19.3 C
Byron Shire
August 18, 2022

Greens accused of folding over Bruns parks negotiations  

Latest News

Food, drink and craft brewery ’in principle’ approval for Tweed South Industrial Estate

Industrial estate zoning was under question at Tweed Council's planning meeting on 4 August as councillors endorsed the development application (DA) for an ‘artisan food and drink industry including craft brewery, retail area and restaurant at Industry Drive Tweed Heads South. 

Other News

Mental health explored at Ballina symposium

250 people attended the first free Community Mental Health Symposium last Thursday at Ballina RSL, with a range of expert speakers from various organisations explaining the dimensions of the problem and how best to move forward.

A little lift

After the loss of our public road during the February 28 deluge, some isolated residents have had to rely...

NSW Flood Inquiry released today

The NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet was in Lismore at Southern Cross University this morning at 11am releasing the NSW Independent Flood Inquiry where he accepted every recommendation put forward.

Teen charged following aggravated break and enters in Coraki

A teenager has been charged following two alleged aggravated break and enters in Coraki.

Comment: Catherine Cusack opens up about the crisis in our classrooms

'I came prepared for my last Parliamentary Committee Hearing with a fat file of public submissions to assist questioning of witnesses.' 

Mirabelle’s game 

A magical quest is taking place in Lismore Quad from August 15–23. Deep underground, right beneath the town (and...

The revised Ferry Reserve map from state government-run NSW Crown Holiday Parks Trust. That image and the Massey Greene plan are in the upcoming May 25 council agenda, public attachments: www.byron.nsw.gov.au/meetings
The revised Ferry Reserve map from state government-run NSW Crown Holiday Parks Trust. That image and the Massey Greene plan are in the upcoming May 25 council agenda, public attachments: www.byron.nsw.gov.au/meetings

Hans Lovejoy

Deep division and political backflips have emerged within local Greens members over a move to put plans of management (PoM) on public exhibition for two of the three holiday parks in Brunswick Heads.

The move will lead to Council’s acquiescing over a 20-year encroached-boundary battle and formalise the transfer of ownership of land they once managed to the state government-run NSW Crown Holiday Parks Trust (NSWCHPT).

Residents have fought a long campaign against different incarnations of NSWCHPT after disgraced Labor planning minster Tony Kelly took control of the assets – and revenue – away from Council in 2006.

A rescission motion for the upcoming May 25 meeting is authored by Cr Sarah Ndiaye, and is supported by fellow Greens Crs Michael Lyon, Jeanette Martin and National Party-aligned Cr Alan Hunter.

With Greens mayor Simon Richardson’s support it will pass, despite that being a complete backflip on his position when the POMs were initially adopted by then-NSW minister Kevin Humphries in 2014.

He told Echonetdaily last Sunday, ‘I support the rescission motion and I believe it will give a better outcome than we could get any other way.’

The previous April 20 motion, supported by everyone except Cr Hunter, will be rescinded, or overturned, and instead Council will support NSWCHPT’s PoMs for Ferry Reserve and Massey Greene holiday parks.

A decision on the Terrace Reserve, which contains the Cypress Pine WWI memorial park, has been deferred until Council’s June meeting and workshops are proposed before.

According to Cr Michael Lyon, the deal with NSWCHPT will see ‘unfettered public access to the foreshore through minimum 10m setbacks from the Brunswick River, access to boat ramps, and open public space in lot 7005 at Massey Greene, including a children’s play area.’

Cr Ndiaye says that NSWCHPT will manage the 10m setbacks; NSWCHPT CEO Steve Edmonds confirmed this and told Echonetdaily that if the PoMs are adopted ‘this will then become legally binding on the Trust. The risk for Council and the community disappears.’

Acknowledging it will be an unpopular move, Cr Ndiaye said, ‘Ultimately we are looking to get a great foreshore, not an endless battle.’

Cr Ndiaye says the previous motion triggered a response from NSWCHPT that would see them revert to the previously approved PoMs which does not include the current promises.

‘I’m concerned the previous resolution was very ambiguous and would be interpreted as a “deemed refusal.” It flies the the face of all the negotiations thus far,’ Cr Ndiaye said.

Legal advice needed 

While residents are up in arms over the Greens capitulating over the alleged land grab – both local Greens MP for Ballina Tamara Smith and Cr Cate Coorey told Echonetdaily independent legal advice should be sought to inform Council’s position.

Ms Smith said, ‘… there has never been a definitive and legal determination around maps and boundaries.’

‘What were once fairly informal areas for caravans and camping at Christmas and school holidays in Bruns have grown into first a business overseen by Council and more recently with the advent of the Crown land trusts a highly commercial business opportunity for the government with its ever-increasing thirst for a commercial return.

‘The boundaries of where the holiday parks start and finish are contested sites.

‘I feel that this is at the heart of the frustration that the community feels because until recently there were no formal maps, only a land-grabbing process by the parks and the maps that are now before us are highly contested.

‘Pursuing the legality of the alleged boundaries of the parks makes a lot of sense to me as a state MP because it isn’t right for the Crown to acquire public land for commercial purposes by stealth or hoodwinking.

‘The protection of endangered tree species, the koala corridor, the memorial pines and the general health of the foreshore are all significant environmental matters that need to be addressed before the community can sign off.

‘It seems very unfair that Council have been put in a position where there is a suggestion of a threat that if they don’t agree to the boundaries being put to them by the Holiday Park Trust that the capacity for Council to advocate for changes will disappear, be taken out of their hands and something worse could be foisted upon them/us.’

Licences v PoMs

Any caravan park operator must have Council approval, which Echonetdaily understands is defined under s68 of the Local Government Act 1993.

For years, residents have argued that those licences and associated boundary issues should be addressed before the adoption of any PoMs.

Adopting any PoMs, they say, will legally bind Council to the contested boundaries.

Cr Coorey says she asked the NSWCHPT four months ago for the gazetted boundaries at the first Council meeting with NSWCHPT.

She is yet to hear back. Echonetdaily asked NSWCHPT CEO Steve Edmonds when that information will be supplied but he did not reply.

He did say however that Council, ‘has a separate approval role under the Local Government Act 1993, but this is subject to the minister’s decision-making.’

Former Greens councillor Duncan Dey told Echonetdaily he had asked NSWCHPT for the gazetted boundaries four years ago.

‘A better way forward may be to establish these boundaries before signing off on the PoMs. Assenting to the PoMs first, you can hardly come back later and shrink the operating areas.’

On this point, Cr Ndiaye provided the following advice from staff: ‘… this would bring Council back to where it started.’

The staff member’s advice continued, ‘The Trust previously submitted applications for areas that Council did not agree with and which were reduced or changed by resolution. These conditions were not agreed by the Trust and the approvals referred to the minister.’

‘By negotiation, it was agreed to issue approvals to allow the PoM to set the boundaries following negotiation and with the benefit of consultation. As a result of this process the public access along the foreshore has been negotiated for all Holiday Parks and more public areas included.

‘To go back to a negotiation at the application stage and through this process could mean all bets are off and the disputed conditions including boundaries are back with the minister.

‘Through the application process there is no consultation as there will be when the revised concept plans are exhibited.’

Echonetdaily asked Cr Ndiaye ‘Why hasn’t council pursued this ahead of supporting their POM maps?’

She replied, ‘The gazetted boundaries can be found on both crown lands site and NSWCHPT. I know these are hotly contested by some so you’re better to talk to them.’

Greens out of step

Independent Cr Cate Coorey said, ‘My previous notice of motion and these actions by the community through Council are being somehow seen as interfering in the process of negotiations.’

‘I would say the process of negotiation was not a good process – for example, the walk through in the park and submissions were made. We haven’t actually seen those submissions. We’ve only seen reports on what people said. For me there’s no transparency there, and that process which was supposed to inform these concept plans is flawed. I also think the new councillors really haven’t listened to the community, and I understand the need to view this afresh, however you can’t just ignore the history of this situation. In determining the boundaries, you have to understand what went before. When you realise how much land we’ve actually already given them, to cling to a few important bits is not a belligerent community – it’s actually a community that has conceded quite a lot.’

Echonetdaily asked Cr Coorey: ‘Surely the state government just does what it wants? Aren’t you concerned you are overplaying your hand here?’

Cr Coorey replied, ‘[Given] my understanding of the Local Government Act and Crown Lands Act – and proper process – I think the community has negotiated in good faith.’

‘I don’t see that Crown parks have been the good guys in this. It’s not about oppositional politics, it’s about an outcome. I understand the council wants an outcome but it has to be a good outcome. Crown Parks have already done pretty well out of this deal and I just want to see the community do a little bit better.’

‘I’m also surprised [by] the amount of work that the NSW Greens have been doing on the Crown lands issue at a parliamentary level yet the Greens in Byron are out of step with that position.’

Greens berated

Michele Grant from the Foreshore Protection Group also berated Greens councillors for being ‘too busy to attend any community meetings,’ and says they are ‘rushing this through with unseemly haste.’

Indeed Cr Ndiaye’s rescission motion was amended as late as Thursday May 18 to defer any decision on the Terrace and the WWI memorial park. And that update, along with the extra attachment of the two concept maps only became available online on Saturday May 20.

As for the Ferry Reserve, Ms Grant says that coastal redgums have recently been removed from the area.

‘These trees are listed as koala food trees under SEPP 44.’

‘The foreshore has been identified as a koala corridor which creates a link from west to east under the Pacific Highway bridge.

‘A program needs to be implemented to replace this lost habitat with a view to rehabilitating the corridor. The rescission motion from the Greens councillors will hand this fragile vulnerable public parkland over to NSWCHPT for commercial development, literally privatising public lands without a hint of hypocrisy, and signing off on the destruction of protected ecological communities and the koala corridor.’

Ms Grant says, ‘If the rescission motion gets up it allows a free for all and Council will have virtually no input or control over future development of our public lands by NSWCHPT.’

NSWCHPT statement

NSWCHPT CEO Steve Edmonds told Echonetdaily:

  • NSWCHPT (the Trust) inherited control over the Terrace Reserve Holiday Park, Massey Greene Holiday Park and Ferry Reserve Holiday Parks from Byron Shire Council Trust in 2006. The Trust has made some improvements to the operations since then, but has not changed the park boundaries.
  • Both the Trust and Council are obliged to work within the Acts which govern them. These Acts include the Local Government Act and the Crown Lands Act.’
  • The Trust prepared new plans of management for improvement of the parks in 2014, and the Minister approved these under the Crown Lands Act after a public consultation process.
  • There has been significant community comment on the approved 2014 plans since then.  The Trust has heard these comments and so it has not yet implemented the 2014 plans despite its rights under the Crown Land Act to do so.  Instead, the Trust is working with Council and community to prepare the new plans, and it will present the new plans for public consultation once they are prepared.
  • Public consultation is the right time for members of the community to have their say on the new plans when they are exhibited. All comments during the public consultation process will be considered carefully, before any proposal is submitted to the Minister for approval.
  • The Council also has a separate approval role under the Local Government Act, but this is subject to the Minister’s decision-making as well.
  • Given the amount of time that has passed since the 2014 plans of management were approved, the Trust is applying to the Council for interim approval to enable it to continue with the existing park operations until the new plans are finalised.  This will also give the Trust an opportunity to address some of the technical matters relating to the park operations which it inherited from the previous operators.
  • It is disappointing that a small minority of people have made personal attacks on members of the Trust.  The Trust is doing its best to find solutions which will deliver the best outcome for all people who may use the parks and the local community.  We must keep in mind the many permanent residents of the parks, who are long time members of the community and who have found the uncertainty and the behaviour of some park opponents particularly difficult.
  • The Trust remains committed to working with the Council and the community in good faith.  We ask all involved to do the same, so that we can deliver better parks for all concerned.

Encroachment guarantee 

Echonetdaily received confirmation from both NSWCHPT CEO Steve Edmonds and Council’s legal services co-ordinator Ralph James that there is legal certainty that the NSWCHPT won’t be able encroach on the proposed 10m setbacks.

NSWCHPT CEO Steve Edmonds told Echonetdaily, ‘In terms of setbacks we are required to achieve three metres from the river top of bank. We are proposing 10m instead.’

‘If the 10m gets exhibited and adopted this will then become legally binding on the Trust. The risk for Council and the community disappears. It will be the POM not the Regulation that makes them binding as the Regulation only ever requires three metres except where the boundary is a road. Yes we would manage these foreshores (right to the waterline) as they are still in the gazetted Reserves and not on Council Land.’

Meanwhile Mr James said the setbacks detailed within the Plan of Management would be binding as it as the same effect as a development consent.

He said, ‘A Plan of Management under section 114 Crown Lands Act 1989 has the equivalent status to that of a Development Consent under the Environmental Planning and assessment Act for the use as Caravan Parks and camping grounds.’

‘A section 68 Approval to Operate is a lesser development standard to that of the Crown Lands Act. A section 68 Approval to Operate relates to the uses of the park at the time of the application.

‘The three Holiday Parks were operated on Crown Reserves by Council for more than 60 years.

‘Over this time the land occupied expanded outside the boundaries of the Crown Reserves into road reserves and into other Crown Reserve areas.

‘In 2007, when the Byron Shire Holiday Parks Reserve Trust became the operator of the three Holiday Parks, there were significant existing deviations from both the land tiles occupied for the Holiday Parks and camping grounds, and the specific layout of the parks in respect of the Regulations,’ he said.

Questions to Council’s legal services manager, Ralph James

Meeting procedure

Question: Cr Ndiaye also she claims that once a rescission motion is lodged it cannot be withdrawn and must give a directive, ie it cannot be simply a delay. Is that correct? She is basically saying that owing to NCHP’s telling council the previous motion by Cr Coorey (Resolution No. 17-120) is a ‘deemed refusal,’ then she was forced to act and has no choice. That seems odd to me but anyway that’s what I understood her to say. For example, this rescission motion defers “consideration of the Revised Concept Plan for Terrace Reserve Holiday Park.”
Is there any requirement for Cr Ndiaye to follow through with this rescission motion?

Mr James replied, ‘A motion, once it has been placed on the agenda, cannot be withdrawn. However a motion cannot be debated unless there is a mover and a seconder.’

Legal advice

Question: Cr Ndiaye also sent through responses from Steve Edmonds to Patricia Warren over the parks. It appears Mr Edmonds simply has a differing opinion to Ms Warren, ie it is not clear whether it underpinned with any legal advice. Does Mr James consider the arguments by Mr Edmonds to be more legally sound than Ms Warren’s? What likelihood would council have winning such a case if NCHP took it to the L&E court over not complying with its request for approval and the validity of the 2014 Plans of Management (POM)?

Mr James replied, ‘Mr Edmonds statements as to the historical development of the governing legislation are accurate. Legal Services makes no comment as to Mr Edmonds application of facts or circumstances to the applicable governing legislation. In the event of proceedings being launched in the Land and Environment Court where Council is named as a party, Council would take legal advice based on the nature of that action and the matters pleaded. Council would be guided by that advice which would include an advice as to merits.’

Further questions to Cr Ndiaye:

Timing of future development 

Question: This rescission motion – in part 3b – appears to commit Council to the timing of future development applications by NSWCHTP. Surely council should not be bound to their timelines – that appears unnecessary. Why include it? Was it a demand from NSWCHTP?

She replied, ‘To the contrary. I asked that we reduce the timeframe and this is one of the details worked on with staff. Previous approvals have been for a five year period and issues raised in the past by the community is that there hasn’t been a strict enough timeframe set by council. This way the Trust needs to undertake any works required within that period to make Holiday Parks compliant under the the 2005. This will give the Trust the opportunity to demonstrate that it is serious about doing what it has committed to, and prior to any further applications. A shorter period of say 12 months would have been too short to achieve the outcome.  I believe the Trust were involved in working out the timeframe and committed to meeting it. This is not a DA which would sit under the Local Government Act 1993. It’s a PoM under the Crown Lands Act 1989. It is not committing Council to anything but rather committing the Trust to get it done, according to the Legislation and within a time frame.’

Echonetdaily additionally asked Cr Ndiaye, ‘Who helped you author this or is this all your own work? ie was there assistance from the mayor, staff, NSWCHTP?’

She replied, ‘I initially wrote a draft, met with staff, discussed options that would achieve the best outcome and they came back with wording (I’m sure would have consulted with NCHP but you’d have to ask them) and I again made adjustments.’

‘We than had a meeting with all councillors and NCHP and we discussed variations on the design for the Terrace and given there it was clear there was still room for improvement on the design and more information required about the trees, we adjusted the the final wording to allow for further negotiation.

Also Echonetdaily asked, ‘Does this rescission motion have any deals attached? Was there promises exchanged between council and the state government for allowing the contentious boundaries to be subsumed within these POMs?’

Cr Ndiaye replied, ‘No, there are no deals attached or promises made. These variations of PoM allow for less for NCHP than the current PoM and more obligation on their part to provide setbacks and community facilities so I don’t think we’re in a position to ask for anything in exchange.’





Support The Echo

Keeping the community together and the community voice loud and clear is what The Echo is about. More than ever we need your help to keep this voice alive and thriving in the community.

Like all businesses we are struggling to keep food on the table of all our local and hard working journalists, artists, sales, delivery and drudges who keep the news coming out to you both in the newspaper and online. If you can spare a few dollars a week – or maybe more – we would appreciate all the support you are able to give to keep the voice of independent, local journalism alive.


  1. Mayor Simon Richardson has down a slick job in his latest Bird’s Eye View news letter to the Shire. So, let’s deconstruct, with evidence as opposed to rhetoric, because he and the Greens and the National want NSW Crown Holiday Parks Trust development plans to go on public exhibition. The Trust is well aware of the issues and has not amended their development plans to reflect these. Making submissions and expecting the Trust to do make further amendments is naive.
    If you accept the following accountable information then email each Councillor not to support the rescission motion. This needs to be done urgently, i.e. before Thursday 25.5.17.
    Email contacts are
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected] suggest leaving Cate out as she is well aware of the issues
    [email protected]

    Ferry Caravan Park
    1. Crown Lands acquired under compulsory acquisition 23,516sqm of Council’s land in May 2012. This will approx double the Ferry’s existing area.
    2. The NSW Crown Holiday Parks Trust development of 13% of the acquired land (3,124sqm) is contentious.
    3. The area was outside the boundary of the caravan park and formed part of the foreshore parkland, itself a koala wildlife corridor linking east and west of the bridge over the Brunswick River.
    3. NSW Crown Holiday Parks is developing the contentious land for cabins and short term sites. It is a known flood prone area.
    4. This will leave approx 1600sqm of land varying in width from 10m to 15m along the Brunswick River for shared open space and address the current unmanageable ‘overspilling’ of the park’s clients onto the existing walkway.
    5. The Trust argues it only has to provide a 3m buffer to the top of the riverbank. There is nothing in the legislation that says the top of the riverbank is the starting point for measuring a 3m setback. Council has the power to determine ‘any other boundary’ from which this 3m can be measured. This was done in the past when the boundary to the caravan park excluded the foreshore parkland.
    6. The status of the foreshore access is unknown. Is it inside or outside the boundaries of the caravan park? This will be important should the caravan parks go to long term commercial leasing as recommended in a confidential report. These questions apply to all the caravan parks!
    Summed, the ‘deal’ the community gets is the loss of 23,426sqm of land at Ferry and in exchange we get to ‘keep’ approx 1600sqm of shared foreshore land.

    1. The Trust transferred Crown Land for Port Facilities and Services to General Purpose Land in 2009. This is the contentious 2235sqm known as Lot 7005 located on the western side of Massy Greene. By transferring the land to General Purpose it meant the Trust could change the permissible uses of the land.
    2. The Trust used compulsory acquisition in May 2012 to acquire an additional 2758sqm of land
    3. The Trust intends to reclaim 1300sqm of Council’s Tweed St road reserve. This adds 6,293sqm to the area of the caravan park.
    4. The Trust is stating that the community is getting 8236sqm of public open space. But:
    a. approx 1200sqm along the northern boundary is inter-tidal land
    b. the 10m setback to the top of the riverbank on the northern boundary is approx 2000sq. This will address the unmanageable overspilling of the park’s clients onto the existing walkway. The Trust claims it only as to have a 3m setback (600sqm) but it is Council who determines the starting point for measuring that setback, not the Trust.

    c. 1300sqm is to be reclaimed Council road reserve to be planted out as a buffer zone leaving the foreshore walkway on Council’s road reserve on the eastern side of the caravan park
    d. 3000sqm on the western side is outside the proposed boundary of Massy Greene with a ‘road’ and foreshore walkway to be developed on it
    Reinstatement of the public boat ramp is integral to the development of both the caravan park and the boat harbour. The Trust is dependent upon the access road to the boat ramp remaining as an ungazetted road. If it was a gazetted road, then the Trust would have to setback any of its development 10m.
    e. The proposed children’s playground on part Lot 7005 of 765sqm is unsuited for that use because of the vehicular movement that can be expected from
    (i) redevelopment of the boat harbour
    (ii) proposed entry to the caravan park
    (iii) adjoins an increasingly busy Old Pacific Highway
    (iv) reinstatement of the boat ramp for public/commercial use

    A more suited site is the proposed waterfront park as part of the redevelopment of the boat harbour.
    A better use of this site is for car and trailer parking to service the re-instated public boat ramp.

    7. What is the ‘deal’ the community gets? It loses 4958sqm of Council land to the caravan park and gets highly dubious ‘open space,’ part of which goes under water

  2. The map pictured above is Massey Greene not Ferry Reserve….Lot 7005 – the disputed boundary is next to Boat harbour. NSWCHPT have acquired ‘encroached road reserve lands’ along old pacific hwy and Tweed St (near Mona Lane) in this plan. We are hoping for a wider buffer zone between yacht precinct and Massey Greene for shared public use. Lot 7005 was part of harbour precinct until 2009 when it was “acquired” without any public consultation for free! Note all the new cabins overlooking harbour – currently there’s just 7m between top of harbour wall and fenceline of MG – the plan claims access to boat ramp and carparks will squeeze in – making access crowded and dangerous. Lot 7005 follows the line of existing timber fence next to permanents to the riverbank – which remains the existing legal boundary that Council will change tomorrow.

  3. We do not support Rescission Motion 9.3 proposed by Cr Sarah Ndiaye, Michael Lyons & Alan Hunter which will endorse NSWCHPT concept drawing for inclusion within revised 2014 POM.

    Their proposal will in effect gift 35,000m2 of ex-road reserve lands valued at over $3 million (in 2009) to NSWCHPT for commercial operations – this includes 10,000m2 the community seeks to retain for shared public use comprising:

    1. Community land at Ferry foreshore which includes part Riverside Cres road reserve (~2,000m2).
    Ferry foreshore is an identified wildlife corridor that BSC wanted to include in Pacific Hwy rehabilitation plans in the 2005 POM and for shared public recreation. Additional recreational space – not less – is needed by Ferry Holiday Park which will virtually double in size with the inclusion of Old Pacific Hwy land.

    2. Sth Terrace (~6000m2) has significant cultural, heritage and environmental values, and amenity issues for neighbours. The land has been seriously degraded with the change of use and intensified use by NCHP. Restricting holiday park use to primitive camping in peak holiday periods as detailed in resolution 15-651 is the best outcome NCHP can expect. The community fully supports a total ban on camping and were celebrating Paul Spooner’s welcome inclusion of this point in NoM and return to community land.
    A long overdue tree management strategy was outlined in Resolution 16-464 of 25 August 2016 but with no assurance it will be implemented or protect remaining trees .

    3. Lot 7005 (~2000m2) was marine park land until 2009 and provides a much needed buffer zone between Boat Harbour & Massy Greene Holiday Park – both major infrastructure – for shared public recreational use. Crown Lands legislation encourages SHARED USE. This high value, irreplaceable public land was also resumed with no consultation, at no cost to NCAT/NSWCHPT.

    NSWCHPT gets 35,000m2 of our public land – in exchange for what?

    Councillors claim the community will love NSWCHPT latest plan, but the real question is what did the community get in exchange for public land valued at over $3million? What exactly is the deal Councillors are offering in Rescission motion 9.3?

    Councillors are promoting the 10m setback along the riverbank in Terrace as a huge win for the community. We are asking for the reinstatement of the legally designated buffer zone and public pathway which exists outside the operational area of the holiday park but remains obstructed by park activities. We do not want a “new” pathway of dubious legal status as suggested by NSWCHPT plan.
    Councillors are concerned NSWCHPT will withdraw the offer or revert to a worse plan if we don’t accept the deal. In reality, it’s a fabulous deal for NSWCHPT who get to relocate NON-COMPLIANT low yield camp sites and permanent residents off the riverbank in Terrace Park and replace them with high revenue generating cabins, that are legally required to be setback 10m from the top of the riverbank by BSC since 2000. The 2014 POM offers no similar development opportunity along the riverfront and fails to address compliance issues.

    No one could sell the proposition they are offering as a great deal for the community regardless of the internal layout of the parks provided in NSWCHPT concept drawings.

    NSWCHPT gains 35,000m2 of public land park management encroached on, without permission and refuses to vacate – protected parkland NCAT/NSWCHPT have seriously trashed over the past decade. The community loses 10,000m2 of vulnerable, high value public land we want to protect and retain for public use and are willing to share with NSWCHPT.

    Any reasonable person would consider Councillors proposal an unfair inequitable outcome for the Brunswick Heads community.

  4. I know who I have confidence in and it’s not Sarah Ndiaye (a late arrival in a 20+ years land grab) or neither Simon Richardson (wants to wash his hands of this unpleasant long-running saga) or Steve Edmonston who in doing his job, pleases only his State Govt boss (‘developer’) who wants only to raise Capital $$$ from the development of our public parks.
    We (the community) need our moment in a Court of Law to determine an outcome that better serves the residents and visitors of our wonderful little town.
    The right thing needs to be done for the people.

  5. Staff advice on the boundary issue is not consistent with what actually happened. Resolutions made on the boundaries in August 2012 (Resolution 12-627) did not please the North Coast Accommodation Trust. The issue was taken to the then Minister, Don Page. Council reiterated its support for its resolution. By now the licenses for the three caravan parks had expired. Council in good faith, to keep the caravan parks operating, issued an interim license for Massy Greene and the Terrace only. That interim license was a renewal of the highly dubious license issued under delegated authority by a staffer who had no legal right to decide to include all of the encroached lands in the 2007-2012 for the three caravan parks.

    In correspondence from the Trust, and signed by Mr Jim Bolger, is acknowledgment that “due to the addition of new lands to the Ferry Reserve Holiday Park, the application for that park should be regarded as a new application rather than a renewal.” (Ref: Annexure 11(m) to Ordinary Business 9/8/12). The additional lands acquired under compulsory acquisition took 23,516sqm from Council and added to the Crown Reserves at Ferry. This is equivalent to 39x 600sqm general residential house blocks! Adding land to the Crown Reserve does not automatically turn it into a caravan park. It is Council who determines the boundaries and conditions of operation of the caravan park under its legislative power s68 of the Local Government Act NOT the Trust

    So, what appears as the staffer’s recollection of events is erroneous!

  6. The press is saying that Cr Ndiaye says the previous motion triggered a response from NSWCHPT that would see them revert to the previously approved PoMs which does not include the current promises.
    Did it trigger such a response?

    If so, what is being said is that once again rather than negotiate as equals on contentious boundaries and possible loss of encroached lands, the Trust is threatening Council and the public? Are they really saying if you don’t do what we want now we’ll go back and give Brunswick Heads the shocking PoM of 2014? I hope that is not true.

    ‘I’m concerned the previous resolution was very ambiguous and would be interpreted as a “deemed refusal.” It flies the the face of all the negotiations thus far,’

    There has been progress and that is very good news, however the Trust is not and never has been prepared to negotiate boundaries. They have openly and flatly refused since day one. They demand virtually all of Lot 7005 at the harbour/Massy-Greene boundary in spite of over 20 years of objection.

    It is time that the public knew exactly what is at stake and what it could lose and understand what it is prepared to negotiate away to resolve these issues. The one and only way to do this is for once in all these years to show those boundaries in overlay onto the concept plans. They are once again not on the latest concepts, and surely some on Council would have little idea of what is at really at stake.

    It would also clearly show the concessions that may have been made or are proposed by the Trust to the people of Brunswick Heads which might be helpful, no? But alas, that would be to easy.

  7. Congratulations to the Councillors putting forward this rescission motion. Finally some Councillors are acting out of common sense, rather than politics, on this issue. It’s a brave step to take, I hope it goes through, then the Bruns community can finally move forward on the Parks issues.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Storylines – The Voice of the voiceless

My grandfather would often tell me a story. A story about a community. This community was self-sufficient, self-reliant, and self-determining of their own lives.

Draft COMP caps Public Access at Lismore Council

A Draft Code of Meeting Practice (COMP) and Briefing Policy prepared by the Governance & Customer Service Manager was the subject of discussion at Lismore Council this week.

Olivia Newton-John and FernGully

Olivia Newton-John was active in many environmental issues in the Northern Rivers region. One in particular was the 12-year battle to save ‘Fern Gully’ in Coorabell from being dammed.

Planning Dept investigates Splendour festival site

The company which owns and manages North Byron Parklands is being investigated by the NSW Department of Planning over traffic safety breaches that occurred during last month’s Splendour in the Grass festival.