Where are the residents of Byron Bay who are concerned about where we live and the changes afoot? At the Council information sessions for the Housing Options Paper (HOP), only eight residents turned up in Byron Bay.
I spotted a differently shaded area of Byron Bay in the map displayed and attached to the HOP. It encompasses a huge swathe of residential area stretching south from the CBD to St Finbarr’s School, east to the boundary of Arakwal NP and west to the railway line.
According to Council staff this ‘Area for Review of Development Standards’ has been targeted for rezoning from R2 Low Density to R3 Medium Density Residential. Yes, there’s going to be a Shire-wide reduction in lot sizes to 600m2, but only for this section of the shire will there be rezoning to allow increased height limits and increased floor/space ratios for residential buildings.
The impacts on the national park from a much higher density of dwellings adjacent to it will be massive. However, if you already live here and bought on the basis that it was low-density living, think about your neighbour’s block being sold, if the single or dual dwelling is demolished and eight units are being squeezed onto it, or maybe a boarding house? There goes your sunlight, privacy and peace. Cars will mushroom all over the streets. The currently dangerous right turn into Bangalow Road will become a nightmare.
The majority of Councillors voted last December for the HOP to go ahead with all mapped lands and dwelling yields as recommended by staff. It informs the final 2024 Residential Strategy, that will be approved by Council mid-March, then this goes to the state government to endorse. Next a Council study will be done on rezoning the ‘Review Area’ in Byron Bay, dependant on grant funding from the state – almost assured, considering their demand for higher housing.
At this point community consultation will take place, a tick-the-box exercise? It may well be too late to do anything once the study is underway. If you want to preserve what we have now, get in fast and lobby councillors against including this area for rezoning in the updated Residential Strategy, before the March meeting.
If you care at all about the environment and community as a whole then increasing the density of houses is a must. HIgher density housing reduces our carbon footprint and prevents wild habitat destruction, plus it makes housing more affordable, schools and services closer and public transport more accessible. No one can argue without using a self centered position that we don’t need all these things.
The thing is steven, where? Have you noticed the limitations on infrastructure provision around a township tucked inside a steep headland? How much more traffic will the CBD’s roads cope with. No one seems to discuss high density where it might be able to be accommodated – it fails the real estate test of position, position, position and the accompanying windfall profits.
plan to do nothing is a plan to fail
illegal dwellings will become more and more prevalent
council will get no additional rates or levies
people will still come here and the population will still increase
“Undocuments homes” you mean thank you.
I don’t disagree with that Steven, I’m just suggesting that too often the push for higher density is about wringing the last bit of profit out of the land that produces the highest prices (generally VERY unaffordable) land where it is hard to install the infrastructure to accommodate it – short of demolishing the whole town and starting again that is.
What’s wrong with accommodating population increase by placing sensible residential planning principles over mega profits?
How do you make ‘mega profits’ if you make something that’s ‘unaffordable’? How come so many developers have gone broke and shutdown over the last few years if they are gouging?
Which developers? Do you mean building companies? That’s a different story. With “unaffordable” I’m referring to the myth that greater supply will make housing more affordable for the ordinary punter. It depends on very much where it is.
The state and federal government are pushing this agenda they want to accommodate another four thousand people in the shire council has no real powers especially with kangaroo court planning panels that favour developers and weak EPA that don’t outright ban some building practices like building on floodplains and building highrise in high conservation and low density areas not everyone can live on the north coast and there’s millions of beautiful places in Australia they just need better marketing to relocate the hoards too plus there was a study done that Sydney and Byron bay will the most affected regions by flood by 2041:
It’s not about preference, it’s about importing 4% new population each year, and needing places to stuff everyone. 40% more population every 10 years is a lot.
Won’t we be fine with all that population increase, Christian? We’ve got lots of desert and all that CO2 is turning them green I’m told.