‘Alternative accommodation’ still on the cards after homes demolished
Mayor Sarah Ndiaye (Greens) has defended Council staff’s threat of demolishing the homes of a small community after an inspection allegedly found unauthorised activities and dwellings in Upper Main Arm.
As reported last week, Koohinur Pty Ltd is a multiple occupancy (MO), and operates as a company, where the directors of the company are also residents. This MO has been in existence since 1971.
Former magistrate, Professor David Heilpern, told The Echo the actions of compliance staff were ‘cruel’, and that, ‘this is a matter for councillors to urgently change policies and guidelines to make priorities clear’.
While Cr Ndiaye acknowledged ‘the deep stress this situation is causing’, and wanted to improve ‘channels of communication’, she stopped short of suggesting any reform around how Council compliance operates.
Instead, she repeated the talking points of Director of Sustainable Environment and Economy, Shannon Burt, and said the residents will be provided, ‘time to either bring properties into compliance or, as a last resort, find alternative accommodation’.
She also said, ‘I think the characterisation of the director and staff in this matter is also inappropriate and oversimplifies the situation’.
A ‘history of non-compliance’ by the MO was outlined by Cr Ndiaye, and she suggested there had been a ‘breakdown of relationships and communication’ on the property.
Yet one shareholder, Charles Boyle, says the mayor’s ‘history of non-compliance’ is inaccurate, and provided The Echo with evidence contrary to her claims.
Mr Boyle said, ‘Enforcement is such an archaic and unnecessary attitude – especially in a Greens council. There is a significant difference between “legal responsibility” and “safety concerns”.’
Survived 50 years
‘Many of the older unapproved buildings in Main Arm have survived 50 years of flood and cyclones’, he said.
‘This issue is about enforcing legal compliance and to punish those who do not submit to the building codes – usually because they simply can’t afford the exorbitant costs involved. Some issues are obvious – smoke alarms, grey water and sewage disposal – others less so.
‘But the attitude of enforcement through punishment creates resentment, anxiety and ultimately – hostility, which is inevitable’.
So far, Cr Ndiaye has only spoken to Mr Boyle and Council staff.
She said, ‘I want to hear directly from them about what’s happening on the ground and explore practical ways I can assist within the legal scope of my role as mayor. I’m not sure what that might entail at this stage but improving channels of communication would be a priority’.
Cr Ndiaye said, ‘It is important that the public understand that the mayor and councillors can’t direct staff except by resolution of Council. This is a very important feature of local government and helps avoid corruption’.
‘That said, I believe in finding solutions through dialogue and mutual understanding and face-to-face always seems to work better as does ground-truthing the site’.
‘I want to emphasise that our goal is to find pathways to compliance rather than displacement. That has always been my position, and why I sought to introduce an amnesty in the past’.
Amnesty regrets
A resident contacted The Echo last week to say they regretted contacting compliance staff during the 2021 unapproved dwelling amnesty, and would never contact Council again.
They said, ‘Two compliance officers and a security guard turned up at my house – it was pretty intimidating, and I felt I had to do what they said. There is virtually no viable pathway for people to become legal in these old communities. It’s a historical issue in the Shire, that previous councils let happen, so they can’t expect it to all to magically fix itself.
‘Council needs to take some responsibility and genuinely help people, while being transparent about what they are legally required to do’.
Legal obligations
The law that governs council compliance is the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which contains provisions for flexibility around investigations and actions.
When asked about Council staff’s legal obligation around investigating complaints, Director Sustainable Environment and Economy, Shannon Burt, referred The Echo to Council’s Enforcement Policy, which expired on October 21, 2024.
Ms Burt also made conflicting statements around Council’s obligations. Last week, she said, ‘Once a complaint is lodged and Council is aware of an unauthorised development or activity we have legal obligations as a regulatory authority to act’.
This week, she said, ‘Council has discretion in deciding whether to take enforcement action on the basis of the available evidence and the circumstances of the individual case’.
Professor Heilpern, who is Dean of Law at SCU, said, ‘There are no legal obligations in any legislation or case law that require Council to act against unauthorised development’.
He added, ‘No other council on the North Coast is threatening to demolish houses on multiple occupancies that have existed on the fringes of legality for decades’.
More pressing issues
‘Why? Because they take the eminently sensible view that hippies in shacks do no harm, and there are plenty of more pressing issues than disturbing people’s lives.
‘Lismore Council is the most conservative on the North Coast, and you don’t see investigative teams and proposed demolition orders on any of the 100-plus multiple occupancies in that area’.
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. 
