Planning an Inland Port

Given the 50-odd years use of the site for military purposes, it can be assumed that certain areas will be contaminated by expended and unexploded ordnance and must be remediated. There’s also some potential flooding along the segment of Oxley Creek that traverses the proposed Hub site, but we believe any problems relating to this concern can be obviated by underground channelling and or rerouting.

Alternative military training areas ready for the Army’s consideration

Taking the Department of Defence at face value when one of its spokesmen told us they would consider a move if a replacement was possible, we have found several alternative military training areas south and southwest of Greenbank, south of the SE Queensland urban footprint and the proposed south-west transport corridor lying between Ipswich Boonah Road in the west and the Brisbane Sydney railway line in the east - one north of Mt Flinders and the others south and east of Mt Flinders. Their land areas are about 2,000ha to 3,000ha each.

They’re more rugged than Greenbank and provide a greater variety of vegetation cover, ranging from open grass land to savannah and medium density eucalypt forest. These areas do not appear to be as well watered as Greenbank and they are 35km to 45km from the centre of Brisbane, compared to the 25km for Greenbank. However, they can be readily accessed by a number of routes and entry points from Enoggera, Amberley and Canungra via existing highways, local roads and vehicle tracks.

Each area has enough size and features to suit the same range of military activities that Greenbank does presently, including the ability to provide a buffer in anticipation of future civilian development.

Where exactly are these alternative sites?

For the sake of protocol, and to neutralise the possibility of land speculation, we won’t be divulging this detail until asked to do so by the Army and or other relevant Government agencies.

If the Army agrees to relocate what happens next?

Should this occur and the Army finds our proposal to its liking, a number of options present themselves: it could relocate en toto to one of these alternative sites, or keep the new site for training, while still storing ordnance and other materials within a buffered portion of the original site, which could also be used for military related logistics.

Whatever the mode of finance and title, the Inland Port should be developed under a statutory authority like the Port of Brisbane, with various levels of government becoming active stakeholders (including representatives from Logan and Beaudesert Shires as well as Ipswich City, in whose jurisdictions the site lies). This body would be guided by the SEQ Regional Plan and seek input from pertinent ministries, like Queensland Rail, and industry bodies such as the Australian Trucking Association and the Transport Workers Union.

Although the Inland Port would be a State Government responsibility, the required infrastructure, ongoing upgrades as well as maintenance should primarily be funded by a Federal Government convinced the project is of national importance, with any difference to come from users, both public and private.

Meanwhile, the Army would be responsible for the new training area, including access, maintenance and environmental issues, though considering how well it treated Greenbank, this shouldn’t be a problem.

All we have to do now is convince the Department of Defence that our alternative sites are worthy of consideration. Stay tuned.