- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 9 May 2002
Sandon Point Residential Development
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 46 of 52
| Next Item »
About this Item
Speakers - Cohen Mr Ian
Business - Adjournment
|
Page: 1932
The Hon. IAN COHEN [10.55 p.m.]: In 2001 the development application for Sandon Point went to the Land and Environment Court. During the case Wollongong council did not cross-examine Stockland's witnesses and gave no chance for the presentation of evidence relating to the environment, flood danger, infrastructure, Aboriginal heritage, and social and traffic impacts. Most of the community's huge volume of concerns about the site were never tested in court. Regarding European heritage, two community members were called to give evidence, but much of their evidence was censored by the council's legal team. One of the council's requirements before court was for Stockland to build its own railway bridge and access road. This requirement was resolved in a settlement room while the case was running.
The council emerged to allow an existing road to be used for residential access, with great savings to Stockland. This was one of 19 out of 21 issues dealt with in this manner during the case—all resolved to Stockland's advantage. Stockland states that its decision to purchase the land for stages one to six hung on a verbal agreement in 1999 from the Department of Land and Water Conservation [DLWC] which allowed Stockland to develop as close as five metres to Tramway Creek. Stockland requested an on-site meeting when the designated DLWC officer was on leave, and obtained permission from a relieving officer for a reduction of the creek buffer zone from the usual requirement of 40 metres to just five metres. Stockland's consultant, the DLWC and the Escarpment Commission of Inquiry recommend a 40-metre buffer zone on both sides of the creek as standard practice. Why has Stockland been given special treatment? Stockland declared that 40-metre creek setbacks would have rendered the development financially unviable.
The DLWC chose not to defend in the Land and Environment Court its standard practice on this and other issues related to flooding and water quality. This was because it had recently lost a similar case and was embarrassed by the five-metre promise made by its own officer. Stockland refers to itself as a responsible corporate citizen producing a high-quality development. A Stockland representative admitted that it would be the responsibility of the State's emergency services to rescue somehow the residents of 200 flood-affected houses when the next large flood occurs. Several resident access roads would be cut during a flood of the 1988 levels. Flood insurance would not be available to these residents. Wollongong council would be leaving itself open to be sued due to its inappropriate zoning of the land and for allowing such a development to occur. Independent scientific and cultural studies are needed to remove the concern that loyalty to a commissioning client influences its findings. There are two examples of inconsistent findings at Sandon Point.
During a council-funded study in 1992 an Aboriginal artefact was found on stage one land. In the 2001 Stockland-funded study the location of the artefact had shifted 25 metres. Its location now lay outside the development boundary. In 1992 a council-funded study revealed that 25 per cent to 35 per cent of stage one was a landslip zone. The piecemeal Stockland-funded study in 2001 failed to address this finding and cleared the same land for development. In 1992 BHP and Wollongong City Council colluded to eliminate the heritage listing of the historic old Bulli mine to Sandon Point tramway. It was the first built and is the last remaining of its kind. The delisting was discovered by the public, which was only partially successful in forcing the council to reinstate the listing.
In 1996 BHP was preparing to sell up at Sandon Point. On the draft local environment plan the route was shown as intact. After public exhibition of this plan council officers altered the plan without further public consultation. They eliminated the remaining heritage listing on the land for sale. This action, most likely illegal, resulted in a direct financial gain for BHP. In 2001, as an apparent civic gesture, Wollongong City Council bought back from Stockland beachfront land for almost $1 million. Was this a million dollar donation to the developer? This particular portion of land cannot be developed and will always remain unchanged no matter who owns it. Stockland had bought the entire allotment from Sydney Water for $2.1 million, knowing that only 20 per cent was zoned for development. Is this what Stockland means by "the transferring of privately-owned land back into public ownership"?
The legitimacy of the purchase of this same allotment of land from Sydney Water is a cause for concern. It is de facto Crown land and has been openly sought by the community to be returned to public open space since the 1980s. Sydney Water breached its own charter by falsely stating it had consulted Wollongong City Council, the local land council, the community and the National Parks and Wildlife Service over the sale. It was required to do this following the discovery of the ceremonial grave of the 6,000-year-old Kuradji man found during the sale process. Sydney Water sold the land containing at least one documented burial site to Stockland, with its full knowledge of the fact.
Before the Sandon Point development plan had gone on public exhibition, Wollongong City Council General Manager, Rod Oxley, stated in the Illawarra Mercury that the entire development was a "fait accompli". In February 2001 the National Park and Wildlife Service wrote a detailed letter to council regarding the preservation of flora, fauna and Aboriginal heritage at Sandon Point. This letter was intended to be seen by councillors before they voted on stage one. Council officers withheld this letter, which prevented its contents from influencing the vote. Numerous studies, for example, of flora and fauna, European heritage, and Aboriginal heritage have been ordered by council but not implemented by the administration. When questioned over the lack of action, staff replied with words to the effect, "My manager told me not to do it."
A wetland ecosystem upon the site, namely, the State-protected Sydney coastal estuarine swamp forest complex [SCESFC] was illegally slashed in September last year. Cooksons, a factory at Sandon Point, took the blame for it. It now turns out that the land is actually owned by Stockton. The Cooksons factory is soon to close and Stockland has earmarked its site for purchase if it has not already purchased it. On another SCESFC area the pattern of slashing exactly matches the development layout in that area. In September 2001 the following breaches have occurred with no action taken: illegal slashing of an endangered forest ecosystem on the site; illegal destruction of Aboriginal artefacts and at least 20 known occurrences of illegal excavations without Aboriginal site officers. [Time expired.]
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:37:28 : Update this page