There were one pecuniary and eight non-pecuniary interests tabled at last week’s Council meeting, with independent Cr Jack Dods again winning the leaderboard, with five.
Other councillors who found themselves conflicted with the job they were elected to are independent Cr David Warth, and Greens Crs Delta Kay and Elia Hauge.
If the trend continues for four years, it will be interesting to hear how effective they think they have been, given all that abstaining,
Or maybe we should be grateful they are so well connected and have their hands on the pulse of development?
Anyway, there were a few noteworthy items worth mentioning.
Community Title subdivision in Alidenes Road, Wilsons Creek
Councillors unanimously voted to approve a 16-lot Community Title (CT) subdivision at 31 Alidenes Road, Wilsons Creek.
Staff described it as ‘an irregular shaped lot with an area of 12.27 hectares located next to the old Mullumbimby hydro-electric power station, approximately 4.5 kilometres from Mullumbimby township’.
While the sites would be powered by reticulated electricity and telecommunications services, staff say future dwellings would be supplied by rainwater harvesting and sewage would be managed on-site.
According to the Road Safety Audit findings, ‘The submitted Road Safety Audit (RSA) identifies several deficiencies in the design and condition of the intersection between Alidenes Road and Wilsons Creek Road that were deemed to be “high risk”.’ As such, upgrades are recommended.
Staff say the site is suitable for development.
‘Overall, the proposed subdivision design adequately responds to the constraints and opportunities of the site… Each lot has adequate room for the siting of a dwelling on flood-free land with a northerly aspect and room for gardens and ancillary outbuildings’.
Compliance stand down over demolition order
Councillors supported staff’s recommendation for a retro approval of a secondary dwelling at 80 Vallances Road, Mullumbimby.
According to the Council minutes, compliance officers had whacked a demolition order on the owner, yet there is no mention of why they pursued the owner to that point.
A variation to the 100m separation distance between the main dwelling and the secondary dwelling was sought, and accepted.
It was noted that ‘Council recently eliminated the 100m metre requirement for dual occupancy dwellings within the rural zones’.
Planning staff say, ‘The proposed development is satisfactory having regard to the relevant environmental planning instruments and planning controls applicable to the site. The proposal raises no significant issues in terms of environmental impacts which cannot be managed’.
‘The site is a serviced, unconstrained property and is considered suitable for the proposed development’, they added.
There you have it!
We explored two local planning issues from a long list that were dealt with at the December 5 meeting.
Hans Lovejoy, editor
News tips are welcome: [email protected]
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. 
