LAWYERS with substantial experience in Planning and Environment Court matters believe there are four glaring errors in Ipswich City Council’s decision-making process to approve Springview Villages 2 and 3 at Woogaroo Forest earlier this March.

Village 3 is due to be signed off, using the same criteria, by council planners and the CEO on December 23 when Ipswich’s local media outlets will have shut down for Christmas.

But the legal team of experts say the council “applied the wrong assessment process” when reviewing Stockland’s plan for 1,800 homes on 160ha.

The team said under section 275W of the Planning Act, the Council did not have the power to approve the Precinct Plan in the first place.

“The local government may approve a plan application under the Springfield structure plan only if satisfied the premises to which the application relates are serviced by infrastructure provided under an infrastructure agreement applying to the premises; or will, within a reasonable period, be serviced by infrastructure mentioned, or are serviced by interim infrastructure consistent with infrastructure to be provided under an infrastructure agreement applying to the premises; or will, within a reasonable period, be serviced by interim infrastructure,” the lawyers wrote.

“The local government may approve the plan application under the Springfield structure plan only if satisfied the proposed precinct plan or amendment is generally consistent with the land use concept master plan.

“Land use concept master plan means the plan called the Springfield Land Use Concept Master Plan in the Springfield structure plan.

“There does not seem to be any statement of satisfaction in respect of any of these matters in the Council’s assessment report at all.

“Indeed, the only mention of infrastructure is that the application exceeds the yield anticipated by the indicative phasing concept plan and the Springfield Infrastructure Agreement and proposes connection to external sewer to remedy this issue.

“The land use concept master plan is not mentioned in the assessment at all.”

The legal team also said the Precinct Plan was not consistent with the Springfield Structure Plan.

“The Springfield Structure Plan requires a precinct plan to be consistent with the ‘Land Use Concept Master Plan, Indicative Phasing Concept Plan, Open Space Master Plan and Drainage Master Plan’,” they wrote

“The assessment report does not address the land use concept master plan and is noted as being inconsistent with the indicative phasing concept plan (in terms of yield).

“In terms of open space, the assessment report notes that the open space to be provided is commensurate with the “quantum” of open space required by the structure plan but page 7 of the Precinct Plan shows it is not entirely consistent with the location of open space on the Open Space Master Plan.”

They said the Precinct Plan did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Springfield Structure Plan.

“It is not clear whether all requirements have been met by the Precinct Plan. A detailed review of the Precinct Plan should be undertaken to tick this off.”

The Council did not reply to Ipswich Tribune questions.