With the December 4 deadline looming for public submissions on the West Byron development control plan (DCP), a public meeting was recently held by the Byron Residents’ Group (BRG), which a spokesperson says raised a number of ‘inconsistencies’.
Echonetdaily asked Byron Shire Council’s director of sustainable environment and economy, Shannon Burt, to respond to the claims.
West Byron is a large mixed housing/commercial estate proposed just west of Byron CBD and opposite the Arts and Industry Estate. It was approved by the state government last year despite very strong resident opposition.
Ms Burt started by saying that a DCP is a guideline that outlines the requirements needed for inclusion at the Development Application (DA) stage. ‘Therefore, more detailing will be required when the DAs are submitted.’
BRG claims that management plans that were promised – but not included – covering acid sulphate soil, biodiversity conservation and the koala plan of management.
Ms Burt replied, ‘These matters are raised in the DCP as issues to be addressed as part of the development assessment process.’
The group also claimed that roads are planned to go through endangered koala habitat, to which Ms Burt replied, ‘Roads are based on the concept layout and are generally planned to avoid koala habitat. Final road layout will be subject to detailed design and assessment at the development application stage.’
BRG claimed that there is no provision for dealing with acid sulphate soils, but Ms Burt said that provisions are included in the ‘Byron LEP 1988 [Clause 97] and Section E8.10.8.3 of the draft DCP.’
The group claimed that a staged development is not tied to timeframe or triggers, such as capacity for utilities or roads.
Ms Burt replied, ‘The DCP does not specify exact time frames but it breaks the development up into two broad stages. Stage one is aimed at ensuring all necessary infrastructure is provided across the site to all properties. This will then continue in stage two. In terms of the capacity of infrastructure and utilities, the Byron LEP 1988 [clause 100] requires infrastructure to be adequate for development prior to approval.’
And finally, the group asked whether the Byron Sewage Treatment Plant will be able to handle West Byron and the new hospital without requiring an upgrade. Ms Burt replied, ‘Yes, it has adequate capacity.’
For more visit www.byron.nsw.gov.au/public-exhibition/2015/12/04/draft-west-byron-dcp-on-exhibition or www.byronresidentsgroup.org.
Hmmm. The juxtaposition of the Byron Residents Groups concerns (‘claims’ if you like) and the staff planner comments shows how misunderstandings criss-cross one on top of another. The DCP is to present the ‘rules’ for the entire site, the general principles that are to be met before any breakdown in to individual DAs. Without broad plans in place such as the Koala Plan or Management, Acid Sulphate Soil Plans, Belongil and Drains Assessment, the long awaited Sewage Treatment Plan Assessment and a Catchment Plan for water and flooding, each DA is considered on its own. This is a textbook example of ‘death by a thousand cuts’.
I might add that building up W Byron quite likely improves the prospects for stronger flooding in town.
At the community information meeting, planner John Sparks pointed out the four overriding objectives/principles that should be in place at the very start of the DCP document. 1. All vegetation protected (and I would add plans for filling in corridors finalized and the legally required buffers all drawn in) 2. No fill to be used (much of the site would require from 1-2 metres fill BEFORE any construction such as infrastructure or housing could be attempted) 3. The ecological footprint of all dwellings and infrastructure must be self sufficient and handle onsite all water/stormwater management while meeting Shire’s targets as ‘zero-carbon’ (i.e. solar hot water/power generation) and 4. protect all environmental zones (meaning that infrastructure is not to impinge on these.)
Also at the community meeting, Jan Olley from Bird Buddies added that council had legal obligations to the wildlife of the Belongil – ‘As demonstrated in the “Birds of Belongil Estuary and Byron Wetlands Report 2015”, there have been 179 bird species recorded in the Belongil Estuary; 20 species are threatened species, 31 species are migratory species protected by International Agreements and 10 are resident shorebirds.’
Everyone in Byron Shire can add for themselves their firsthand experiences of the traffic jams on Ewingsdale and what they think of adding on a daily basis the travel of the vehicles from 1500+ households (i.e. a town like Mullum).
And if this site is such a hot development prospect, why ever would the largest owner be SELLING his land all before the DCP process is done and the first spade of acid sulphate soil is turned?
So go on, add your submission. Imagine if a thousand people in the Shire responded — it could be the Bentley effect all over again.
Town Planning is to plan in a holistic manner when separate plans do not criss-cross one another but those separate plans are combined to produce a whole and a larger outlook. A town plan produces the bigger picture.
That is when a homogenous town is produced understanding all social aspects. Otherwise we get piecemeal development.