There’s a few Council-led housing projects burbling away under the surface, one of which has popped up again with the statutory requirement to engage with the public.
How pesky is that! Imagine what our bureaucratic and political tyrant overlords could achieve if we weren’t in the way to slow them down?
All that consultation must be quite a chore. Not that there’s much evidence it ever gets taken into account, but that’s another story.
What the community have in front of them at present is a major development plan to turn a public asset – the former Mullum hospital site – into presumably a private housing investment project.
Mayor Michael Lyon enthused in his recent press release, ‘This land, which was once home to the town’s very valued hospital, has enormous potential to deliver much needed housing and community facilities’.
It’s proposed to have higher density than is currently allowed in the town, and if the planning proposal is accepted (why wouldn’t it be?), it will set a precedent for further height limits elsewhere.
It’s one of the issues when Council becomes the developer.
One of Council’s main functions is to determine development applications (DAs). So when they propose a development, you would hope that the utmost care and diligence is taken to ensure it is socially and environmentally beneficial.
Yet with the former Mullum hospital site planning proposal, it appears Council are acting like all speculating developers do – that is, playing down the impacts and doing the minimum to get it across the line.
That means more money for the developer and generally less amenity and stretched infrastructure.
To their credit, Council propose fewer dwellings than were previously proposed. Given there is no public explanation for that, perhaps they were told it wouldn’t be accepted by the state government?
The development is also dependent on hooking up Mullum’s water supply to Rous County Council’s Rocky Creek Dam. Currently, Mullum’s water source is from Lavertys Gap in Wilsons Creek.
Should Mullum retain that independent connection, or switch entirely to be dependent on Rous?
As for the existing congested traffic which occurs nearby at the corner of Azalea Street and Jubilee Avenue, Council could propose works to ease it.
But because the report – that we paid for – says it is not needed yet, they won’t (See page 1).
It’s a game which leads to inadequate outcomes and unfair pressure on small towns like Mullum.
Not the original proposal
The original vision for the site, as penned by residents in 2015, was a precinct for aged care facilities and services, housing for people with a disability, and affordable social housing for vulnerable and disadvantaged people, including domestic-violence victims.
What is more likely is that Council will try to sell the public asset to recoup the remediation cost of around $4.7 million.
As we know with Council’s attempts to attract a community housing provider to develop the Mullum car park, developers aren’t interested unless they own it.
If Council’s ‘affordable housing’ rhetoric can be believed, there will be just 20 per cent put aside, and it’s unclear if it will be in perpetuity.
Will the other 80 per cent sit within a wealthy private portfolio, as Mullum’s real estate and congested traffic continues to increase?
Submissions are open until February 11 via www.byron.nsw.gov.au.
Hans Lovejoy, editor
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. 
