For the North Coast ‘legacy’ or ‘zombie developments’ have been an ongoing issue with many locals aware of, and part of, community opposition to developments like Iron Gates at Evans Head which the community has been fighting against for more than 30 years.
The issue of ‘legacy’ or ‘zombie developments’ is now subject to a new inquiry by the Legislative Assembly Committee on Environment and Planning. The inquiry aims to ‘be looking into historical development consents in New South Wales’. These ‘historical development consents are development projects that were approved years or sometimes decades ago but remain unfinished with minimal work completed. Sometimes, work on these developments may restart after years or decades of no activity.’
Dr Richard Gates has been active in calling out the Iron Gates development and other zombie developments in the Richmond Valley Council (RVC) area.
‘In my view there are two groups of Zombie developments,’ Dr Gates told The Echo.
‘1. The group where consent was given years ago with no time limit on the consent and work had commenced 2. The group where the land was zoned for residential or other form of development (such as infrastructure) many years ago and now the land owners are seeking approval for a DA for the site.
‘We have at least three Zombie developments in the mid-Richmond area of Richmond Valley Council: Iron Gates, Boundary Creek, and Rileys Hill Road. All three are before the Land & Environment Court (L&EC).
Inquiry Chair, Clayton Barr MP explained that ‘Zombie developments reflect the law at time the development consent was initially granted. Planning and environmental standards have changed since some of these older consents were issued and the community’s expectations have shifted too.’
Dr Gates explained to The Echo that the Iron Gates site was zoned for development more than 40 years ago.
‘That was despite major community opposition for many reasons including fire and flood risk,’ he said.
In 1997 the development application (DA) was removed by the L&EC and around $2 million of remediation was required by court order. Hoewever developer Grame Ingles has never done the work.
Richmond Valley Council continues to push for the development,’ said Dr Gates.
‘In this case the GM, John Walker, according to developer Ingles in evidence given at the NRPP Case in August 2022, invited him to put in an application for the Iron Gates in 2014, the beginning of the current case which is now in its tenth year. The cost to the community has been enormous including legal fees and may have included subsidies for sewage treatment. There will be legacy costs to the public for future generations to maintain the site. Council refused to have a hearing on the zoning of the land. Buy-out of the land has been raised for inclusion in Broadwater National Park on at least five occasions but turned down by state government on the grounds that it doesn’t have the money. Further litigation is expected if the appellant doesn’t get its way.’
The Rileys Hill Road development currently before the L&EC which has high flood risk as well as impact of sewerage on a lake in a National Park and the Boundary Creek development is currently before the L&EC and has high flood risk plus coastal proximity problems.
‘In all three cases Richmond Valley Council should have acted to knock back acceptance of DAs for these three sites from the get-go but failed to do so. It would appear that the State-driven imperative for housing and more housing is prevailing for sites which have major problems which will only get worse as Climate Change bears down on us,’ said Dr Gates.
President of the Tweed Ratepayers Association Lindy Smith said that ‘hard reality needs to head the Inquiry into zombie developments’.
‘Who will be liable for the known impacts and risks to human communities today in 2024 from allowing developments on floodplains and within bushfire hazard areas? Will it be the proponent, or Councils and government with that cost being worn by ratepayers and taxpayers.
‘Developing known floodplains adjoining existing residential communities will result in significant cumulative impacts from increased flood levels,’ Ms Smith told The Echo.
‘Zombie developments on known floodplains and within bushfire hazard areas will be uninsurable. Will the government set up an insurance scheme? Are we going to open the door to a revolving door of class actions, rather than taking a proactive approach?
‘In the year 2024 and post the catastrophic disaster that hit our region 2022 and continues to strike across our nation, are we to be committed to never-ending rebuilding never catching up? With many of the approved zombie developments home to ever increasing numerous threatened species and habitat, endangered ecological communities and wetlands, are we as a society going to continue the business as usual approach until we have collapsed ecosystems?’
Make a submission
The inquiry is looking to hear from a range of community members, businesses and local councils who live near or are affected by historical development consents.
‘We are calling for submissions on the impact of these development consents on the NSW planning system, development industry and property ownership. We would also like to consider policy and legal solutions to address the issue, including what other jurisdictions have done to address similar issues,’ said Chair Barr.
As part of the inquiry, the Committee will also consider any barriers in using the current planning framework to address the issue and the benefits and costs to taxpayers if action is taken on the issue.
Submission close on Monday, 3 June 2024. Further information on the inquiry including the terms of reference and how to make a submission is available on the Committee’s webpage.
‘My big concern relates to the legacy effects these developments, should they be approved, will have on future generations financially and otherwise. Planning legislation needs to be put in place which allows for reconsideration of lands that are high risk for residential development with appropriate compensation available for public acquisition. The ‘unimproved’ capital value of the property should be the benchmark for compensation, not its improved value based on an approved DA,’ said Dr Gates.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
