Well, here we are less than two weeks out from the expiry date (October 31) for the Intent to Appeal the decision of the Land & Environment Court to approve a 121 residential lot development at the Iron Gates at Evans Head, and we have yet to hear from Richmond Valley Council about what it intends to do.
To appeal or not to appeal, that is the question facing the not-so-new, new council with five of the seven member back in their seats and one of the newbies, a prior encourager of residential development for the controversial site back in 2014, according to the developer, set to make a decision at the ‘death knell’, nine days from the October deadline.
You will remember that Council left it up to the new council to decide what should happen rather than leave a legacy decision which the new council would have to wear. Fair enough. But with the same old faces dominating council and little of their skin in the game as they don’t have to live with the immediate consequences of a residential development whose occupants will compete for various services with existing folk in the lower river area, don’t be surprised if they say ‘no’ to challenging the decision of the Land & Environment Court
Casino keen
The Casino-centric Richmond Valley Council has always been keen on the Iron Gates development.
Sadly, any challenge to the LEC decision has to be based on whether or not the judge who passed verdict made any legal technical errors in his judgment, perhaps a breach of a law or poor judgement in interpretation of case law. A challenge about the merits of the verdict doesn’t get a look in even though there may be lots of things to challenge, and believe me there are lots!
The Iron Gates case is more than just a technical, black letter law, legal argument. The development will not only impact the Evans Head community in particular, but the whole of the Richmond Valley Council local government area will be affected and even the wider community in terms of the potential precedent the case will set if not challenged (see for example – ‘Life gets easier for land subdivision involving mapped ‘littoral rainforest’ and ‘coastal wetlands’ from developer Ingles former solicitor: https://www.millsoakley.com.au/thinking/life-gets-easier-for-land-subdivision-involving-mapped-littoral-rainforest-and-coastal-wetlands/.
Accessibility to health and other professional services will be affected as well as insurance liabilities and essential infrastructure for fire management where the town has only one fire engine and difficulty recruiting staff.
Richmond Valley Council has had eleven weeks in which to prepare a legal opinion and economic assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the council budget.
Costs
What will be the cost to ratepayers of a new bridge to cross the wetlands on the more than one kilometre road to the isolated Iron Gates site?
What will be the cost to council of establishment and management of the new bioswales for stormwater management including management equipment and training costs for staff who have no experience?
What will be the on-going cost of management of the Asset Protection Zones for fire management which will fall to council? What will be the costs of compliance management for the complexities associated with the untested ‘Shelter-in-Place’ facility for fire and flood emergencies not to speak of the other compliance requirements for the development? And will it be necessary to put in place a special rate variation to cover these costs?
We haven’t heard a word from council about economic or legal impact should the development proceed. Council has had more than ample time to prepare an economic statement so that the interests of the community are looked after in a financially-responsible manner with no burden left for future generations. That must be part of any assessment process. And the community should have been consulted as Section 8 of the local government act recommends.
No doubt the legal costs of appeal will feature in any decision but ultimately this decision must be amortized over time against the true costs of maintaining the proposed development, potentially a small cost against long term costs to ratepayers.
Bigger issues
But there is a bigger issue which cannot be addressed by a black letter law review or economic assessment.
The fact is that the developer who put in the original appeal against the decision of the Northern Regional Planning Panel to refuse his development application was not held to account for the 1997 remediation orders of the Land & Environment Court over the same land under threat of fines and jail should they not be completed in two years?
And how is it that a Development Application can be accepted from the same developer for consideration without resolution of outstanding legal requirements against his name and be approved by the same court which issued the remediation orders in the first place?
What has this done for the credibility of the Court?
Dr Richard Gates, on behalf of Evans Head Residents for Sustainable Development Inc.
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. 
