Qld 'whiteshoe brigade' developer Graeme Ingles, and Goldcoral Pty Ltd, determined to continue pursuit of the Iron Gate Development proposal in the face of a community which has been resisting development on this site since the 1990s

 

Echo, 19 July 2023:

Evans Heads locals and other concerned members of the public form the Northern Rivers have raised concerns over Richmond Valley Council’s (RVC) apparent lack of preparation to defend the controversial Iron Gates appeal currently underway in the Land and Environment Court (L&EC) in Sydney.

The development application (DA) was rejected by the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP) in September 2022. An appeal was immediately launched by Gold Coast developer Graeme Ingles. Ingles has been trying to regain approval for residential development of the site since his approval was stripped by the L&EC in 1997 after illegal clearing and other works were done at the site. Remediation was required by the L&EC of approximately $2 million, however, this work has never been done by Ingles.

Some of the drains that the developer was ordered to fill that still hasn’t been done over twenty years later. Photo supplied

The current iteration of seeking a DA for residential development is now in its ninth year. The NRPP had roundly rejected the DA by Goldcoral Pty Ltd following a public hearing on the development and two independent professional assessments which recommended refusal. Grounds for rejection included serious fire, flood, ecological and Aboriginal cultural and town planning concerns.

Following his appeal application to the L&EC Ingles put the Iron Gates property up for sale by but the property was withdrawn from sale early in 2023. Goldcoral Pty Ltd was then put into administration and the appeal case in the L&EC was taken over by the large legal firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth from Ingles’ solicitor.

Developer Graeme Ingles. Photo inglesgroup. com.au

Public refused right to know basis of appeal

The matter proceeded to a Section 34 Hearing by a L&EC Commissioner held on site at the Iron Gates at Evans Head. Submissions against the appeal were presented by the public despite the fact that the basis for the appeal was not made public.

Public excluded from onsite meetings

The public was then excluded from further negotiation with the Commissioner, and the parties to the case, including a second respondent, the Bandjalang People, retired behind closed Iron Gates and closed Richmond Valley Council (RVC) chambers for further talks.

The community was not informed of the outcome of the discussions with the Commissioner by RVC’s solicitor who had overseen the public representations. Council’s solicitor declined to respond to questions about the case on the grounds that Council was its client, not the public……

Simone Barker (nee Wilson), daughter of the late Lawrence Wilson who opposed the development back in the 1990s accompanied by supporter Jaydn.

Revised reports not available to public and RVC substantially redacted

None of the new plans or revised expert reports presented by the appellant (Goldcoral Pty Ltd) and considered by the Court are publicly available. Those auditing the case (15 parties at one point during the day) were forced to infer what had been claimed.….

Iron Gates Road in flood March 2022. Photo supplied

Insufficient review time for RVC

Counsel representing Council complained to the Registrar about the fact that it had only just received material pertinent to the case from the Appellant and had insufficient time to review it. And Counsel representing Goldcoral complained that the material it was presenting to the Court needed substantial work to accommodate the significant changes to documentation necessitated by the heavily redacted RVC affidavit, changes accepted by the Registrar and parties to the case.

Despite the complaints the parties worked to adapt to the revised circumstances and most of the afternoon’s hearing was given to presentation by the legal representative from Goldcoral about the revisions to the plan for residential development. In essence the case was put that the material was for a revised development which took account of many of the criticisms put to the NRPP which led to the DA’s refusal.

LEP wetlands riparian map of Iron Gates site and Evans Head. Image supplied

Proposed changes included, among many matters, the extent of the development footprint, reduction in total area of the development, changes to size and diversity of blocks, changes to the internal roads including a new fire trail around the site, a new refuge area for fire and flood for residents cut off during such events, increased setbacks from littoral conservation areas, new consultation processes with Aboriginal stakeholders yet to be completed, changes to earthworks with reductions in mass and impact, changes to vegetation clearance and changes to stormwater management. The hearing with the Registrar is set to continue next Tuesday. Those interested in following the case can obtain details from the Land and Environment Court site.

A spokesperson from Evans Head Residents for Sustainable Development (EHRFSD) said today following the Hearing that it was disappointing to witness the wholesale, and what appeared to be, valid criticism of the case material prepared by the staff of Richmond Valley Council in their affidavit to the Court. The problem was made worse by the fact that the material was not made available to the public and Council’s General Manager had written a generic letter to those asking for more information about the case that it would not be doing so:

Significant cost to ratepayers

The spokesperson for EHRFSD said that the case had already costed ratepayers a seven figure amount and more costs were on the way. He also added that given that the community had provided so much valid criticism about the former DA that it was decidedly wrong to exclude the community from the information attached to the case.

‘The community is not asking for a “running commentary” on legal proceedings,’ he said. ‘We have never done so. What we are asking for is the basic information such as new reports and affidavits and plans on which the case for an amended DA is based so that we can assess for ourselves the veracity of materials being presented, follow court proceedings and draw our own conclusions. The community is not stupid and has much to offer and it is becoming patently clear through what appears to be a dismal performance by council in material preparation, that community input may be essential to the case as it has been in the past for success.

‘There is no doubt that the case is a complex one but this is not a ground for refusing to provide basic information to an interested public, particularly one that has already gone through four versions of the DA and made substantial submissions.

‘As it currently stands the question before the Court, as we understand it is, “are the changes to the application so significant that it should be a new DA process, or should it be approved by the L&EC without further consideration by the public, as an amended application?”

‘It is our view that even in the absence of detailed information the amendment application looks like a very different application to the one we have seen and should be treated accordingly as a new DA,’ he told The Echo.

‘But there is a bigger question here which council has refused, and continues to refuse, to deal with and that is, “is the Iron Gates a suitable area for residential development or should it be rezoned in keeping with it natural and cultural attributes for environmental protection?”

‘This is a question that the community has been asking for a review of for decades. It is important to remember that this land was zoned for residential development in the early 1980’s, forty years ago when the “white shoe” brigade was in ascendance.

‘It is vital to ask the question “is residential zoning appropriate here today given the future impacts of climate change and our better understanding of the environment, protection of the public interest, and keeping the public out of harm’s way? There is recent precedent for doing so in the Clarence Valley,’ he explained.

Read the full article at:

https://www.echo.net.au/2023/07/richmond-valley-council-drops-the-ball-in-appeals-case-before-the-lec/

A win for Ballina Shire Council and its Local Environmental Plan

 

IMAGE: White v Ballina Shire Council [2021] NSWLEC 1468

Echo, 16 November 2021:

A new precedent has been set in the NSW Land and Environment Court (LEC) that could give property investors and developers a reason to rethink project designs.

It’s cost Ballina Shire ratepayers around $100,000 of the council’s budget to win the landmark case but independent councillor and Labor mayoral candidate Keith Williams says the benefits to the environment and for protecting local planning rules are priceless.

‘I actually trained as an environmental economist,’ Cr Williams told The Echo on Monday, ‘we tried to measure the environmental value of what we’re protecting by doing this stuff but it’s impossible to come up with the figure’.

Court decision proves council staff advice wrong

Ballina Shire councillors elected to take on the case against council staff advice.

But whereas certain Byron Shire Council candidates accuse staff of pursuing their own agendas and undermining elected representatives, Cr Williams chose to give the Ballina team the benefit of the doubt by emphasising how uncharted the legal waters of the local case were.

The Echo has so far been unable to contact the property owners in question, Jason and Joanne White, who last month appealed a council decision against their plans to build a new house on their rural block along Newrybar’s Old Byron Bay Road.

The block is part of a protected environmental area between one and two kilometres long on a ridgeline known as the Scenic Escarpment.

‘It’s a little bit of our 1987 local environment plan (LEP) that we’ve hung on to, because the state government won’t let us have environment zones,’ Cr Williams said.

‘So in Ballina, we actually decided that we wouldn’t adopt the new zones and we would leave a whole bunch of things as what’s called “deferred matters” in our new LEP,’ he said, ‘and so the old provisions for 1987 still apply’…..

The trouble with causeways

The main concern, and the focus of the case, was a driveway the Whites had illegally built in 2016.

The driveway included a causeway across a creek, effectively blocking it in some places, Cr Williams said, and made of compressed gravel that posed a threat to water quality as it eventually eroded and leaked silt.

Cr Williams said the driveway was also a threat to the rest of the rainforest because it could change the way water flowed and was absorbed during rain.

In the neighbouring Byron Shire, the council had, in recent years, started to shift away from causeways in favour of bridges owing to adverse environmental impacts on rivers and creeks.

But in Ballina, the council was so far powerless to have the Whites remove the driveway and causeway, despite successfully prosecuting them over the unauthorised project in an earlier court case.

The property owners received fines but the court failed to give deconstruction orders, Cr Williams said.

Walking the road to destruction

Instead, the Whites lodged a development application [DA] with the council to knock down their existing roadside house in favour of a new one nestled further back in the forest.

Council staff told councillors at the time they could vote only on the matter of the house and couldn’t take the illegal driveway into account because it had already been built and therefore wasn’t part of the DA, even though anyone living in or visiting the new house would presumably rely on the driveway to get there.

Councillors initially accepted the staff advice and approved the DA before carrying out a site visit and having second thoughts, Cr Williams said.

‘We went and walked the road, we went and walked down into this rainforest gully, and it was really the few of us standing there at once going, how can this be?’ Cr Williams said.

‘You know, that’s when we began to really question: is us approving this DA really approving this road?’

Councils on notice to stop ignoring unauthorised works in new Das

The councillors’ concerns inspired Cr Williams to declare a rescission motion against the DA’s approval that won majority council support and sparked another legal battle with the Whites.

Contrary to what council staff had advised, the LEC found that because the 2016 works weren’t authorised and never had been, councillors had to do the new DA assessment from the land’s pre-2016 status.

‘That’s a really clear instruction now to all the councillors and to all those councillors’ staff that where there is illegal works, that’s not your starting point,’ Cr Williams said.

‘Your starting point is actually what was the state before those illegal works were done and if those illegal works aren’t rectified by your DA, should you really be approving it?’

Two wrongs don’t make a right: Labor candidate tells developers they can’t ‘cover’ breaches later

Cr Williams said the LEC didn’t typically award costs but he believed the expensive case would ultimately save the council money as it was a preventative outcome.

Mr and Mrs White now owned a road that led to effectively nowhere and Cr Williams said one of the key criteria for determining whether or not they could build a new house on the block was whether or not there was already a suitable site elsewhere.

‘One of the foundational issues here is that there is because there’s already another house on the block,’ Cr Williams said.

‘I think the message is to developers that you need to work with us,’ the mayoral candidate told The Echo, ‘if you do the wrong thing we’re not just going to allow you to cover it up later on’.

Cr Williams praised the efforts of the Scenic Escarpment Protection Alliance, a group made up mostly of the Whites’ neighbours, and others who supported the council in court.

The Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales has commenced a world-first legal action to protect rivers and wetlands. Challenging the Border Rivers Water Sharing Plan in the Land & Environment Court, naming Water Minister Melinda Pavey & Treasurer Matthew Kean in his position as Environment Minister as respondents

Environmental Defenders Office, 6 October 2021:

A plan for sharing water in the northern Murray-Darling Basin is being challenged in court over climate change, in an Australian and world legal first.

Acting on behalf of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, EDO lawyers will head to the NSW Land and Environment Court to challenge the validity of the Border Rivers Water Sharing Plan (WSP), arguing that the NSW Government failed to properly consider future climate change when making the plan.

The Border River catchment sits along the NSW/Queensland border and includes the Macintyre and Severn Rivers. The catchment is home to endangered species such as the eel-tailed catfish, Australian painted snipe and curlew sandpiper.

Both the NSW Water Minister Melinda Pavey, who approved the WSP and the NSW Treasurer Matt Kean, who as Environment Minister provided concurrence, are named as respondents in the Class 4 Judicial Review proceedings.....

Chris Gambian, CEO of the NSW Nature Conservation Council said:

“If we fail to keep our rivers alive as a first priority, it doesn’t really matter what our second priority is. We will have lost the fight.

“Climate change is not some abstract phenomenon that may occur in the distant future. River communities in NSW are bearing the brunt of that change every day, right now.

“Just 18 months ago, many towns in western NSW were entirely dependent of bores or truck deliveries for their water supplies.

“It is not just prudent for governments to factor in the impacts of climate change. It is a legal requirement that we are seeking to uphold by taking this action.”

EDO Managing Lawyer Dr Emma Carmody said:

“Our client alleges that under their own laws, NSW Government Ministers are required to properly consider climate change, including future climate change, when drawing up a water sharing plan. By relying on historical climate data for the catchment, we argue that they have failed to do this, including in relation to the calculation of the catchment-wide limit on extractions from the river.”

“The alleged unlawfulness arises not only due to the impacts of this failure on the Border Rivers itself, but on surrounding floodplains and downstream rivers and communities, notably the Barwon-Darling/Barka River, which receives some of its flows from the Border Rivers catchment.”

“Our client will further argue that the rights of children and future generations to enjoy and benefit from healthy, functioning river systems requires the Minister to properly consider climate change and its impacts on water availability and quality and to devise a water sharing plan that reflects the likelihood of a hotter, drier future.”

“Our client also alleges that setting drought reserves for basic landholder rights on the basis of lowest inflows up to July 2009 is unlawful, not only because it excludes the most recent and severe drought on record, but future climate change.”

“There is ample evidence which indicates that the rivers and floodplains of the northern Murray-Darling Basin are over-extracted. This is now being exacerbated by climate change, which is making it hotter and drier. We can’t afford to make decisions about our precious water resources which ignore this reality. Indeed, our client alleges that the law requires it.”

“Our client will ask the court to find that the Border Rivers Water Sharing Plan is invalid and must be replaced by a lawful plan.”

“If this case is successful, it will likely mean that future Water Sharing Plans will have to take climate change into account, in particular in relation to the setting of catchment-wide extraction limits and environmental flow rules. This could mean more water for fragile ecosystems across the Murray-Darling Basin and in turn healthier river systems and greater water security for downstream communities. Our children and future generations deserve to enjoy and benefit from a healthy, functioning river system.”

`````````````````````````````````````````````

https://youtu.be/q6Fgkb0at0o

It is worth noting that Brett Walker QC, who acted as Commissioner during the twelve month long South Australian Royal Commission into the Murray Darling Basin Plan, has agreed to represent the Conservation Council of NSW.

It is also be noted that on 26 August 2021 the NSW Land and Environment Court in Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Incorporated v Environment Protection Authority [2021] NSWLEC 92 ordered: The Environment Protection Authority, in accordance with s 9(1)(a) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (NSW), is to develop environmental quality objectives, guidelines and policies to ensure environment protection from climate change. Neither the Minister for Energy and the Environment Matthew Kean or the EPA appealed this judgment.

How to help the Conservation Council of New South Wales fund this legal challenge of the validity of the Border Rivers Water Sharing Plan (WSP):

https://legal-water-challenge.raisely.com/

BRIEF BACKGROUND ON WATER LICENCING AND WATER BUYBACKS IN THE MURRAY DARLING BASIN

https://youtu.be/rsdGZZSaUXw

 

Bundjalung elder Michael Ryan wins in NSW Land & Environment Court over North Lismore Plateau development application

Map showing AHIMs registered sites of Aboriginal cultural heritage value located at the southern end of the North Lismore Plateau land release site. Source: Converge Community and Heritage 2012 ‘North Lismore Plateau NSW Cultural Heritage Assessment 12043C/2012’ Figure 46 page 77

Lismore City Council, "North Lismore Plateau Urban Release Area", 2015

ABC News, 15 May 2020:

A major residential development underway on the New South Wales north coast is now in jeopardy after successful court action by a local Indigenous elder.

The Land and Environment Court has now ruled that approval of the development application was invalid, because no species impact statement was done.

Mr Ryan said he wept with joy when he heard the news.

"I didn't think we had any chance to win it, it was like a David and Goliath fairytale come true and we knocked them for six," he said.

"My old people told me a long time ago to protect this mountain with everything I had.

"This whole mountain is sacred, it's a story from the Dreaming … you can see in the landscape from the air the sleeping lizard."

Mr Ryan was assisted by veteran local activist Al Oshlack, from the Indigenous Justice Advocacy Network.

He said the case hinged on whether a species impact statement (SIS) should have been done for a site which is home to the threatened white-eared monarch and eastern long-eared bat.

"When they put in a development application, and it's going to have a significant impact on endangered species, it was up to the developer to attach the SIS with the development application," Mr Oshlack said.

"But then it became the [Lismore City] council's fault, because the council should have said that 'we can't accept lodging of this DA because it's not in the proper form'."

'They just rubber-stamped it'

The development application was approved by the Joint Regional Planning Panel in October 2018.

Mr Oshlack said he tried to raise his concerns at the time.

"They just rubber-stamped it," he said.

"During the hearing I yelled at them that we would be taking it to court and then [they] threw me out."…..

Work has already started on a housing development on the North Lismore Plateau, but the Land and Environment Court has ruled the approval invalid.(ABC North Coast: Bruce MacKenzie)

The development manager for the Winton Property Group, Jim Punch, said the court's decision came as a surprise to the developers……

Mr Ryan has said he will fight any future plans to develop the site, and will seek to have the land's heritage value formally recognised.

The matter will return to the Land and Environment Court later this month, when final orders will be issued.

NOTE

* A Native Title Claim by Widjabul Wia-bal people was registered with the Federal Court of Australia on 28 August 2013, applicable to the land which is the subject of this Development Control Plan.

* Originally Lismore City Council accepted with regard to the North Lismore Plateau (NLP) "Measures to conserve the habitat and movement corridors of Echidnas, in acknowledgment of the cultural heritage significance of this species. The NLP land was historically used as an “increase site” for Echidnas by the local Aboriginals." See Lismore City Council, "North Lismore Plateau Urban Release Area", 2015.

Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Inc. commences a civil enforcement proceeding in NSW Land and Environment Court to compel the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions

Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Incorprated is a group of bushfire survivors, firefighters, local councillors who have joined together to demand the Government take immediate action on climate change.

The group says of itself: "We have come together because we have lost our homes and our communities to bushfires and we want action. We are sick of waiting and we won’t put up with half-measures anymore. The Government can no longer ignore the way their climate change denial is hurting our communities and putting lives at risk. They must take Australia beyond coal projects like Adani and move to 100% renewable energy for all."

On 20 April 2020 Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Inc. brought a civil enforcement proceeding in the Land and Environment Court to compel the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The proceedings seek to force the EPA to establish a climate policy, based on its statutory role which includes a requirement to prepare policies to protect the environment. The group will be arguing that the EPA as lead environment regulator in NSW failed to establish such policies in relation to climate change.

The outcome of this case is of particular interest to communities in the NSW Northern Rivers region given the mega wildfires of the 2019-2020 bushfire season and the environmental devastation/property loss/social dsiruption in their wake.

On 27 April 2020 The Daily Examiner reported:

Any notion that climate change is an issue that can be dealt with effectively in some distant future has been shown to be untenable given events of the past few years. 

Extreme weather events, severe droughts and longer and more catastrophic bushfire seasons have shown more people there is a connection between these events and the growing carbon emissions in the Earth’s atmosphere. 

Australians concerned about climate change are becoming increasingly frustrated with the ostrich-like attitudes of many politicians and government agencies. 

One group that is taking legal action in an attempt to force a NSW government agency to do more on climate change is Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action, which is taking the Environmental ­Protection Agency to court ­because of its failure to better protect communities. 

Group president Jo Dodds said all members had experienced a bushfire first-hand. They believed climate change was a major contributing factor to the cause and growing intensity of bushfires in Australia. 

She said the issue wasn’t being taken seriously enough and “there’s a sense that the bushfires are over and we can get back to normal life after COVID-19 – but the fires are going to come harder and more frequently”. 

The Environmental Defenders Office is representing the group. EDO chief executive David Morris said the EPA had “a statutory mandate to protect the environment … but the EPA don’t have a current policy to regulate greenhouse gas emissions”. 

“Those two things can’t coexist,” he said. “We’re simply asking the court to tell the EPA go and create environmental quality objectives with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, regulate the pollution and use their existing powers to do so.” 

According to the EDO, the EPA is in a unique position. As an agency “with teeth”, it has the power to issue licences to control pollution, as well as put caps and prices on substances that are harmful to the environment. 

The case is listed in the NSW Land and Environment Court in Sydney on May 8. 

Leonie Blain, Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition

The Queensland white shoe brigade's fascination with destroying pristine land in the NSW Northern Rivers region continues

Echo Net Daily image of the site found at NSW EDO

In 1981 Richmond Valley Council gave consent to DA111/1988 for a four stage subdivision by Iron Gates Developments Pty Limited on environmentally sensitive land bordering the Evans River and Bundjalung National Park near Evans Head in the NSW Northern River region.

In 1991 the consent for those 610 lots was challenged in the NSW Land & Environment Court by Richmond-Evans Environmental Society Inc.

Development did not proceed that year.

In 1993 Al Oslack began litigation in the NSW Land & Environment Court seeking to overturn a Richmond Valley Council consent for Iron Gates Developments Pty Limited's 110 lot development application on the same parcel of land.

This challenge went all the way to the High Court of Australia before the consent would be successfully overturned in 1998 and site remediation ordered.

Remediation remains unrealised to date.

Allegedly unlawful land clearing occured on the site at some point before June 2014.

In 2014, Graeme Angus Ingles, former company director of the now defunct Iron Gates Pty Ltd (deregistered November 2008), lodged a fresh application to develop the site under the name of a company registered in Queensland, Goldcoral Pty Ltd trading under the business name Iron Gates Estate Evans Head.

Shares in Goldcoral are fully owned by Portcount Pty Ltd, previous to this shares were owned by Portcorp Land Pty Ltd. 

In 2014 Planning NSW would not consent to the development proceeding without a master plan and the application documents had to be amended.

The development application was registered with Northern Regional Planning Panel on 29 October 2014 as an 186 lot development.

This time it was Dr. David Ashley who applied to the Land & Environment Court in 2015 or 2016 seeking records of council meetings with the developer in the public interest.

Now in 2019 DA2015/0096-amended dated 23 July 2019 is before Richmond Valley Council. 

https://richmondvalley.nsw.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Appendix-2-Revised-ESCIR-23-July-2019-Appendix-A-B.pdf

This amended development application made on behalf of Goldcoral Pty Ltd by Graeme Ingles of the Ingles Group is for a 184 lot subdivision which includes 175 residential lots, 3 residue lots, 4 public reserves, 1 drainage reserve, and 1 sewer pump station lot.

The developmen is estimated to cost over $12 millionn and impacts on Lot 163 DP 831052, Lots 276 and 277 DP 755624, Crown Road Reserve between Lots 163 DP 831052 and Lot 276 DP 755724, Crown Foreshore Reserve and Iron Gates Drive, Evans Head NSW; 240 Iron Gates Drive, Evans Head.

The Queensland 'white shoe brigade' is nothing if not persistent.

BACKGROUND

The Northern Star, 2 October 2019:

A revised proposal for the subdivision of land at the controversial Iron Gates Drive in Evans Head has been lodged.

The proposal from three lots to 175 residential lots, three residue lots, four public reserves, a drainage reserve and a sewer pump station will be publicly exhibited from todayfor community feedback.

The development application was lodged by Goldcoral Pty Ltd and includes clearing work, road works, drainage, and landscaping.

The application will be on exhibition until Monday, November 18. Consent authority for the application is the Northern Regional Planning Panel.

Assessment

Richmond Valley Council general manager Vaughan Macdonald said council would wait for the assessment of a master plan by NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment before they finalised the development assessment process.

He said all enquiries regarding the master plan process should be directed to the department’s regional office in Grafton.

Mr Macdonald said the proposal also required approvals from relevant State Government agencies such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service and NSW Rural Fire Service.

“As with all development applications received by council, the Iron Gates proposal will undergo a full professional and technical assessment to ensure it meets relevant NSW Government legislation and planning controls,” he said.

“Following council’s assessment, a report will be compiled and forwarded to the Northern Regional Planning Panel for final determination.”

Mr Macdonald said the planning panel met on an as-needs-basis, and was unable to confirm a final determination date.

Public submissions

He said those interested in the proposal could inspect the application and support documents at council’s customer service centres in Casino and Evans Head, and on council’s website.

He said anyone could formally submit comments to support or oppose the development application during the exhibition period.

However, he said council would not consider anonymous submissions.

“For feedback on a development application to be valid, a submission must be properly made in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act,” Mr Macdonald said.

Mr Macdonald said those providing feedback should be clear on why they were supporting or opposing the development.

State your reasons

He said council needed to understand the reasons behind your submission.

For example, if you think the type of development proposed for your area is unsuitable, you need to say why it is unsuitable – not simply that you don't like it.

It is important to focus on:

Whether the proposed use is consistent with the intent for the area

Whether the scale and design of the proposed development is compatible with surrounding development

How the development addresses the street and interfaces with adjoining properties

Any potential traffic and car parking issues associated with the development

How the development may impact on drainage patterns in the area

How the development fits with the natural environment.

Echo NetDaily, 2 February 2016:

The department of planning and environment (DoPE) has given permission for a proposed development at Evans Heads’ controversial Iron Gates site to go on public exhibition, despite a previous development on the same site being overturned by the Land and Environment Court at the eleventh hour.

The draft master plan for the subdivision would allow for 176 residential lots and four public reserves with fire trails.

DoPE says the land to be developed for residential purposes is ‘already zoned as general residential land by the Richmond Valley LEP’ and that ‘no additional residential land is proposed on the site’.

A DoPE spokesperson said the department recognised ‘the environmental and cultural value of the Evans Head site, including its location on the Evans River, its native vegetation, wetlands and rainforest, as well as the places of Aboriginal cultural significance present on the land.’

The spokesperson added that, ‘if approved, the proponent’s draft master plan would provide a guide against which future development applications can be assessed by the local council or other consent authority.’

Illegally installed infrastructure

But that’s not the view of Al Oshlack, the man who defeated an earlier proposal for the site in the Land and Environment Court 20 years ago.

As a result of that defeat, the court ordered the removal of infrastructure that it viewed had been illegally installed on the land but that was never done.

Mr Oshlack believes that may constitute contempt of court and is preparing to again fight development of the fragile coastal ecosystem.

‘In 1996 the court made orders for land remediation and then they had a special hearing with the chief justice in which they made an extensive remediation order,’ he told Echonetdaily.

‘It never happened. The developer put the company into liquidation and he held out for about 18 years – and the statute of limitations to carry out the court orders lapsed.

‘Part of the development proposal is to test the viability of the various infrastructures: the plan is to utilise as much as they can of the illegally installed infrastructure, plus the illegal access road.

Mr Oschlack said that far from being a ‘guide against which future development applications could be assessed’, the history of the site suggested it was anything but.

‘I think the whole thing should be referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. I mean, it’s just a total outrage and contemptuous of the whole legal process and environmental law.

‘And with the alleged illegal clearing that took place in 2014, there has been an investigation going on for two years by the EPA and they have yet to give an answer as to whether they managed to prosecute or not – even though I provided evidence from expert witnesses of the damage that occurred without any development consent,’ Mr Oshlack said.

The department says it is encouraging community feedback on the plan.

Sekuir Migration, 18 April 2018:

Ingles Group, which is known for its wide-scale property developments and well established accountancy firm, Ingles Accounting, is now offering inbound migration services on the Gold Coast.

Graeme Ingles, who heads up Ingles Group, says that migration services are crucial to the ongoing growth of the Gold Coast and that he launched Sekuir Migration in response to growing demand from his customer base.

Many business owners on the Gold Coast are in need of skilled workers, particularly food trades workers who can meet the needs of the thriving tourism and night economy of the region.

ABC North Coast Radio, 25 January 2015:

The Richmond Valley Council has received 62 submissions objecting to the Iron Gates development - the latest comes from the Royal Australian Air Force.

In a two-page letter, the Assistant Director of Estate Planning for the Defence Department, Marc McGowan said: 'Air weapons training at Evans Head is expected to increase in scale and density over time, towards the maximum rate of use of 70 days per year. Aircraft will be conducting bombing during day and night.

'The results of aircraft noise modelling indicate that the aircraft noise exposures from the Super Hornet compare with noise generated by busy road traffic and construction work.

'While Defence makes every effort to minimise the effects of noise on the community, aircraft noise will never be eliminated... and residents in close proximity to Evans Head are likely to be exposed to greater amounts of aircraft noise than experienced in the last few years.'

The statement goes on to read that 'glare from reflective surfaces can affect the visibility of pilots during daylight hours, and artificial water bodies can attract additional birdlife and may expose RAAF aircraft to birdstrike, posing a risk to personnel.

'Based on the above concerns, defence does not support the proposed application.'

Financial Review, 30 March 2011:

Receivers for companies of struggling Gold Coast property developer Graeme Ingles have forced the sale of three major land holdings that could fetch up to $20 million.

The new batch of offerings adds to the bloated stock of Gold Coast land parcels on offer through receivers.

St George Bank has appointed receivers John Shanahan and Ginette Muller of KordaMentha to sell Mr Ingles’s two high-rise development sites at Southport, which could fetch up to $15 million.

The sites total more than 11,000 square metres and both have development approvals for up to 44 levels, including more than 700 apartments.

Smart Company, 20 October 2008:

The Federal Court has found a property developer made misleading claims about the progress of construction of a golf course that was the centerpiece of a Gold Coast property development.

The Federal Court has found a property developer made misleading claims about the progress of construction of a golf course that was the centerpiece of a Gold Coast property development.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission took action against Queensland developer Ingles Group and its managing director, Graeme Ingles, over the Tee Trees Residential Golf Community estate at Arundel.

A major selling feature was that it would include a golf course, but there were significant delays in construction of the course.

In 2003, the Ingles Group distributed a letter to potential buyers, providing an update on the golf course construction and a purported explanation for the delays.

But the Federal Court found that by sending the letter to potential buyers, the Ingles Group engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), 17 October 2008:

Justice Spender declared that, by sending the letter to potential buyers, the Ingles Group engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.  It had breached section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by:

• representing that it had approval from the Gold Coast City Council to construct the golf course when in fact the approval granted was only preliminary and required that various further steps be taken before final approval could be granted
• representing that the sole or primary cause of delay in construction was the drought when the primary cause was failure to obtain final council approval 
• representing that it had called for tenders for bulk earthworks for the completion of the course and was awaiting the tender results when it had not yet called for tenders
• representing that bulk earthworks for completion of the golf course would begin once tenders were received, when it did not have reasonable grounds for making such a claim, and
• representing, by implication, that the course's construction would soon be well under way and would not be subject to any significant delays when it did not have reasonable grounds for such a claim, and when there were likely to be further significant delays.

According to Democracy 4 Sale from 2003 through to 2006 the Ingles Group made politcal donations to whichever of the two main poiltical parties held government in Queensland during those years.