Residents around Chinbible Avenue near the Mullumbimby Showground are right to feel disappointed by Council.
It’s reasonable to be anxious as your neighbour plans to double the density of your street, or block your solar access with their oversized housing development, for example.
Developer Callum Sked now has approval to turn one large-lot Torrens title subdivision into seven, which paves the way for his large densely-packed proposal on flood-prone land.
No-one knows how well Council’s consultant law firm Piper Alderman handled the case – negotiations between them, the court and the developer were held behind closed doors.
Is it too cynical to worry that given the lack of any scrutiny, the consultant lawyers could fold at their earliest convenience?
After all, they’d get paid anyway.
And while Council staff can claim that it’s out of their hands because it’s before the courts, there are improvements in process that could be made.
It would be good to know, for example, why no staff report on this development application (DA) was ever provided publicly, or why the DA was not referred to councillors in the first place, as it was clearly contentious.
And also – why did the DA slide into a deemed refusal?
A deemed refusal is where a developer can take Council to court when it fails to determine a DA in the statutory timeframe.
Former Greens mayor, Simon Richardson, who mentored the current mayor, used to boast in the chamber around ten years ago that Council never lost in court.
Now it’s a regular occurrence.
Perhaps that is because from his tenure until now, there has been no interest in strengthening planning instruments that can help defend inappropriate development.
Planning instruments, especially the Local Environment Plan (LEP), are considered to have weight when a court determines a case between developers and a council.
Community expectations can be met if the planning settings are in place. While it’s up to residents to lobby councillors around what is acceptable, it’s also up to councillors to read the room.
Flood-prone development puts lives at risk. It makes it harder for surrounding residents to insure their homes. It’s just dumb development.
Further to backroom deals without any oversight, the way in which Council’s planning team are providing a financial advantage to already wealthy developers deserves more scrutiny.
While Council staff say it isn’t usual practice to interfere with a DA, where else has it occurred?
Is there evidence that public safety will improve by staff intervening on behalf of the developer?
In the case of the DA in question, the proposal is for 38 large exclusive lots for millionaires who will no doubt build two dwellings per lot. It does nothing to address social or ‘affordable’ housing, of course.
It will, however, increase traffic. And that’s why any applicants proposing such greenfield developments are required to pay developer contributions. This allows Council to provide traffic improvements, for example. Cycleways are another.
Councillors actually have the power to improve process around such dubious decisions. Hopefully they see Council’s reputation is at stake and act.
Hans Lovejoy, editor
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. 
