10.3 C
Byron Shire
August 5, 2021

Contentious Tweed Nightcap Village MO goes from $37m to $39m

Latest News

Youth arrested over Nimbin shooting

A 20-year-old has been charged over a shooting that took place in the middle of the day near the centre of Nimbin.

Other News

Unnecessary divisions

Louise Andrews, Lennox Head Dear Mandy, an excellent article in The Echo (Soapbox, 21 July). It saddens me too to witness...

Byron businesses buckle down

The Greater Sydney lockdown has had a direct impact on local businesses who have seen a dramatic fall in customer numbers, particularly in Byron Bay.

Can you help save 74 million lives?

Killer carbon – a new study has coined another metric for estimating the damage inflicted by climate change – this time, looking at the ‘mortality cost of carbon’.

To kill all Jews? No…

Subhi Awad, Mullumbimby With respect to Wakil and Macklin (Letters, 21 July) the assertion that the Palestinian resistance wants to kill...

Vehicle access to Unicorn Falls to close

President of the recently formed Byron Hikers Club says a ‘controversy is brewing’ around National Parks’ recently announced plans to close vehicle access to Unicorn Falls, located on South Chowan Road behind Upper Main Arm.

Will Tweed Council remove final option for RLSC in Tweed Shire?

At its upcoming Council meeting, the Tweed Shire Council is seeking to remove the option of Rural Land Sharing Communities, which includes multiple occupancies and community title.

The area that the DA seeks to develop.

The enormous Nightcap Village development application (DA) for multiple rural land sharing communities (RLSC) or multiple occupancies (MO) near Uki, stretching between Mt Burrell and Kunghur, that is seeking approval for a ‘staged concept development’ was under discussion at last Thursday’s (1 July) Tweed Shire Council (TSC) meeting.

Possible dam and flooding of the Nightcap Village DA proposal.

The original DA for the RLSC and associated works over 21 lots which are to be subdivided into 11 lots on the 1584.34 ha site. The application seeks approval for 392 dwelling plots over 10 lots to create 10 interconnected Rural Land Sharing Communities with the remaining lot to contain all of the RU5 Village zoned land. This was costed at $37 million for its Capital Investment Value (CIV) which exceeded the $30 million threshold that councils are able to determine and meant it would go to be determined by the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP).  However, TSC sought legal advice and ‘costs associated with site sewer, rainwater tanks and solar systems should be excluded from the calculation of the CIV for the proposed development (therefore a CIV of $21,918,830’ according to the report to council. This would have meant that the DA could have been considered by council.

The Council requested that the applicant withdraw the DA, however, instead they chose to submit a revised CIV on 16 June that saw the costs increased to $39,850,000.

‘Items that were previously contended by Council such as: water tanks, septic tanks and solar systems have been removed. Costings for road works have been revised and bridges have now been included,’ states the report.

‘This is one of the most challenging As we’ve had before us,’ Councillor Warren Polglase (Conservative) told the TSC meeting. ‘It make one wonder if it is viable’.

‘I think that the report highlights that this development is so far out of the ball park that it shouldn’t have been on the table,’ said Councillor Katie Milne (Greens).

The report to council states that ‘the proposed development is prohibited on a number of grounds’ and lists 10 grounds on which the DA should be rejected.

Nightcap Village area to be developed.

Offsets alone $27m

‘The Development Application was referred externally to: Natural Resources Access Regulator, Heritage, Community Engagement – Department of Premier and Cabinet, NSW Rural Fire Service, Department of Planning Industry & Environment – Biodiversity and Conservation Division. All of the agencies either required further information or did not support the proposal. The Biodiversity and Conservation Division advised that they estimate the proposed development would require extensive land clearing of approximately 106ha of native vegetation with a further 220ha of impact in native populations and areas described as “cleared/grassed paddocks with scattered trees, regrowth and weed thickets”. The cost of Biodiversity Offsets required to offset the loss of biodiversity values to enable the proposed development is estimated in excess of $27 million,’ the report stated.

‘…because the proposed development is prohibited the Council does not have the power to grant it development consent.’

Councillor Milne highlighted the extensive costs that were going to be incurred by the DA and that this is prior to any individual development for houses etc.

‘I am extremely concerned that the people who have invested in it that it is going to be $40m for road works before it even gets off the ground; before a house, sewerage, a water tank,’ she told the meeting.

Draft sub-division for Nightcap Village DA proposal.

Send to NRPP

The Council report recommended that the DA be sent to the NRPP rather than seeking another assessment of the CIV to determine if it could be determined by council.

‘Whilst there is limited detail on items such as bridges in the development application the revised CIV is taken on face value and rather prolong conjecture about the CIV it is recommended to continue the application on the pathway of Regional Development and refer this assessment to the Northern Regional Planning Panel for determination,’ the report said.

Speaking to the meeting Mayor Chris Cherry (Independent) said, ‘The current recommendation assumes that the CIV costs take it to the NRPP. But it could come back to council. If this proposal was to come  back to council it would be recommended to be refused.’

The area that the DA seeks to develop.

‘They [the applicants] haven’t been able to demonstrate that it won’t have adverse impacts. The idea that they will relocate the wildlife corridors is not in line with the SEPP (State Environment Planning Policy). In the report it says that the 106ha of clearing, that would require an offset at a cost of $27m.

‘In seeking to have the assessment by NRPP they are seeking to avoid councils density controls. However, it doesn’t meet the SEPP either [under which the NRPP will assess the application] it has to do one or the other. I support that it goes two NRPP. If they warrant that it should come back to us then I strongly believe that this is not an appropriate development for that site.’

The vote by councillors was unanimous that the staff recommendation be supported and that the DA go to the NRPP and that if it returns to council for determination that the general manager.

Support The Echo

Keeping the community together and the community voice loud and clear is what The Echo is about. More than ever we need your help to keep this voice alive and thriving in the community.

Like all businesses we are struggling to keep food on the table of all our local and hard working journalists, artists, sales, delivery and drudges who keep the news coming out to you both in the newspaper and online. If you can spare a few dollars a week – or maybe more – we would appreciate all the support you are able to give to keep the voice of independent, local journalism alive.


  1. I most sincerely hope that the Development Application is refused. The amount of natural Koala and other species habitat that will be destroyed will be devastating for all the wildlife in that area.
    There are enough problems with balancing habitat against development this particular development will only benefit the developer and no one else.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

NSW Parliament off for a month, with full pay

With COVID-19 cases surging across Sydney and defence forces being deployed in the city, NSW Parliament put out a brief statement last week saying MPs will not sit in the month of August ‘owing to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in NSW’.

Markets could return to Byron’s Butler St Reserve

Byron’s weekly farmers’ market may return to its traditional home in Butler Street Reserve after detailed soil testing found that the park was less contaminated than was feared.

Push to create transitional accommodation at Lot 22

Should the Council-owned plot of land in Mullumbimby, known as Lot 22, be used for temporary accommodation for those at risk of homelessness, as a matter of urgency?

Sticking to facts

Roger Cotgreave, Byron Bay Thanks to The Echo for reporting scientific facts around the pandemic and not relying on social media ‘research’. Also a big thanks...