Seven full days in the Planning & Environment Court in March 2010 saw a battery of lawyers, town planners, landscape architects, urban designers, traffic engineers, water specialists, economic analysts, etc. outline a case for a large supermarket on Tamborine Mountain. It is estimated the developer spent nearly half a million dollars supporting his case.
Gaven Developments Pty. Ltd. needed to prove that the need for the establishment of their trading precinct on a residential block was so great that it warranted the over-riding of two planning schemes, the refusal by Scenic Rim Regional Council and the 1,100 objections received from residents.
The Local Area Plans for Tamborine Mountain take into account the separation of residential activity from the tourist routes. The Central Business District which is used by residents is located along a dead end off-shoot from the main tourist route. The objective here is to consolidate social cohesion, and contributes to the sense of community that residents have.
The Gaven site is outside the CBD, along the major tourist route. The project contains a 2000m2 supermarket, medical centre, pharmacy and specialty shops.
There is commercial space for a needed larger supermarket within the CBD, although the developer rejected alternate sites saying his whole project (including medical centre, pharmacy & specialty shops) could not be contained in any of these. Experts agreed that nearly always, a free standing supermarket needs specialty shops as this is where a developer makes his return. A larger supermarket within the CBD would not require added specialty shops, as these are already established along Main Street.
An application for a larger supermarket on Main Street within the CBD (by a different developer) awaited the outcome of this Appeal.
Last year it was acknowledged that shifting an anchor supermarket out of the CBD (which was next to the Post Office and library) would remove the vibrancy from the street’s business activity and Council’s lawyers argued that “it would rip the heart out of the business precinct”.
Currently on Main Street there are fifty businesses serving the residents and seven which serve both residents and tourists. It was acknowledged that shifting a supermarket to the proposed development site would affect many businesses. It was estimated there would be a $13million p.a. loss from the Main Street precinct.
Several aged persons multiple unit establishments have been built in close proximity to the current IGA. They would lose convenient access to these facilities, as would the 300 – 400 residents who live in around the CBD.
During the past year, a new large medical centre has been built within the correct zoning nearly across the road from the Gaven site (by another developer). The old medical centre, plus the pharmacy next to it have moved into these new extended premises. This now leaves empty commercial space.
Across the road from the Gaven Developments site is Roslyn Lodge. This is the mountain’s aged care facility and its entrance is directly across the road to the Gaven entrance. There is a significant slope down into the Roslyn Lodge premises. Roslyn Lodge also opposed the Gaven project.
On the Gaven Developments site across the road, there is a six metre fall diagonally across the block. The supermarket car park will be four metres above road level.
Whilst the water experts came to agreement about managing the site, the local population is not convinced that the frequent bursts of torrential rain the mountain experiences will not cause large water run-off problems, especially for Roslyn Lodge.
Roslyn Lodge lawyers withdrew from the case on 28th February, because of “financial constraints”.
Main Western Road is a narrow single lane thoroughfare. In the 2010 hearing the Judge granted an Approval pending the finalization of the draft concept drawings for a required roundabout which would meet with DMRT guidelines.
Gaven Developments returned to court on 28th February seeking a final order. The Judge expressed surprise (twice) that Gaven had not done anything to the original draft roundabout concept plans since the earlier court sessions a year ago. He also commented that it seemed that the developer “didn’t want to spend half a million dollars” finalizing and implementing the roundabout requirements by DMRT. He did, however, grant a Final Order, leaving the road works and conditions to be worked out later on.
Working out a solution to a possible five finger roundabout on a narrow road, suitable entry space for the establishments on either of the road & dealing with the limited distance to the nearby crest will no doubt challenge the traffic engineers.
Several weeks ago Council approved a redevelopment for a very large convenience store/supermarket- Shell service station close by, but within the CBD.
Residents are interested to know how the impending traffic problems will be resolved, given there is a convergence of many roads and an increase in business activity within a very short stretch of road.
Other problems exist. The required road signage and lighting and the removal of trees will impose an urban façade on the otherwise semi-rural village street-scape which has attracted both residents and visitors for over a century.
At the end of the day, it is estimated that, after all, there will not be a great change to the 60% leakage of retail shopping off the mountain. The relatively small plateau is unlikely to ever have the vast variety of infrastructure available in nearby areas, e.g. medical, clothing, entertainment, building requirements, etc. and residents will continue to combine their shopping needs in off-mountain excursions.