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property up for sale by but the property was withdrawn from sale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/
