When the Chief Judge of the Land & Environment Court (LEC) approved the development of 121 residential sites at the controversial Iron Gates site at Evans Head more than 20 months ago, he did so with many conditions. These requirements included large volumes of fill for areas known to flood from the Evans River and flood plains/wetlands on which the property sits.
The Iron Gates, more than a kilometre from the Evans Head, is reached by a bridge and road for which Richmond Valley Council says it is not under its ‘care, control or management’. The bridge crosses a creek and tidal mangrove flats. The road and bridge were inundated in the 2022 floods cutting off the property from the town for days.
Is the bridge safe to use?
In the 2024 judgement of the LEC, the chief judge asked for a Level 3 ‘Structural safety assessment of the bridge to a AS5100 standard with accommodation of SM1600 loading, in order to confirm that the bridge meets the appropriate standard and is safe for use’.
There was concern about the ‘serviceability’ of the bridge for the demands imposed on it by the ‘significant heavy vehicle truck movements during the importation of the site filling and construction.’
The judge indicated that ‘should the bridge require a rebuild or upgrade or widening to meet current standards for load limits that involved filling of land and/or vegetation removal that requires an approval… then this is to be obtained prior to the works commencing, and that any rectification or reconstruction works are identified and completed appropriately’.
The SM1600 loading is the primary traffic load model defined in AS5100.2 for Australian bridge design for heavy vehicles up to 160 tonnes.
In 2025, Banner Asset Management, the money behind the Iron Gates development, ‘engaged Far North Coast Engineers to undertake a level 4 load assessment of the existing Iron Gates bridge… based on construction stage vehicles only’.
No assessment made of heavy loads as required by the LEC
According to their subsequent report the level 4 assessment was ‘carried out to the AS5100 standard but “No assessment” was “made for future SM1600 loads’, as required by the LEC judgement.
The report to Richmond Valley Council noted that ‘in its current state the bridge is not able to accommodate two lanes of T44 (44 tonne semi trailer) with speed limits greater than 10km/hr without undertaking remedial works and providing increase[sic] load capacity to the existing members [of the bridge]’.
The current bridge is a 30 year old Doolan Deck construction made up of reinforced concrete decks bolted on to timber girders. According to the report, ‘The Doolan Deck units… are in poor to very poor condition’ and ‘the bridge is no longer performing to the original design requirements’.
In its concluding remarks the FNC engineers confirmed that ‘in the current bridge state, the bridge can accommodate one lane of T44 at reduced speed of <10km/hr based on the assessment of AS5100.’
They also concluded that ‘longitudinal deck joint strengthening is required to be installed’ and that the “the bridge will require initial and ongoing inspections to observe the diaphragm cracking during the construction stage and that while cracking was not expected to significantly worsen, the unknown cause of the cracking warrants additional surveillance’.
Richmond Valley Council making it difficult to obtain copy of bridge report
Evans Head Residents for Sustainable Development have had to obtain a copy of the engineering bridge report under the GIPA Act (Freedom of Information) and that Council would only allow inspection of the report at Council offices.
It costs $90 to see a copy of the report yet many other reports were available on-line free-of charge.
Council is making it difficult to obtain information about the Iron Gates development. Why?
From the material made available to us it seems the bridge may not be able to meet the SM1600 load standard required by the Court. Even a lesser weight standard is substantially qualified.
The bridge can accommodate single lane traffic with very much reduced loads and speed but does this mean up to four times more truck journeys?
We are currently assessing the number of loads required and asking questions about the capacity of the suburban road network to sustain heavy traffic. The impact on locals will not be good. It is particularly concerning that the trucks will be close to the local K-12 School.
Should developer put up a surety for road network?
In our view the developer should be required to stand a financial surety for the roads network before works begins particularly given the history of non-compliance with court orders in the past.
The public needs to know what Richmond Valley Council’s status is with regard to responsibility for the road and bridge. If they are not under the ‘care, control or management’ of Council, does it have legal standing with regard to enforcement of compliance standards?
And why is it taking so long for the matter to be determined in such secrecy when the initial report is dated June 2025?
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. 
