Extract from public pamphlet advertising the Iron Gates development back in the 1990s
The controversial Iron Gates estate at Evans Head is back in the spotlight, a controversy that’s been around for at least a quarter of a century (see below). This time substantial clearing of vegetation of the Iron Gates has brought many players out of the woodwork and drawn attention to the fact that housing development is again on the cards with Richmond Valley Council a keen promoter of residential development to improve its ‘housing stock’.
The Iron Gates was controversial as far back as 1990 as reported in this Richmond River Express Examiner article on 26 June 1990
Councils (the former Richmond River and now Richmond Valley) have always wanted the Iron Gates developed in the mistaken belief that more housing will improve council’s financial situation and improve the economic circumstances of the local area, but as usual there is no business plan to demonstrate that alleged benefit. Council avoids business plans like the plague most likely because it will reveal the true costs being borne by ratepayers. The Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome is a good example where there has never been a business plan. The costs to ratepayers of council’s ill-fated plans for development of the aerodrome have been in the millions of dollars. A business plan should include an honest cost of infrastructure, not the rubbish information council’s served up in the past and which has only recently been corrected by Richmond Valley because the whistle was blown on the previous incorrect information provided to council by staff.
VWD notes the usual arguments about growth and need for housing pushed in the 1990 article above, the same weary arguments we now hear from the misnamed “Valley of Surprises” Richmond Valley Council. No surprises here at all, really. Same old, same old…..! And backed of course by various local businesses who would like to have more residents to improve profits. Not that there’s anything wrong with profits, but at whose expense!
A business plan should also include any discounts proposed by council for Section 64 ‘developer contributions’ for such things as water connection, sewerage, etc. No more waiving of fees or heavy discounts.
Council is inclined to discount developer contributions in the name of economic benefit but ultimately the burden falls back on the poor bloody ratepayer once the developer is done, made profits, and buggered off.
Who ultimately got to wear the cost of ligitation from the previous Iron Gates debacle, and has that cost been included as part of the proposed development? Surely we need to recoup all those sunk costs but will Iron Gates development achieve that. Not likely.
There is no blank slate here to start again. Council has imposed a Special Rate Variation of 39.1% on ratepayers because of an infrastructure backlog and because it has no money. No prizes for guessing why it has no money! And why should ratepayers at all levels of government continue to pay?
Council even discounts developer contributions for itself. For example, the Casino Sports Stadium to be built on Colley Park had the Section 64 contributions waived by the General Manager and Mayor on the 29th of January this year. VWD was unaware that council is a “non-profit”, “charitable organisation” and that it would be “unable to recover the charge from the end user”. Where is the business plan? And who ultimately will be paying the charges for all the water and sewer works which have to be done? It doesn’t happen for nothing.
Such waiver information should have been brought to public attention when council advertised for public comment on the proposed Sports Stadium in 2013. The cost of the development grew from $1.2 to $1.5, a 25% increase in just a few short months to be followed by the half million waiver early this year. What other costs don’t we know about?
Richmond Valley Council DA file 2014.008 for the new Sports Stadium at Casino shows that $552,345 have been waived by the General Manager and Mayor. The reasons for the waiver are unclear. VWD assumes that all councillors know about this waiver as it is not a small amount and eventually someone has to pay the costs of doing all these works.
In the view of VWD there is a further problem here with regard to Iron Gates development and that is how “arms length” is council from the developer when it comes to making an assessment of any DA. It is now clear from media reports that Council has been in discussion with the Iron Gates proponents for some time including Iron Gates Pty Ltd which has been under “External Administration” for a long time now.
ASIC information about the status of Iron Gates Pty Ltd. Note that it is under “External Administration…..”
But more than that Council has been pushing for development of the Iron Gates.
Recent extract from The Casino Times
Limits to Growth and Development
Quite apart from an ‘economic’ case for the Iron Gates, which has still to be made by Council, there are the more important and longer-term environmental consequences of such a development. Our economy is dependent on a healthy environment which provides a enormous range of ‘services’ such as clean water and air as well as a range of amenities important to the Evans Head economy such as a clean and uncontaminated river system.
Development of the Iron Gates will not only put a load on our existing sewerage treatment system and water supply but also has the potential to impact the health of the river through run-off and contamination from fertilisers, riparian loss, and so on. The Evans River Estuary is already under threat from many thousands of tonnes of silt and blackwater from the Richmond River and its catchment. Does it really need this additional burden?
Doesn’t anyone in political power get it? There are limits to growth, etc. The 2001 “Region of Villages” study demonstrated this very clearly. We were past the ‘carrying capacity’ of the land for this region even then. Do we really want to have a satellite suburb on the already threatened Evans River?
The now forgotten but important NSW Coastal Design Guidelines (2001) made it clear that “…The qualities that make the NSW coast attractive are rapidly being eroded by poor development…….with little regard for the impact…..”
The Guidelines set out “overarching principles” to govern what happened to coastal development with the primary question being “where to build and where not to build“.
‘The principles included ‘ecological’, ‘urban form’ (is this the best place to optimise existing infrastructure?) and the ‘visual character’ of the place which made it unique and should be protected.
Sadly, none of these principles seem to have been considered. Alleged economic benefit is the only argument. So we get urban sprawl which eventually leads to the destruction of why many people live here plus the economic burden of subsidy which ratepayers get to wear. Not a good look.
The controversial Iron Gates area is shown in the bottom left of the picture above the sand island in the Evans River Estuary and is partially defined by the lines in the vegetation which line up with the main runway at the Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome. The diagonal line on the right is a canal which was dug by the developer to drain the site.
A number of areas of the Iron Gates have been cleared by a specialist Komatsu Bulldozer. The dozer was seen leaving the Iron Gates recently following unsuccessful attempts to burn off the trees and vegetation which had been cleared by the dozer. The photographs were sent to VWD anonymously.
Attempted burn-off of trees, many of them paperbarks. According to an observer a container of accelerant was left nearby at a fencepost. Clearly the burn-off was a failure as the trees were too green
One of the cleared sites at the Iron Gates with wind-rowed trees for burning . The area cleared of trees would appear to be considerably larger than that required for a firebreak. In this picture you can see the original controversial development in the top middle of the picture now with substantial regrowth. The picture shows the outline of two canals which were dug to drain the site. The Courts in 1997 required the canals to be filled in but State governments have sat on their hands and done nothing to enforce the court orders.
4.5ha cleared site adjacent to the Evans River Estuary
Ground shot of the clearing at the Iron Gates
The original approved development is very prone to flooding. No wonder, part of it is in SEPP 14 wetlands. How could the former Richmond River Shire Council be so dumb as to approve a residential development in a wetland! And they appear to want to do it all over again. They seem to have forgotten the enormous financial costs that came from litigation, somewhere around a $million.
One of many occasions where the site has been flooded. Little wonder this happens as part of the site is wetlands. The recent clearing will make the flooding worse. The Iron Gates canal estate!