Council) and SEQ Koala Alliance for providing the above points for community members to adapt for their own submissions.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       


HAVE YOUR SAY -SEQRP closes 11.59 pm 3 March

Last Updated on 02 March 2017

HAVE YOUR SAY - SEQRP closes 11.59 pm 3 March 2017


South-East Queensland Regional Plan is an important regional planning tool, which can direct how both the state and local governments undertake planning and development decision-making in SEQ. Regional Plans override planning schemes where there is inconsistency.

Regional Plans override planning schemes where there is inconsistency.

As part of the package released for consultation, there are numerous background papers which provide more information as to the policies which shaped the new SEQ Regional Plan.

Background papers provided are under the following headings: GROW - PROSPER - CONNECT - SUSTAIN - LIVE.

There is no reference to previous plans - including the current one. There has been no STATE of the Environment to help inform our input.

This is an important opportunity to tell government what your concerns are for the region in which you live.

You can send in multiple submissions - one pagers - for each of your concerns - or combine into one - habitat for koalas - lack of infrastructure provisions - liveability concerns in a "sardine development" - climate change - carrying capacity - lack of protected and connected public open greenspace - water issues and more.

There is NO MENTION of KOALAS or any other endangered species in this proposed draft!

Several workshops - and articles - are available online to provide you with information you may find useful.

EDO Environmental Defenders Office Qld (EDO Qld) an independent community legal centre to empower the community to use the law to protect the environment held a workshop and provide a TEMPLATE to supercharge your submission. Go to their website at http://www.edoqld.org.au/news/draft-seq-regional-plan-released-have-your-say-by-3-march-2017/ to download and also read contributions to the community workshop by Professor Darryl Low Choy of Griffith University and Mr Paul McDonald of Healthy Waterways and Catchments.

Email your submission to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Submissions must be provided to the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning in writing and include the following information: [to be properly made]

  • first and last names 
  • addresses (home or business)
  •  signatures (unless lodged electronically).



Controlled action at MIRVAC Greenbank East site

Last Updated on 23 February 2017

Controlled action at MIRVAC Greenbank East site - caretaker's cottage

As LACA president Anne Page is involved with all matters relating to protecting endangered and vulnerable wildlife particularly in the PDA ie Priority Development Area of Greater Flagstone, she has alerted EPBC referral officers to an approval given to MIRVAC to clear vegetation by Queensland Department of Infrastructure Local Government and Planning (DILGP) on the 7th February 2017 - approved the operational works and removal of vegetation for a caretaker’s dwelling and for bushfire reduction on a MIRVAC property at 96 – 102 Brightwell Street, Greenbank DEV 814. 

WHY is LACA Logan and Albert Conservation Association concerned?

This property lies within the area mapped by MIRVAC as AREA 3 (EPBC 7817 & DEV 768) which is now under a controlled action (Federal Government Decision Notice dated 15 December 2016). 

DEV 814: 96 – 102 BRIGHTWELL ST, GREENBANK (LOT 205 on RP845844)

The proposed caretaker’s residence is located within the northern extent of the MIRVAC site. The application area adjoins Brightwell Street to the west, an existing rural residential property to the north (88 Brightwell St), vegetation to the east and a power line easement to the south. The proposal involves clearing of vegetation to establish a 0.22ha building envelope for the caretaker’s dwelling (Primary Clearing Area) and an additional 20m fuel reduction zone for bushfire management. Access is intended to be provided by 6m egress paths. Figures 1 & 2 are from the Environmental Management Report by Saunders Havill Group. Figure 2 below.

 aerial view caretakers cottage MIRVAC


1.The location of 96-102 Brightwell St is known to be associated with rare and threatened species listed by the Federal and State Government e.g. spotted tail quolls, koalas, powerful owls, wallum froglet, greater gliders, glossy black cockatoo

Why is the vegetation at 96-102 Brightwell St not being protected? It adjoins and connects to surrounding known habitat being used by the above species. 

2. Site is part of MIRVAC AREA 3 ( DEV 2016/768) which is currently subject to Federal Government Controlled Action ( EPBC 7817) ( Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act).

Why has the Queensland Government given approval for this action BEFORE any Federal Government approval for Area 3?

3. Past community sightings and dead specimens of spotted tail quolls ( a threatened species in Queensland, endangered under EPBC Act) have been located close to the northern section of the MIRVAC property and close to the Powerlink easement which is close to the caretaker’s dwelling. Sightings have occurred to the east, south-east, west, north-west and south-west of this location at Brightwell St and the MIRVAC property.

4. LACA provided locations past spotted tail quoll observations [see in attached document for complete letter of objection]


Why is the Queensland Government not protecting habitat for threatened species in SE Queensland, especially in the Greater Flagstone Area? 

5. Likely presence of spotted tail quolls in the Greenbank/North Maclean / Munruben area was acknowledged in EPBC 6941 - STATEMENT OF REASONS.

“The delegate considered that there is likely to be a low density population of the spot- tailed quoll in the region, and that an area 1-5 km to the north of the ( WEARCO)site (EPBC 6941)  is likely to be an important east-west habitat corridor.”

The property at 96 – 102 Brightwell St and the whole of the Mirvac property (EPBC 7817)  is located within this 1-5 km location. 

6. The vegetation at 96-102 Brightwell St and surrounding this property is mapped as SEQ Koala Habitat Values - Medium Value Bushland and Medium Value Rehabilitation. Offsets will not prevent the local extinction of koalas in the Greenbank Area or in SE Queensland. The removal of any habitat is a KNOWN threat to the survival of koalas. Reducing habitat connectivity in the local landscape will not ensure the survival of koalas in this location of Brightwell St or Greenbank.

Why is the vegetation not being protected for koalas which are known and sighted in the local area?

Why is the Queensland Government not protecting koalas in SE Queensland, especially in the Greater Flagstone Area? 


ECOLOTS proposed in MIRVAC - AREA 2 Southeast section

Last Updated on 16 December 2016

ECOLOTS proposed in MIRVAC development - AREA 2 South-east section of site 

Since 70 - 75  ECOLOTS in Area 2 are indicated as subject to FUTURE INVESTIGATIONS  (See p10 -11 EDQ Development Application) – this means that the community is unable to have certainty now about this. 

The 70 – 75 Eco lot Precinct in AREA 2 should be removed from the Context Plan and added to the Conservation Zone. 

An ECOLOT would place that piece of land in private ownership with a COVENANT. While the concept has merit the number of individual properties having to comply with governance over vegetation and land usage - to be managed by local council or state raises many issues and concerns.

ecolot southeast cornerPotential Eco Lot Precinct SE corner - subject to further investigation

 The Area 2 ECOLOTS were proposed to include covenants – who will enforce this? Past experiences of building envelopes and covenants have not been enforced by Logan City Council ( e.g. Bluff Rd corridors on QM Properties approved by Beaudesert Shire Council, building envelope regulations being relaxed with trees being removed where significant trees had been left by developers e.g. Carron Place at Jimboomba Woods, local residents selling property and covenants no longer applying to the property e,g, tree clearing )

 The Area 2 ECOLOT Precinct contains vegetation both Endangered and Of concern Regional Ecosystem. The Medium Value Bushland Koala Habitat Values in the south-east corner has connectivity to community koala sightings to the SE of the MIRVAC property e.g. Appaloosa Court, Greenhill Rd, Crowson Lane.

 The 70 – 75 Eco Lot Precinct in AREA 2 should be removed from the Context Plan and added to the Conservation Zone.

Placing Eco Lot Precinct in the Conservation Zone will give greater protection to Norris Creek Catchment by protecting the habitat and land around the southern tributary of Norris Creek. It will connect the northern Conservation Zone with this southern area to make a larger Conservation Zone Area along the whole of the east side of the MIRVAC property

Queensland State Planning Policy SPP and mapping indicate that Matters of state environmental significance ( MSES Biodiversity)ie Wildlife Habitat exists over the whole of Area 2. Matters of state environmental significance (MSES) for the planning framework are defined in Part G: Glossary under the SPP and spatially represented on the SPP Interactive Mapping System. These values are defined, where possible, and protected under Queensland legislation. The SPP employs a 'maintain and enhance' approach to managing MSES values.

Logan City Council Planning Scheme Overlays also show this southern section containing part of their Biodiversity Corridor.


70 -75 ECOLOT Precinct proposes traffic access via Serengetti Drive and Heathcote Ct in Munruben into the South-East section of the MIRVAC property through quiet local streets . These streets receive very minimal local resident traffic now. Increasing traffic tp potentially an additional 140 – 150 vehicles per day through quiet local streets (presently have cul de sacs)poses increased roadkill and injury risks to fauna e.g. koalas, eastern grey kangaroos and red neck wallabies which use this habitat on the south-east and east side of the MIRVAC property and places greater risks on the fauna of Wearings Reserve.

Increased traffic ( 140 – 150 + vehicles per day) will occur on Serengetti Drive, Heathcote Ct, Greenhill Rd, Kensington Drive, Kooringal Rd, Crowson Lane with increased traffic, noise and safety concerns for local residents of the rural residential area of MUNRUBEN.

Read summary docxMIRVAC_PROPOSED_ecolots.docx 




Last Updated on 15 December 2016


large 480 hectare + property corner Teviot and Greenbank Roads?


 Closes Mon 19 December 2016 



EDQ No: DEV 2016/768 ( QLD GOVT)

for 96 – 102 Brightwell St,138 – 168 Teviot Rd  and 456-520 Greenbank Rd QLD Greenbank, 4124

(Lots 205 & 434 on RP845844 and Lot 9 on S312355)

PDA Development Application for a Priority Development Area ( PDA) Preliminary approval for development generally in accordance with a Context Plan and PDA development permit for reconfiguring a lot (1 lot into 508 Residential Lots and Parkland) Material Change of Use for Residential uses ( Display Home, home based businesses, House, multiple residential and other residential), park, and sales office and operational works. 


  1. The MIRVAC site has NO APPROVALS for development yet.
  2. This current application has been lodged with the Queensland Government to have a CONTEXT PLAN approved for the whole site, and to seek an approval for AREA 1 ( Stage 1 of the development) .
  3. The CONTEXT PLAN controls the future development of the site – all future applications for the MIRVAC site will be based from the CONTEXT PLAN .
  4. MIRVAC must obtain community input about the CONTEXT PLAN.
  5. Possible impacts for Munruben residents – flooding, traffic from MIRVAC using Serengetti Drive & Heathcote Ct ( west of Greenhill Rd), fauna roadkill, erosion & sediment issues

                            How many people will bother to look at this before Xmas?

           Why has the developer timed it this way? 

Any person may on or before 19/12/16 make a written submission to -

EDQ Development Assessment

Dept of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning

PO BOX 15009, City East, QLD, 4002

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Phone: Tom Barker 3452 7440


at: http://dilgp.qld.gov.au/planning/development-assessment/priority-development-area-development-applications.html


 A single page letter - with your name and address - and your major concern can suffice as a submission.

Detailed objections are listed in another article to follow


MIRVAC _ submission template - closes Monday 19 Dec 2016

Last Updated on 16 December 2016

Reasons for objecting to concept plan as presented are summarised below. They are extracted from the whole document file you can download



docxMap of proposed site 

  1. Application for Area 1 in Southwest corner is partial only. Explain that all 3 areas should be considered together - see pdf file above
  2. Value of dam
  3. Rare and threatened species on whole property
  4. EPBC protected species - spotted tail quolls (Endangered), koalas (Vulnerable), grey-headed flying foxes (Vulnerable), greater gliders (Vulnerable)
  5. Queensland NCA listed species - glossy black cockatoos (Vulnerable), powerful owls (Vulnerable), wallum froglet (Vulnerable), tusked frog (Vulnerable) 
  6. Logan City Council threatened species – wallum froglet, tusked frog, yellow-bellied gliders, powerful owls, glossy black cockatoos
  7. Large mobs of eastern grey kangaroos (over 100+ individuals) and red neck wallabies on site utilise water sources and grass areas for feeding. Macropods are known to move from grass areas to woodland/forested areas. There have been no surveys of macropods undertaken in the Environmental Assessment. AREA 1 and the whole property has very significant value to Macropod species known to exist onsite (100+) 
  8. The environmental values of this 482 hectare property (the largest land holding in the area and local landscape) provides a critical stepping stone in the landscape, fauna movement corridors that cannot be replaced in this location offsets will never compensate for the loss of this environmental asset.  

    “ the subject site remains one of the last large rural properties in the immediate landscape predominantly comprised of rural residential development” (Saunders Havill Group MIRVAC TECHNICAL ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT p 3) 



Last Updated on 16 December 2016


WHAT ARE YOUR CONCERNS? Voice them in a submission

You might like to see concerns that LACA Logan and Albert Conservation Association has at link below.


Shown below is the concept map presented to community meetings and available on website http://greenbank.mirvac.com/ as well as a Mirvac factsheet

MIRVAC Greenbank whole site

STORYBOARDS as displayed at community meetings are available here.

WRITE A LETTER – DEADLINE 19 December 2016
Any person may on or before 19/12/16 make a written submission to
EDQ Development Assessment
Dept of Infrastructure , Local Government and Planning
PO BOX 15009 ,City East, QLD, 4002
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Phone: Tom Barker 3452 7440

MIRVAC DEV 2016/768 – DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (to  Economic Development Queensland )
EDQ No: DEV 2016/768 ( QLD GOVT)
At 96 – 102 Brightwell St ,138 – 168 Teviot Rd and 456-520 Greenbank Rd QLD Greenbank, 4124
(Lots 205 & 434 on RP845844 and Lot 9 on S312355)

See application at MIRVAC application and read appendices

PDA preliminary approval for development generally in accordance with a context plan and PDA development permit for reconfiguring a lot (3 lots into 579 residential lots and parkland); material change of use for residential uses (display home, home based business, house, multiple residential and other residential), park and sales office; and operational works (advertising devices) in accordance with a plan of development


Detailed development documents are online under DEV 2016/768 MIRVAC

at : http://dilgp.qld.gov.au/planning/development-assessment/priority-development-area-development-applications.html


Vegetation Management (Reinstatement) Bill

Last Updated on 24 April 2016

EXTENSION for deadline for submissions on the Vegetation Management (Reinstatement) Bill to

 Friday 29 April 2016! - update provided by The Environmental Defenders Office Qld.

Please, get your submission to the Committee before next Friday (and let EDO know if you sent one in). 
To make it easy for you, EDO have prepared a basic template you can use as a base for your submission. Remember to take out and fill in all of the highlighted sections as described. The Environmental Defenders Office Qld have also put together a list of key points we suggest you include. Check out  website here.
Key points we suggest you could include in your submissions:
  • Who you or your group are, what are your objectives and any case examples about land clearing
  • Reasons why you care about protecting our vegetation – e.g. do you care about:
    • protecting koalas, or other threatened species of concern to you;
    • the impact of tree clearing on  increasing drought in our already drought stricken state – it has now been proven that the more trees we have, the more rain we have;
    • the impact of tree clearing on climate change  – tree clearing causes millions of tonnes of CO2 to be released into our atmosphere;
    • tree clearing near catchments can cause land erosion and run off into our river catchments – the erosion and run off caused by clearing along the Great Barrier Reef catchment banks is a leading cause of impacts to our Reef; or
    • any other issues you are concerned about that are relevant to your area.
  • Support the passing of the bill, to protect Queensland’s ecosystems and wildlife. This bill is important particularly because it:
  • reinstates the protection of high value regrowth on freehold and indigenous land;
  • removes provisions which permit clearing applications for high value agriculture and irrigated agriculture;
  • broadens protection of riparian vegetation, especially in the Great Barrier Reef catchments of Burnett Mary, Eastern Cape York and Fitzroy Great Barrier Reef;
  • reinstates the application of the riverine protection permit framework to the destruction of vegetation in a watercourse, lake or spring; and
  • reinstates a broader requirement for environmental offsets to be required for any residual impact, not just ‘significant’ impacts as is currently provided for in offsets legislation (and has led to only 1 offset being registered for vegetation impacts since 2014).

A hand written letter or text document can be posted / faxed to 07 3553 6699 / emailed to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Postal address Research Director
                      Agriculture and Environment Committee
                      Parliament House
                      BRISBANE QLD 4000

Submissions must include:

  • the author’s name and signature
  • if the submission is made on behalf of an organisation, the level of approval (e.g. a local branch, executive committee or national organisation)
  • mailing address (and email if available)
  • daytime telephone number
    • support bill WWF To have this significant legislation re-instated is vitally important for the future well-being of the land and all species and ecosystems that rely on a healthy forested landscape.  CLICK ON WWF image above to make your submission online to your local state MP. Not all members of the opposition  - or independants - are opposed to re-instatement of this legislation. It is also an opportunity extend the legislation to close loopholes. As WWF point out The VMROLA Bill is already a significant compromise. Damaging loopholes remain and should be closed.
      • Most exemptions will remain, in particular the urban exemption.
      • The reliance on self-assessable codes introduced in 2013 is retained.
      • The ability to withhold incriminating evidence of illegal clearing from the prosecution is retained.
      • 22 million hectares of bushland made exempt on property maps will continue to be open to repeated clearing regardless it may fall in stream buffer zones, endangered ecosystems, habitat for threatened species and high slopes.
    • However brief - please make a submission to support the re-instatement of this vegetation protection legislation.

Concerns about process at 820 Greenbank Rd North Maclean in PDA Greater Flagstone

Last Updated on 07 February 2016

GREATER FLAGSTONE is supposed to be one of Queensland's  "master planned satellite cities" with planning decisions made by state government - not local councils. 

Yet Queensland Government agency DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PLANNING has not included local community in any of its planning meetings for North Maclean proposed Enterprise Precinct. There have obviously been detailed meetings with local government Logan City Council and developers as revealed when DAs are added to EDQ website for PDAs.

820GreenbankRd satellite view outlineCurrently a seach shows that there are 11 applications relating to Greater Flagstone and 30 applications that have been approved - some in Pub Lane, Teviot Road, Jimboomba, North Maclean, Undullah, Kagaru, New Beith, Cedar Grove. There has never been any community consultation arranged for these 31 applications and as a "master planned city" there is NO CONCEPT PLAN for the "city" which is devoid of adequate infrastructure.

Public notification has not been well displayed - if at all.

820 Greenbank Road is DEV2015/727 by The Planning Place  Lot 2 on RP868726 has 14 documents

 Action Community has delayed a decision date for 15-20 days after 27 January - apparently an extension granted by applicant?

This gives community and concerned residents more time to make further representations to EDQ state MPs and local politicans.

Submitted Application



Page 1 of 2

<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>
logo6-300  earth-hour-12  lockthegate    UN decade qcclogo2
  unep-2014  iveto logo_compressed    wwd2015 logo  feeding-world