At its December meeting, Richmond Valley Council, in a five-part motion, resolved to continue to allow 4 wheel drive vehicles (4WDs) access to Airforce Beach, Evans Head, but locals say risks have not been addressed.
The resolution followed a public survey of three management options:
1. Current arrangements of access to the beach with ‘enhanced regulatory control’,
2. Access restrictions to the beach with a permit system, and
3. Prohibit vehicles from the beach
The survey, which ran from the 10th to the 20th of November, followed an earlier decision of Richmond Valley Council, without public and agency consultation with National Parks, to build an asphalt parking area at Airforce Beach along with concrete aprons to improve beach access. The proposal cost more than a third of million dollars.
The decision to ‘harden off’ the Airforce Beach area behind closed doors prompted a motion from Cr Lyndall Murray, supported by Cr Robert Hayes at its October meeting, to seek public consultation with a report to the December meeting of council.
It was resolved that ‘Council receives a comprehensive report… outlining three costed management options to address ongoing environmental degradation, user conflict, and compliance challenges at Airforce Beach’.
Five parts
The five-part December resolution of Richmond Valley Council raised issues of funding to address safety concerns; continuing monitoring of activities on Airforce Beach; preparation of a report for the March meeting of council on beach activities to inform future consideration of the three options and associated budget costs and, investigation of a new 4WD access point on the northern side of Evans Head.
According to Council, its public Consultation Survey had 1,181 respondents. There were also six public written submissions, but these, along with reports from National Parks, Crown Lands and NSW Police were not made public.
According to Council, 54.9 per cent of public Consultation Survey participants chose the ‘current arrangements’ option for beach access.
In its commentary, Council noted additional Ranger resource costs would be around $230,000 for ‘enhanced regulatory control’. It recommended ‘clearer advice to visitors and the broader community on beach usage restriction’ and replacement of ‘vandalized signage on the beach’. It also noted these costs were not included in the 2025/6 budget.
Option 2 of the Consultation Survey, which involved controlled access to the beach and a permit system, received 20.5 per cent of the vote. The option included a shortening of the beach area available to 4WDs up to the Salty Lagoon area (2.7km) with prohibition of vehicles to the north.
It was recommended that a new traffic count be taken should this option be implemented as the last count was taken in 2019.
Option 3, removal of vehicle access to the beach altogether, received 24.6 per cent of the vote on the Survey.
A subsequent analysis of the Survey by the Evans Head postcode alone showed that only 38.5 per cent of local residents supported the ‘business as usual’ option 1, while 33.3 per cent favoured Option 3, complete closure of the beach to 4WDs.
28.2 per cent supported option 2, controlled access to the beach.
Overall, more than 60 per cent of local residents favoured changes to the way in which the beach access occurred, with either no access or controlled access the preferred options.
Serious problems
Dr Richard Gates, spokesperson for Evans Head Residents for Sustainable Development said today that there were serious problems with the way in which Richmond Valley Council made its assessment of the ongoing Airforce Beach problem of 4WD access and management.
‘Council’s Consultation Survey was a popularity contest about three beach access choices with nothing about the very serious risk management and safety problems which exist on the beach to inform decision-making,’ he said.
‘The fact that Council failed to publish the six public submissions about the Airforce Beach problem and the responses from the public agencies also involved in the beach management is very serious. Why is that kept from the public?
‘Council’s been secretive about its plans for Airforce Beach. It decided behind closed doors about the building of an asphalt car park and concrete aprons for an amount of money larger than it claims it would cost to police the beach should it remain open to 4WD traffic.
The money’s there for the building of a car park and access but there’s no money for policing and monitoring of the beach! This is poor planning,’ continued Dr Gates.
‘In our submission we asked why Council didn’t provide the necessary information about risk in its three option survey, a critical issue because of the mix of vehicles, dogs-off-leash, and humans using the beach? Elementary processes critical to the assessment and management of risk where human life is involved were missing from the council report leaving council potentially exposed should something go wrong.
‘But more than that, Council failed to raise the Crown Lands Plan of Management for the area which makes no mention of an asphalt carpark and concrete aprons. It leaves the impression that council is a law unto itself.’
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. 
