I’ve never been a Council-basher; it’s a tough job and some good outcomes over the years can be tabled. But nor do I accept the bad process this (car park – 57 Station St) DA has taken from ‘day one’. It’s been shrouded in fog.
Now that many of the impact issues are known, I’m asking Council’s staff and its elected representatives to have a good think about this sites suitability. It’s not too late.
I don’t live in town, but I shop there, and I have a passion for Mullumbimby’s future, including affordable housing.
I have relevant experience, 40 years with dozens of DAs and major construction projects. The DA studies for this one are flawed. Council is now playing a rearguard action as a result.
In short, please consider the better alternative sites, take on board the flaws with the DA studies, the significant additional costs to ratepayers, and people’s feedback.
It’s neither credible nor supportable for several councillors to say recently this is the only suitable site and any other site proposals will put back the ‘affordable housing’ initiative too far. This is poor reasoning, poor governance, and risky. You’re only talking less than 6-9 months for a better result, and consider the ensuing delays at 57 Station St if court challenges arise from an approval – long, costly delays.
Council initiated this whole process under the radar. Genuine business and community involvement at an early stage (pre-DA) would have revealed the issues at this site and enabled better outcomes. Transparent risk assessment in Council’s decisions at this DA site is inadequate and concerning.
Isn’t it time to ‘hold and review’? Act on sound business principles, not ‘saving face’?
This new Council can now recognise there is an opportunity to look at the issues, look at the alternative site(s), including right next door to Council (which appears partially assessed already and has none of the hidden cost and planning issues of 57 Station St).
Little time will be lost as the current DA has some way to go before it can be enacted, and consider the delays if its approval is challenged in the courts – a real possibility.
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. 
