Community groups unhappy with Council secrecy and mass urban land release plans

With councillors adopting a large-scale rural land rezoning policy at their December 14 meeting, The Echo asked some community groups whether they believe their submissions were taken into account, and whether they would like to see more transparency in future given all public submissions were confidential.

As previously reported, Council will now be asking the NSW government to approve known floodplain areas of Mullumbimby for future development as part of its adopted Housing Options Paper (HOP).

Infrastructure capacity concerns were downplayed, while High Environmental Value (HEV) land is also included.

Urban development is slated at 6,695 new homes over 20 years, and will mainly occur in the north of the Shire, including Mullumbimby, Brunswick Heads and Saddle Ridge, located between Mullum and Bruns. 

Bangalow is also expected to expand by 905 dwellings.

As the list of community groups were not made public by Council, The Echo contacted the following  groups:

CABS

Community Alliance for Byron Shire (CABS) say they represent 11 locality-based community groups across Byron Shire. 

CABS secretary, Angela Dunlop, said, ‘Flood-affected areas in the Shire slated for residential development are of great concern. It appears that these concerns have not been given any gravitas by councillors and staff who, it appears, are willing to place more vulnerable people in harm’s way’.

As for Council transparency, Ms Dunlop replied, ‘We are unsure as to when and why submissions became confidential documents. The state’s Independent Planning Commission (IPC) publishes submissions that they elicit, so Council could certainly afford us the same access to submissions they receive. 

‘To have faith in councillors and Council staff it is paramount that there is transparency and that our views are reflected by Council’.

As for increased density, she replied, ‘CABS most certainly did not request increased dwelling density.  In fact, we expressed concerns about the amount of proposed infill, especially in flood-prone areas’ .

SRLAMPA

President of the Saddle Ridge Local Area Management Planning Association (SRLAMPA) is Matt O’Reilly.

He told The Echo their submission addressed the recognition ‘that the housing circumstances in Byron Shire have fundamentally changed since five years ago when we strictly opposed the inclusion of the Saddle Ridge. We acknowledge that the accumulated impact of bushfires, flooding, landslips, COVID-19, climate change, increases in house prices, high inflation and homelessness means that the Saddle Ridge is one of the few places in Byron Shire that can provide safe, long-term housing solutions’.

As for Council’s transparency, he said ‘There is a clear lack of transparency around the housing options paper review process. We do not even know which private consultant Council hired to review the submissions. If Council was genuine about engaging with the community, instead of appearing to just rubber stamp the Housing Options Paper, they would have made the submissions publicly available’.

As for dwelling density and infrastructure capacity, O’Reilly said, ‘I personally opposed increasing dwelling density in established towns like Brunswick Heads, Mullumbimby and Ocean Shores, as there is no possible way to increase infrastructure to service this increased density’.

‘The diameter of the pipes in the ground is already too small to cope with high rainfall events. It is the same with roads, sewerage, telecommunications, parks, playgrounds, bike paths, footpaths, public transport. There is also not enough capacity in local primary schools. Increasing density in established towns that have not been master planned to cope with the high density is just waiting for a social disaster to happen’.

He did advocate, however, ‘for higher density in any new greenfield suburbs and subdivisions (like Saddle Ridge)’. 

‘This is because the best outcome, environmentally, and for the planet, is if humans live in higher density suburbs instead of sprawling out into rural land and further impacting wildlife and the environment’.

SGBCA 

South Golden Beach Community Association (SGBCA) president, Kathy Norley, told The Echo, ‘We are not happy about the decision. In fact, we are furious’.

‘We believe that none of the councillors went through the floods themselves, so how dare they make a decision like that, and place others in a position where they could lose their homes, belongings and possibly life’. 

‘We had no idea that submissions were going to be confidential.

She says, ‘On the SGBCAFacebook page, we had to let community know what the difference was between fill and infill. So many where confused by these two words.

‘No to infill – it compounds flooding as absorption rate is then limited. More infill means more concrete, so areas flood quicker.

‘We do not think our submission was taken into account, and know many from the north of the Shire had similar views as ours.

‘How [senior Council planner] Shannon Burt came to the conclusion the public asked for higher density is mystifying to us. Submissions must be published’.

Bruns Bayside RA

Peter Tanner, president of the Bayside Residents Association (BRA) in Bruns told The Echo that residents there are concerned around ‘poor storm water drainage and sinkholes, and have repeatedly contacted Council about this’.

He raised the issue of Bayside being promised a retail precinct (shopping centre), which was lost after Council approved Kollective’s Corso boarding house on the location. Additionally, he says the adjoining park area is still earmarked in the HOP as ‘under investigation’ for new housing. 

Tanner said, ‘Bayside currently has up to 144 dwellings approved in the Wallum development; 20 townhouses being built on Bayside Way; 46 house blocks planned for the wholesale nursery on Bayside Way; and the Corso with 46 high-density units.

‘Bayside is already contributing significantly to ameliorating the housing crisis, and is at risk of being “brutalised” in this process; no shopping centre, no park or community space, poor access to the town etc’.

Tanner added more Council transparency is needed, and that higher density was not asked for.

Bruns PA 

Acting secretary of the Brunswick Heads Progress Association (BHPA), Jo Pilgrim, told The Echo her organisation does not feel that their submission was taken into account. 

‘And if it was, how can we tell, as the staff report summarised the feedback at the Shire level, not by town or area’.

‘We would like to see greater transparency in the future. Defining a new Residential Strategy for the Shire is a very important process, and those organisations and individuals making submissions could be offered a choice as to whether they would like their submission to be fully public or to have identifying details removed. 

‘Feedback summarised by geographic areas would allow for more nuanced debate and more nuanced recommendations rather than “one recommendation fits all”.’   

‘With submissions being confidential it makes it very difficult to determine whether errors have occurred in the compiling of documents by Council staff. 

As for requesting higher density, Pilgrim said, ‘No, we did not. Quite the opposite’. 

She added that BHPA ‘and many individual residents objected to increased density in the original village of Brunswick Heads, owing to concerns about already overstretched infrastructure and negative impacts on the character of the town’.  

‘I am sure residents of other towns and villages were equally vocal about not wanting increased density in existing urban areas from infill development’.

Mullum RA

Dale Emerson, representing the Mullum Residents Association (MRA), provided The Echo with extensive material around Council’s lack of fair procedure and questionable late land inclusions into the HOP that came without public comment.

As for transparency, he said that in October 2022, Ballina Council published all submissions to its draft Strategic Urban Growth Area Review.

And according to page 5 of Byron Council’s Privacy Management Plan 2020: (2.3 Principles), it says: ‘Transparency – people should have access to the information they need to understand government planning and decision-making processes in order to participate in an informed way.’

Emerson said the pressure to comply with government deadlines resulted in ‘poor advertising of the HOP’.

‘Street names or numbers and area numbers, previously referenced in the Residential Strategy 2020, were not included in the HOP, and made it difficult to determine locations. These details have now been included in the submission report!’

Emerson also said, ‘As stated in the Council report 13.6 (Page 97), not all NSW government state agencies provided feedback prior to the Council meeting’.

‘When Council adopted the Residential Strategy 2020 it highlighted that: ‘The most significant revisions to the draft residential strategy have been in response to matters raised by the Department of Planning, Industry & Environment (DPIE), as these are considered necessary to enable the DPIE’s endorsement of a final residential strategy’.

‘Why has Council published before all DPIE submissions have been received, considering their importance?

‘Will the community be engaged for feedback once these submissions have been received, reviewed and the strategy updated?’

According to staff, the HOP will ‘inform’ the residential strategy ‘refresh’. 

The Echo has repeatedly tried to get a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer from senior Council staff around whether the strategy, expected to be presented to councillors early next year, will include public submissions. 

The Echo is yet to receive a reply.