Showing posts with label local aboriginal land council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label local aboriginal land council. Show all posts

Wednesday, 20 December 2017

One of the reasons why local government, traditional owners and communities in the Clarence Valley should be very wary of home-grown and foreign lobbyists, investment consortiums and land developers


On 15 August 2016 four representatives of United Land Councils Ltd & United First Peoples Syndications Pty Ltd gave evidence before the NSW Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 6 INQUIRY INTO CROWN LAND.

One of the projects put forward to the Inquiry by those representatives was the industrialisation of the Clarence River estuary by way of construction of a mega freight port.

The following tale involves a number of persons or firms associated with the aforementioned  companies and this mega port & rail project, including Nick Petroulias aka Michael Felson aka Nick Peterson.

The Newcastle Herald, 21 October 2017:

HE WAS brash and brilliant. A young lawyer from Melbourne who became a rising star of the public service, hand-picked to serve as assistant tax commissioner by the age of 30.

That was until a spectacular fall from grace left Nick Petroulias jailed for using his plum position to do the very thing he was tasked with stamping out: defrauding the tax office.

Since his release from prison in 2010, Mr Petroulias has kept a low profile, going by a number of aliases including Michael Felson and Nick Petersen.

He described himself as a “disabled pensioner” on bankruptcy forms in 2015, with his debts estimated at an eye-watering $104 million.

But Fairfax Media can reveal that he has been accused of working behind the scenes to dupe a wealthy Chinese property developer into the illegal purchase of $12.6 million of Aboriginal land across Newcastle.

The matter is the subject of a Supreme Court legal battle that veteran lawyers have described as one of the most extraordinary cases they have seen in their careers.

Labelled by a lawyer familiar with the case as a real-life version of “Alice in Wonderland”, its cast of characters includes an international fugitive known as Robbie Rocket, a convicted drug dealer and a dead company director who somehow continued signing agreements a year after he was cremated in a Sydney cemetery.

The existence of an international money laundering syndicate and a karaoke junket intended as a bribery attempt are among the other sensational allegations contained within thousands of pages of evidence that have been tendered to the court.

Collectively, the lands were valued at $12.6 million.

Two Awabakal board members met with Mr Zong. At the negotiating table, they introduced him to Mr Petroulias – an agent for the parties involved – and Knightsbridge North Lawyers, a firm enlisted to broker the deal.

The only catch, Mr Zong was informed, was that the portfolio of land had already been sold to another buyer a year beforehand.

But he was assured that in return for a payment, that purchaser would remove themself from the picture.

By the end of the year, things appeared to be proceeding smoothly. 

Mr Zong had signed sales contracts, begun pursuing the land’s rezoning and outlaid nearly a million dollars – money he believed was a combination of a deposit and a payout for the former buyer.

But then came a shock announcement that threatened to derail the transaction: the state government had launched an investigation into the land council.

The investigation followed complaints about the land council’s governance and finances.

But Mr Zong alleges he was reassured the deal was still on a steady footing. He claims to have been told by Mr Petroulias that “there was no reason arising from the investigation that would compromise the validity of the transaction documents”. 

However, damning findings from the government’s investigator resulted in the land council being placed into administration. Then, the confirmation came: the sale was off.

Mr Zong ordered the immediate repayment of his $1 million, but his demands were refused. His property development companies – Sunshine Property Investment Group and Sunshine Warners Bay –  launched a civil claim for damages and to recoup the losses.

Caught in the legal crossfire was the land council, its law firm Knightsbridge, and the land’s original buyer, a mysterious company registered under the name Gows Heat.

Since it was placed into administration last year, the Awabakal land council has been under the control of Terry Lawler, a prominent Newcastle financier and philanthropist awarded an OAM in January.

Mr Lawler has recruited a high-powered legal team – including top silk Jeremy Kirk SC – to defend the land council and launch a cross-claim.

They have argued that the sales contracts Mr Zong signed were bogus and none of the proceeds found their way into the land council’s coffers.

Read the full article here.

The Newcastle Herald, 15 December 2017:

A wealthy Chinese developer appears set to withdraw a lawsuit against the Awabakal Aboriginal Local Land Council. 

Tony Zong and his Sunshine Property Investment Group had alleged they were conned into a deal to purchase $12.6 million of Aboriginal land across the city.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard the matter – involving disgraced former assistant tax commissioner Nick Petroulias – was “painfully close” to being resolved. 

It’s understood Awabakal lawyers want the land council’s costs covered as part of the settlement. 

“There doesn’t seem to be terribly much at issue in the Sunshine matter now except for the terms of discontinuance,” Justice Darke said. 

A separate action against Awabakal is also making its way through the courts. 

Knightsbridge North Lawyers has placed a caveat over the old Newcastle Post Office while it pursues the land council for $26,743 in alleged unpaid fees. 

Justice Darke indicated mediation could occur if the matter remained unresolved when the case returns to court in February. 


Monday, 11 January 2016

Did Clarence Valley Council attempt to pull the wool over Iluka residents' eyes?


Recently I received a ‘phone call from an Iluka resident which began along the lines of: I met you once at the bus stop in Maclean and I wonder if you know…

What this very concerned person from the opposite side of the Clarence River then told me was that Clarence Valley Council chose to advertise an approx. 19ha 162 lot low density residential subdivision with 10 new roads within Lot 99 in DP 823635 Hickey Street, Iluka on 24 December 2015 – Christmas Eve – and also to start a 28 day exhibition period from Boxing Day, 26 December. [Clarence Valley Council, block_ad_
December_24_26.pdf]


From my experience, local government only acts in this manner if both it and the developer of record do not want informed community scrutiny of a ‘favoured’ development application (DA).

The development application SUB2015/0034 submitted by NSW central coast development company Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd (trading as Stevens Group) was first lodged with Clarence Valley Council on 11 December 2015 and then referred to the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel by council administration on or about 18 December 2015.

The owner of the land in question is Birrigan Gargle Local Aboriginal Land Council.

Clarence Valley Council states of this DA:

Clarence Valley Council is the consent authority and the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel has the function of determining the application. Any submissions made will be provided to the Joint Regional Planning Panel and may be viewed by other people with an interest in the application. The development application and documents accompanying the application are on exhibition and may be inspected at Council’s customer service centres*. Submissions close 4pm, January 22, 2016.
Any person may make a written submission to Council during the exhibition period concerning the development application. If you have any submissions you wish to make regarding any proposed development please do so in writing, addressed to the General Manager, during the exhibition period. Where a submission is an objection to a proposed development the submission must set out the grounds for the objection.

It does not say that any resident wishing to make comment directly to the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel on the subject of this proposed development can do so online here.

The state-appointed panellists for the Joint Regional Planning Panel are: Garry West (Chair), Pamela Westing and John Griffin, with Bruce Clarke as an alternate.

When considering development proposals within the Clarence Valley they are joined by Mayor Richie Williamson, Deputy Mayor Craig Howe, with Cr. Andrew Baker as the alternate.

The timing of the DA advertising is not the only concern. Although SUB2015/0034 is clearly on public exhibition, there are currently no details on the council website’s “On exhibition” page.

Interested residents have to physically attend either the Maclean or Grafton council chambers if they want information on this DA. This initially created a dilemma for concerned residents and ratepayers as Maclean and Grafton council chambers were closed between 24 December 2015 and 3 January 2016.

This of course effectively reduced the length of time that DA documents could be researched in preparation for a submission by 11 days.

By 6 January media attention and pressure from individual community members saw council administration extend the exhibition period to 4pm on 12 February 2016 and place a copy of the DA exhibition documents in Iluka township. However, it remains a matter of concern that council administration thought the original truncated exhibition period was acceptable.

I have no doubt that the owners of the land are willing to be transparent in their actions concerning this proposed subdivision, however when a large development company is also involved in a land release it is wise for any community to be wary.

Readers may recall that in 2014 the Stevens Group sought to remove approval conditions on a NSW south coast development before building commenced and, in the same year, the managing director and owner was called to appear before the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption’s Operation Spicer investigation concerning alleged unlawful political donations.

So this parcel of land deserves a closer look.

Firstly Clarence Valley Council is on record as stating to The Daily Examiner in January 2012:

Clarence Valley Council development services manager Clem Rhoden said the parcel of land at lot 99 Hickey St was opposite Iluka Golf Club and encompassed an area of approximately 194,031sq m.

Secondly, this lot (bounded by Hickey Street, Elizabeth Street and Iluka Road) is covered by what appears to be relatively dense tree cover:

Aerial Snapshot of Hickey Street Iluka NSW, Google Earth, 4 January 2016

Snapshot of section of the southern boundary of Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka NSW

To prepare the land for 162 residential lots this block will have to be extensively cleared and, it is possible that this clearing may entail the destruction of coastal cypress:

Coastal Cypress Pine Forest is apparently restricted to the NSW North Coast bioregion.

Thirdly, the existing tree cover may possibly be koala habitat. Koalas are of course listed as vulnerable under federal law.

Council itself admits that:

calls are still frequent from Clarence Valley WIRES who reported six calls regarding injuries in 2009, suggesting there may still be a residual population surviving in the Iluka area or frequenting the area from the adjoining Bunjalung National Park. It is therefore important to reduce further clearing and protect and rehabilitate those areas that are remaining. Particular focus should be given to restoring fragmented areas of koala habitat, lands within identified habitat linkages and koala habitat buffers, and lands adjacent to contiguous blocks of existing koala habitat (McAlpine et al. 2007). [Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management for the Ashby, Woombah & Iluka localities in the Clarence Valley LGA, undated]; and
A further 260 koala food trees (approximately) were inspected for evidence of koala activity during eight transect searches within the Iluka study area….
field observations and anecdotal observations confirm the presence of what appears to be a highly dispersed but small population cell at Iluka…
Since 2002 there have been at least 51 koala records between the Iluka township and Shark Bay that have been contributed to the NSW Wildlife Atlas, while additional koala observations were provided to us and Council officers by residents and National Parks staff. These records create an Extent of Occurrence (EoO) of approximately 1,028ha (Figure 4).  [Biolink Ecological Consultants, Koala Habitat Assessment Ashby, Woombah and Iluka: Report to Clarence Valley Council January 2012]

When comparing this Biolink koala map below with the Google Earth map above it is clear that the possibility exists that koalas may still travel across and perhaps feed in Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka.

On 20 January 2012 The Daily Examiner on Page 5 of that issue reported that:

AFTER spotting a mother koala and its baby on 19ha of Birrigan Gargle land that could be cleared, Clarence Environmental Centre secretary John Edwards said bulldozing and developing the wildlife corridor would amount to environmental suicide.
While surveying the area two months ago, Mr Edwards said he spotted two endangered species, the mother koala and baby and a coastal pine community.

Image of koala female with infant on Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka. Supplied by Iluka resident. Date unknown.

Fourthly, mineral sand mining for heavy minerals rutile, zircon, monazite and ilmenite occurred in the wider Iluka area and old mineral sand mining sites can sometimes emit low levels of radiation incompatible with full-time occupation of a site [Guidance for Licensing of Mineral-sand Mining that Generates Radioactive Residues, June 2009 & Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) in Australia: Issues for Discussion, August 2005]. There has been some suggestion in the online comments section of a local newspaper and a later article that at least part of the existing tree cover is regrowth on an old mineral sand mining site.

Finally there is the rather mundane but very important matter of how the soil would be stabilized after large-scale clearing and before construction is finished, if that will impact on adjacent land and where the storm water from roofs, gardens and road surfaces will be directed.

Then there is this disturbing online advertisement which appears to have been on various real estate websites since at least September 2015 and boldly anticipates approval by both the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel and Clarence Valley Council:


Is any or all of this what Council is trying to hide from Clarence Valley residents and ratepayers by sneakily activating the clock on this DA over the Christmas holidays?
Or is there something more?

With these questions in mind I went to look at the exhibition documents:

Snapshot taken from Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Iluka Subdivision

The site is roughly trapezoidal in shape and is bounded by: Iluka Golf Club to the north; Iluka Road and the Iluka Nature Reserve to the east; Undeveloped land to the south, west and north west; and Existing residential development to the south west.
[Cardno Geotech Solutions, August 2015, Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Iluka Subdivision, p.1]

Having now sighted the Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Iluka Subdivision and Statement of Environmental Effects: 162 Lot Residential Subdivision Lot 99, DP 823635 Hickey Street, Iluka, prepared for Stevens Holdings Pty Ltd/ Shellharbour Unit Trust (click on link to access documents), it is clear that this parcel of land is partially low-lying, gently undulating back-dunes, potentially prone to localised flooding in sections and, was covered by Mineral Lease 7 (held by L. Foyster) a mineral sand mining lease active between 1958-1978. It is likely that the subject site was sand mined sometime between 1966 and 1978 [Keystone Ecological, 2015, Statement of Environmental Effects, Summary].

Vegetation is generally thick semi-mature to mature native trees and coastal scrub across the site and, includes an unspecified number of Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gums, Eucalyptus propinqua Small-fruited Grey Gum and Corymbia intermedia Pink Bloodwood - all koala food trees, with the first two species being preferred by these animals.

It is also clear that 16.71 ha of koala habitat is to be removed to make way for 162 houses and an estimated 400-500 new residents living on the outskirts of Iluka township.

The Phascolarctos cinereus Koala observed on site was walking along the ground – not foraging in the trees or moving through the canopy – and moving from south to north [ibid, p.32].

Apart from koala habitat existing on the land evidence was found on site of coastal emu which is listed as endangered under state law:

Snapshot taken from Keystone Ecological, Statement of Environmental Effects:
162 Lot Residential Subdivision Lot 99, DP 823635 Hickey Street, Iluka, October 2015

Image of coastal emu outside the boundary of the 135 hectare Iluka Nature Reserve.
Supplied by Iluka resident. Date unknown.

As for the three internal parks listed on the DA plan – the first is 1.76 hectares, the second is 1 hectare but only 50 metres wide for its entire length, while the third (to protect an Aboriginal scar tree) is only 0.075 of a hectare and wedged in the middle a row of houses. This brings the total internal reserve land to a fragmented 2.83 hectares.

What is not yet clear is how much additional infrastructure and services will be required or how much in developer contributions Clarence Valley Council is expecting to receive and if this will cover all additional infrastructure and services outlays.

The bottom line with regard to Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka is that it is a demonstrably ecologically sensitive parcel of land admitted as being “identified as an ‘environmentally sensitive area’ being in, or within 100 metres of an area identified as a wetland of international significance or a world heritage area and complying development may not be carried out on part of this land” [Cardno Geotech Solutions, August 2015, Report on PCA & Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Iluka Subdivision, p.5] and, even though Clarence Valley Council has zoned the lot R2 Low Density Residential, the size of the built footprint of this development is not appropriate for the location and the plan provides ineffective native flora and fauna safeguards.

If the developer, the landowner and council administration genuinely wish to see this lot developed in a sustainable manner then they should all revisit what they are progressing so enthusiastically at present and, as a bare minimum, reconfigure the plan to significantly reduce the number of lots and provide genuine wildlife corridors which would continue to allow vulnerable koalas, endangered coastal emus and other wildlife much the same access to Iluka Nature Reserve and the national park that native animals use today.

UPDATE

Coastal cypress pine community on Lot 99 Hickey Street, Iluka (and adjacent lots) represented by blue flags.
Image supplied.

 It is important to note that even small patches that have been disturbed in the past by clearing, or fire are still considered to be important remnants of Coastal Cypress Pine Forest and meet the criteria of being an EEC. [NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change, Coastal Cypress Pine Forest in the NSWNorth Coast Bioregion, 2009]

Thursday, 6 February 2014

Coffs Harbour Local Aboriginal Land Council wins Red Rock land claim

Red Rock Beach 1991
flickriver.com
Wednesday, January 8th, 2014
After a two decade wait for a decision on the Coffs Harbour and District Local Aboriginal Land Council v Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act [2013] NSWLEC 216, Justice Craig has handed down his decision in favour of Coffs Harbour LALC.
The claim, originally lodged in 1993 covers a 3.7 km stretch of beach and foredune known as Red Rock Beach (located between Red Rock and Corindi).
The case is particularly significant as it represents one of a few successful land claims to include land right up to the mean high water mark.
Of note the land is being transferred to Coffs Harbour Local Aboriginal Land Council (CH LALC) on condition that an easement for access is created over part of the land to provide public access to and use of the beach for public recreation.
This is a fantastic outcome for the CH LALC especially as the judgment may prove useful in future claims where land is said to be needed for public recreation.
On behalf of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council I wish to extend my sincere congratulations to CH LALC for this terrific win.
Craig Cromelin
NSWALC Chairperson