|
Lay it on the Line
As Stephen Williams (Wingate Properties) will testify (hopefully), I have never tried to stop the Riverlink development, in fact as Area Coordinator of the North Ipswich Neighbourhood Watch (NINHW) at the time I invited Stephen to come to one our executive meetings and we subsequently invited Stephen as a guest speaker at our August 2002 general meeting to present what was then the current Riverlink development (Riverlink 1) so that residents of our North Ipswich Neighbourhood Watch could better understand Riverlink and it's impact on our suburb. Stephen presented the NINHW executive a complete set of documents for the first Riverlink application to review. At the time I was also Vice-President of the Ipswich Historical Society (IHS) and I subsequently introduced Stephen to the executive of the Ipswich Historical Society. I can proudly say that Stephen is one of our sponsors and has assisted the society in it's endeavours to set up an historical museum for the people of Ipswich by providing the timber used in the first stage of the restoration of the old Cooneana Homestead.
I know his support is greatly appreciated by the members of the society, myself included. During this period I was able to obtain in-situ security for the existing heritage at Riverlink from Stephen as the first design had a railway theme and was sympathetic to their location and the site plan only needed minor amendments to allow the heritage to co-exist. This plus an earlier general public meeting at the North Ipswich Railway Museum where Stephen responded to mine and other concerns about the Wharf Railway and other heritage in general questions by announcing that "nothing of heritage significance will be lost from the site" made me feel quite proud as we had accomplished a perfect world i.e. a new development that co-existed with our heritage.
Unfortunately due to my work commitments on Design and Construct Projects (i.e. 11 months in Hong Kong over the last 18 months) I lost touch with Stephen and the Riverlink project. But I did however send Stephen (Wingate Properties) and Greg Campbell of Harmony Properties (designers for Leda holdings) my written submissions and my design thoughts on how to save the heritage before I left.
We as a community through our elected representatives have somehow lost all focus on our existing heritage late in 2002, this may have been due to the arrival of new players such as a new IPA Ipswich City Town Plan, the Ipswich City River Heart Vision, State Development assistance, a riverside parkland land swap with the first railway station site and a subsequent new commercial village design by Harmony Properties for Leda Holdings.
This is why I am still fighting to save our heritage, it did not just happen recently, I have been bringing this up at various public meetings since Riverlink first started, way back in 1999 and I thought I had already saved it late in 2002.
No matter what anyone else has told you it is not too late to do a partial re-design of the commercial village that would allow the development to co-exist and feature the first railway infrastructure in Queensland, but it will need strong leadership , public support and the courage to create an environment that will allow this to happen.
The very first primary objective in the 1999 Expressions of Interest document to redevelop the Ipswich Rail Yards was to redevelop them in such a way which enhances their value to the community while maintaining their cultural and heritage value within Queensland. The developer was able to incorporate the 1864-65 Southern and Western Railway heritage into the first RIverlink design, and more importantly was willing to and publicly stated that "nothing of heritage significance would be lost".
I even helped to organise a public meeting at the Railway Institute Hall in North Ipswich on the 20th August 2002, where the first Riverlink development application was presented to the public by the developer and I made it known then at that meeting (with the division councilor present) that the heritage would be able to co-exist with the development. For whatever reason since the Ipswich City Council, State Development and Leda Holdings have become involved, and since the River Heart Vision was floated this project has increased dramatically in size and has been allowed to build over and destroy the well established Riverside Parkland on the north bank of the Bremer River as well as all the surviving 140 year old 1864-65 Southern and Western Railway Heritage.
If you were told between September 2002 and September 2003 by the Ipswich City Council, the State Government and the Riverlink developers that they had planned and were in the process of destroying the very first sections of Queensland's Railway (the World's first Railway constructed as a government enterprise) effectively wiping out 140 years of Queensland Railway Heritage that has spanned over three centuries at the Birth Place of the Railways in Queensland would you have objected? Especially if you knew that it was to have been saved in the previous design and could have co-existed in the new design if you wanted it to.
I know I would have and that is why I am protesting. Why were you the general public not clearly told and why were you not given a fair chance to have your say with regards to the Riverlink design changes that have effectively destroyed our heritage? The current totally re-designed second Riverlink has had less than 12 months effort put into the re-design before it was lodged with council, to my knowledge there was no general public consultation as there was with the first Riverlink design. It is misleading to say that it has had 4 years of development. I would like to know when the totally redesigned SECOND RIVERLINK (not to be confused with River Heart) was presented for public consultation and feedback in the lead up to the development application lodgment in August 2003? Where were the meetings held? How many people were in attendance? Who were they? What design were they looking at? Who presented it?
The bulk of this development is on PUBLIC LAND, and the most important part of any redevelopment of publicly owned land is the consultation with it's owners, in this case the rate payers and tax payers of Ipswich and Queensland, and that is the very reason why the public can demand design changes.
Please note that it was the River Heart Vision (NOT RIVERLINK) that was presented to the Ipswich Heritage Consultative Committee in Feb. 2003. Riverlink is not River Heart and this is where people are getting confused because of the similar names.
Again I must stress that this has nothing to do with trying to stop Riverlink, it has all to do with smart innovative designs that will allow the new development to co-exist with our priceless Southern and Western Railway Heritage.
I believe that this would be one of the very few times when the developer is not to blame but is caught in the middle of bureaucracy. I believe we as a community need to admit that it has been a mistake to allow the development to have proceeded this far, then compensate the developers somehow to allow them to redesign the project to co-exist and proudly feature our very first pieces of railway heritage in Queensland.
I believe the State Government would win the hearts and souls of the people of Ipswich and Queensland if they are able to facilitate this.
Relocating the 1864-65 Heiner Road Overbridge is not the answer (although it is better than being buried) as the road, rail and bridge are all integral to one another and are equally important in history.
Unfortunately I have stepped on a few toes and ruffled a few feathers and will continue to do so if they are in the wrong places. I am willing to participate in any endeavour to help resolve the issue, as yet I have not been invited to any? The developers have indicated that they have two development approvals; one from the Ipswich City Council and one from the Sate Government and they want to build their shopping centre.
What I have said and what I will say in my endeavour to save the Ipswich Heritage Registered Heiner Road Precinct will always be truthful and hopefully always factual, and if It is proven that my facts are wrong I will publicly admit it.
The general public (myself included) want the development to go ahead, we want the jobs it will create, but we also want our 140 year old heritage, and we should be able to have it all as we did have with the first Riverlink design.
If someone wants to set up a public debate on this issue (preferably with lie detectors attached) I am willing to go head to head for a few rounds.
Phil Nunn
pencad@gil.com.au
© youripswich.com 2004, 2004-08-08
| 
