Community & Business
13 March, 2025
Developer fails to remove dam fence condition
A REQUEST from the developer of a major residential development at Malanda to remove a condition to fence three farm dams on the property has been rejected by Tablelands Regional Council.
The approval for TW Hedley Pty Ltd’s 140-lot subdivision on Davies Road, which covers nearly 98 hectares, was given in July 2022, but the developers came back to council in May 2023 to ask for the condition that requires three farm dams to be fenced removed, saying it an “unreasonable” condition.
That attempt was unsuccessful.
At TRC’s last meeting, an application by the developer to again have the fence condition removed was up for decision, with officers recommending it be refused, based on the public risk the dams posed to those in the new subdivision.
The fence required would be a four-strand plain wire fence, which Cr Kevin Cardew argued would do nothing to keep children or others from entering the area around the dams.
He said the fence condition the council placed on the approval contradicted State legislation (Queensland Building Act) on fencing for swimming pools, which states that “a dam or tank solely or principally used, or designed, manufactured or adapted to be solely or principally used, for aquaculture, marine research or storage of water” was exempt from the requirement.
“A four-strand wire fence would not keep a child out of the waterway anyway,” he said.
“(The condition) is extremely onerous and would, in my view, set a precedent where there was a dam or watercourse on a property.”
But Cr Dave Bilney defended the condition, saying “once this 140-lot development is complete, it will introduce a significant safety issue in an urban setting” and he noted that the high number of people who had drowned in dams was a significant concern.
“I’m not sure about the efficacy of a four-strand wire fence being sufficient to achieve that safety, but my understanding is that it is also for protection of that vegetation zone,” he said. “Maybe we should be looking in the future at what fencing standards should be achieved.”
TRC Development Services executive manager Sean Lisle told the council that nothing had changed since the last time the developers brought the matter to council which, on that occasion, chose to retain the condition on public safety grounds.
The developers say that the condition does not pass the legal test of what is a “reasonable and relevant” condition under the Planning Act 2016 because the condition was not based on any provision contained in an applicable code.
But officers assert that the code applicable is Performance Outcome (PO) 17 of the Planning Scheme’s Works, Services and Infrastructure Code.
“The risk to public safety remains in this instance as the ex-farm infrastructure is incorporated into a semi-urbanised landscape,” the council report stated.
Council voted 5-2 to refuse to lift the condition, with Crs Cardew and Con Spanos voting against.
