Sippy Downs showdown looms over public facilities
A SHOWDOWN is looming over long-desired community facilities in Sippy Downs.
The Sippy Downs and District Community Association has implored Sunshine Coast Council to push on with a planning scheme amendment to enable the development of community facilities on land considered unsuitable for urban development.
The community group has urged councillors to enable development on a parcel of land dubbed Urban Investigation Area B North, which had been earmarked for a potential retirement village or aged care facility.
Residents preferred a retirement village or aged care facility and according to the letter penned by association president Matt Druce, they were pleased there had been no proposal for standard residential developments like houses.
In the association's letter to the council, Mr Druce said landowners had offered to build the community facilities on 1.3ha of land, and return surplus money to the council for other community projects in Sippy Downs.
The association was concerned a failure to proceed with the development would leave the suburb without community facilities it desperately needed.
Council officers had recommended councillors vote on Thursday to determine there was no land suitable for development in the area due to it being predominantly an ecologically important area.
Officers also said the portion of site that wasn't ecologically important was flood prone.
The site was deemed to be a flood hazard and council officers wrote it shouldn't be incorporated in land suitable for urban development as it didn't satisfy "overriding need in the public interest”.
The report found about 0.49ha of land in Investigation Area C was suitable for urban development.
The association claimed the council's approach to flooding and ecology in Investigation Area B had been at-odds with what it had done elsewhere.
"In summary, Sippy Downs desperately needs facilities for the many community and social groups operating here and the opportunity to acquire such a facility as part of this process should not simply be dismissed,” Mr Druce wrote.