Chris Dobney
Against significant opposition, the Joint Regional Planning Panel last night rubber stamped Byron Shire Council’s preferred route for the Byron Bay bypass, which will funnel traffic down sleepy Butler Street and carve up scarce remaining wetlands in the process.
The 1.3-kilometre bypass will require the construction of three roundabouts, a new level crossing at Browning Street and removal of 1.21 hectares of native vegetation.
The panel, comprising chair Garry West, former Byron Shire GM Pam Westing, and former Tweed shire GM John Griffin, received some 609 submissions opposing the proposal and a petition containing ‘thousands’ of signatures against it.
Butler Street resident, architect and spokesperson for the Butler Street Community Network (BSCN), Paul Jones, told the panel that council’s DA ‘doesn’t address full the requirements of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),’ ‘fails modern standards’ and ‘avoids the obvious alternative route’ [the adjacent rail corridor] for ‘completely unsubstantiated reasons’.
He accused council of ‘suppressing’ a 2001 bypass EIS, which he said demonstrated rail corridor was preferable.
He added that an independent study undertaken by BSCN had come to the same conclusion.
He said the ARUP report into the future of rail services in the area ‘found there was enough room for a rail trail, a rail route and a road’.
Mr Jones said that 23 properties in the area would require noise mitigation from the increased traffic but that ‘some may not be able to be upgraded due to heritage considerations’.
‘The rail corridor route offers far greater setbacks and has more robust commercial buildings in its path,’ he said.
Mr Jones said there was ‘no cost estimate and no comparative cost of the alternative rail corridor route.’
‘In 2001 the rail route was 10 per cent more cost effective,’ he said.
Market affected
Butler Street Reserve, the town market site, will border the new bypass and be impacted by its construction and ongoing issues including parking.
Mr Jones said, ‘the plan involves conflict of use, noise, pollution and road danger,’ for stallholders and market-goers.
A number of other speakers supported his claims, including Guy Miles, representing 350 market stallholders.
‘All of these small businesses will be affected,’ he told the panel ‘and their needs should be considered.’
Mr Miles said that while stallholders had been assured by council they would have ‘co-existence’ with a paid parking trial, ‘we still have concerns about access and parking during construction, including a possible works depot on the stallholders’ parking area.’
‘Overall we would prefer it to be in rail corridor,’ he concluded.
Practical and financial difficulties
But Lisa King from GHD, who conducted the assessment, said it was time to act and the legal issues around gaining access to the state-owned rail corridor would thrust the project onto the back burner for ‘the foreseeable future’.
‘This project has been talked about since the 1980s while traffic problems have increased. Byron Bay’s popularity has outgrown the road network, which is constantly congested, even outside holidays and weekends,’ she told the panel.
She said other routes, including the rail corridor, ‘face practical and financial difficulties that will produce further and possibly insurmountable delays’.
‘Council thinks the opposition, mostly by residents living on the route, has to be weighed against all town residents and road users.
‘This route has been zoned in both the 1988 and 2014 LEPs. It’s under control of council and it’s wide enough,’ she said, adding that the alternatives had been considered ‘a number of times over many years’.
Ms King said the use of rail corridor was ‘subject to complex alternatives, including possible purchase, the rail trail and retaining some land for possible future rail use. The rail corridor passes through heritage rail precinct.’
By contrast, she said, council’s proposal had been approved by state government, which is providing the funding.
Determination
The board took just minutes to reach their determination following some questions to GHD and council staff.
Chairman Garry West complimented the Butler Street Network on their submission, which he described as ‘very well researched’ .
‘We only deal with matters that are very complex, very controversial,’ he told the audience, adding that ‘we have to deal with this in a bigger light.’
Mr West said he ‘had to be sure independent reports from the community had been adequately considered.’
‘Obviously the rail corridor route would attract consideration. All developments of the size we’re talking about have impacts. People are disadvantaged. We can’t apologise but our role is to consider what are the impacts and can they be adequately addressed.
‘The assessment report clearly indicates that council and all relevant government agencies have given consideration and have issued General Terms of Agreement,’ he said.
The meeting then went on to consider what conditions would be placed on the proposal.
Wetlands impacted
In a subsequent press release Mr West said, ‘A Bio Banking Agreement has been issued with biodiversity offsets to reduce the impacts on the wetlands and animals. Measures including koala fencing, street plantings and landscaping, and various environmental management plans will also be put in place.’
But Greens Cr Duncan Dey described the decision as a victory of pragmatism over good planning.
He told Echonetdaily, ‘If we were prepared to ask for use of part of the width of the rail corridor we could have up with a much better engineered system. If we were able to have the road beside the railway line, it would have impacted less on the surrounding wetland.
Cr Dey, who is also a civil engineer, said it was unarguable that the swampland between the road and rail corridors would be fragmented and compromised as a result.
Lip service
In an email to BSCN members this morning, Mr Jones wrote, ‘as expected we were thoroughly trounced by the National Party politics and the local government business machine.
‘Lip service was paid to the affected community and obvious impacts on the environment and town.
‘Council and their consultants GHD parroted the standard lies, assumptions and deception.
‘The panel accepted their response unreservedly, did not allow any questions from the floor, congratulated council on all their good work.
‘The community was informed that hey this happens all the time, someone has to cop it, you have done some splendid work, thanks for coming,’ Mr Jones wrote.
the council has all but destroyed Byron Bay in the last 5 years. It has lost all heart and all soul, it is now a cheap copy of all the other trashy tourist sites around the world. The latest council “improvements’ have caused a mass exodus of both locals and tourists alike. Metered parking everywhere, a ridiculous stainless steel tardess as a local amenities block that instantly makes you decide to use the hotel amenities instead. All meeting centers gone or tightly controlled by its corrupt council, all creativity tightly regulated by an utterly sociopathic and brutish police force. This latest move by its brain dead, self absorbed, penny pinching council members may well be the final nail in the coffin of the creative hub that was once beautiful Byron….. now a commercial facade of emptiness like everywhere else the government gets hold of.