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.
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. 
