A second subdivision works certificate for the Wallum estate was signed off by a majority of councillors last week, who again argued that they have no legal standing to further impede an approved development.
The first, and most crucial works certificate vote, was passed by the same majority at the February 8 meeting.
It comes as dozens of Save Wallum campaigners continue the blockade of the Brunswick Heads site in an attempt to preserve what is significant heathland biodiversity and a diminishing ecosystem.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the protectors successfully stopped contractors from entering the site, after locking on to machinery and deploying nonviolent resistance tactics.
Sydney-based riot police, assisted by local police and security, were at the scene.
A Save Wallum spokesperson said that eight people were arrested.
When asked by The Echo, developer Clarence Property’s media spokesperson said they did not pay for the riot police.
Like February 8, Thursday’s vote was close, in this case, four to three.
Clarence Property needed Council to issue this certificate, which has been described as a procedural exercise, before it could start undertaking bulk earthworks at Wallum.
And like the previous vote on February 8, Council received legal advice from Council’s new legal counsel, Matt Meir, who said that Council has no prospects of successfully defending this matter in court if it chooses to further impede development.
Support for legal challenge
However, there is considerable support for a legal challenge within the community to support those fighting on the front lines.
‘We have seen that the system has totally let us down in terms of protecting the environment,’ Greens councillor Duncan Dey told the meeting.
‘The system, over a number of decades, has basically let through a monster, a dinosaur of a development.’
‘It’s like the white shoe brigade all over again – a 1950s approach to land management and rezoning.’
Cr Dey, his fellow Greens councillor, Sarah Ndiaye, and Independent councillor, Cate Coorey, called for the matter to be deferred.
But this course was opposed by the remaining councillors, who argued that it would not assist in getting a good result for Wallum.
‘The point is, how do we get to the best outcome here?’ Mayor Michael Lyon said.
‘It’s about recognising that there’s an approved DA and getting an outcome in the only way that the Council can.
‘If you can go and find the money for the site to buy it, that’s a great outcome.
‘If you want to continue blockading the site through direct action and stop the development that way, that’s an option if you choose to pursue that.
‘The other way, if you want to get a better outcome, is to negotiate. And the best way to negotiate is in good faith with a developer who already has approval.
‘My suggestion is to get behind the compromise position, that we can use the leverage of the protest to actually get the developer to lodge an amendment to the DA, so that we can actually get some results.’
For and against
Cr Lyon was supported in his position by independent councillors, Mark Swivel and Alan Hunter, and by Labor councillor, Asren Pugh.
Councillors Peter Westheimer and Sama Balson were absent for the vote.
A recent joint media release by Mayor Michael Lyon, Cate Coorey and Asren Pugh provided their proposal for the site, based on negotiations with the developer.
It would see a slight reduction in the urban footprint, while saving the scribbly gums.
While Cr Lyon spruiked it as a good outcome, there is yet to be any agreement reached.
Negotiations after certificate issued
Cr Lyon was criticised by Cr Dey for waving the first works certificate through on February 8, and then trying to negotiate after.
Local ecologist, David Milledge, has described the concessions by the three councillors as ineffective.
Clarence Property CEO Simon Kennedy described the blockade in a media release last week as ‘illegal and criminal activity’.
Despite the concerns of ecologists over their management of vegetation, Kennedy said, ‘Guided by our ecologists, we’ve taken a holistic approach to consider management of vegetation extent and condition, weed invasion, feral and domestic animals, corridors and linkages, and the water cycle’.
Mr Kennedy said the rehabilitation and habitat creation works would not compromise its ability to make potential changes to existing plans, ‘should they be viable’.
There is not wide spread community support for the save wallum campaign, in Bayside the residents are sick of the protest and protesters.
Once people are made aware of the true facts of the development they will also think twice before supporting this action.
Wallum is not wild, not wetland, not heathland and not wilderness. The grossly exaggerated numbers of endangered species are not endangered by this development. Only 40% of Clarence property owned land is being built on and the remaining 60% of land is where the majority of the save Wallum website pictures are taken.
No I’m not an environment expert but I know that land and I’m sick of it being trashed by these ill informed if well meaning individuals. The protest camp is on land that is outside the security fence and it’s not being built on , local wildlife has 24/7 disruption from noise ,smoke and people tramping down the vegetation in order to save it , can’t they see the hypocrisy in that?
Have you noticed that the number of protesters is shrinking rapidly?
From once just over one hundred to the high 30s at best nowadays.
Even on their “day of victory, they barely outnumbered the police count.
The ABC said 200(lol), it was about 60 ish.
Their actions are those of an outdated Green tactic that nowadays has little community support except in the minds of the protesters.
I had been wondering about this. My understanding was that the land was cleared sometime around 20 years ago, and that the site was mostly weeds, and not heathland. Although I don’t really know myself. It’s all such a pity because meanwhile old growth forest is still being logged in NSW. But the remoteness isn’t really convenient for the slacktivists who don’t mind a bit of protesting followed by a nice meal and hot shower. If this wasn’t near town, not many would be turning up. People are needed in the Coffs region, in the hard core camps, the logging is ramping up there, and housing has to be built somewhere, so the previously degraded land is not a terrible option. But I guess logic and critical thinking just aren’t in style anymore.
“However, there is considerable support for a legal challenge within the community to support those fighting on the front lines”
what do you mean by ‘community’? do you mean by the few actual protestors, many of which are not even byron rate payers?
there are many ratepayers in the broader community who want council money spent on roads, services and essential items, these are OUR rates.
well done to michael lyon the vast majority stand by you at the next election.
Indeed, this protest can only help Michael Lyon.
It merely reminds the community that NO is The Green’s favourite word and also of negative times past in Byron.
The demographics of Byron have changed dramatically in the past decade, reflected in the declining vote of The Greens.
This will continue to be seen in the next election.
Why were Councillrs Westheimer and Balson absent? What’s the point in paying and voting for Councillors who can’t even find time to go to once weekly main meetings?
I have great misgivings about the housing development. I have seen the site and the degradation of surrounding area is assured. The existing houses are on top of each other. No backyards or green areas. The protesters are doing their best.
Why is our council not representing our green values? Aren’t they just looking after themselves, furthering their own agendas.
Where is the representation we vote for?
I have read the letters here and I don’t see any that care for country. This protest is supported by concerned indigenous people.