Some good questions were raised by residents at last week’s Council meeting – and were ‘taken on notice’ by Mayor, Michael Lyon.
It concerns a very important document which was adopted, called the Byron Shire Residential Strategy 2041.
Now the strategy has been supported by a majority of councillors (Cr Sama Balson was against), it is now being lovingly prepared by planning staff to be sent to the state government for consideration.
The Echo has probably been banging on about this a bit too much, but given the complexity and impacts it will have in coming years, it’s worth the ink.
For example, these decisions by councillors (and if approved by the state government) can make instant millionaires out of speculating landowners.
On the other hand, land which was included in the previous Housing Options Paper (which ‘informed’ this Residential Strategy), were taken out at the last minute.
A very large area bounded by Ewingsdale Road to Grays Lane east of the M1, was excluded, despite pleas from the landowner during morning public access.
The Residential Strategy process has shown how little land is actually suitable to develop in Byron Shire, and how eager councillors and planning staff were to rush the document through.
There were limits, however, to what councillors believe the public were willing to bear.
Large floodplain lots to Mullum’s east were removed for example, yet the drainage issue remains without any pathway forward.
Height limits of 11.5m across new rezonings were a ‘signal’ to developers and the state government, said Shannon Burt, head of Council’s planning department.
Sensing that the hoi polloi may revolt, councillors replaced ‘11.5m’ for general wording.
Yet neighbours of these 17 rezoning proposals – if adopted by the state – will no doubt be nervous for their future.
Infrastructure is key to managing impacts, and how that will look, unfortunately, is unknown.
Clearly Byron Shire infrastructure is ageing and not keeping up.
Resident Kathryn McConnochie asked councillors on Thursday: ‘Is Council planning to create additional off-stream [water] storage capacity for Laverty’s Gap in order to meet the increased housing projected for Mullumbimby in the Residential Strategy, and if not, what resilient supply solutions are planned to meet the created demand?’
The mayor responded that, ‘The question cannot be answered at the moment, as Council are still working through our future water strategy…’
The Mullumbimby Residents Association also asked Council last Thursday why flood-prone areas were included in the residential strategy. They asked, ‘Do you agree that we must consider and respect the identity and character of our towns, which already have well documented poor infrastructure and are struggling to cope with our current population?’
The mayor took the questions on notice, and then proceeded to vote for flood-prone development later in the day, with other councillors.
So – it’s over to the state government now to assess some very ordinary Council planning decisions and processes, and for residents to wait to see who becomes the instant property millionaires.
Hans Lovejoy, editor
The ink is worth it, Echo! Keep banging on and uplifting the intelligent concerns and questions of the community. And highlighting how wimpy and dodgy this council is.
It’s development in Byron.
Has the Editor ever supported any envelopment in Byron?
Asking for a friend. Hans.
Jimie pls use your real name. I do. And that’s because I have nothing to hide.
As for your question, it seems driven from something perhaps that was written about you?
Are you, or were you, in public life? A jilted councillor perhaps? Or a rusted on supporter of a failed one?
Did I write something that offended your delicate sensibilities?
USE YOUR REAL NAME, YOU COWARD!
RE developments: I think it’s good to question motives, and ask what benefits there are for every proposal. There are always better outcomes and results through examination and discourse. I know that might be hard for you to understand.
Clearly this Council, under the current regime, is gungho and quite pleased about wrecking the place.
And they are doing this on the fly and in secret. It’s a disaster. I can’t see where the good faith is.
If they or developers, however, propose sensible improvements, I would welcome them
H
Jimie here.
Why do you think that my name is, say Bill Petal, and not Jimie?
However, thank you for your considered, detailed, and balanced reply.
Except that you did not actually answer my question.
Has the Editor ever supported any development in Byron? ( That’s past tense, not a hypothetical)
Wow Hans, who’s the one with “delicate sensibilities”? Who’s a bit rusted on?
A bit of an unfortunate tendency to lash out petulantly at any perceived criticism? You could just answer: “yes I have, and here are some examples to illustrate …” Or: “No I’ve never seen presented any desirable or worthwhile proposals – everyone involved needs to do better.” Perhaps some clues as to what criteria you adopt to determine “sensible improvements” would be good too.
I don’t reckon anonymity is call for a spray like this but, if you don’t like anonymous posts perhaps make the rules the same as those for letters. Since posts are often exchanges between posters, I reckon they should all be on the same footing.
Mmm, seems there’s one set of moderation criteria for the editor and another for responding posts. Fair enough!
Well spotted.
It’s not the first time though .
It seems that he doesn’t like my name, for a start.
Whereas he must be ok with your name, Lb. ( err, coward. lol )