The long-awaited development application (DA) to redevelop a Mullumbimby carpark into 32 small ‘affordable housing’ rental homes and commercial shops has dropped on to Council’s website – submissions close August 31.
Many of the bedsit units depicted are around 36m2 in size.
The proposal is led by Landcom, a NSW government-owned development agency, with Council supplying the land and pushing for approval behind closed doors.
The land located at 57 Station Street was flooded in 2022, and the proposal comes despite the Labor NSW government promising they would not develop on floodplains. The consultants claim flooding can be managed.
Landcom previously told The Echo its excessive bulk and scale is needed for it to be financially viable to attract a community housing provider (CHP) to manage.
While Council were previously unable to secure a CHP, Landcom told The Echo a tender process was underway for a CHP.
DA 10.2025.212.1 will be determined by the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP), who recently approved a controversial large exclusive development in Myocum, despite a myriad of issues. One of the NRPP panelists is former mayor Simon Richardson, who, as mayor, pushed for housing to be built over carparks.
And while Landcom and former mayor, Michael Lyon, promised that alternative car parking would be established prior to the carpark redevelopment, there is no proposal before the public.
A new public toilet and carpark is slated to be built at the entrance to the town, which goes against the town’s masterplan regarding green space at the town’s entrance.
According to the 30 complex documents provided by consultants to support the proposal, the bulk and scale is much the same as what was proposed during pre-DA lodgement.
If approved, it would be 11.5m high and contain the highest density in the town – it would also pave the way for further similar developments. Council would also be given freehold title of two units to house its staff.
The development has faced fierce opposition from businesses who would be impacted, along with residents.
Alternative sites requests ignored
Landcom and Council have refused to answer why no other alternative sites were proposed, and why the development steamed ahead with taxpayer money, despite it not attracting the interest of affordable housing providers.
The Mullumbimby Residents Association (MRA) have consistently said, ‘It’s a good idea in the wrong place’.
An e-petition with 763 signatures asked the government to explore other options, yet was ignored.
On page 35 of the Social Impact Statement, it reads, ‘Most [respondents] just wanted the development to be relocated elsewhere. Some did not believe that the housing would be affordable, or did not believe that those eligible actually need more affordable housing’.
And on page 41, it reads, ‘Community-based organisations and service agencies were included in the distribution of Landcom postcards, but no responses were received via that on-line questionnaire’.
Estimated cost of consultants?
The Echo asked Landcom to provide an estimate on the total cost (not individual costs) of the consultants who were employed for DA 10.2025.212.1. Despite the project being publicly-funded, Landcom refused, and said, ‘The cost of consultants is commercial in confidence’.
The Echo also asked, ‘The Community Engagement Report says feedback was taken into account. It’s not clear where that was in this DA. Can you please point to where that was?’
They replied, ‘Community feedback was considered in the design prior to submitting the DA to Council, including the addition of balconies, verandahs and eaves that reference the architecture character of the region’.
According to Landcom, the NSW Reconstruction Authority (RA) is contributing $1.408m to the project and the community housing provider (CHP) is responsible for the remainder of the costs. The estimated cost is $16m, according to the DA.
Independent assessment?
Given this DA is the most impactful proposal on the town in living memory, The Echo asked Greens Mayor Sarah Ndiaye if she would engage an independent planner to provide an independent assessment.
With Cr Ndiaye being unavailable, The Echo asked Deputy Mayor Jack Dods how this proposal represents good planning principles. A reply will be published if received.
Toilet removal
The DA says options would need to be ‘fully explored’ around the proposed demolition of the public toilet, as ‘its values were identified in the Community Based Heritage Study’ and it, ‘needs to be addressed in a Statement of Heritage Impact’.
Other public toilets around the area were adequate to service the community, the DA claims.
The DA is also appearing to make assumptions around allocating car spaces which are associated with city developments. A building designer told The Echo their interpretation is that 25.75 car spaces are required as the basic minimum.
Nineteen are proposed. They say their figures are based on polices contained within the State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP), which guides ‘affordable housing ‘ development.
Those opposed dismissed as ‘retirees’
Within the Social Impacts Assessment (SIA), Sydney-based consultant, Dr Rigmor Berg, was dismissive of those who opposed via the on-line surveys (almost all were against).
Dr Berg said they were ‘not near neighbours and not renting workers, but home-owning retirees…’
She writes, ‘Concerns they expressed mainly reflected assertions made in The Echo, which has specific interest in opposing this development [owing to being located next door]’.
Unsatisfied with the results Landcom received from their online survey responses, their consultants claimed ‘it was evident that one stakeholder group that had not been adequately represented was the population of people who work in Mullumbimby on low- to- moderate incomes and rent their homes’.
Seven random people consulted
The consultants say they made a ‘second visit to Mullumbimby in January 2025’, and asked seven people on the street what they thought of the proposal.
All seven were renters, they claimed, and, ‘Three people were in favour… While none were against the proposed development, four said they had mixed feelings or were unsure’.
As for heritage values, consultant Dr Berg argued that the proposal is justified, as neighbouring buildings are ‘commercial boxes with no obvious aesthetic or heritage value’.
To make a submission, visit www.byron.nsw.gov.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. 
