Councillors vote this week on proposal that will impact 13,000 daily vehicle movements
A large exclusive 39-large-lot greenfield development between Uncle Toms and Mullumbimby will be voted upon by councillors on Thursday, which has been the subject of countless stuff-ups by the applicant and Council planning staff.
A myriad of unanswered questions also surround the project, which, if approved, will impact the busy Mullumbimby Road and McAuleys Lane intersection.
Senior Council planning staff are pushing for councillors to adopt the planning agreement with the developers, yet it has been challenged by neighbours as being non-compliant under NSW guidelines and Council policy.
Cr Dods will recuse himself
Deputy mayor, Jack Dods, told The Echo he will recuse himself from voting owing to a pecuniary interest as a consultant to the proposal.
Previously, he declared a non-pecuniary interest as councillor when issues around development application (DA) 10.2023.454.1 were discussed in Council.
Along with being a lead designer to the developers prior to be elected, Cr Dods was the son of the partner of developer John Callanan, who is one of the applicants. The other is developer Tim Mundy.
Cr Dods claims the difference now is that the DA is being voted upon, so he will declare his interest as pecuniary, rather than non-pecuniary. While he maintains this is proper process, Council staff are yet to reply to The Echo as to whether he met code of conduct requirements. Cr Dods is refusing to ask staff to clarify.
A clear commitment to remain uninvolved
He said, ‘I will not ask staff to respond to your questions on this matter, as doing so would be entirely inappropriate given my clear commitment to remain uninvolved with this project in my role as a councillor’.
Additionally, it is unclear if Cr Dods met requirements given the proposal was incorrectly assessed initially – it was submitted without a community consultation report and neighbours say his promises of consultation were not met.
Council staff have also not replied to that question.
A key element to Thursday’s decision by councillors is whether to adopt the staff recommendation to compulsorily acquire a sliver of land on the corner of Mullumbimby Road and McAuleys Lane.
No consultation
Yet that proposal comes without consultation with the landholders, which appears to contravene policy.
The landholders told The Echo, ‘We are astounded that we were not given a heads-up that the fate of the property will be voted on this Thursday. There’s been zero contact from Council staff and the developers around this. This could happen to any landowner and it concerns us greatly’.
The landholders previously told The Echo that they were approached by Council staff to see if they were interested in selling their land to facilitate the development. They were told by staff the land was not required for Council’s own roadworks, but would provide more safety.
Shannon Burt, Director Sustainable Environment and Economy, and Rob Van Iersel, contract planner, write in the upcoming June 12 Council agenda, ‘If the draft (revised) Planning Agreement is not approved, then the DA for the subdivision will have traffic safety issues at the intersection that may not be able to be resolved which may prove fatal to the DA’.
This is despite the planning agreement appearing to not fully comply with the NSW Government’s Practice Note on Planning Agreements or Council’s own Policy Planning Agreements 2021.
The planning agreement identifies that any payments made by the applicant for the land acquisition and cycleways are to be considered as deductions from any calculated developer contributions.
Odds with policy
This is at odds with Council policy that states that payments required in a Planning Agreement are meant to be additional to calculated developer contributions.
It appears the developers will receive a discount and the ‘public benefit’ is reduced, as funds will not be available for other works.
These claims have been put to Council staff and any reply will be published.
While Council’s vote is crucial, the DA will ultimately decided upon by the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP) on June 18.
Within NRPP’s record of site inspection, which was held on June 3, the only people listed who attended the meeting were the applicants (including Cr Dods), Council staff and NRPP representatives. No neighbours were invited and no other councillors attended.
While 14 matters were discussed, a neighbour told The Echo that issues around the impacts on their bore, located nearby, remain unanswered.
Additionally, the record of site inspection does not mention community consultation as being an unmet requirement of the DA, and the Council staff report on the matter does not mention the long list of mistakes made.
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. 
