Cr Jack Dods (Independent) was a late entry to the Byron Shire Council (BSC) elections in September, nominating his group after then mayor Michael Lyon’s team imploded following revelations of his alleged domestic violence (DV) charges just weeks before the election.
The hearing for Cr Lyon’s alleged DV charges is set for March, 2025.
As an urban designer, Cr Dods volunteered for Council development-related committees prior to being elected, and was also part of Cr Lyon’s failed negotiations with Wallum developer, Clarence Property.
The Echo asked Cr Dods, who is also now deputy mayor, about his role as lead designer and neighbour contact for a large Myocum development application (DA) at 53 McAuleys Lane last year. Neighbours claim they were not consulted by him as promised.
As astute Echo readers are aware, developers are prohibited from running for Council. And while there is no allegation of wrongdoing here, it is within the public interest to explore these connections.
Your role in the 39-lot Myocum DA
The Echo asked you about your relationship with developer John Callanan during the election campaign and you downplayed the relationship.
After being elected, you were asked to explain your involvement in a large, exclusive 39-lot Myocum DA proposed by John Callahan and Tim Mundy. You admitted to being its lead design coordinator, which is a very significant role.
‘My relationship with John is both personal and on occasion professional. Yes, I was engaged as the design coordinator for the 53 McAuleys Lane proposal during the DA preparation. As such, I will have no involvement with this project as a councillor, and declare an interest wherever it arises.
‘This was the case at the November 14 Planning Meeting, where the McAuleys DA was mentioned in a status report on applications before the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP).
‘I recused myself from the chamber and did not participate in the vote. Note this DA is not being determined by Byron Council, it is being determined by the NRPP.’
Do you agree that it was a mistake to mislead the community about this important question, and if not, why?
‘I certainly did not mislead the community in any way.
‘I am committed to transparency and have always been open about my occupation and my interests.
‘During the campaign, I made it clear that I would declare any relevant interests, which I did in this case.
‘Additionally, I have publicly discussed my involvement in the McAuleys project on multiple occasions.’
Neighbours of DA 10.2023.454.1 say you were employed as the contact person for the DA, and that the DA was published on Council’s website two days before Christmas. You claim neighbours were advised of the DA’s lodgement around three weeks before Christmas. Is that correct?
They also said they received only one ‘courtesy’ call to advise them of the DA lodgement just before Christmas, despite assurances that there would be more communication around the DA prior. Is that correct?
‘The DA was uploaded to the portal at the end of November 2023, and the lodgement date was recorded on the DA tracker as 12/12/23, after the standard two week ‘DA check’ period which happens with all DAs.
‘The neighbours in question were informed of the lodgement via a courtesy call on 07/12/23. It is understandable that neighbours are at times concerned about developments proposed nearby. The neighbour you refer to made some insightful comments during the exhibition period which subsequently helped to improve the design after the exhibition period.
‘Preparing a DA is a long and complex process.
‘Lodgement happens when all documentation is coordinated and finalised.
‘The timing of this DA lodgement was not tactical, as has been wrongly suggested.
‘A quick search on the DA tracker of the proponent’s past significant DAs, shows that of 11 applications, two were submitted in December.
‘All others were submitted at various other times of the year, when documentation was ready for lodgement.’
Were you on any Council committees that oversaw this DA?
‘It came up once when the McAuleys Lane / Mullumbimby Road intersection was discussed during a Moving Byron Committee meeting where there was an update on the adopted Mullum-Bruns Cycleway route.
‘That committee dealt with active transport and public transport matters.
‘As part of the discussion involved the intersection related to the McAuleys Lane proposal, I declared an interest with then-chair Cr Mark Swivel, and did not participate as it related to that item.
‘There was no vote on the item as it was an update report on the Mullum to Bruns cycleway.’
Non-pecuniary interests
The Echo also asked you prior to the election: ‘what connections do you have with local developers’.
You did not list any developer connections as requested, and instead you said at the time: ‘I will be fully transparent if and when a perceived interest arises, declare as such, and recuse myself from any dealings with those matters. However I estimate such instances to be few relative to the broad scope of what Council deals with.’
It has emerged in your first planning meeting (Nov 14) you had to recuse yourself for five non-pecuniary interest items, which was by far more than any other councillor.
Can you please explain what connections do you have with local developers?
‘As a design professional and consultant, I have often been engaged by local landowners to give advice and help to improve design outcomes for a variety of projects.
‘It is certainly not appropriate to list every single project I have worked on, or consultant whom I know, as they are private matters.
‘However, as consistently stated during the campaign, wherever a past or current connection with any consultant or landowner appears before Council, I will openly, and clearly, declare the interest, which was the case at the November 14 planning meeting.
‘Aside from the Status Report that mentioned the McAuleys DA, I had no involvement in any of the DAs that I declared non-pecuniary interests in.
‘The interests simply related to knowing, or having associations with some of the consultants or applicants involved with those DAs.
‘This will be a similar scenario for any other councillor who has undertaken work on projects as a consultant.
‘I come from a big family that has been actively involved in our community for decades.
‘As such, I have many personal connections in our Shire.
‘As part of a diverse Council, we all come with different skill sets that provide the opportunity to deliver well informed outcomes.
‘The people who supported my campaign appreciate my experience, knowledge, and professionalism in the design and planning industry.
‘It is a valuable skill set for a councillor to have.
‘I was clear in all press releases and meet-the-candidate events that this is my background, and it is likely one of the principle reasons I was elected to Council.’
Additional questions (only published online)
Good design principles
You advocated for good design outcomes during the election campaign. Yet you are a vocal supporter of the 32 units proposed to replace Mullum’s Station St car park. Various objections to the development include visual impact, not in keeping with Mullum’s heritage and low key feel, flooding impact (Landcom proposes to build a 1m high concrete pad), loss of carpark that’s convenient to town and constantly full. It’s unclear where 64 wheelie bins will be located, and whether Transport NSW will agree to a busy laneway being further congested, given Landcom proposes that as the only access.
The claims that Council need to house its staff also appears not based on evidence. A realestate.com.au and Domain search reveals there are 25 properties available for rent, and 49 for surrounding areas. Given Council’s staff numbers are around 200, it also seems somewhat inequitable to ‘pick winners’.
Do you accept the validity of those objections?
And, do you agree that as a consent authority, governments and Councils should provide best practice design and transparency when it comes to building homes on public land? How does this project align with good design outcomes?
It is wrong to say I am a ‘vocal supporter’ of the Landcom Station St proposal. As Landcom are yet to submit DA documents, we can only go off the concept sketches as published on their website. I will reserve final assessment until we can read the detailed DA plans and the relevant consultant reports. Community concerns around laneway access, garbage collection, grease traps, flooding etc. are very valid and impacts should be resolved or minimised during the DA assessment.
Notwithstanding the above, I ran on a campaign of supporting affordable, well-located, diverse housing. In principle, I think proposals like the Landcom project are part of the puzzle in alleviating housing pressures, and providing dignified housing for key workers and those struggling to stay housed.
My early understanding is there will be no net loss of parking, and that relocating all-day parking is being investigated in the rail corridor.
I believe a well considered, respectfully designed affordable housing project for 32 dwellings, walking distance to services and amenities, is a much better use of public land than a surface level car park.
I understand change can be hard to accept, but an impartial analysis should lead anyone to see that this kind of housing is a necessity for our shire.
It is interesting to note that the corner of Station and Burringbar Sts (next door to this site) once housed the Railway Hotel – a grand 10m tall pub and hotel building that sat proudly at the entry to Mullumbimby before it burned down in 1963. I’m hopeful the design of this new building may also act as a proud entry to Mullumbimby, reflecting and embracing the fact that we as a community embrace diverse and affordable housing.
Such a project should signal our priorities and our aspirations – that we are a forward-thinking, progressive, welcoming community, that doesn’t shut itself off to housing the essential workers that keep our community ticking.
Regarding Council retaining apartments for Council Staff, I cannot comment as that was decided by the previous council and I don’t know how it came about. But I know Council has recently struggled to retain critical staff, often due to housing pressures, so I think retaining Council ownership of some of the dwelling units may be a good thing.
I fundamentally disagree with you that just because there are houses advertised for rent in Mullumbimby, it suggests our community is not facing immense housing pressures.
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. 
