Paul Bibby is absolutely correct regarding the palpable relief of residents following Commissioner Dickson’s dismissal of the appeal by Denwol Suffolk against Byron Shire Council’s determination of a refusal for the mixed-use over development in Clifford Street, Suffolk Park.
The destruction of the protected cypress pine forest at the site may have been the primary reason for Commissioner Dickson’s decision to refuse consent. However, it is important to emphasise that it was not the only reason.
According to advice from Council’s legal experts, the issue of ecology concerning the Coastal Pine Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) was determinative. Once the DA was refused on biodiversity grounds there was no need to go into other critical matters such as traffic congestion and risk, tourist accommodation, etc. The commissioner was simply not required to do so. This information may be of interest to others fighting large-scale developments of a similar type throughout the shire.
Twenty-two reasons for objections to the modified DA by concerned residents were cited in the commissioner’s judgement. The apparent disregard of most of these is common in appeals and happens often. Legal advice added that subsequent delving into other issues is not a great use of public resources.
So, while additional areas of specific community concern may have been omitted, they are not diminished. Some were addressed briefly and explicitly in the judgment, such as the impact of removing trees on the character of the locality. Others were broached implicitly in conditions imposed by Council or amendments (e.g. no tourist accommodation and flooding provisions) or discussion of wider impacts (e.g. koala habitat).
We are not celebrating yet. The recent fires have increased this community’s anxiety regarding bushfire evacuation and survival. Suffolk Park’s single road out of the village intersects with a sub-arterial road. Along with the development’s impact on other areas, in addition to ecology, concerns are yet to be allayed whilst the community awaits the developer’s decision on the ‘appropriate path forward.’ It is envisioned that the decision by the developer is in the public interest and not yet more litigation.
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. 
