With GCB Constructions Pty Ltd still in financial difficulties and tradesmen allegedly owed more than $1 million, the Uniting Church 50-unit retirement complex in Yamba remains in limbo

For over four months the Uniting Church’s 50-unit retirement complex build site in Yamba has remained devoid of all construction activity and the financial difficulties of the Gold Coast & Lismore-based builder remains unresolved.

The build before scaffolding was removed from the idle construction site.

This situation for a construction company built on the foundations of a small family business is a far cry from the optimistic outlook of 2011.

The Gold Coast Bulletin, 20 July 2023, p6:

The director of embattled Gold Coast builder GCB Constructions insists his company is viable, despite five more companies joining court action to wind it up.

GCB managing director Trent Clark said he was “determined and confident” of overcoming financial struggles which have seen work slow to a trickle or completely stop at sites along the east coast since May 8.

There has been good news for buyers in GCB’s largest project, Marine Quarter at Southport, who were told via email the site’s tower crane would return to operation and concrete work would recommence this week.

Subcontractors and suppliers of the company have lashed Queensland’s building regulator for not taking more decisive action on GCB’s licence. The licence was restricted on June 26, requiring GCB to submit its accounts weekly and preventing it from taking on new projects without express QBCC approval.

The QBCC acted almost two months after sites had shut down – amid subbies’ complaints they had not been paid – and a month after the wind-up action was initiated…..

Mr Clark did not answer questions about the current status of the wind-up. “Court actions are regularly taken against builders and we are working through these in an orderly fashion,” he said in a statement….

Buildcap, developer of the $97m Marine Quarter development under construction by GCB at Southport, emailed buyers on Wednesday, telling them work was due to ramp up on site this week.

“Works ... include the pouring of the slab of level 26 as well as level 27 stairwell and core walls, along with external facade works such as installation of windows and balustrading, render and painting,” the email said.

But down the NSW coast at Yamba, where GCB was building a 50-apartment retirement building for Uniting, work stalled in October and has not resumed since. One family business owner said they were owed a six-figure sum by the builder, who had ceased all communication with them by February. A statement from Uniting on Wednesday said “disappointingly work on the apartments and clubhouse remains on hold for now.” “While it’s expected that there will be a delay, Uniting is committed to completing all the planned works, including the apartments, and building a vibrant welcoming community,” the statement said.

Mr Clark did not answer the Bulletin’s questions about the Yamba project. GCB is battling major cases with two developers of its projects, which GCB claims owe it more than $14m, neither of which look likely to be resolved in the near future.

Dean Gallagher’s GDI Group, developer of the 27-storey Drift tower at Main Beach, launched action in May against GCB, claiming it failed to lodge security bonds worth more than $3.7m.

In turn, GCB alleges the developer owes them $3.8m in progress payments. The case has been set for a hearing on August 2. GCB is suing the developer of the $196m Ascot Aurora project in Brisbane, seeking more than $10m from a subsidiary of China-owned Poly Global. Poly has lodged a defence and counterclaim in that case, and both parties have been given until mid October to disclose their evidence. Mr Clark did not answer questions on how important succeeding in those cases was to his company’s viability, except to blame the alleged “non-payment from developers” for “some of the hiccups we have experienced”. GCB’s licence remained active on Wednesday.

The Gold Coast Bulletin, 21 January 2023, p.9:

In its most recently-lodged financial reports, for FY2021-22, GCB made $938,755 net profit from revenue of $92.04m. Its FY21 net profit was $1.1m from $67.4m revenue.

The company had gross assets of $25.3m and liabilities of $18.3m, including trade debts of more than $10.7m.

Cashflow would have been in negative territory for the year, had the builder not had access to cash from financing activities, including a share issue, bank loan and other drawdowns. It had $87,947 cash or equivalents at the end of June.

The company is registered as G C B Constructions and solely directed by Trent Clark.

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/

Tree by tree and hollow by hollow, regional coastal villages are being made over into the almost sterile landscapes of distant metropolises

 

All up and down the NSW coastal zone local residents are involved in conversations like this and, as in this case, local government staff are well aware of what is happening.

Concerning DA 2022/0100 - tree removal and erection of a shed - at 35 and 37 Riverview St, Iluka, at the mouth of the Clarence River estuary:

Click on image to enlarge

Melaleuca quinquenervia. Current common names: Broad-leaved Paperbark or alternatively Paperbark Tea Tree.

Tree grows 10 to 15m high and can live to more than 100 years. It produces clusters of cream to white flower spikes in summer, attracting birds, bats, bees and insects. Koala have been known to shelter in mature paperbark tree stands during storms or excessive heat. 

Grows on seasonally inundated coastal & near coastal plains, along stream banks and in low-lying coastal swamps.

Melaleuca quinquenervia is found as plantings in the grounds of The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust.

Hollow in mature paperbark prior to removal on lots 35 to 37 Riverview Street, Iluka. IMAGE: Contributed

Section of a felled paperbark on site showing hollow

REMARKS:

"They are dreadful images,.. and are pretty damning of the approval process. Those hollows should have been identified prior to clearing, and normally there should have been a requirement to have an ecologist or animal rescue person present at the time of felling. Microbats also live under the bark of those Melaleucas.

Of course, as Council refused to approve the hiring of an ecologist, they have no suitably qualified person to assess DAs, and are therefore at the mercy of the developer and what they chose to tell council.

[Email 11 July 2023, copied to Clarence Valley Council, councillors and relevant staff, transcript excerpt supplied]

NOTE: Paperbark tree taxonomy and general description have been altered since this post was first published.

In which the persistence of a millionaire Qld property developer is countered by the commitment of a Lower Clarence community to protect the James Creek precinct from overdevelopment and other harms

 

Clarence Valley Independent, 12 July 2023:

The Northern Regional Planning Panel has published its reasons for refusing a 336-lot subdivision at James Creek, a proposal that encountered hurdles satisfying council, which ultimately led to it not being recommended for approval.

When a development application DA was lodged with Clarence Valley Council in November 2020 for a staged residential subdivision on James Creek Road at James Creek, it proposed 342 lots, with 336 residential lots, a single park, and a neighbourhood centre for small scale retail.

Soon after the DA was lodged, The James Creek Residents Action Group was soon formed, and on December 7, 2020, the development application was withdrawn on behalf of owner Kahuna No 1 Pty Ltd.

A revised DA was lodged with CVC on November 4, 2021, for a 336-lot subdivision at 104 James Creek Road featuring 329 residential lots, one commercial lot, 4 drainage reserves and associated public space areas.

After working with CVC on the subdivision for more than a year, when Council staff completed their final assessment report for the Northern Regional Planning Panel NRPP, they recommended the subdivision be refused.

On June 29, 2023, when the NRPP met via videoconference to decide on the DA, after hearing submissions from 16 concerned locals, the subdivision was unanimously refused.

The NRPP published their reasons for refusing the DA last week, stating the application was refused for the reasons attached to the Council’s assessment report.

“The Panel agrees with the council assessment that the proposed inward facing urban structure, density, and proposed lot design relates poorly to the existing topographical form and presents a stark change to surrounding rural and semi-rural setting and character,” the determination stated.

“The Panel considers there is inadequate social infrastructure and services to support the proposed development including bus services and given the distances to local shops and facilities.

“The Panel also concluded there was insufficient consideration of flood evacuation, but notes the verbal advice provided by Council staff of an offer by the applicant to upgrade Gardiners Road to enable evacuation in a 1:100 year flood event.

“The Panel agrees with Council’s view that additional information and design amendments which might result in a more integrated ‘village’ style settlement may resolve these and other issues addressed in Council’s assessment report.”

In coming to its decision, the panel considered written submissions made during public exhibition and heard from all those wishing to address the panel.

The panel noted issues of concern included the impact on services, the lack of flood free access from Townsend along Gardiners Road, access to Austons Lane, stormwater management and flooding, impacts on adjoining rural land users and lack of buffers, inconsistency of development with planning proposal and adopted council policies, urban design and local character, traffic, transport and access, lack of Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment and consideration, a bushfire hazard, lack of public consultation and biodiversity.

The owner of lot 104 James Creek Road, Kahuna No 1 Pty Ltd now has the option of working with council to redesign the subdivision and relodge a revised DA, which they did with this DA, or decide not to pursue a subdivision on this site.

Australian Rural & Regional News, 5 July 2023:

Cheers of celebration and relief from James Creek residents erupted when the Northern Regional Planning Panel refused approval for a controversial $33 million 336 lot subdivision on James Creek Road.

The panel met via teleconference on Thursday June 29, to decide whether to approve the development application DA by MPD Investments at 104 James Creek Road for 329 residential lots, one commercial lot, four drainage reserves and two open space areas on the 33-hectare site.

Clarence Valley Council’s assessment report for the ‘regionally significant development’, which required it to be decided by the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP), recommended the DA be refused over concerns with sewage, stormwater discharge, traffic issues, land use conflict, the urban structure and sensitivity of the proposed design to the surrounds.

When the DA was put on public exhibition three times in 2022 and 2023, council received 100 submissions and a petition with 171 signatures against the subdivision.

Clarence Valley Council was represented by Cr’s Ian Tiley and Peter Johnstone on the five person NRPP, after Cr Greg Clancy declared a conflict of interest as he had been to a public meeting with complainants about the subdivision.

NRPP Chair Diane Leeson said there were 18 people registered to speak to the panel about the DA.

Speakers included James Creek resident of 30 plus years, Pat Bowen, and Lorri Brown who spoke on behalf of the James Creek Residents Action Group stating the development would double the population of the village, which went against council’s targeted growth figures for James Creek.

Carolyn Cameron, whose husband’s family settled in James Creek in 1863 said she feared ‘that our close-knit rural community is going to be lost’.

An emotional Sharon Farlow, who holds a routine movement stock permit to move her cattle along James Creek Road which her family has done for 100 years, feared with increased traffic her livelihood would be impacted.

Neighbour Keira Fahey urged the NRPP to follow council’s refusal recommendation as the buffer zone between the subdivision and other properties was not adequate…..

Read the full article here.

GCB Constructions not out of the woods yet? Still no completion date for Uniting's seniors living development in Yamba.

 

Artist's rendition of planned Uniting retirement/seniors living complex

IMAGE: CVC/Clarence Valley Independent, 30 October 2019

In 2020 the Uniting Church announced the extension of its “Caroona” aged care residential facility in Yamba to include a co-located complex of 34 villas and 50 one, two and three-bedroom apartments with a recreational area.

The building contractor chosen GCB Constructions Pty Ltd (located in Brisbane, Gold Coast and Lismore). Presumably because Uniting was satisfied with the previous 12 bed hostel build.

Work ceased on the complex sometime in early 2023 as GCB’s financial difficulties became apparent.

By beginning June GCB was facing “facing multiple court actions from suppliers, including a wind-up action”, however a spokesperson stated “GCB Constructions maintains a solvent position despite cashflow restraints.” “... we expect to have the majority of our teams back on site over the next week or so”.

Nevertheless, it does not appear that GCB Constructions has returned to the Yamba site, as the yet to be fully completed build remains silent and absent of noticeable activity.

On 21 June the Clarence Valley Independent described the situation as Uniting Yamba Road development in limbo with an accompanying photograph of the 50 apartment section of this development.

IMAGE: Clarence Valley Independent, 21 June 2023.
Photo Rodney Stevens

 

The Great Koala National Park is no closer to becoming a reality than it was when Labor made a commitment to such a park in January 2015

 

IMAGE: Animal Justice Party NSW

"Of more than 458 000 hectares of Areas of Regional Koala Significance (ARKS) mapped in NSW, only 21% are inside a National Park.

"One of our most iconic species is being subjected to native forest logging and out of control land clearing, and the National Parks estate can't save it unless something big changes.

"Koalas now face extinction in our lifetimes without urgent action. Yet their habitat has virtually no protection from the logging and clearing that is driving this decline.”

[Nature Conservation Council (NCC) chief executive Jacqui Mumford, 28 February 2023]

This was NSW Labor eight years and five months ago….

AAP General News Wire, excerpt, 19 January 2015:

Labor has announced it will work with the Wilderness Society to help nature conservation in NSW.

The Great Koala National Park proposal would take in 315,000 hectares of hinterland forest between Macksville and Woolgoolga, north of Coffs Harbour, combining 176,000 hectares of state forest with 140,000 hectares of existing protected areas.

The park will provide a lifeline to the population of about 4500 koalas that live in the region……

This was NSW Labor in 2023 at Day 81 of its new term as state government – still no further ahead than the talking points of 2015, ignoring the fact that Koala numbers in New South Wales had fallen from est. 36,000 in 2016 to perhaps as few as 11,000 remaining in the wild by 2020 and, as a political party as deep in the pocket of Forestry NSW as the Liberal & National parties…..

Excerpt from letter to the Clerk of the NSW Legislative Assembly from Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Heritage & Labor MLC Penny Sharpe. Click to enlarge

Very little of what has been built in in the NSW North Rivers coastal zone appears to have a long habitable lifespan - so it's buyer beware

 

What is fascinating about this development application set out in the following article is that the Byron Bay local government area coastal zone generally, including Clifford Street, Suffolk Park, is expected to be impacted by ongoing storm surges, tidal incursion and then permanent sea level inundation beginning sometime between 2027 to 2030 – roughly four to seven years from now. With 9-15 Clifford Street being one of the last addresses to be affected in that street.

Most of the sea level rise scenarios indicate that 9-15 Clifford Street as a habitable dwelling space may only have a life of around 37 to 47 years if Australian east coast and global air and sea temperatures keep rising as steeply as they have in the last 40 years.

Barely enough time to pay off the mortgage before the unit/apartment becomes worthless.

The Echo, 7 June 2023:

The company behind a controversial mixed-use development in the heart of Suffolk Park has quietly submitted revised plans for the proposal as part of the ongoing court battle over the matter.

Sydney-based developer, Denwol Pty Ltd, took Byron Council to the Land & Environment Court after it refused their plans to build two new three-storey buildings, containing 16 units, seven town houses and 300m2 of commercial space at 9–15 Clifford Street.

Council had set out 17 separate reasons for refusing the development application when it was originally submitted last year, including factors related to the environmental impacts, design, bushfire risk and affordable housing claims.

With the formal court hearing getting underway last week, Denwol made an application to the court to submit amended plans for the project.

This followed an amended DA that was submitted in April which involved a significant reduction in the size of the development.

Published on Council’s website, these amended plans involve reducing in the number of residential apartments from 16 to seven, and the number of town houses from seven to six. There would be two retail tenancies.

Both buildings are reduced to two-storeys in the amended plans, though there is little difference in the overall height of the development.

There is also a significant increase in how far the buildings will be set back from the road, though this will require more trees to be cut down.

Resident, Lynne Richardson, said that the amended plans represented little change in practical terms because the overall footprint of the development was ‘much the same’.

Community excluded

She also said that the process by which the most recent amendment had been submitted had excluded the community.

‘I was enraged by the process,’ Ms Richardson said.

‘The only community members who were actually told were those who were due to give evidence during the hearing, and we were only given a few days’ notice to get our heads around the plans before doing that.

‘[Council’s lawyers, Marsdens] only told us a few days before we were due to give evidence, and they asked us to respect the confidentiality of the developer by not disseminating the new plans more widely. In my opinion, the newly modified plans should have been more widely circulated to the community. This affects all of them so they should have been told.’

The Echo understands that Council will continue to contest the matter in court, despite the submission of the modified plans by the developer.

BACKGROUND

Byron Shire Council - List of Applications Submitted, excerpt, retrieved 12 June 2023:

Original Development Application.

10.2022.137.1

Development Application 13/07/2022 15 Clifford St, Suffolk Park 2481 NSW

15A Clifford St, Suffolk Park 2481 NSW

9-13 Clifford St, Suffolk Park 2481 NSW

Demolition of Nine (9) Dwellings, Removal of Twenty Five (25) Native Trees and Construction of a Mixed Use Development Comprising of Two (2) Buildings including Commercial Premises and Multi Dwelling Housing being Twenty Three (23) Dwellings of which Twelve (12) will be Affordable Housing and Swimming Pools.

Details here including latest modification submitted this year.

Existing dwellings

Byron Shire Council flood mapping showing part of Clifford Street