Mr Don Opie, Ballina
Byron Shire Council designs, regulates, and enforces rules regarding development application (DA). Yet Mr Dunn’s 139 Jonson Street development, smack on the roundabout bypass, has been approved by Council staff (again). Yes, they approved the DA objected to by the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP). So now the breach of height and floor space by ten per cent becomes the new ‘rule’ for Byron.
Cr Basil Cameron states Council’s local traffic committee had ‘unresolved concerns’ regarding the building’s traffic impact. What might they be? We don’t know, the meeting minutes were not published.
Well, 976 predicted (daily/nightly) traffic movements into the 28 units and its commercial properties via a short, single lane laneway, I repeat single lane, servicing holiday lettings, in a designated ‘heritage area’ might be cause for concern?
Or how about ignoring the whole Jonson Street frontage as access to the development? Mr Dunn states ‘entry from Jonson Street is not desired or in keeping with broader plans for Jonson Street’.
He would know, he was a member of the masterplan group before conflict of interest raised its head.
It is curious indeed that directly opposite this DA on Jonson Street is a multi-storey apartment complex that has its carpark entry on Jonson Street. Yet the developer rejects this option for his own construction.
How about a ‘concern’ occurring with all the light truck delivery of goods and garbage collection being ‘forced to reverse’ into the new Jonson Street roundabout traffic across a newly widened cycle footpath as no onsite turnaround exists in the DA?
‘Still not enough to justify stopping it’ states the mayor, and ‘I think all things considered (read – ignored) this does start to change this end of the town’. Wow, so the mayor surmises this end of town ‘needed change’?
What a shame he had to simply sacrifice the amenity, existing ambience, and lifestyle of half a dozen properties; and ignore trucks reversing into traffic on Browning Street, and on the new bypass, because, as he states, he was fearful of a court challenge from the developer. Really?
This DA was rightfully objected to by existing home and business owners who ultimately will wear the costs of the developer’s ‘laneway access’ and his unhindered commercial street frontage.
How ironic The Echo’s catch phrase is our plight; ‘We are victims of the architects of the future’.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
