A promising proposal to divert traffic past Byron Bay’s First Sun caravan park and past the swimming pool fell into a heap at Thursday’s meeting after some councillors appeared confused with what they were voting on.
While Cr Rose Wanchap’s motion appeared to be supported by most councillors, there was an air of panic when the mayor put it to the vote. As usual Cr Simon Richardson called the vote at lightning speed. Cr Rose Wanchap told The Echo, ‘I thought by connecting it to an existing large body of work it would be as- sured of earlier implementation, but alas that is not to be.’ She says that due to the flub, the motion will have to wait three months before re- submission. Alternatively Ms Wanchap said she can ‘take it via one of the traffic com- mittees for presentation to Council after that review’. Regardless, Ms Wanchap says she sees it as a ‘very affordable solution to the pre- sent bottleneck that could be implemented this year, at least before the next silly sea- son if not sooner.’ Affordable ‘It seems a waste to have a very substantial road through the First Sun Caravan Park that could be utilised to keep traffic moving. At the moment it provides income from a handful of campers while our town is blocked from all directions trying to accommodate buses, tourists and residents as they cruise around, lapping town looking for parking spots. ‘It is clear from numerous traffic surveys that 85 per cent of the traffic is caused by day trippers and tourists and they just want to get to the beach.’ Her motion requested that a staff report ‘be provided as to the feasibility and cost of creating two lanes into Byron along Shirley Street from the Woolworths Service Station in to the Jonson/Lawson Street roundabout with one lane turning left and connect- ing via the First Sun Caravan Park with Bay Street at the northern end.’ Instead, councillors voted to continue with the current bypass option of up Butler Street, through wet- lands and crossing the dis- used railway at Mitre 10.
0 Comments
Botched boat eviction plans by bureaucrat change to year lease for Bruns Buccaneer
The tedious and complicated bureaucracy that nearly sank Brunswick Buccaneer boat hire may soon be over. Well, for a year at least. The Echo reported earlier this year that the manager of the NSW government-run North Coast Holiday Parks (NCHP), Jim Bolger, inexplicably tried to evict the 30-year old business and its operator Ilan Schnitzler a year ago with just four days’ notice. It came without explanation and Mr Bolger told The Echo at the time, ‘the Trust will not take part in discussing licence or legal issues through the media’. But in a turnaround, Mr Schnitzler told The Echo that Mr Bolger had a ‘completely changed attitude,’ at their recent meeting, and agreed to allow the boat hire business to continue for a year. And as the licence makes no guarantees past 12 months, Mr Schnitzler’s solicitor, Claire Lovejoy, told The Echo it was possibly because of the NCHP’s controversial plan of management (POM) for the town- ship, which is yet to be determined. Interestingly, when on exhibition the POM did not include the Brunswick Buccaneer in the plan or maps and instead promoted a deck- ing area at the site. As for the way in which Mr Schnitzler had to navigate the bureaucratic smoke and mirrors, be prepared for layers of confusing regulation. While NSW government departments all appear to share responsibility of issuing permits to access the creek, Mr Schnitzler was advised that NCHP controls the embarkation point at Banner Park. At the high-water mark. Still with us? Smoke and mirrors Now that a licence has been signed by NCHP, he has to go back to Crown Lands, NSW Marine Parks and Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) to get the technical tick to legally operate. ‘Previously the departments indicated that permits would be grant- ed after NCHP gave the licence,’ said Ms Lovejoy. ‘Now it appears some of these departments are dragging their heels with emails unanswered for over a month.’ Mr Bolger, who is also NCHP’s media contact, was asked by The Echo for comment on the reversal of his previous eviction intentions but as of deadline there has been no reply. NCHP controversially took control from Council of public parks and reserves in 2006, and The Echo previously reported that the state government took that revenue away from Council. Additionally, the community be- came enraged at Mr Bolger’s plans to fence off public lands in the town. ■ Disclosure: Mr Schnitzler’s solicitor is a relative of the reporter A voluntary contribution from Belongil landowners affected by beach erosion is the latest plan by Byron Council to help pay for the remaining amount needed for a rock wall that would cover the last stretch of private and public beachfront in the area.
The topic of ‘interim beach access stabilisation works’ again divided the Greens voting bloc at Council’s meeting on Thursday, with Cr Rose Wanchap siding with Crs Diane Woods, Sol Ibrahim, Alan Hunter and Chris Cubis to support funding the rock wall from an environmental levy. But if the Belongil landowners come to the party, the estimated $155,000 from the levy may not be needed. Cr Ibrahim told The Echo that after meeting all the landowners recently, they were open to negotiations and are looking at ways to maintain beach frontage (as rock walls are known to erode beach frontage). While conceding it isn’t cheap, Cr Ibrahim said, ‘there are other beachfront areas all over the world with rock walls that have been engineered to also have beach frontage’. He also challenged the argument that all Belongil landowners are required to have removable houses in case of a severe storm, as per a 1980s agreement with Council. ‘Some are not subject to the 1980s Council agreement because they bought before that agreement,’ he said. Regardless, a foreshadowed motion will see Council wait for legal advice, which is due in a few weeks, and would be considered prior to tenders being called (Crs Cubis, Woods and Hunter voted against). It’s advice that mayor Simon Richardson says was recommended by a panel of experts in coastal management, who recently met with Council. A staff recommendation that funds from an environmental levy be used to fund the project dominated much of the debate, with Crs Wanchap, Woods and Ibrahim claiming that that the geo-bags that are currently in place – and that have been largely washed away – constituted environmental pollution and a threat to sea life. Cr Woods said that in all her years in Council, she had ‘never heard such hypocrisy’. ‘We are told these bags are falling apart and that the environment is being affected. [It comes down to that] some of us want rocks there, and some of us don’t. Every time we get a report that comes before us, it gets delayed… whatever tactics that can be used are put in place to stop it from happening.’ Meanwhile, Cr Ibrahim argued that the works are interim, ‘as rocks can be moved and relocated’. In reply, Cr Richardson said the issue is ‘not about eco-worrying’. ‘If we truly care about the environment, we wouldn’t have walls there so the turtles and birds might have a beach that they could use.’ Eco-worrying While admitting that the walls will happen, Cr Richardson said it was important ‘how it will happen and how to minimise any possible litigation’. Of the recent meeting with coastal planning experts, Cr Richardson said one of the planners, Angus Gordon, told them either ‘to protect or withdraw’. ‘They all said legal clarity is vital,’ he said. Cr Basil Cameron argued that without a coastal zone management plan (CZMP), which is in accordance with the Coastal Protection Act 1979, Council could be ‘open to failure’. ‘We need indemnity that the landowners won’t sue us if the works fail in years to come,’ he said. Council’s director of infrastructure services, Phil Holloway, told councillors that staff will meet with landowners next week. Executive manager of organisational support, Shannon McKelvey, added that any agreement with landowners ‘would only be with landowners, not the land’. The pressure is on to explain why the NSW deputy premier would come all the way up from Sydney to spruik ‘putting regional NSW back at the heart of government’ yet at the same time syphon money away from it.
Andrew Stoner (also NSW Nationals leader) was in Tweed last Thursday, and travelled up with five other senior NSW MPs for ‘party business’ and to meet Tweed Council, ‘local business owners and groups’. But the specifics were vague – when asked, no names of the business owners or groups were supplied by Mr Stoner’s media spokesperson. But it was an opportunity for The Echo to ask Mr Stoner directly whether he would return management of Brunswick Heads’ public caravan parks and Crown reserves back to the Byron Shire Council. Mr Stoner, who has the power to do so, said simply he ‘hadn’t ruled it out’. In 2006 the parks were controversially taken over by the state and handed to the North Coast Holiday Parks (NCHP) by former disgraced Labor MP Tony Kelly, with a claim they had been mismanaged. And ever since, major cost-shifting has occurred: The Echo previously reported that when council ran the parks in 2003–04, it made almost $1 million ($860,553) but under state control in 2011-12, NCHP paid $196,818 from park income to Byron Council. Byron Shire mayor Simon Richardson is calling for the return of management to Council, and it follows widespread community concern over future development of the parks and reserves by NCHP. In 2012, former Byron general manager Graeme Faulkner lifted the veil of confidentiality over the report used by the state government to justify the Brunswick Heads parks takeover, and was damning of its claims. The report was also discredited by most councillors at the time as deceptive and full of misinformation in order to justify stripping Council of its trusteeship of the parks. Why should visitors to Brunswick Heads have private access to public lands while the residents are excluded?
It was just one of many unanswered questions that were again brought up on Saturday at the second public information session, held by North Coast Holiday Parks (NCHP) manager, Jim Bolger. Plans by NCHP to develop the town’s three holiday parks and five Crown foreshore reserves are currently on public exhibition. And at both meetings, residents expressed confusion, anger and exasperation as to why access they had enjoyed over generations should be taken away at NCHP’s discretion. But it was not only public access and boundary encroachments that were sore points for locals. Resident Sean O’Meara told The Echo, ‘The town is basically under attack from privatisation,’ referring to the state-run private corporation NCHP. In backing the claim, elderly long-time Brunswick Heads resident and father of Sean, D’Arcy O’Meara, has told The Echo that local NSW Nationals MP Don Page first brought to his attention ‘this scam’ between the then-NSW Labor government and a ‘network of public servants’. ‘He explained to me the danger of how they would take possession of [the public assets],’ he said, ‘… isolating the community and eventually it would become the property of the state government… so they could sell it or lease it to people such as NCHP and other similar things. Mr Page said, “When we gain power in parliament, we will rectify this; we will dismantle it so it will come back to the local people.” ‘In government they’ve gone to water.’ Mr Page was asked for comment but no reply was received by the time of going to press. Meanwhile, a closed meeting between Byron Council and NCHP’s Mr Bolger was held on Thursday, presumably to negotiate the long-running public access and boundary issues. 1,600 residents While questions to mayor Simon Richardson remain unanswered, Cr Di Woods told The Echo it was a ‘very intense’ meeting and ‘Council will form a submission for the Crown’s consideration, after it has received legal advice on many aspects in the proposed plans.’ ‘My desire is to see an outcome for the community, visitors and the caravan parks, that gives everyone most of what they would like, but importantly, it is Brunswick Heads and its residents that need assurance that the village will not become another Noosa. ‘There are only approximately 1,600 residents, and it would be criminal in my view to destroy their amenity, and to negate the very thing that people come here for and that is the “simple pleasures” on offer for families. ‘I believe that the proposed plans will enable the holiday parks to become more expensive; however, while there’s nothing wrong with commercial interests improving their bottom line. ‘This could exclude those people that this community and business fraternity have worked so hard to attract.’ A short NCHP history
Will Byron Bay’s traffic gridlock be addressed before the first sod is turned on the yet-to-be-determined West Byron Project?
Yes, according to NSW minister for the north coast and Byron resident Don Page MP (Nationals). It comes as public submissions close this Friday for the proposed estate, located 2.5 kilometres west of the CBD. If approved, it would be the town’s largest suburb in decades. Mr Page told The Echo, ‘I have told the consultant for the West Byron landowners that I will not support the project unless the Byron bypass has been constructed. ‘We have serious traffic congestion in Byron already and it should not be exacerbated. There are other issues which also need to be considered with their proposal and this is currently happening through the public exhibition and consultation process. I will treat those issues on their merits.’ But are the issues being addressed? Not according to Council’s planning staff, who say issues remain, which they raised with NSW Planning and Infrastructure in 2011. Director of Council’s environment and planning, Ray Darney, told The Echo that, ‘staff have recommended within the draft submission that the bypass needs to be completed prior to any residential subdivision proceeding at the site.’ As for residential density, he says, ‘The current proposed allotment size is too small and the overall density of development is not compatible with the general urban form and character of Byron Bay.’ And similarly, the concerns of flood mitigation raised in 2011 also remain. Mr Darney said staff have recommended within the submission that they are not satisfied with the flood planning levels as proposed by the developer. ‘The flood levels and flood planning levels for the development must be consistent with Council’s adopted flood study and flood management plan, which follows the process in the NSW flood plain development manual.’ However on its website’s FAQ, the West Byron Project claims, ‘The department commissioned WMA Water to undertake an independent review, which supported the modelling and flood planning levels. ‘There are no developable lots in high flood hazard risk areas. There will be a negligible impact on offsite peak flood levels.’ Council pressure But it’s just not roads, density or flooding issues; Mr Darney says there would be a significant amount of infrastructure required to service up to 1,000 allotments. ‘Staff will be recommending to Council that the development should be provided with dual reticulation to recycle water and that the bypass and roundabouts on Ewingsdale road need to be provided by the developer. ‘In addition the trunk drainage system needs to be comprehensively designed and provided by the developer to ensure the quality of stormwater runoff does not impact negatively on the sensitive Belongil Creek.’ Bypass voluntary contribution: developers The Echo understands that one of the priorities for the current councillors in their first term is to complete a Byron bypass. Given the issue has plagued successive councils for 25 years, it would be quite an achievement. And with a total cost for the Byron bypass being estimated at around $8.2 million, the developers have said they will make voluntary contributions, ‘specifically earmarked for the bypass.’ They say it’s in addition to regular contributions to infrastructure that developers pay Council for projects. If the rezoning is approved, they say, $7,000 per residential lot will be contributed under a planning agreement between them and the NSW planning minister. If approved, it would almost cover the bypass cost if 1,000 homes were built, and would need to be paid upfront. As for state assistance, MP Page said, ‘Even though it’s a Council responsibility, I have arranged through the minister for roads to pay 80 per cent of the geotechnical study (an important first step in helping to get the project started), estimated at $270,000. ‘The minister has also agreed to assist Council with additional funding for the construction of the Byron bypass once we know what the full cost will be. ‘The geotechnical study will help determine this.’ Meanwhile, mayor Simon Richardson told The Echo he is unsupportive of West Byron, ‘certainly not at the scale being proposed, but that is no matter within Council’s power.’ Unsupportive ‘The monies we have do not go remotely towards addressing the long-term traffic and road infrastructure needs in Byron Bay. One roundabout alone is around the $1 million mark. In regard to traffic, there would not be a stupider place to plonk a development five times the size of Sunrise [than the site] proposed on Ewingsdale Road. So if the proponents want it, they need to ensure the rest of the community don’t have increased gridlock because of it.’ Plans for the West Byron Project are at http://bit.ly/westbyronplans and public submissions close January 31. Brunswick Heads residents expressed their anger, disappointment, confusion and frustration last Wednesday at the state-appointed manager who is behind controversial plans to upgrade the town’s three public caravan parks and four Crown coastal reserves.
Several local mums were shocked to learn from NSW Crown Holiday Parks Trust (NCHPT) manager Jim Bolger that under the plans for The Terrace Holiday Park, public access along the Simpsons Creek foreshore, or even through the park, will be closed off or restricted. The plan involves erecting a 1.8-metre-high steel mesh fence all around the boundary of that park, shutting out locals altogether. Other complaints by the public ranged from unanswered emails and phone call enquiries to Mr Bolger and a holiday park manager’s poor attitude toward locals. It comes as Mr Bolger has been appointed media contact for his corporation while also refusing to answer questions on the planned eviction of the Brunswick Buccaneer boat hire business and a percieved conflict of interest, because his holdiay parks also hire boats. Adding to the chorus of residents critical of Mr Bolger’s management is Byron councillor Di Woods. She told The Echo, ‘I believe it was the most lacklustre attempt at community consultation I have witnessed, and was not transparent at all.’ ‘I think that it should have been held in the community centre, with a presentation to the community and followed by questions and answers with everyone being able to hear the explanation. ‘Someone mentioned to me that Jim was heard to give two different answers to the same question by two individuals. This makes it hard for people to really understand what is truth and what is fiction.’ However, Cr Woods says there is room for negotiation. ‘It is always the case that when a plan is being put forward that the proponent usually asks for “an arm and a leg,” and then negotiations take place. If we had honest and transparent community consultation, with Council perhaps as a mediator, then surely an agreed position could be achieved.’ Bruns Chamber But what is the business community’s position? Brunswick Heads chamber of commerce president Todd Buckland says, ‘In 2010 the Brunswick Heads Chamber of Commerce prepared a comprehensive submission on the previous Holiday Parks Plans of Management, and proposed several suggestions and solutions for the various issues they had with those plans. ‘The chamber’s mission is, “To foster a dynamic local business sector, encouraging sustainable and innovative business development, in line with the community’s vision for Brunswick Heads.” Brunswick Heads has many strategic planning documents, including the “Taking Care of Brunswick Tourism Management Plan” and the “Community Economic Transition Plan 2011-2016”, to guide us in our assessment of what is proposed this time around. ‘Over the next month we will be assessing the current plans of management (POM) in light of our mission statement and see which of our concerns have been addressed and which suggestions have been incorporated in the new POMs. ‘We will be making constructive suggestions for anything we feel is an issue. ‘The thrust of our submission will be the same as the previous: we highly value our low-key simple pleasures village lifestyle. ‘We have always been a holiday town and we want to protect it by attracting visitors whose values are aligned with our community values. ‘We want our holiday parks to align with this vision, instead of becoming clones of the holiday parks up and down the coast. ‘We are not so naive as to think that all of our suggestions will be adopted; it just won’t be humanly possible to satisfy everyone’s wishes. ‘However, we will be strongly encouraging the final plans of management to reflect the values and needs of those who live, work and play in Brunswick Heads.’ February 1 meet Another community information session will be held by Mr Bolger on February 1 in the Memorial Park from 9am to 12pm as part of the local market. Those operating a tourist-related business in Brunswick Heads be warned: it’s unlikely local MP Don Page (Nationals) will defend your activity from being taken over by the NSW government-run North Coast Holiday Parks (NCHP). Last week, The Echo reported that Brunswick Buccaneer boat hire operator Ilan Schnitzler is facing eviction by NCHP. But Mr Page is refusing to intervene, raising the question: how accountable is NCHP and its manager Jim Bolger to elected politicians? Emails obtained by The Echo show that despite having authority over Banner Park and the waterways opposite the pub where the boats are located, Crown Lands has palmed responsibility to NCHP. And while Crown Lands, under deputy premier Andrew Stoner (Nationals), did not reply to Echo questions, Mr Page did. He told The Echo, ‘I am advised that the [Brunswick Buccaneer’s] licence had expired some time ago.’ Terminated vs expired However, Mr Schnitzler’s solicitor, Claire Lovejoy told The Echo the licence ‘never expired and was instead terminated’. ‘There is a clear difference between “expired” and “wrongfully terminated”,’ she said. Mr Page then suggested that NCHP’s plan of management (POM) for the surrounding foreshore – now on public exhibition – could be an avenue for the operator to lobby his cause. ‘The operator, like all other interested parties, is able to make a submission as to the most appropriate future use for the site,’ he said. ‘Any future licence will be granted through a competitive tender process.’ While The Echo is unaware of other ‘interested parties’ wanting to hire boats in that location, kayak hire is now available at the NCHP’s Terrace Reserve Holiday Park, located a couple of hundred metres up the creek. The surprise announcement that Mr Schnitzler’s 30-year business would now be subject to a tender process comes without warning and is not even mentioned in NCHP’s plans of management. And despite no mention of The Brunswick Buccaneer either, there are concrete walkways and park extensions earmarked for the immediate area in the plan of management. Conflict of interest While this appears to be ‘making it up as you go along’ governance, another unanswered question is whether the state government has a conflict of interest. When asked whether it was a conflict of interest to operate a commercial venture while having the power to issue licences for a similar private business close by, Mr Page said, ‘If they are hiring kayaks,’ he said, ‘then whether there is a commercial conflict of interest – or not – is a legal matter that would require appropriate legal advice. I am therefore not able to answer your question on conflict of interest.’ n Disclosure: Mr Schnitzler’s solicitor is a relative of the reporter North Coast Holiday Parks wants Brunswick Buccaneer evicted
For 30 years, Brunswick Buccaneers has been an icon of Brunswick Heads, but now the tourist attraction is under threat from NSW government bureaucrats. An eviction notice was served ‘without warning’ last Easter by Colin Woodbry from North Coast Holiday Parks (NCHP) to operator Ilan Schnitzler, who has for the last 15 years hired boats, kayaks, canoes and paddle boards from his pirate ship on the river opposite the pub. Additionally, The Echo has learned that NSW Crown Lands employee Nessbit Hurcum has hand-balled responsibility of the surrounding parks and waterways to NCHP and is ‘reluctant to go against the recommendations’ of its Trust manager and former Byron Shire Council employee, Jim Bolger. In a startling reply to Echo inquiries, Mr Bolger refused to explain his decision to evict Mr Schnitzler and, like NCHP’s financial records, his actions remain cloaked in secrecy. Mr Bolger told The Echo, ‘The Trust will not take part in discussing licence or legal issues through the media.’ Another PR blunder It’s the latest public relations blunder and take-over bid by the state government-owned and privately run corporation; three Brunswick Heads caravan parks and foreshore land that were previously managed by Council were controversially taken away in 2006. An Echo investigation later revealed that after that take-over, Council is now much worse off financially for it. Additionally, residents criticised NCHP over the caravan parks’ subsequent encroachment on footpaths, roads and foreshores. So far, the only state MP to be critical of the lack of transparency with the cost shifting and loss of amenity to locals is Jan Barham, who is also a former Byron Shire mayor. And like other residents of Brunswick Heads, Mr Schnitzler is putting up a fight. He says the consent authority of the waterway is Crown Lands, despite being ‘vaguely threatened’ by NCHP about having customers ‘illegally’ use the steps from the park as an embarkation point. ‘I received a letter by NCHP last Easter saying my lease had been terminated because of unpaid rent,’ Mr Schnitzler told The Echo. ‘I was given just four days to leave, and an extension of two weeks if I paid the $300 that was owing. There was no warning. They claimed I did not pay them rent, but I never received those letters. It was a very unprofessional letter.’ Four days’ notice He says his tenure with Council to operate on Simpsons Creek rolled over to NCHP after it took control. This also includes access to Banner Park, where his boat is moored. But after engaging a solicitor to defend the eviction, Mr Schnitzler says he was advised that Crown Lands have jurisdiction on the creek, ‘as the boat is moored below the mean high-water mark and that is where the Banner Park boundary ends.’ However Crown Lands have hand-balled responsibility instead to NCHP. Mr Schnitzler’s legal representative, Claire Lovejoy, told The Echo, ‘It appears from [Crown Lands area manager] Nessbit Hurcum’s last email that the only reason they are not giving Mr Schnitzler a permit to stay in the Crown Lands creek is because NCHP won’t give him a permit for customers to access the stairs. ‘So while he is moored in Crown Lands jurisdiction, NCHP are involved because customers enter through Banner Park. ‘I have been verbally advised by Marine Parks and Ilan has said RMS have said they will also provide their permits once he gets ‘tenure’ to stay. That can only come through Crown Lands, who say they will only provide it if NCHP allow the customers to access the stairs.’ While Mr Schnitzler says he received no return calls or emails after asking Crown Lands to intervene, Ms Lovejoy says she received an email from Mr Hurcum advising her client that he was, ‘reluctant to go against the recommendations’ of the NCHP reserve trust manager and offer a separate tenure. Instead, Mr Hurcum suggested that as plans of management for the reserves are now on display for comment, ‘it may be an appropriate avenue for you to raise this matter through comment, for discussion and adoption – given the iconic nature of your client’s enterprise.’ The eviction plans by bureaucrats at NCHP and the hand-balling of responsibility by Crown Lands were also kept a secret from NSW minister for north coast, Don Page (Nationals). MP ‘surprised’ It raises the question as to what accountability the NCHP corporation has to the government and suggests Mr Bolger and his bureaucrats are undermining the authority of the politicans – and therefore the public – whom they are supposed to serve. While Mr Page didn’t answer The Echo’s question as to whether he was happy with Jim Bolger’s performance as NCHP manager, he did say, ‘I do receive briefings from time to time on Crown Land issues in Brunswick Heads but I’ve not been briefed on the Brunswick Buccaneers situation.’ As for the lack of transparency by NCHP, Mr Page said he was ‘surprised to hear’ that NCHP is refusing to explain its actions. ‘I believe and the government believes in transparency, so an explanation should be made.’ He added that he will follow up the case this week. Meanwhile, Mr Schnitzler’s operation remains in limbo as he has no current permit to stay in the creek. It comes as plans of management for Brunswick Heads caravan parks and foreshores by NCHP were put on public display. So far it has been slammed by residents as ‘pursuing maximum profits without regard for social or environmental impacts’. Bolger also wants redgum removed Additionally a plan by NCHP to remove an 80-year-old forest redgum (Eucalyptus Tereticornis) in Banner Park recently angered locals who successfully fought to retain it ten years ago after it was also then deemed dangerous. Byron Shire Council staff instead have recommended the fate of the tree be left up to councillors at the February 14 meeting. NCHP’s Colin Woodbry did not reply to The Echo by the time of going to press; however, Crown Lands senior surveyor Nessbit Hurcum told The Echo he could not respond to our enquiries due to departmental protocols, but the enquiry had been sent to their communications group. n Disclosure: the reporter for this story is related to Mr Schnitzler’s legal representative. The NSW government has failed to include the northern rivers in a recent state-wide press release spruiking its commitment to regional transport.
The western, central west, Murray and Murrumbidgee, New England and north west and central coast regions of NSW were all promoted as areas worthwhile of infrastructure investment. But not us. However, a document was released by the coalition on December 19, entitled Northern Rivers Regional Transport Plan. Fastest growing region in NSW It was among eight other NSW transport studies released just before the holiday break, and is available at www.transport.nsw.gov.au. Surprisingly, the omission of our region in government promotions comes despite the report admitting that the northern rivers is the fastest-growing region in NSW, ‘at about 0.9 per cent per year.’ Additionally, the 52-page document lifts material from the previous Casino to Murwillumbah Transport Study, released early in 2013. Disadvantaged As for statistics, the report says approximately 48 per cent of the northern rivers population is concentrated within the four centres of Tweed Heads, Ballina, Lismore and Casino. And we are an ageing bunch, as ‘the proportion of the population aged 65 or over is expected to increase from 19 per cent in 2011 to 28 per cent in 2031.’ Not only that, but our region ‘has an above average level of social disadvantage compared to the NSW median.’ And while the report points to the Lismore and Byron Bay road corridor as continuing ‘to see the most demand for travel,’ there were no plans to improve that road except ‘Road safety works relating to decommissioning of fixed speed cameras at Bangalow Road, Clunes.’ The report claims that cost is $381,900. The disused railway line that runs from Casino to Murwillumbah – and which also runs between Lismore and Byron – was barely touched upon, but mention was made of developing ‘service plans to encourage public transport use to connect to festivals in the northern rivers region.’ A future high-speed rail corridor was also vaguely referred to, but no plans as yet: currently the government only wants to ‘identify and protect a future high-speed rail corridor between Brisbane, the northern rivers region and Sydney.’ Gripping stuff Wow, gripping stuff huh? Statements such as ‘We will work’ were repeated 17 times. There are endless unspecific costings, time-frames, locations and commitments. I wonder how much this report cost? For example, there is, ‘ongoing investment in maintenance to improve safety and reliability on the rail network.’ But where and how much? There was the introduction of NSW TrainLink, however, which ‘operates services to the northern rivers region, and for the first time provides a dedicated organisation focused on improving services for our rail customers in regional NSW.’ The report claims $389 million will go to ‘support and improve rural and regional bus services.’ As for the Byron Shire, the report claims a total of $1,721,136 was spent improving our roads, yet our Shire did not benefit from grants that were awarded to other shires for boating, transit centres, interchanges and cycleways. In contrast, Ballina received $3,136,645 in funding for all that. However, we should probably be thankful we have a huge highway that we can soon barrel down. Call me cynical, but reading such repetitive guff reminds me of BBC’s Yes Minister. Roads are used because the railways have long been abandoned by governments who are beholden to fossil fuel and transport corporations. So the focus is of the report is, you guessed it, roads. The two people that are presently responsible for this are minister for transport, Gladys Berejiklian, and minister for roads and ports, Duncan Gay. |
Categories
All
Archives
November 2014
|