With any election, political hopefuls enter the race as insiders (already in the ‘political tent’ and seeking re-election), or being outsiders, meaning they generally are not experienced or intimately knowledgeable with how government works (legislation, policy and regulations for example).
The following Q&A is from those seeking to be elected who are not part of the establishment; however, it should be noted that Jack Dods has been active within Council’s committees, giving him some advantage around the knowledge needed to be part of a governing team.
Would you have delayed the decision on the future of Mullum’s water supply until after the election, or support the mayor’s casting vote to abandon the local source for bulk supplier Rous?
David Warth: ‘Yes I would definitely have delayed the decision on the future of Mullum’s water supply. I would have held public meetings to determine what our community wanted to do about this issue and what expenditure was justified. In my opinion for a town to have its own dedicated water supply coming out of the rainforest is absolute Gold. To decommission this facility without thorough community consultation is extremely concerning to me’.
Jack Dods: ‘We feel the timing of the decision (being brought to the last Council meeting before the election) was ill-considered. It would have been in the public interest to have delayed the vote until a new Council was elected. That said, our group have read the staff and background reports in depth, and we believe connecting to Rous Water was the best decision. We have no reason to believe the staff recommendation was flawed. The estimated $67m cost differential to ratepayers, plus the need to construct an additional off-stream storage reservoir and water treatment plant, are both reason enough to support connection to Rous. We take a pragmatic, prudent approach to such matters, and in our opinion the financial and environmental tradeoffs required to keep Laverty’s Gap are not justifiable. Given the Rocky Creek Dam catchment’s suitability for the broader Byron Shire, we believe it’s reasonable to consider it a viable option for Mullumbimby’s needs as well’.
Lucy Vader: ‘At the meeting prior to the vote, it was clear the councillors did not understand the full details of what they were voting for, and information of costings and types of water retention had been brought and revised only five days prior to the meeting. This lack of clarity saw Cr Cate Coorey express that there was obviously not enough understanding on the topic for either the councillors, nor the public, and she would be choosing to switch her vote from changing Mullumbimby’s water supply over to Rous, to remaining with the current Laverty’s Gap supply. She said she felt more time was needed. I would have delayed the vote, yes, as the public deserve the respect to have the information and costings and detail drawings made fully and clearly accessible to them (not found somewhere deep inside a council website), so that a fully informed decision can be made’.
Would you have put more pressure on Wallum developer Clarence Property by refusing the works certificate, which may have incurred legal costs, or would you have supported the mayor’s casting vote and approve the works certificate and then attempt to negotiate after?
David Warth: ‘I was not involved in the Wallum controversy. Without having taken on board all the information I cannot take a stance on what I would have done. I can see that all future planning must take into account an accurate assessment of environmental values.
If environmental requirements are met, then there must be assurance that work can commence without undue delays’.
Jack Dods: ‘We understand the long, complex history behind the Wallum development. The site has been zoned for low-density residential development since the 1988 LEP. The planing minister approved a concept DA for the site in 2013. In an alternate history, if the site had never been rezoned, we would not support development here. We recognise the environmental qualities of the site, especially at the eastern periphery where the development footprint covers several mature scribbly gums. However, historic zonings and approvals are in place and they are legally binding. We might not like that fact, but we accept it.
‘We also understand the commercial realities surrounding the project. Clarence property purchased the site for $36m with an approved concept DA, and an approved lot yield in place. These facts make it extremely unlikely that Clarence will significantly amend their plans to accept a smaller yield. These are material considerations that are unavoidable and must be understood when seeking a better outcome.
‘Jack Dods (the lead candidate on our team) donated his time and expertise to draft an alternate scheme for the mayor’s negotiations with Clarence Property. That scheme was considered in the March 28 Mayoral minute, and supported by councillors Coorey and Pugh. The scheme reduced the development footprint by over 1 hectare, saving the scribbly gums, and adding significant more parkland to the proposal. The only tenable solution that would be considered by the developer involved keeping the proposed lot yield. This was achieved by introducing more diverse housing and lot types, which better suits the needs of our community by offering better, more affordable housing options for young families and down-sizers. The standard model of 450-500m2 suburban land development is something we believe should be phased out. We want to see more diverse, walkable, pro-social development models for all new neighbourhoods, making tham as sustainable and people-friendly as possible.
‘Regarding delaying the subdivision works certificate: Our understanding is that this is not usually a function of elected councillors, but a procedural step undertaken by staff. And that the Feb 8th report was not explicitly to approve or reject the works certificate, but a report responding to Councillor Dey’s Notice of Motion from October 12th 2023 requesting certain management plans be updated and resubmitted for review by state and federal departments. The resubmitted documentation was deemed compliant with the approved conditions, and as such staff had to issue the subdivision works certificate. As stated previously, if this proposal did not have a long, legally binding set of approvals in place, there would be strong grounds for Council to refuse, or request significant changes such a proposal. However, given the facts, denying the works certificate would have been pointless, and would likely have incurred protracted legal costs while resulting in the same built outcome.
‘We still believe a negotiated revised proposal to be the best possible outcome. But as it stands, both the developer and the protestors seem intent on an all-or-nothing approach. We find it regretful that this is the case, and wish both the developer and the protestors had been more lenient and collaborative in their approach’.
Lucy Vader: ‘For a site already protected under state legislation, a refusal would have been my preference, based on ecological, cultural, and community values. Recommendations that a Council fund be kept in reserve for legal proceedings taken out by dissatisfied developers is good and wise for well-grounded cases such as this. Sometimes developers do put in inappropriate designs for urban development that need modifications and need to be challenged. These types of cases in court, reflecting these ecological values, have a good success chance, and would been worth refusing the works certificate’.
‘Allowing for the threat of legal proceedings by developers as the main priority over community values and development that threatens species and critical habitat: the balance of power and values system is askew and needs to be challenged and can and could have been reasonably be done so’.
Council’s Housing Options Paper (HOP) was adopted in December 2023 and heavily criticised by community groups, not only for its secrecy, but because of the poor process that underpinned it. That HOP document ‘informed’ the subsequent adopted residential strategy. Mayor Lyon refused to provide the public submissions to The Echo (which was supported by the community groups). Instead, the mayor supported staff’s view that it was too expensive to do so. Would you have released the public submissions?
David Warth: ‘With such an important issue as the Housing Options Paper I would require transparency and community engagement. I would have provided the public submissions to The Echo’.
Jack Dods: ‘We see no reasons why public submissions, or at very least, a summary of public submissions should not be made public’.
Lucy Vader: ‘The public submissions would be of public interest, yet I feel that including names could create division between friends for stating personal or group views. So I would support publishing the submissions, and not the names of the people who submitted, and with any defamatory statements omitted.
‘However, the publishing of the submissions is of critical importance to prove what public sentiment exists around the residential strategy, as Council has made claims that the community “wants” certain types of developments that has been included in the Housing Options Paper that it certainly does not want’.
As reported last week, local small businesses in Byron’s CBD say they face likely closure after Council staff’s insistence that road and drainage works need to be done in the lead up to Christmas. If you were currently a councillor, what would you do to ensure these local businesses will not end up closing?
David Warth: ‘The timing of the Lawson Street upgrade is questionable. As it is about the commence, I would fully inform business owners of the timeframe and stages of the work. I would ensure that access to the businesses affected is maintained and I would personally regularly visit the business premises to help with any problems that occur’.
Jack Dods: ‘As members of the Byron Masterplan Group, Jack and Meredith are familiar with the proposed drainage upgrade works, and have advised council staff on the need for maximum engagement with businesses. These works, while disruptive, will create a more robust and resilient drainage system to mitigate flooding, and redirect stormwater to better reflect the natural flows in Byron’s town centre. Jack attended a Chamber of Commerce event last week to hear the concerns of local businesses on the potential impacts of construction. We aim to work with staff on taking every possible step to ensure businesses stay as accessible and visible as possible. We would also seek advice on whether timing was flexible, and if works could be staged to allow businesses to operate fully over busy trading periods like Christmas’.
Lucy Vader: ‘Byron Bay’s retail is struggling. The fact that Council has planned these works for several years does not take into account the changes that have taken place in recent times in Byron Bay, and its rapid trading decline and Council should adapt to this change accordingly, and not contribute to the decline further’.
‘I would postpone renewal of the road pavement and streetscape until a dry and quiet period, and work with drainage teams on non-impacting work periods also’.
Do you believe this current Council provides enough transparency, engagement and quality communications with its operations? If not, how would you improve it?
David Warth: ‘I believe we can improve Council transparency, engage in genuine community consultation and be more forthcoming with communications around council operations’.
Jack Dods did not reply
Lucy Vader: ‘I do not believe the current council has provided quality transparency, meaningful engagement (such as disregarded Mullumbimby water connection feedback vote), though it has provided communications when reached out to’.
‘I have found the abundance of Council closed-door meetings disrespectful to our community, and resulting in a lack of faith. I would like to see a restoration of trust. I would improve this by not having any need for secret meetings, by paying respect to and honouring public feedback votes, and with a policy of transparency’.
There has been very little, if any, staff operational reform within this term of Council. Staff operations include compliance, planning (DAs), infrastructure (roads and drainage) etc. Do you see this as an issue and if so, what reform would you like to see?
David Warth: I would encourage improvements in operational efficiency. I consider it to be a necessary function of any organisation to strive for better outcomes. I would assess workloads and staffing requirements. Planning and DA approval times needs to be addressed. Roads and drainage are obvious areas of concern. Drains need to be kept clear and it is time take action in the north of our shore to mitigate flooding.
I will create a rapid response pot hole team to keep our roads in better condition. Compliance needs to be sensible and respectfully implemented.
Jack Dods did not reply.
Lucy Vader: ‘DAs: I would like to see Development Application processing become more user friendly, and more efficient. A modification to the processing might take the form of triaging, instead of DAs being assessed in order of submission, being triaged, and then dispersed in order of ticked boxes’.
‘Compliancy: It is ironic that Council is hounding privately certified properties to check compliancy, Council approvals can take up to three years. Council is acting like a jilted lover. Firstly, Council should look how why people have chosen to go with the efficiency of private certifiers. Secondly, why does council have so much time to be chasing about looking at people’s small extensions or toilets? Shouldn’t they be working on DAs?
It poses the question: perhaps council is so overloaded that perhaps private certifiers should actually take over the role of alterations and additions and complying developments, and take that whole work load out of Council.
‘Also on compliance, in this era of lack of housing availability, I am aware of highly habitable unorthodox very Northen River hinterland places on private property that council has been policing to ensure nobody lives in. And yet, if you look to the council’s directory for emergency temporary accommodation, a “tiny home”, which does not fit the building code, simply has to have wheels on it, and a couple of other connections, and is fine. It is farcical. It is on this, I would call for more tolerance from council in the realm of housing people in need and compliance. The solution to the housing problem is the wheel.
Potholes: I would like to see staff implement correct procedure instructions to the contractor who fixes potholes. Do it once and do it right. The is no magical vortex we drive through when we leave the Byron Shire and the pothole disappear. It’s that they are not fixed properly here and we all know it.
The road base here is clay. That expands and contracts in the wet and dry. Ballina’s road base is basalt, which is stable. Potholes are round. The correct way to fix a round hole is a rectangle, the right base, and the right procedure.
Do it once, do it right. Fix in place a correct procedure to be followed and guaranteed by the contractor.
Infrastructure: I would like in overhaul of priority on this, and how its carried out, wholisitically.
We have witnessed Council allowing Mullumbimby’s own water supply be under-maintained by a council who should be preserving a set figure annually for its maintenance, and now look as though they are set to discard this significant resource completely from its infrastructure, unless a rescission movement is made in the new council to redress this.
Maintenance and clearing of all drains and channels, creek and river outlets as a regulated occurrence for all areas must be upkept for effective drainage – and not to be forgotten through the dry times, especially through the dry times, as this compounds the problems when the heavy downpours occur.
We need new river gauges in more locations to provide more height data so that we have a clearer understanding of river heights, and an efficient alert system to inform of water over roads. Currently during every heavy downpour, of social media, I see so many people asking if they are able to get into Mullumbimby – they have no other way of finding out.
Roads: We are seeing extraordinarily dangerous designs coming out for residential developments that will harm lives’.
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. 
