Submission by Northern Railway Defenders Forum Re IP & R Documents for a Rate Rise

We refer to the most recent re-exhibition of Armidale Regional Council’s “Advancing our Region” Community Strategic Plan and the Delivery Program 2022-2026 with its inclusion of the proposed 58% Special Rate Variation in its revised Integrated Planning and Reporting (I P and R) documents. 

The Northern Railway Defenders Forum represents a number of rail support organisations and members of the community in our region who are committed to the return of rail services for passengers and freight on the Northern Line between Armidale and the Queensland border and into Queensland. 

We have undertaken a careful analysis of the revised strategic planning documents (I P and R) currently on public exhibition and note that the Delivery Program still includes Council proposing to undertake a rail trail project between Armidale and Ben Lomond which would prevent the development of rail services being re-instated on the Northern Line between Armidale and Queensland for decades to come.  We have taken particular note of the “Connected Region” Pillar of the Advancing Our Region Community Plan. The rail trail project, if and when implemented, will inhibit and deny future generations from our region and our neighbor regions such as Glen Innes Severn, Tenterfield and Inverell, from accessing inter regional low carbon emission logistics systems for passengers and freight. Transport is the highest and best use of the northern railway line for achieving Council’s vision and goals that are compatible with several core pillars and strategies over and beyond connected region, and this factor has never been taken into serious consideration by ARC. In adopting a rail trail project that has not been validated by an independent cost-benefit analysis into its Community Plan, the Council is going against the findings of all relevant public consultation about the SRV, Delivery program and associated plans to date. 

We do appreciate what Council is trying to achieve by seeking a special rate variation of 58% in order to realise its vision for the future but we are forced to object to this very large increase in rates while ever the relevant IP and R documents include the rail trail project that has not been backed up by a sound business case commissioned by the Council or expressly supported by the community.

 This is for good reason, in that it flies against the much needed highest and best use of the railway line and the clear wishes of the community to have a better, safer inter regional transport system. It will incur many additional costs for Council (and ratepayers) in the build, management and maintenance functions. Alarmingly, this will be in the context of a revenue (income) policy backdrop which anticipates no increased income for Council, other than additional revenue from this proposed SRV and increased fees and charges. Income from other sources to the council during the 4-year period will be either stagnant or in decline (see the income report).  Even if the IPART approves an increase in rates, declining or stagnant income sources to the council will hit the rate payers again in the future to coincide with the rail trail project and its success or failure. Undertaking an additional responsibility for a new asset in this manner is quite an irresponsible act in our view.  Savings or efficiencies on the part of Council to offset this additional build and lifecycle costs of the project will not be sufficient. 

We are concerned that Council has not undertaken any due diligence in putting the rail trail project into the Delivery Program. What is needed is an independent cost benefit analysis, which has not been attempted. Why has the rail trail project been included in the Delivery Program without there having been any specific community consultation, and when previous state government consultations on the issue in Guyra and Tenterfield have returned a strong “no” to the rail trail project?  We are aware of a petition signed by the residents of Ben Lomond objecting to the rail trail.  One other petition was presented to the Legislative Council with over 1200 signatures.  Another is circulating in the community requesting the Legislative Assembly to reintroduce passenger train services to the border and it is expected to reach 10,000 signatures in due course. The petition in Change.org has more than 2000 signatures already.

From the survey conducted by Northern Railway Defenders Forum, community, both in Armidale and other regions to the north of us such as Glen Innes, who have historically been reliant on the Northern Railway Line, overwhelmingly want the rail way line to be restored to its original purpose, namely passenger and freight services. The woeful state of intra and inter regional public transport in Northern Inland NSW is now being recognised at State Government level. We wonder why the ARC is not even planning to play an advocacy role during the four-year period for improving public transport opportunities by way of rail services?  Instead promote a micro project like the rail trail which can be attractive to a narrow group of cyclists with able bodies? On moral or financial grounds, the Council has no mandate for such an adventure which is driven by ideological grounds rather than community welfare grounds.

We note that previous community submissions to the original IP and R documents were overwhelmingly in objecting to the Rail Trail project’s inclusion in the Delivery Program yet Council has not amended or deleted it in this most recent version of the Delivery Program under “Connected Region”. We urge Council to amend the delivery program to reflect the community sentiment before the documents are sent to IPART. If it does not do this, the community will send a large number of submissions pointing out the risk of including a rail trail proposal in the delivery program by a council struggling to meet its asset management functions with the lack of required funds. We respectfully ask the Council to listen to our concerns carefully and respond at the next Council meeting.