Greens Mayor Sarah Ndiaye used her casting vote to squash fellow Greens Cr Elia Hauge’s efforts to delay and seek independent legal advice around a planning agreement for a large contentious 39-large-lot exclusive greenfield proposal near the Mullumbimby Road and McAuleys Lane intersection.
Instead, an adopted amendment at last week’s Council meeting by Cr David Warth passed after councillors went into a closed door meeting with staff for 45 minutes.
The updated planning proposal – based on staff advice – was supported by Cr Ndiaye, but not by her team of Crs Hauge, Kay and Lowe.
The planning proposal includes the option of Council acquiring land at the Mullumbimby Road and McAuleys Lane intersection, which is required for developers John Callanan and Tim Mundy and their DA.
No mention of safety
Despite staff and Crs David Warth and Ndiaye saying the upgrade will improve safety, Cr Warth’s adopted motion does not mention safety.
During public access, one of the landowners, Jenny, told councillors they were blindsided by Council, as compulsory acquisition was a recent recommendation by staff.
‘We feel we are being treated unfairly’, she said, and questioned why Council staff were negotiating on behalf of developers. ‘Surely for the fate of our home of 20 years, we should be informed around this’.
Development application (DA) 10.2023.454.1 is before the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP) on June 18. As previously reported, if approved, the proposal at 53 Myocum Road – between Uncle Toms and Mullumbimby – will impact 13,000 daily vehicle movements.
Yet it is shrouded in botched process and unanswered questions from neighbours and The Echo.
Deputy mayor recuses
Cr Jack Dods declared a pecuniary interest in the matter, given he is a relative of one of the proponents, John Callanan. He was also ‘design consultant during the DA preparation for this application’. As such he left the building and did not vote.
The Echo has requested Council staff clarify whether he has correctly declared his interests, but there has been no reply.
In last week’s agenda, for example, Cr Dods declared a pecuniary interest for item 13.11 (the planning agreement) yet for item 13.12 (a staff report on matters with the NRPP that includes the DA) he declared a non-pecuniary interest.
Cr Dods is also accused by neighbours of not providing any consultation, which is a requirement under NRPP guidelines.
Remarkably, part of Council staff’s reasoning for supporting the DA (page 31) were that the ‘DA was notified/advertised in accordance with Council’s Community Participation Plan’.
The claims are strongly refuted by neighbours, and The Echo has seen no evidence to suggest that the DA accorded with that policy.
No pressure
Both Crs Warth and Ndiaye told The Echo they did not feel pressured by staff to make a decision, and both were apologetic about the way the landowners were treated by Council.
Cr Warth said, ‘I feel that Council staff acted in good faith in attempting to negotiate the sale of the small parcel of land needed to upgrade the intersection for the DA. There is a benefit for our community with these works and I assume that Council staff considered direct involvement in the purchase to be the most effective way to achieve this’.
Cr Ndiaye acknowledged, ‘the process has not been as clear or as smooth as it should have been. I, along with other councillors, spoke with [the landowners] in person at the meeting and offered sincere apologies for the confusion’.
She also said, ‘My focus in this matter was on the issue of community safety’, adding, ‘While we did not vote the same way on this item, I value Cr Hauge’s considered contributions and the integrity she brings to our work on Council’.
Legal risks
While the councillor majority appeared satisfied with last-minute staff advice around legal risks, Cr Hauge told the chamber that ‘neither the planning or legal staff were unable to identify any precedent in NSW where a planning agreement has required a council to acquire land for a third party’.
Q&A with Crs Ndiaye and Warth is at www.echo.net.au.
Why should it be considered abnormal for a council to facilitate a subdivision with a minor land acquisition in order to improve the road?
Despite what the reporter says here that is a normal and sensible thing to do.
100%.
Bits of land like this are not useable for anything else. But somehow, its “dodgy” for Council to get some funds from ratepayers for it?
And there’s a housing crisis, but we are not supposed to facilitate the release of land for people to build houses?
So much for the “live and let live” relaxed attitude that used to be the main vibe of this area.
Now it’s become a total whinge-a-thon about nothing “issues”.
It is in no way “considered normal”, nor in fact legal, for Council to approach a resident on behalf of a developer.
In regards to this DA, I can see Council and the Planning Department apparently continuing to forge forward in their relentless pursuit of attempting approval with NRPP. Regardless of their own, and the applicant’s obvious mistakes, ignoring once again the genuine concerns of the community and Council protocols.
This issue should definitely be filed under Council’s newly minted assessment category:
“Cluster – Fornication” Section 101
It is a normal procedure and has happened many times in the past.
Just think about it for a moment. Often a subdivision doesn’t have an access road that is at an appropriate standard for the new subdivision. The Council steps in to assure that the subdivision will have an appropriate road, typically using money provided by the developer. It’s really strange to think that something improper is going on.
But it’s not so strange that people often grab any fig leaf going in order to justify their opposition to something. It’s all too common.
Please provide evidence where this situation “has happened in the past”. A situation where a Council approaches a land owner ON BEHALF of a DA applicant to gauge interest to sell. Then to turn around and morph it into land resumption on a still to be determined DA. To then also try to illegally enshrine this into a Planning Agreement for the FIRST time in NSW law, as transpired in this case.
Just think about this for a moment. The normal procedure is for the proponent to approach the land owner, make a deal to sell at a fair rate for access (paid subject to DA approval). The proponent then provides this agreement between the parties to Council as part of their DA application to prove they have access to the subject land.
It is absolutely not Council’s role to attempt to resume people’s land at a paltry Valuer General’s rate to assist a private enterprise.
Land resumption is of course sometimes required for large GOVERNMENT projects such as we witnessed with the M1 Motorway years ago. People had their homes taken for poor payouts and had no power to achieve better outcomes due to the mandatory resumption process.
These people are not “grabbing at any fig leaf” here. In fact the opposite, they are making sure that correct process is followed, instead of the abuse of power by Council not following legislated protocols.
To insinuate otherwise is disingenuous – these citizens have rights under law to ensure due process is indeed undertaken.
Council definitely have questions to answer about all of this debacle under their own Planning guidelines.
“Cluster – Fornication” Section 101