Farmers hit back after ARTC issues forced entry notices

Farmers along the Border to Gowrie section of the proposed Inland Rail route have been told contractors will be coming onto their properties whether they like it or not.

Tim Durre is concerned about the propsed Inland Rail ploughing through his irrigated land.

Accusations of intimidation have been levelled at the Inland Rail operator after Darling Downs farmers were told that contractors did not need permission to enter their properties.

Gowrie irrigator Tim Durre is one of about a dozen producers who have received a Notice of Entry form from the Department of Transport and Main Roads citing section 109(a) of the Transport Act.

The forms give contractors from the department and Australian Rail Track Corporation free reign of his land.

The stated purpose of the intrusion was to investigate the “potential and suitability” of his property as a potential corridor for the Inland Rail by conducting soil, ecology and cultural heritage testing.

Mr Durre said he felt ARTC was not interested in working with farmers.

“The section 109(a) is the coward’s approach,” he said.

“I have a lot of unanswered questions, and they have put their head in the sand for three years,” he said.

“That is why I have not signed a voluntary access agreement with them.”

The proposed Inland Rail route would cut Tim Durre's property in half.

The proposed route will cut Mr Durre’s property in half with what he said would be an 18m high, 200m wide embankment which the rail line would sit on.

The result would double his irrigation costs and destroy the farm, according to Mr Durre.

“They are making a mountain through the middle of the farm, and we can’t pump water through it,” he said.

He added there was conflicting advice from ARTC and the Federal Government about the finalised route.

Mr Durre said he was first told there was a 2km margin that ARTC could alter its proposed route but that appeared to no longer be the case.

Some producers have been able to negotiate a less destructive route, but Mr Durre said his concerns had not been addressed.

“Instead of taking five hectares they are taking 20 hectares, without consultation.”

The Chronicle spoke to several farmers who were critical of ARTC rolling out the section 109(a) notice but they declined to go on the record, fearing retribution.

Flood worries

Mr Durre’s accusation that ARTC had overlooked input from farmers echoes a damning Australian Senate report in August.

It found ARTC flood modelling contradicted modelling from an independent panel and a hydrology study commissioned by local farmers.

“ARTC has not adequately considered the concerns of local residents regarding the chosen alignment and their proposed solutions,” it said.

“For this reason, the committee calls for the revised business case to direct the ARTC to consider the concerns of local residents along the Border to Gowrie project, including consideration of alternative routes.”

Farmer Tim Durre said there were a lot of unanswered questions about the Inland Rail project.

The report recommended ARTC “addresses all issues identified by the independent flood panel’s findings and ensures all modelling and design issues identified are rectified as a matter of priority.”

Despite doubts over the route and the forced entry notices Mr Durre said he backed the Inland Rail.

“It is the way ARTC is dealing with landholders that I have issues with,” he said.

It is understood ARTC invoked the section 109(a) notices to speed up soil and ecology testing so it could update the project’s Environmental Impact Statement.

An ARTC spokesman said it was committed to “engaging respectfully with landowners along the Inland Rail route”.

“When negotiation fails, ARTC has no option but to apply to the Department of Main Roads and Transport for a Notice of Entry. Once granted, this allows ARTC to undertake the necessary work to inform the design of Inland Rail and meet the regulatory environmental approval requirements.”