When the land that became the Prema Estate was originally approved for development in 2009 by Ipswich City Council,  they claimed it was approved with ‘the most stringent conditions ever imposed on a residential development in the city.’

 

In his role as Planning and Development Committee Chairperson, Councillor Paul Tully proudly announced the approval with conditions that would have protected both existing residents on the border on the new estate, and investors in the new estate.  Inexplicably, Springfield Land Corporation made Ipswich City Council remove a number of conditions, despite knowing it would immediately make the new development non-compliant with the privacy requirements documented within the Ipswich Planning Scheme (Division 6 - Residential Code).  As it transpires, not only is the development that became Prema Estate not compliant with this condition of the Ipswich Planning Scheme, the poor design and development of the site has left my property at a heightened risk of flooding and runoff, as has been proven repeatedly.

 

The entire situation was only possible due to continued corruption within Ipswich City Council.  Council officers were responsible for removing the conditions that would have safeguarded existing residents privacy at the request of Springfield Land Corporation.  In addition, they signed-off on the Prema Estate without a number of development conditions having clearly not been met.

 

After the first flooding event from Prema Estate, Ipswich City Council removed public access from their 2009 media statement.  Fortunately I had a copy before they had a chance to remove it.

 

Going forward, my intentions and objectives are very simple;

 

• Introduce accountability within Ipswich City Council.  Departments such as Planning and Compliance and the Complaints Management Unit were not investigated as part of the targetted CCC investigation.  It is very clear from my experiences as a worker with ICC and as a resident that these two departments in particular need to be investigated and held accountable for the decisions they make.

 

• Mandate local councils advise residents of special undocumented powers of council officers, and remove them where they are easily adapted to encourage corruption.  This was the case in Prema Estate with one of the non-compliant conditions being ignored with the excuse of 'generally in accordance with the requirements'.

 

• Introduce proper accountability and regulation for developers and their representatives onsite.  I don't believe there is any need for a reputable developer to hide behind a shell company.

 

• Developers who cause damage to other properties should be forced to rectify the damage, and to mitigate the risk of recurrence. Innocent victims of developer negligence and/or poor development design should not have to rely on expensive legal fees to recoup damages and force compliance.

 

• Signoff on new developments should not occur until affected residents are satisfied with the outcome.  Ipswich City Council did have this in their development conditions, but chose not to enforce it.

 

• Developers should be made to put a significant sum within escrow and this should not be released until all development conditions are met and residents are not left with significant damage from poor workmanship and/or design.

•  

• Low quality investment properties should not be placed on the boundary of primarily owner-occupied estates.  Renters should not have to live with their blinds permanently shut because the houses are not compliant with the privacy requirements supposed to protect residents from such poorly designed and built houses.

 

 

I would also like to understand why no safeguards are in place to protect residents when corrupt officers make decisions based on entirely on profit.  Specific questions that both state government and council officials have been unwilling to answer include the following;

 

• Why do Springfield Land Corporation / Greater Springfield Group not have to comply with the Ipswich Planning Scheme?  By removing the development conditions imposed by council in 2009 they ensured that Prema Estate does not comply with the documented privacy requirements.  The removal of these conditions and the decision to so drastically change the storm water system has led to years of flooding and runoff onto my property.

 

• What other special conditions or exemptions do Springfield Land Corporation / Greater Springfield Group have?  Having lived in the area since 2009 it is crystal clear that any special conditions that SLC/GSG have need to be removed immediately.  The design and build of the greater Springfield area is testament to what happens when corruption is so rampant and inexperienced and greedy developers are allowed to operate with so many exemptions.  I would suggest a drive around the area during rush hour or school times, or perhaps a walk through Robelle Domain after it's been raining.  Or perhaps try and drive into any of the poorly planned 'Foodarys' at busy times. 

 

 

•  

•