Local residents say over 55s village park application is not okay
By Kirra Livingstone
A PROPOSED 36-site relocatable home park, marketed as an over-55s village alongside four short-stay cabins in Mapleton, is drawing criticism from local stakeholders who say the project raises serious planning and infrastructure concerns.
Submitted in March, the development application is for stage two of a project whose initial phase was completed several years ago. If approved by Sunshine Coast Council, the overall development would expand to 55 sites.
The Mapleton and District Community Association (MADCA) has been vocal in its opposition, citing issues with sewerage treatment, stormwater management, potable water supply, recreational space, layout and density, RV parking, and bushfire risk.
“The land provided for treating sewerage is approximately three times too small,” MADCA president Max Standage said. “There also needs to be a larger retention basin, as there are no rainwater tanks at the proposed sites.”
Mr Standage said he believed the application, now under review by council, was “unacceptable” and urged council to reject it.
“We’re not against the idea of smaller-scale developments for residents, but they’ve got to be substantially code-compliant,” he said. “There’s no reason why they should be allowed to get away with it.”
He added: “We’ve alerted the community about this, and what we’re asking for is that the development substantially comply. There’s a lot of issues with the application — it’s not just a little off, it’s way off.”
Council has also asked for clarification about the proposed development, which the developer answered in writing. But Mr Standage said the responses did not allay his concerns.
“The upshot is that the responses came back from the consultants — about 12 or 13 of them — where nothing much changed,” he said. “One changed the amount of area for sewerage, which was a small increase, but still far too small.”
Mr Standage also questioned the site’s zoning suitability for such a development.
“Around five years ago, there was a retirement village proposed, and indeed it’s the only land actually zoned for a retirement facility at the head of Ringwood Lane,” he said. “There were similar issues with the application and, in the end, it fell over and the developer walked away. On this occasion, they haven’t walked away yet, and we want to be clear that we do want a solution on this.”
Public consultation closed on July 31.
