1 of 7

THE REDLANDS 2030 COMMUNITY PLAN

Important Points for Discussion

Introduction

Redlands 2030 aims to create a vision for what Redland City will be in the year 2030 and to set a course
towards achieving that vision. The two principles of sustainability and strong communities will form the
basis of the Plan.1

There are many facets to forming this Plan and all need to be developed with knowledge. Ideas based on
wishful thinking, emotion, or sectional interests alone will not work. The probable impact of concepts must
be known and understood.

The economy draws inputs from the environment in the form of natural resources such as land, minerals, fish
and water. Every extra person requires the available food, water, energy, mineral and other resources to be
shared more sparsely; and the waste and pollution to be increased proportionately. Redland City, like all
parts of Australia, can never be completely self-sufficient. It needs inputs of material and services from many
external sources and needs to output goods and services likewise. Policies developed for Redland City must
recognize and account for their impact on regions outside the City, including worldwide.

This paper explores some of the concepts that have been raised by the community in discussions about the
Plan. The arguments presented are sound and substantiated; albeit controversial for those people whose aims
are development and material wealth at any expense.

Concepts

Sustainability

All Australian Governments require that development is ecologically sustainable. Importantly, the National
Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development2, endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments,
defines ecologically sustainable development as using, conserving and enhancing the community's
resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life,
now and in the future, can be increased. Significantly, the definition places maintenance of the ecological
processes ahead of increasing the total quality of life, and nowhere does it mention wealth or prosperity.

The Strategy specifies three core objectives for Australian governments to follow. These are:
to enhance individual and community well-being and welfare by following a path of economic
development that safeguards the welfare of future generations.
to provide for equity within and between generations.
to protect biological diversity and maintain essential ecological processes and life-support systems.

Redland City Council (RCC) is bound to apply these standards to all policy affecting Redland City.

The Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle emerged in environmental discussions to overcome decisionmaker paralysis in

the face of uncertainty. The principle is defined in several ways, but all encapsulate the following3:
In giving effect to ecologically sustainable development, where there are threats of

1
Redland City Councildiscussion paperRedlands 2030 creating our future, February 2009
2
http://www.environment.gov.au/esd/national/nsesd/strategy/intro.html#WIESD
3
http://www.law.uq.edu.au/articles/qlsr/mcgree-qlsr-2-1.pdf
 2 of 7

serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be
used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

RCC is obliged legally to adopt the precautionary principle in all of its considerations.

Housing Density

The State Government requires RCC to accommodate the growing population through a combination of
infill and redevelopment in existing urban areas, broadhectare development and limited rural living, and
states that New broadhectare development should be of at least15 dwellings per hectare net. 4 That is,
each Lot will have an average area of 666 m2 . Note that medium density developments can allow up to 100
persons per hectare.5

There are many disadvantages with higher density living6, all of which apply to Redland City:

a. Attractive suburbs with flowers and foliage are being overrun by concrete and bitumen.
Bewildered long-time residents find themselves in the shadows of unit blocks.

b. Greenhouse gas emissions increase. Studies show that energy use in high density housing is
about twice that for a detached house.

c. The per-resident energy to construct high-rise is nearly five times that needed to build a house.

d. Research in Melbourne shows people squeezed into newly converted dense areas did not use
public transport to any greater extent and there was little or no change in their percentage of car
use.

e. There is not enough difference in the emissions of public versus private transport to counter the
increased emissions of high-density living. For each kilometre CityRail carries a passenger, it
emits 105 grams of greenhouse gases, while the average car emits 155, and modern fuel-efficient
cars such as the Toyota Prius emit just 70.

f. Increased congestion caused by high density damages health. Vehicle exhaust contains
microparticles that kill 3 million people each year, the World Health Organisation says. High
density is also bad for mental health. A study of more than 4 million Swedes showed the rate for
psychosis was 70 per cent greater for dense areas, and there was a 16 per cent greater risk of
depression. The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index shows the happiest electorates are those with
lower population densities.

g. Adding more people to existing infrastructure means overload. The standards of Sydney's roads,
rail, water supply and electricity have all deteriorated from the imposition of high-density
policies.

h. The effect of high-density policies on the cost of housing has been devastating to our younger
generation. By trying to force people into higher density on existing land, the supply of new land
for housing has been cut. The cost of land now comprises 70 per cent of the cost of a home,
instead of 30 per cent as it used to. A new dwelling should cost about $210,000 but is closer to
$500,000.

i. Bureau of Statistics figures show 83 per cent of Australians prefer to live in a free-standing
home, and we do object to draconian policies forcing us to live in bland high-rise units.

A particular disadvantage of higher density developments is the heat island effect. A study into this effect
has been done at Monash University, Melbourne. 7 The study concluded, in part, that a move toward a more

4
Draft South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031, p.10
5
Draft Redlands Local Growth Management Strategy, July 2008
6
The Sydney Morning Herald, Rise of high-density living a new low for Sydney, January 14, 2009
 3 of 7

compact city with built-up activity centers ... would raise urban surface and within canopy temperatures,
leading to unfavorable conditions, in particular for those with increased vulnerability to excess temperatures.
... A move toward a more compact city will extend the seasonal exposure to unfavorable climatic conditions,
with warmer temperatures expected in the shoulder months on either side of summer.

Increasing the population density allows a more cost effective provision of services only where the existing
services can cope. Where services need to improvement to cope with redevelopment, the cost usually
exceeds that for providing the services in a new development. However, overall, increasing the population
density is not cost-effective; the disadvantages significantly outweigh the benefits.

The result of State Government and RCC policies will be more and more crowding, contrary to the desires of
most people. This will create less healthy and less liveable communities.

Business and Profit

Businesses function to supply the market with goods that people need or can be encouraged to think they
need; hence, the vast sums of money spent on advertising. Business people lobby Governments for an
increasing population because it provides a larger customer base for their product. They reason that more
people require more products and that the production of more products means more jobs. This is true, but the
predominant reason for their argument is the benefit of more profit. Once the market for a product
approaches saturation, business presents a newer version or a different product. And so, many shops are full
of goods that people have been convinced they want but, in reality, do not need. Businesses make more
profit, but at the expense of resources depletion and pollution increase. Then, once again, business calls for
greater population growth, by whatever means. This is misnamed progress. So, round and round we go, on
an upward spiral of population growth and a downward spiral of resources depletion; two vortices that will
end as vortices do!

Governments succumb to business demands for population growth because of the lure of more revenue
through taxation and the belief that peoples standard of living, as it relates to materialism, must be improved
whatever the real cost; and people have been lead to believe that materialism is a good and necessary aim for
improving the quality of life. Governments, and many people, apparently fail to see the cyclic trap into
which they are falling. The profit motive is not a sufficient reason for permitting population growth.

But, how much profit is enough? In our society, there never seems to be enough profit; the more the better.
Indeed, businesses are able to make the profits they do because most businesses do not have to pay for the
social and ecological damage they, and compliant governments, cause.

Businesses are necessary. But, the Redlands does not exist for the benefit of, and should not be dominated by
the needs of, businesses; rather there should be a symbiotic relationship.

Water

Redland City has water restrictions now, and these are likely to continue into the future to accommodate
population growth.

Water is an essential environmental resource upon which the economy draws. Within Australia, in the year
ending June 2005, about 1% of the 256 surface water management areas which were assessed were
'overallocated' and a further 17% were developed to a 'high' level. About 5% of the 356 groundwater
management units which were assessed were 'overallocated' and another 24% had a 'high' level of
development.8 Redland City suffers in proportion. The present planning by the Queensland State

7
Impact of Increasing Urban Density on Local Climate: Spatial and Temporal Variations in the Surface Energy
Balance in Melbourne, Australia by ANDREW M. COUTTS, JASON BERINGER, AND NIGEL J. TAPPER
School of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 28 April 2006
8
See,
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1383.0.55.001Feature%20Article22008%20(Edition%202)?opendoc
 4 of 7

Government to include recycled sewerage in our drinking water shows how desperate the population
pressures have become. While climate change is popularly used to justify the need for recycling sewerage,
this action would, or will, be needed eventually purely because of population growth and its concomitant
need for more food. Climate variability will disguise the growing imbalance between population numbers
and our water resource, but the mathematics of the equation is simple.

The Liberal National Party, prior to the 2009 State Government election, stated that it would consider
revoking the recent Commonwealth and States agreement, the National Water Initiative, if it saw that
Queensland growers would be detrimentally affected; if it were in Government. This is the typical and
expected position of a Government, or a people, when population pressures exceed resource availability; me
first, and a fight for survival. Similar, desperate, actions to adjust to a wide range of depleting resources will
become increasingly necessary, disguised as good management; getting on with the job. However, the
imbalances are inevitable.

Some people see desalination plants to be our salvation with regard to water supply. However, these plants
are an expensive option, both in terms of direct cost and because of the environmental damage they can
cause.9 In most of Australia, these plants will depend on coal-fired power stations for electricity.

Mineral Resources

Highly relevant is that almost no recognition is given to Commonwealth and State Government data that
show the depletion rates for mineral resources. For example, the Commonwealth Government report by
Geoscience Australia, entitled Australias Identified Mineral Resources 2007, states that, of the known ore
bodies, Australia has about 440 years of brown coal left at 2006 production levels. The next most prolific
mineral is nickel, but only 130 years of production are left. Everything else has a shorter production life, 90
years for bauxite, 75 years for uranium, 65 years for iron ore, and 20 years for gold are examples. Without
major new discoveries, our mineral resources will be essentially exhausted, soon. Our increasing rate of
consumption of resources of all types is unsustainable.10

And yet, companies scramble to extract Australias mineral resources as quickly as possible, with
Government support. Infrastructure, like ports, rail and roads, needed to transport, export and process the
extracted resources are enlarged and created apace. The main reason, again, is increased profit and revenue;
NOW! But, NOW is not imperative except from the viewpoint of people for whom the accumulation of
monetary wealth is paramount and urgent. The price of any commodity is subject to the rule of supply versus
demand. Slowing the supply of a commodity will increase its price as demand increases. Mining companies
would continue to make profits even if they reduced the rate of extraction significantly. This slowing of
extraction would allow supply to last much longer, and would give people more time to recognize the
dangers of uncontrolled population growth and adjust accordingly.

And soon, too soon, Australia will be left with huge ports and other infrastructure with little purpose as its
resource base declines. This mad scramble to extract resources is presented as good management, as
necessary for the wellbeing of Australia and its people. In reality, it is crass commercialism.

The Environment

Urban and other developments continue at the expense of the environment. The much loved koala population
in the Redlands is a case in point. Residential and other developments in the koala habitat areas are allowed,
with token attempts made to protect the koalas; poles across fences and dogs restrained. The latest Council
initiative (November 2008) to pay property owners a fee to protect koala habitat is another attempt to deflect
attention from the real issue, that koalas and development are fundamentally incompatible; koalas cannot
coexist with dogs, traffic, general disturbance, and loss of habitat. The Wildlife Preservation Society of
Queensland states, Koala numbers in Redlands City have dropped by 27% since 2000. The current

ument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1383.0.55.001&issue=2008%20(Edition%202)&num=&view=#PARALINK3#P
ARALINK3
9
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1340461.htm
10
http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/exploration/resources_advice/AIMR2007.jsp
 5 of 7

population is about 4600; a sustainable population should be 5000-6000 animals. Major causes of koala
numbers decline are habitat loss, car strike, and dog attack. All of these impacts are worsened by urban
development in koala habitat. 11

And, while we are distracted by the high-profile koala, we overlook environmental issues that are more
pressing. Commonwealth Government legislation, including the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act, requires RCC to protect:

a. 1 wetland of international significance,

b. 1 threatened ecological community,

c. 45 threatened species, and

d. 46 migratory species

within the Redland City bailiwick. This includes the need to protect habitat.12 The Queensland Government
Nature Conservation Act 1992 and its subordinate legislation require similar protection.

Within Australia, between 2000 and 2007, the number of terrestrial bird and mammal species assessed as
extinct, endangered or vulnerable rose from 153 to 174, an increase of 14%. This proportion of extinctions
would apply to Redland City. While some change in biodiversity might be expected due to other causes, loss
of native vegetation due to human activity such as land clearing has been identified as a key threat to
Australias biodiversity.13

In 2005, the Redlands had only 30% of remnant vegetation left on the mainland.14 30% is accepted as the
minimum amount for a functioning ecology. The Queensland Herbarium analysis15 states that, averaged
across all regional ecosystems within the Redlands, in 2005, there was a total of 56% of remnant vegetation;
including on the Islands. However, for the same period, the data shows that 7 of the 34 regional ecosystems
within the Redlands had less than the 30% threshold of remnant vegetation. This data does not include what
has been lost from 2005 until today. Note, also, that in 2005, the analysis found that the annual clearing rate
within the Redlands was the sixth highest in the State, at 0.611%.

In November 2007, the then Redland Shire Council recognized the problem in its Vegetation Enhancement
Strategy16, stating Significant fragmentation of landscapes in the area has occurred due to farming and
development practices and has resulted in the loss of many species of plants and fauna across the Shire and
contributes to climate change. Fragmentation is a serious problem for survival of an ecosystem; small areas
are less viable floristically, and fauna become isolated.

RCC Policy 3070 of 28 May 2008 reiterates the problem, and RCC Biodiversity Strategy 2008-2012
proclaims the intention of council to protect and rehabilitate the environment, declaring the extent of native
vegetation remaining on the mainland to be at an ecologically functional crossroads (at 30 percent remnant
vegetation cover).

RCC must enforce its policies and plans to protect the ecology, not allow development to outweigh
ecological considerations. Redlands 2030 must be cognizant of all such policies and plans.

Economic Anomalies

11
http://www.wildlife.org.au/i-koala.html
12
http://www.environment.gov.au, and use the Protected Matters Search Tool
13
Beeton RJS (Bob), Buckley Kristal I, Jones Gary J, Morgan Denise, Reichelt Russell E, Trewin Dennis (2006
Australian State of the Environment Committee), 2006, Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
14
Council Minutes of General Meeting 19 December 2007, Item 10.2.11
15
Queensland Government, Environment Protection Agency, Queensland Herbarium, Analysis of Remnant Vegetation
1997 to 2005
16
Redland Shire Council Vegetation Enhancement Strategy November 2007
 6 of 7

A major premise of the economy of Redland City is that an increasing population is necessary to achieve the
desired growth in the economy. This should not be so.

An increasing population certainly makes growth easier because it underpins, for example, the dwelling
construction industry. Without population growth, no new dwellings would be needed other than to replace
those demolished. Mostly, renovation work would be the employment available. This would affect the
industry in Redland City by removing work for about 4,800 people (estimated from ABS data). Eliminating
immigration, other than for refugees, and retraining, would cope with employment for these workers. Similar
coping mechanisms could be applied to all employment categories to adjust to a stable population.

A policy that depends on the continuous consumption of non-renewable resources and an ever increasing
workforce is flawed; it is unsustainable. An economic model must be implemented that can truly be
maintained if Redland City is to stop its spiral towards the overcrowding of its living spaces, destruction of
its environment, and depletion of its resources.

Population

Redlands 2030 adopts uncontrolled population growth, ignoring any consideration of a population cap for
Redland City. It accepts the State Government policy that Redland City will need to accommodate at least
another 50,000 people by 2030.

Conventional wisdom is that an increasing population leads to a better standard of living and quality of life.
Certainly, an increasing population causes an increasing production and consumption of goods and services
within a community. Nevertheless, the nexus between increased consumption and a better quality of life is
tenuous indeed.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data shows that the population of SEQ is increasing at about 1.8 per
cent per year; about 41% due to net overseas migration, 39% due to natural increase (the excess of births
over deaths), and 20% attributable to net interstate migration17. The population of Redland City will be
growing similarly. Based on ABS data, the population of Redland City is approximately 140,000 in 2009 and
is to reach about 204,000 by 2030. This accords, generally, with the estimates contained in the Redlands
2030 briefing papers. Included in these statistics is that the number of births per year is about double the
number of deaths. This means that the population of Redland City will increase by between 36% and 46% by
2030. Population growth is rampant!

In 2009, Redland City is suffering from, or starting to experience, many of the population-induced pressures
that afflict most places, including:

a. increasing road congestion;

b. increasing atmospheric and noise pollution;

c. increasing pressure on medical and education resources;

d. continuing shortages of water;

e. reducing fish stocks;

f. increasing habitat destruction, particularly by land clearing;

g. rapid depletion of dwindling mineral and other resources;

h. detrimental visual and lifestyle impacts from continuous building works throughout the region;

i. increasing transport problems with parking and public transport availability;

17
See, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/latestProducts/3101.0Media%20Release1Sep%202008
 7 of 7

j. increasing removal of green-space within the urban footprint, including the overall reduction of
vegetation throughout the region because of Greenfield development and the rezoning within the urban
footprint to allow medium density development, with the consequential impact on visual amenity and
on native animal and bird life; and

k. deteriorating social conditions, such as visual and acoustic privacy, adequacy of private open space,
solar access, garage dominance, visitor parking and, importantly, the increase in opportunities for anti-
social behaviours and crimes due to increased population density, increased anonymity, higher
concentration of different social mixes and potential frictions18.

The expected population increase over the period will exacerbate these pressures seriously. To envisage that
Redland City can increase its present population by about 40% without serious consequences is naive, at
best.

Not to limit population growth is to accept that our lifestyles and environment will be destroyed irrevocably
and that our water, mineral and other resources will be depleted sooner rather than later. This is absurd from
any planning perspective that considers infrastructure, services, the environment, and quality of life. This
position can lead only to increasing and everlasting angst.

Conclusion

The economic foundation of society must change from one that depends on the ever-increasing consumption
of resources and demand for manufactured goods to one that truly recognizes the limits of the ecosystem of
which we form part.

Government and RCC policies are creating a population bubble that must burst, sooner or later, as has the
present World bubble of spiralling financial debt. Responsible management does not allow bubbles. All
incentives that result in population growth should cease, as should immigration except for humanitarian
reasons. In trying to keep pace with the demands of an ever increasing population, we are failing to see the
cliff edge looming over which we shall rush to our demise. Indeed, we are teetering on the brink, now!

Redland City is a special place. To keep it so, the population must be limited to allow all transport,
environmental, servicing and infrastructure issues to be addressed and managed properly, in a timely fashion,
for the benefit of present and future residents, and to protect our lifestyle. RCC must not accept that
population growth is inevitable.

RCC must ensure that all of its policies and planning, including the outcome of the Redlands 2030
discussions, reflect the need for a truly sustainable future.

Lindsay Hackett 30 July, 2009

18
http://yourdevelopment.org/factsheet/view/id/58