Community & Business
26 February, 2025
More events on the horizon
THE Mareeba shire will have another major venue for festivals and other events following a change in conditions for a property development near Emerald Creek.
In a turn-around from the council, the proposal to host events at the Kanjini property has had strict conditions softened so more people can attend, lifting capacity from 3,500 to 8,000 overall, and raising the maximum capacity at a second event site from 500 to 3,000 people a year.
The move opens the way for two festivals and up to 14 more smaller events, ranging from weddings, music camps, circus training camps, charity events, and Indigenous forums such as the annual Firesticks Alliance forum.
In a close decision last Wednesday, council voted 3-2 (Cr Lenore Wyatt was absent from the meeting) in favour of the changes.
The compromise followed a challenge by the property to the “unreasonable, unfair and extremely and excessively restrictive” conditions placed on the development approval by council in October last year which had cut back the number of attendees proposed from 12,000 people to 3,500.
“It allowed for either two larger events, or one large event and five small functions per year making the whole development uneconomical,” Freshwater Planning Pty argued on behalf of Kanjini, adding that it would take “well over 50 years to recoup the development approvals costs”.
Kanjini is a 2,820 hectare rural property which hosts bush camping at 13 sites and has successfully held the Kuranda Roots Festival for the past four years. It is also known for hosting scientists, community groups, and charity events.
The approved development will allow for the establishment of two event sites and a function facility, as well as six more campsites, 10 RV/caravan sites and eight tourist cabins over a four-staged development.
Introducing the motion to council at its meeting last week, Mayor Angela Toppin supported the changes and the potential for the shire.
“We do want to see development in our shire, we all have people who don’t like change, and we have to consider their concerns,” she said.
“You will recall that when Savannah in the Round was tabled here for consideration there was some impacts there on amenity but the great economic benefits that we gained from Savannah in the Round have been extremely positive for our shire.
“This application will bring visitors to our shire and, yes, there are impacts and these have been considered, and these impacts have been conditioned very stringently by our council officers.”
Cr Nipper Brown opposed the changes, claiming the development would increase traffic and have impacts that conflicted with the rural zoning guides.
“My concerns primarily relate to the significant increase in traffic movements and the resulting adverse impacts on the rural amenities which directly conflicts with the performance outcomes six against the rural zone code,” he said.
He said the increased numbers of people would increase car traffic by more than double and, at event site 2, would increase by 300%.
“This substantial increase raises serious concerns regarding road safety, frequent traffic disruptions, congestion, road maintenance costs and high accident risks,” he continued.
He said the impact of higher frequency of events, with up to 14 at event Site 2, would “reduce residents’ enjoyment of their properties”, disrupt the character of the precinct and set a precedent for other rural zoned areas.
Cr Brown said the changes contradicted the rural zoning intention, transforming a low impact rural zone to a high traffic event precinct.
Cr Ross Cardillo said he supported Cr Brown’s comments and added that the erosion pressure on roads would be too much.
Cr Mary Graham asked for clarification on road and traffic conditions and was told roads to the property would be assessed before the development and any works required – road widening, signage, engineer approvals - would be carried out.
The roads would also be compared before and after an event to assess any damage and repairs carried out by the developers.
The development attracted 39 public submissions to the original application with 12 in support and the rest “largely comprising of similar letters expressing concerns about potential noise nuisance and traffic impacts for Kay Road”.
Further amendments to the conditions included minor clarifications to lighting, water supply, and noise.
