Have you been watching the gradual decline of Mullum over the years?
Less attention to curbs and gutters? Virtually no improvements to drainage after a catastrophic flood?
An increase in traffic, less parking? Poorly thought out town planning? It’s a busy little place, and one which has become full to capacity.
For someone who went to high school here, and one who has lived here for many years, it seems that the focus of the current elected councillors isn’t about making this place a great place to live.
Instead, there appears a desperate agenda of ad hoc, pie-in-the-sky ‘affordable’ development thought bubbles which go against good planning principles.
While ‘Making Council Great Again’ could be a matter of waiting until the September 2024 elections, how can Mullum become a better place to live?
All the dumb things
First up: Stop doing dumb things.
Proposing to develop on flood-plains is clearly in the realms of idiocy, and the NSW Labor government promised they wouldn’t do that if elected in March.
Yet this Thursday, councillors will gather to presumably give this dumb idea passage through its Housing Options Paper.
As reported this week, this significant document was presented to the community with a myriad of issues, and lacks transparency and certainty.
A plan for up to 6,695 new homes to be constructed, much of it around Mullum and Bruns over the next 20 years, is way beyond the target even set by the state government – they requested 4,522 new homes (8,590 people).
Council’s rationale is that some land parcels will be later found to be unsuitable. So why propose it in the first place?
Councillors, led by Mayor Michael Lyon, are proposing foolish floodplain development because back in August, then-Sydney-based Deputy Secretary NSW Planning, Marcus Ray threatened Council he would take their precious planning powers away because of its poor performance in approving DAs.
A poorly baked pavlova
Instead of defending themselves, they collapsed like a poorly baked pavlova. Were they protecting their thin political hides or representing the community’s wishes?
Another sure way to ruin any small town on a floodplain is to jack up the height limits.
Increased density has now magically appeared in the Housing Options Paper, thanks to bold and fearless leadership by senior staff. Without evidence, they say it’s what the community wants. But is it?
It’s not what has been supported in the past. It’s the sort of thing that should be an election pledge, not a half-assed gambit by those without any accountability.
So councillors – please stop ignoring the Mullum masterplan (as inadequate as it is) and stop proposing to cram shit developments in tight spaces. Create more open spaces. And improve parking.
Just stop ruining the joint.
Make Mullum better instead.
Better shire planning could be developing on flood-free open spaces that could provide small hamlet-style villages. There is a bit of that land in Byron Shire.
That way, these councillors who are desperate to suck up to developers and the state government can show us how that model can produce good planning outcomes.
Hans Lovejoy, editor
News tips are welcome: [email protected]
Absolutely correct, Hans. All of the Mullum community I have spoken to (a great deal) are unanimous in support of making Mullum great (more open space, more parking, and not an increase to traffic, water and sewer requirements, or density.
The “Housing Options” paper is utter madness. It fails to recognise that STRAs will be opened up to regular residences in 2024, and they have not factored this into their planning.
And while frantically making planning attempts to trash the unique village of Mullum, it actively pursued and blocks “illegal” (no DA) residences, when circumstances suggest they should be working WITH people with unapproved residences, not fining, blocking, or demanding dismantling, if we have such a housing crisis.
Surely legitimising unplanned development would lead to more traffic and the need for more parking. The alternative to not increasing density is more urban sprawl with increased need to use motor vehicles.
Or is your plan to force people to move away?
Doesn’t the council restrict subdivision? First home, turn a blind eye. Ten is probably an issue. 100 or more on a 2 acre block, summary execution. Or something like that.
I absolutely agree with you Hans! – Building on a floodplain is an oxymoron as far as I’m concerned. Haven’t the council heard of Archimedes Principle!? Honestly, where is the logic? The floodplain is for draining…. Mullum was voted as the tidiest little town in the 70s, and was very proud of it (I go back a long way). I’ve never known the town to flood, except for the usual few pockets near the river and a couple of others, but the whole town has never flooded, til now. When I visited pre-flood, I couldn’t believe how bedraggled the houses look. – Trees overgrown and unkempt. Maybe this is the result of the Tree Preservation Order which was introduced way back in the 90s, I don’t know, but Mullum just looks so very, very sad, dirty, unloved and dilapidated. – Again, the was pre-flood.
Visiting post-flood was devastating. This was a first, for Mullum. And me. I saw temporary housing in the ‘railway yard’, as locals used to call it when the trains still ran, and other new erections. The volume of these buildings will up the flood level if/when another flood comes along. The more buildings built, the higher the floods. It’s not rocket science…. Building in floodplains is insanity! – This is where the Archimedes Principle comes in. What is wrong with the town planners and council!? – Mullum was built out way back in the 90s! It was full then!
What it really needs is maintenance, love, attention and care. Again, I agree with Hans re the Council’s part in this. If the leaders don’t care, it trickles down to the people, and they stop caring. Have Council fixed the roads? – Do they ever!? Does the Bruns river still need dredging? It used to be deep once, and flood waters could escape…. The council really needs to concentrate on infrastructure, drains, roads etc. and raise their standards. – Not just in the money spinner Byron Bay, but all towns in the shire.
Community pride …….all the rest comes 2 nd. Kev Keating …….Frequent visitor to your beautiful town.
I honestly don’t know what this current Council stands for…
After being involved with the Halcyon days of post-Ross Tucker and mob’ rule, where real community representatives stood for something tangible, and real results were seen, I am SO underwhelmed.
They stand for jobs!
Primarily their own.
And Bonuses. Lots of bonuses, and expense accounts, with loose rules.
They have managed to climb out of the sea of peasantry, and damn you for trying to drag them back in, to live like you.
Why do we need a Council?
We have The Echo.
And it’s Editor.
Suck up!
Council headquarters should have stayed
Byron ..kept the properties that were owned
By Ratepayers..were sold for pittance…and still
Paying off Council headquarters in Mullumbimby
12 million or so to build the bales ! Make mullum
Great ..beautify the main street.. that would be a start !