Yamba Bay Park safe - for now

Coastal development pressure is never ending in the NSW Northern Rivers region and this was just the latest example, in the small town of Yamba perched where the mighty Clarence River meets the Pacific Ocean.

Image from Clarence Valley Independent

This was the NSW Roads & Maritime Services (RMS)request received according to Clarence Valley Council Ordinary Monthly Meeting Minutes, 21 February 2017:

In a letter to Council from RMS received 2 December 2016 a potential site situated on Yamba Road, Yamba was identified by RMS as being suitable. The land situated to the north of Yamba Road is identified as Lot 7053 DP 1114190 and the landward portion of Lot 164 in DP 751395. The RMS objective is to construct a two storey operations facility to cater for up to fifteen staff from the three agencies. According to RMS the parcel of land would give the three on-water compliance agencies easy access to the water via the adjacent launching ramp and the RMS marina facility.

One of these lots is covered by Native Title and the other is the subject of an Aboriginal Land Claim.

It is a popular little park used by both locals and visitors and is part of the Yamba Road streetscape.

Council in the Chamber wisely decided against turning it into a state government agency office building:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION – 15.010/17

Williamson/Clancy

That Council not support the transfer of Lot 7053 DP 1114190 and part Lot 164 DP 751395 for the reasons

outlined in this report.

Voting recorded as follows:

For: Simmons, Kingsley, Clancy, Ellem, Novak, Williamson, Toms

Against: Baker

Hopefully Clarence Valley towns and villages will be able to defend all their green spaces as this set of Clarence Valley councillors scramble to find money to meet the $1.2 million project shortfall resulting from a badly planned remediation of the former Grafton depot site – costing to date an est. $6,976,72. Which represents an est. $2.5 million blowout of the remediation budget.

A problem created by the foolish former council initially agreeing to proceed based on a concept level plan only and despite the lack of sufficient information concerning potential costs associated with the Grafton Depot Rationalisation Project.

Not forgetting the need to make up additional $4.13 million cash flow shortfalls these councillors inherited and, in small part have helped exacerbate since their election.

Tale of an unsolicited proposal approved by the NSW Iemma Government and distorted out of all recognition by Baird Government

When the people of New South Wales were told of a successful unsolicited proposal for a section of Darling Harbour foreshore land in 2007, this was what they were told the Barangaroo development would eventually look like:

Since then the approved development plan has undergone nine modifications until around a third of the total foreshore parkland area has been reduced to a “promenade” in order to satisfy the Packer family’s desire to build yet another private casino and hotel complex – this one 71 stories high at an estimated cost of $2 billion.

According to the Crown Resorts Limited website:

The Crown Sydney Hotel Resort will be world-class and will feature 350 hotel rooms and suites, luxury apartments, signature restaurants, bars, luxury retail outlets, pool and spa facilities, conference rooms and VIP gaming facilities.

This is what that est. 33 per cent of public parkland in the plan is now expected to look like per the June 2016 NSW Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) approval:

Millers Point Fund Incorporated has been formed by local Millers Point community groups and the matter is now before Justice Nicola Palin in the NSW Land & Environment Court with Minister for Planning Robert Gordon Stokes,  Barangaroo Delivery Authority, Crown Resorts, Lendlease, and the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority as respondents.

On behalf of the Millers Point Fund the NSW Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) will be arguing that the PAC was wrong to remove public parkland for private profit.

Sue Higginson, the chief executive officer and principal solicitor at the Environmental Defenders Office, which filed the claim in the Land and Environment Court on Tuesday, said her client's argument was that the PAC had "fettered" its own decision-making.

"Basically we are saying the Casino Control Act doesn't dictate the planning decisions that are made in NSW," Ms Higginson said. "In fact the PAC really is required to make a decision about where a casino can and cannot be built based on planning law," she said.

Ms Higginson said the PAC's error was "so significant that its decision to approve the latest modification to the concept plan and approve the actual construction of the project is invalid and of no effect."

I suspect that the EDO could do with a little financial help as it takes on the legal might of the super-rich and politically powerful. Online donations can be made here.

* Images from the Australian Financial Review and The Sydney Morning Herald

Maclean public car park, Cameron and McLachlan parks: he said, she said

Having recently listened to Clarence Valley councillors debate before voting to deny a $2.8 million boutique redevelopment of the older-style Surf Motel in Yamba, primarily on the basis that the architect had kept the allegedly 100 year-old frontage footprint in the plans before council and the lift well was 97cm higher than allowed with part of the rear of the building 27 cm higher than allowed, I can appreciate the sense of frustration building in a section of the Maclean community at the same nine councillors approach to the latest move by the company behind the IGA supermarket development.

The Maclean dispute has a long history and it’s not only the siting of the supermarket which has changed - some individual positions have also changed. Cr. Sue Hughes now supports the IGA supermarket development (with subsequent loss of parts of Cameron and McLachlan parks as well as part of the public car park) which started the row back in 2011-12.

Along the way there has also been one very odd instance of time and money wasting on council’s part which failed to amuse many Maclean locals.

Now it appears a war of words has erupted within the community and is being played out in the pages of one valley newspaper.

Open Letter to Clarence Valley Council in The Daily Examiner, 25 February 2015:

Dear Councilors,

We understand many Councilors perceive the activities of the Greater Maclean Community Action Group as negative and reactionary. Unfortunately that perception has arisen following public delivery of an objective and responsible planning assessment made of the proposed supermarket in Maclean's car park. Council only last Tuesday has voted to proceed with the rezoning of this application without having any proper understanding of what the full implications are.

For Councillors to understand the "negativity" from the residents we represent, a step back is needed to look at what has happened to Maclean.  It is no longer negativity they will see; it is now a considerable anger.  Maclean isn't dying, it is being killed.

Everyone sees the need for a "supermarket anchored shopping centre" (a direct quote from the now outdated Retail Strategy).  That is nothing like what is being proposed.  There is absolutely no provision for future growth or expansion.  Hasn't this Council ever heard of "long term planning"?

We have observed as a group this Councils lack of expertise and commitment to even the most basic concept of "Assets and Risk Management" and the pretence of public consultation.  Implicit in the process of Consultation is the recognition of the opinions expressed, acquiescence or rational informed debate to the contrary, and above all, feedback.  Council doesn't even pretend to do that.  If public consultation and "planning" were anything more than "box ticking", there just may have been some acknowledgement in the 10 year plan that Grafton is at high risk of becoming a rural backwater when the new Harwood Bridge and Pacific Highway are completed.  The State Corrective Services seem to have already realised that and no reasonable person actually believes there will be a second bridge over the Clarence at Grafton.

As for Maclean, in 10 years this Council has delivered very little positive value to the town.  But the negatives are numerous and significant.  There has not been so much as a new rubbish bin put in this town over all that time.  The main street is breaking up and will soon look like a patchwork quilt, if indeed it is patched at all.  The only new footpath constructed by Council in 10 years is 13 metres from the CBD car park. It was constructed by throwing dry mix asphalt over grass, and is now almost completely overgrown. We now stand to lose most of what little green space we have in central Maclean and the destruction of the heritage in McLachlan Park seems imminent. We did, however, get a new toilet block which wasn't needed when there was already a perfectly good one just needing overhaul, at a fraction of the cost of the new one. I won't go further with the list but suffice to say it is very long.

The public meeting on Monday last was not sponsored by Council.  It should have been!  It explained very professionally exactly what was proposed in the DA for the supermarket and how it would impact on the town. It was the result of lot of effort by the Maclean Action Group and it drew the wholehearted support of the 3,000-strong Maclean Bowling Club.  There has been absolutely no response from Council to the issues presented. Public consultation is a box to be ticked and the responses are simply ignored. The supermarket debacle is only one of the many examples.

There were comments that audio visual presentation was difficult to hear and see.  Let me say that the Bowling Club is not a theatre and neither is the RSL.  Maclean has no theatre or anywhere else that is remotely suitable for public meetings or presentation using standard audio visuals.  There is a Civic Hall that is more than 100 years old, has a leaking roof and severe water damage to the ceiling and roof structure.  It is in that state because successive Councils have not carried out even basic routine maintenance.  I know of people who have left this town because they have to drive to Yamba to find anywhere they can have a family picnic and watch their children play.

Major trees (75-100 years old) have been removed and not replaced eg. the Taloumbi St Jacaranda and Fig trees.  The only four Camphor Laurels to be removed because of their genus are in one of only two small parks left in the town, if indeed the nature strip along the river can be called a Park.  There are estimated to be over 2000 Camphor Laurels growing in the Valley on public land but only the four delivering shade and ambience in Maclean are programmed for destruction and no "program" for the progressive removal and or replacement of the species exists.  Why the four in a Park in Maclean and why do this when the residents are overwhelming against it? Why would a Council crying poor even consider spending scarce cash on something like this? It's illogical and irrational.

However, all of that aside, the single most appalling facet of this Council Administration has to be the erratic and inconsistent application of its own drafted Policies, procedures and regulations.  Is it any wonder that the major investors bypass this Valley? It is just not worth the trouble, as the IGA no doubt is now starting to realize.  And that is why we will have to send our children away to find decent employment, and why we will pay rates 30% higher than inner city suburbs in Brisbane, and most other places in the State.

Do not for one moment interpret the absence of a Lower Clarence Candidate in the recent Council bi-election as an indication of complacency or acquiescence. It wasn't!  The years of disregard for the views and aspirations of the people of the Lower Clarence and the quest for responsible and professional planning may well materialize into something far more tangible in the lead-up to the next Council general election.

Ian Saunders, Hon Secretary GMCAG

A somewhat less than polite response published in The Daily Examiner, 27 February 2015:

COUNCILLORS, I am apologising in advance that you have had to put up with the blatant lies which have emanated from the Maclean Inaction Group letter.

A group of 100 people does not and will not ever represent the sum of all opinions on any matter, let alone that regarding a supermarket. It certainly does not represent the whole 3000 members of the bowling club.

It is unfortunate that the current discussion to move the supermarket does look like a variation on a plan, but it will undoubtedly be a better solution if shoppers have the current tar car parking to use while the supermarket is being built.

But let's get back to the letter:

Accusing the council of no provision for future growth. WRONG.

There is ample space for future growth, and this supermarket plus current supplies, according to the Maclean Urban Study (a plan I think) will be enough until 2031. But hey, the Maclean Action Group - a misnomer if ever there was one - say otherwise. They must be the experts.

Accusing the council of a pretence with public consultation. WRONG.

The Maclean Inaction Group did not even bother to put in a deputation when this was discussed two weeks ago, as the Chamber of Commerce did. A deputation is the correct forum for pleading your case.

Accusing the council of no feedback. WRONG.

The council replies by many methods: email, letters, phone calls, deputations on site, and when they call a public meeting to discuss the visions for the year, six people turn up.

Accusing the council is ignoring Grafton. Well, let Grafton solve its own problems and get its own Grafton Inaction Group. We've got enough up here if they want to share.

Accusing the council of doing very little in Maclean in 10 years. WRONG.

They have paved through the CBD; built a footpath from past Gulmarrad School all the way into the High School; built the Sports Centre; built the new toilets which were needed and connected the sections of grass in a much more usable way; re-done the stormwater around the bowling club and up the hill; done the garden roundabout at the Post Office.

They are in planning for a million-dollar upgrade of McLachlan Park and Wherrett Park, both of which should start as soon as the weather clears and the Highland Gathering is finished.

Accusing the council of not upgrading the main street. WRONG.

When council did the paving, they completely revamped the outside parking lanes of the main street. The centre lanes I believe are the responsibility of the RMS. Maybe this has changed?

Accusing the council of taking away what little green space we have in Maclean. WRONG.

This new supermarket concept actually gives Maclean residents more green space than supermarket one. Keep in mind IGA has a valid DA on supermarket one. If they believe the Maclean Inaction Group, they may go back and build version one without any further discussion, but this will definitely put pressure on the people of Maclean compared to option two.

Accusing council of not maintaining the Civic Centre. WRONG.

I would like to offer the Maclean Inaction Group some vouchers to Specsavers, so they can catch a glimpse of the fairly new green Colorbond roof on the Civic Centre and the brand new kitchen which has been put in. Yes the ceiling needs painting. I'll lend them a brush.

Accusing the council of not calling a public meeting on the issue. WRONG.

They did. Years ago. The chamber has called three public meetings on the issue, but because the Maclean Inaction Group didn't get the response they wanted, the group said these meetings were rigged.

The Action Group has called four meetings - I believe meetings where if you try to stand up and discuss the issues rationally you get told to "shut up". They are meetings where there is no option to give a view opposing to theirs.

Accusing council of not replacing trees in town. WRONG.

They have replaced several trees in town, particularly in the main street. To say that Maclean only has two parks is a blatant lie. To say that people have to go to Yamba to play in a park completely ignores the beautiful children's playground next to the very expensive Sports Centre built by council with partly a grant. Specsavers again?

Perhaps the people driving to Yamba are actually going to a beach, visiting their aunt or dare I say visiting a really big supermarket?

Accusing council of overcharging on rates compared to Brisbane City. Well, sadly that's the maths behind the problem.

If you have three million ratepayers paying rather than 2600, then the base price will always be less. It's called economies of scale. Council is not crying poor over these upgrades to Maclean, as they have grants and the sale money quarantined to be spent only on Maclean projects. This is fact.

The Maclean Inaction Group concludes their letter with a threat to pull the council into line at the next election. That is their democratic right.

However if they do get elected, they will find that legal constraints on councillors are far more rigorous than even they have any understanding of.

Successful decisions of council are an amalgamation (dare I use that word!) of councillors, council management and staff and proposals put before them.

Sometimes as, in this case, they are tweaked to get the best result. They are not the result of bullying.

Denise Worrill¹

Maclean

1. As Maclean Chamber of Commerce Secretary in 2009 Ms. Worrill was vocal in her support for sale of part of the car park to IGA.

Ongoing community concerns about Clarence Valley Council's redevelopment of Maclean's McLachlan Park is not confined to trees, parking, toilet blocks or loss of green space

Map excerpt showing the Clarence Coastal Zone & surrounding zones

The coastal zone is illustrated on the maps produced to accompany this policy which will be available for public inspection at all local councils. Mapping of the coastal zone is based on the following criteria.

* three nautical miles seaward of the mainland and offshore islands;

* one kilometre landward of the open coast high water mark;

* a distance of one kilometre around:

   all bays, estuaries, coastal lakes, lagoons and islands;

* tidal waters of coastal rivers to the limit of mangroves, as defined by NSW Fisheries’(1985) maps or the tidal limit whichever is closer to the sea;

* with the line on the maps being taken to the nearest cadastral boundary and/or easily recognisable physical boundary, in consultation with local councils. [NSW Coastal Policy 1997, Part A & Part B]¹

McLachlan Park in the Lower Clarence Scottish Town of Maclean has been raising the ire of residents and ratepayers ever since the $1.13 million redevelop plan for this park, sitting virtually atop the town's levee, was first disclosed in all its 'glory'.

This time the issues of local government transparency and accountability, as well as using Clarence Coast Reserve Trust monies raised in Yamba to meet the mounting costs associated with this redevelopment, are at the bottom of this particular exchange between one ratepayer and Clarence Valley Council, reproduced here with permission of Mr. Hunt.

______________________________

From: Ray Hunt [redacted]
Sent: Saturday, 3 January 2015 11:55 AM
To: david.morrison@clarence.nsw.gov.au
Cc: Richie Williamson; Craig Howe; Sue Hughes; Jason Kingsley; Margaret McKenna; Jim Simmons; Karen Toms
Subject: Re: McLachlan Park

Mr David Morrison,

  Its unbelievable.

  Your email 24-12-14 is acknowledged, (apparently) on behalf of Mr Peter Birch, Director of Environment, Planning and Community to my simple inquiry three months ago, viz: How was it possible that the CCRMS Coastal Zone definition (p30) which expressly specifies a 1 km strip along the coastline, can include reserves in Maclean some 20ks up river?

Three months to think about it, yet you avoid the question.

The CCRMS was adopted by the Minister 18-12-02 pursuant to Sect 114 Crown Lands Act and no operations can be undertaken unless it is in accordance with the CCRMS.

  I also note your comments on the inclusion into the CCRT, the Herb Stanford park. But again you do not explain how this park some 20ks up river can be included into the CCRT when the CCRMS coastal zone definition expressly specifies a 1k strip along the coastline.

Whatsmore, when that matter came before Cllrs at the CCRT meeting 8-10-14, even the Cllrs were not informed.

  It is this same lack of accountability, reminiscent of the past, when Cllrs were not warned when they were deciding CCRT matters, enabling CCRT revenues to be exploited and pay for Councils services.

  Due to this lack of accountability, I had little choice but to lodge a complaint with Crown Lands with whom the reserves are vested and was in possession of the CCRMS which it knew or ought to have known was flawed.

Unfortunately, without first consulting me, Crown Lands sent it to Council as the Trust Manager and Mr Birch gave his undertaking to address the issues I raised.

But it seems no one wants to be accountable.

  Its more than a coincidence that one day after responding to an inquisitive Mayor that I had lodged my complaint with Crown Lands and not Council, Crown Lands informed me it was not responding to my complaint as it had requested the Trust to respond and the Trust (Mr Birch) gave its undertaking to do so.

Then came your email (apparently) on behalf of Mr Birch, that "Council was not obliged to reply to matters raised by me to Crown Lands---"

So who is obliged?

With great respect that obligation now rests with you.

  There has been no entrapment here. Mr Birch, a senior officer in Council and representing the Trust manager, was fully aware of the situation and freely gave his undertaking to address the issues I raised concerning Councils management of the CCRT.

I hope the integrity of senior operational staff has not sunk to the depths where they can openly lie to the community and not be held accountable.

  The issue of the Coastal Zone however, is not the only issue that remains unexplained. So too are the issues of  Sect. 10 CLAct ( management for the benefit of the people of NSW) and Councils perceived conflict of interest as the CCRT Manager as well as Councils lack of accountability and community consultation meetings.

Iluka, Yamba and Brooms Head are just the few communities that are making significant sacrifices to their valuable CBD water front lands to contribute to the CCRT. But there is no benefit, fairness or equity to them.

  In particular the Harbour St., residents are subjected to noise, traffic congestion, obstructed views and depressed land values, so that unquantified amounts of CCRT funds can be spent on the beautification of Macleans multi million dollar CBD water frontage, improving views and increasing land values to the River St. residents.

It is not unreasonable for those few communities that are making those significant sacrifices, to want a say in the management of the CCRT that has extensive socio-economic impacts on their lives.

  But more to the point. Why are you trying to prevent it? In doing so, operational staff are exceeding their administrative functions and usurping the role of Cllrs and their policy making functions of directing and controlling the affairs of Council. Your behavior demonstrates your intentions to protect Councils perceived conflict of interest in an indeavour to exploit the CCRT.

  If reserves are funded from the CCRT caravan park revenue, then the larger "the CCRT Manager" can make the caravan park to generate more CCRT revenue, the more savings "the Council" makes to service the wider Clarence Valley.

This may benefit the wider Clarence valley, but it exploits those few communities that are making significant sacrifices to generate the revenues for the CCRT. There is no benefit for them.

Their facilities are left to deteriate in a long waiting list, unable to compete in a competitive tourist market.

Yamba for example:

#   Resurface Ford park as promised 10 years ago and include potable recycled water sprinklers from the Yamba STP that crosses Ford park before it is discharged to sea,

#   Upgrade Yambas zig zag path in Flinders park as promised 15 years ago and improve surrounding aesthetics.

#   Upgrade Yambas rock pool to include barriers and pump to maintain water quality and a safer environment.

#   Assist the funding of volunteer Landcare groups

#   Make the CCRT financial records more transparent to Cllrs and the community.

  If fairness and equity and indeed productivity is to be achieved in the management of the CCRT, those few communities that have made significant sacrifices to fund the CCRT, must be given an effective voice in its management to prevent them from being exploited in the manner you are doing.

I have suggested Sect 355 C'tees or Precincts similar to the Ballina Coastal Reserves Management Plan.

  Accordingly, I respectfully await the Trusts response in addressing the issues I have raised.

Ray Hunt

Yamba

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 1:55 PM, David Morrison <David.Morrison@clarence.nsw.gov.au> wrote:

Dear Ray,

I am responding to and acknowledge your email of 28 September 2014 forwarded by Crown Lands on the 1 October 2014. I am also responding on behalf of Council's Peter Birch.  Council also acknowledges your email of 28 October 2014 to Crown Lands and forwarded to Council on the 3^rd November 2014. Council notes that your email of 28 October to Crown Lands was primarily to lodge a complaint about Council and Council's role as Trust Manager of the Clarence Coast Reserve Trust (CCRT). Council is not obliged to reply to matters raised by you to Crown Lands, but will provide a response to Crown Lands if required.

On matters raised in your email of 28 September 2014, Council provides the following response:

Inclusion of non-coastal zone reserves within the CCRT

Council notes that Kevin Cameron has provided a reply in regards to this matter, and concurs with it.

Application to the Minister for Crown Lands to include Herb Stanford Park (R8422) in the CCRT

Herb Stanford Park (R8422) is gazetted as road reserve. No Trust has been appointed to this reserve and the gazetted purpose does not meet the definition of a public reserve under the Local Government Act 1994. However, Council and the community of Maclean have developed this park over time for the benefit of the Maclean and wider Clarence Valley Community. To ensure its ongoing care, control and management the CCRT have applied to the Minister to have this small but community important reserve included as part of the CCRT.  

Redevelopment of McLachlan Park

The adopted budget for the redevelopment of McLachlan Park will be undertaken largely with grant monies ($500K – Regional Development Australia Fund; $300K – Better Boating Program) and from the sale of Operational land in Maclean ($500K). The CCRT may contribute some monies to complete the redevelopment of this reserve if required, but it will not be in the order that you claim. Similarly, Council and Council as Corporate Manager of the CCRT will apply for grant monies as opportunities arise to offset the majority of the cost of the proposed redevelopment of the Calypso Caravan Park.

Management of Crown Reserves in general

Council and Council as Corporate Manager of more than 90 Reserve Trusts manage more than 200 Crown Reserves covering approx. 1240ha on behalf of the people of NSW. This is in addition to the 272ha of Community and Operational land owned by Council and developed as public open space. Council is aware of its responsibilities as Trust Manager of Crown Reserves under the Crown Lands Act 1989 and will aim to ensure equity of service provision across all public land managed by Council on behalf of residents and visitors to the Clarence Valley. This may include grouping Crown Reserves under fewer Reserve Trusts to improve the efficiency of the management of Crown Reserves on behalf of the people of NSW.

I trust that this clarifies the situation for you.

Yours faithfully

David Morrison

Acting Director Environment, Planning and Community

David Morrison

Manager Strategic & Economic Planning

Clarence Valley Council

Locked Bag 23, GRAFTON NSW 2460

P: (02) 6643 0204

F: (02) 6642 7647

M: 0408 296 365

www.clarence.nsw.gov.au

______________________________

Foot Notes

1. NSW Environment Minister Rob Stokes has announced the development of reforms to the State’s coastal management laws, including improved technical support and new funding arrangements for local government coastal management initiatives.

The coastal reform package is expected to come before the State Parliament at the end of 2015 and will replace the 35-year-old Coastal Protection Act, which the Minister said no longer achieves the desired integrated and balanced approach to coastal management. [National Seachange Taskforce, 20 November 2014]