Senior Council planning staff have admitted to providing wealthy developers with an advantage around a contentious large 38-lot proposal near the main road into Mullum from Uncle Toms.
Works around Mcauleys Lane on Mullumbimby Road are part of Council’s bigger plans to upgrade the entire road, which are set to disrupt around 13,000 daily vehicle movements.
Yet with public exhibition for development application (DA) 10.2023.454.1 closing soon for 53 Mcauleys Lane, located near the intersection, residents say Council staff have given the developers an economic advantage.
However, staff claim their intervention with the DA improves safety for the road.
As previously reported, the DA is proposed by John Callanan and Tim Mundy, and comes with a myriad of issues that have been outlined in detail by neighbours. Staff have also had to re-exhibit the DA owing to administrative errors.
Similar plans?
Staff deny claims that traffic intersection plans supplied by the developer and Council’s own plans for the intersection are the same.
Staff told The Echo, ‘The plans for the upgrade of Mullumbimby Road, including the Mcauleys Lane intersection are plans produced specifically for Council for projects funded by Transport for NSW’.
Residents however, dispute this, and say, ‘They are almost identical except for two things: Council plans show painted lines down the middle of the road whereas the DA plans have a concrete strip added. Also Council plans do not require land resumption, only the DA plans do’.
The Echo asked staff, ‘Has Council approached any landowners on behalf of the DA applicant for 53 Mcauleys Lane to facilitate land resumption required as part of the applicant’s current traffic plan, should the DA be approved?’
Land acquisition
Staff replied, ‘Preliminary discussions have occurred with a [third party] landowner about the need for the intersection to be upgraded which would involve acquisition of some of their land.
‘They were advised this is in part to facilitate the development proposed under 10.2023.454.1 and to improve road safety’, they said.
Residents instead claim that the land resumption was not required for Council works, only for the developer’s DA.
And when The Echo asked staff, ‘Is any land resumption required for Council’s current roadworks?’, they replied, ‘No.’
The Echo asked staff, ‘Is it a normal Council process to approach landowners on behalf of developers on DAs that are on exhibition?’
Not ordinary circumstances
They replied, ‘Council would not in ordinary circumstances approach landowners like this about the acquisition of land’.
‘However, as there are additional road safety benefits to be gained over and above safety improvements that Council has designed and has grant funding for, then Council may in this circumstance exercise its powers of acquisition as part of a planning agreement should the development be approved’.
Benefits questioned
Residents questioned what ‘road safety benefits are gained’ for Council’s works, given Council don’t require or propose land resumption for their own works.
They said, ‘This only assists a DA still under exhibition and undetermined’.
DA 10.2023.454.1 is on exhibition at Council’s website.
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. 
