A request to extend temporary ‘pod’ housing in Byron Shire has been raised by the NSW Reconstruction Authority (NSWRA), Byron Shire Council’s General Manager, Mark Arnold, has confirmed.
The Echo asked Council staff if Byron Shire Council, like Tweed Shire Council, had also been approached by the Reconstruction Authority for an extension for an additional two years at the pod sites in the Byron Shire.
One Byron Shire ‘pod’ is located at the entrance to Mullumbimby, and there are two in Brunswick Heads.
On May 17, 2022, The Echo online reported then-Minister for Flood Recovery, Steph Cooke, as saying, ‘we expect it will be used for up to two years’.
GM Arnold told The Echo, ‘Council receives regular correspondence from the Reconstruction Authority and an extension of temporary housing sites has been raised’.
‘This matter will be presented to the elected Council for a decision following discussions with the Reconstruction Authority’.
As reported in The Echo online last week, Tweed Shire Council received a letter from NSWRA advising it ‘has extended Crown Lands-owned sites, including Pottsville, and is now planning to commence arrangements to extend all remaining sites’.
In-principle support was sought from Tweed Shire Council to extend the Kingscliff site by an additional two years to June 2027.
Ratepayers’ call to defer decision
But Kingscliff Ratepayers and Progress Association (KRPA) asked Tweed Council to defer the decision regarding the temporary housing site on Elrond Drive, Kingscliff, because they are ‘seeking an update on the operation and future of the site, particularly in relation to the key matters pertaining to the temporary flood accommodation’.
The KRPA said they are seeking information on: ‘the success of the program to date in not only providing temporary accommodation, but support in facilitating permanent rehousing for flood-affected residents; the areas from which the flood-affected residents in the accommodation are from – commitments were made that local residents would be prioritised (i.e. postcode 2487 and Chinderah), then the wider Tweed Shire, then from outside the Shire,’ and, ‘confirmation that the site will be returned to community green space/public reserve at the conclusion of the agreed time frame – June 2024.’
The KRPA also highlighted that the area is flood-prone and was underwater during the 2022 floods.
The Echo asked the NSW Reconstruction Authority for the answers to the KRPA questions.
NSW Reconstruction Authority declines to provide KRPA answers
A spokesperson from the NSW Reconstruction Authority said, ‘The RA is working with Tweed Shire Council as the landowner on plans for the Elrond Drive temporary housing village’.
‘Decisions on the future of the site will be made in consultation with Council and stakeholders’.
Wonder if this is a way of providing low cost social housing instead of building affordable low cost housing in suitable flood free sites just a thought if these will be included in state governments commitment to providing low cost social housing .
No extensions period for Kingscliff’s Elrond Drive site.
This original decision offered no local community consultation, did not meet planning and development guidelines. Inappropriate site locations and no consideration of impact on existing residents with increased traffic, parking issues and anti social behaviour.
Yep not in my backyard how about thinking what happens if you lost all your stuff or housing. You do know it was called emergency housing, show some compassion.
In regards to the State buy back properties now controlled by NSW government 2 questions.
1. where is all the rubbish from the demolished home go when they are taken back to ground?
2. Is the NSW Government going to be continuing rates payments untill the end of time? Or will our councils be crying poor again?
Throw the pod residents out into the street! We can’t have flood refugees littering our sacred green spaces. And OMG some of them might not be locals! Away with them! /sarcasm
What a selfish bunch of greedy, bitter people have exposed themselves here. How about allowing people to live in the pods until their preferred accommodation is available. And if they become DeFacto low cost accommodation that only shows the urgent need for it.
The only thing exposed here is your lack of ability to read an article. Only an easily outraged bonehead could draw a conclusion from the article that the intention is to throw the pod residents into the street – sheesh.
So what happens if the extension is refused? Do the pod residents become illegal or magically disappear? You might want to think further than the next 12 months because a refusal to extend the pods does just that.
What disingenuous reporting. Those images of the “Mullum Village’ are actually of the adjoining State Rail land occupied by free campers and clients of the adjacent garage. A cynic might think you’re trying to paint the Village in a bad light!
It does not take a cynic to see it like that. It was only 3 weeks ago that The Echo’s editor allowed to print a quote of anonymous business-owners stating that the pod village might be the reason for an increase in shoplifting. Someone with an intention to publish fact-based articles would never allow this type of ‘observations’ in their newspaper, or at least mention that there is no proof and no logic in these ‘observations’.
Indeed.
boomer nimbys get what you deserve, years of green boomer nimbys complaining about new housing development has resulted in this mess, not the floods. boomer nimbys who bought their houses for 1/20th of their current value, often have just 1 or 2 people living in a huge house, complaining about pod accommodation, oh no! might affect their sedentary life-styles or house values!