The Tweed Shire Council held a Planning Committee meeting yesterday, with the hot topic on the agenda being the proposed Cudgen Connection development at 741 Cudgen Road, Cudgen.
Though the site is zoned State Significant Farmland (SSF) the plan is for anything but farmland. The motion that Council voted on was: 1. to endorse the staff prepared submission and its attachments in relation to the planning proposal (PP2023-2669) no. 741 Cudgen Rd, Cudgen, to be forwarded to the Department of planning, housing and infrastructure for consideration; and, to resolve any further recommendations to be forwarded a separate submission to the department of planning, housing, and infrastructure for consideration.
The feedback
There was a lot of community feedback on the plan, and submissions made in response to the exhibition of the Draft Options Paper were summarised by council.
Feedback spanned a wide range of themes, including: protection of State Significant Farmland (SSF); flood risk and environmental constraints; character, amenity, and overdevelopment; infrastructure and services; population projections and housing supply; strategic location and services; housing diversity and affordability; planning improvements; and community amenities.
While many of the respondents were opposed to the development, a few had suggestions for what they would like to see included in the project, with suggestions for markets, cultural displays, bike paths, and public transport improvements, and a desire for youth and family-friendly infrastructure like skate parks and a swimming pool.
The mayor’s amendments
Cr Cherry wanted to amend the staff document and emailed councillors the evening before the meeting – to add further points to the original, she said, to strengthen it. ‘I think it’s it’s really important to our community that we stand up and let the Department of Planning know what we think about this proposal.’
Cr Rhiannon Brinsmead opened the debate by complaining about the size of the mayor’s document. ‘It’s quite big actually, I think probably a lot of trees were wasted printing this out…
‘To paraphrase, you said, “it’s important we back the community on this”. Who is the community? Who are they? Can you be very specific about the group to which you are referring?”
Cr Cherry said it would be a consultation of all of the people who made submissions. ‘Those who said “we don’t want the development on this land”, it would be them.’
Cr Brinsmead wanted more clarity: ’It’s only those people that you are referring to when you use the word “community”?’
Cr Cherry said she was referring to the community over many, many years.
This line of court-room type grilling continued for several minutes – Cr Brinsmead’s point being that not everyone in the Tweed Shire community has been or will be included.
The developers connection to the community
Cr Kimberly Hone said it had been suggested in a previous discussion that Cudgen Connection developers have not been engaging with the community at a large scale. ‘I just want to challenge that. They have had what’s called “community connectors” from the very beginning, and have been running community hubs – I’ve actually seen this take place. I’ve met with some of the people who have attended those.
‘Just reading straight from their website: “The Hub will be donated to the community”, so they want to design a community hub on the premises as well. “The connectors have an opportunity to partake in social opinion polling, community information sessions, and the Cudgen Connection Community Engagement Program, which has influenced the master plan”.
‘So with getting that feedback, they’ve been able to influence the master plan [including via] independent polling company, Insightfully, who conducted two surveys of 500 locals, to learn what they thought of the Cudgen Connection master plan. Community conversations and information sessions are ongoing, and they are continuing to take back community’s opinion regularly.
‘So I just want to challenge that, and to say, you can still register to be a community connector.’
Is 11.30pm too late?
Cr Hone also had an issue with the mayor’s amendment document. ‘One other thing I just want to bring to the table, and just have noted this document that you supplied, Madam Mayor of 22 pages long, with multiple amendments you support, was supplied to us at 11.30 last night.
‘I don’t believe that’s appropriate when we’re coming to a chamber meeting. I believe it’s a deliberate tactic to put us on the back foot. And I think moving forward, this is unacceptable. And I just, I can’t stand for it.
‘It’s too long of a document on a state significant issue for us to be throwing such extensive alternate motions on the table at 11.30 the night before a chamber meeting.’
No strawberries on the land
‘The only other thing I want to bring up about this is, the protection of so-called State Significant Farmland beside the hospital. I understand that it may be titled State Significant Farmland, but we need to be honest. Nothing has grown there for decades. And as a council representative who often represents our farmers quite extensively, I can assure you that all of them agree with me that that is no longer farmland. Nothing grows there. I wouldn’t even try and grow a strawberry. And I think we need to be realistic about that.
‘It’s also right beside the hospital. We have to be realistic. Are we really going to want that to stay as farmland beside that hospital? And if we do want that to stay as farmland, that would need considerable soil brought to that property. It’s on a hill, it’s full of rocks, and it’s had a lot of run-off over the last 100 years. There’s no topsoil left on that property. So there’s a few arguments there.
‘For me, I can’t be supporting your amendment at this stage.’
One rule for all
Cr Brinsmead wanted to ‘clarify’ further on Cr Hone’s point about the late amendment. ‘So Madam Mayor, it’s all right for you to send us a 22-page document at 11.30 at night. I’ve had my final last email to you, I think, regarding that was at about 11.30 this morning. So is that one rule for you and one rule for the rest of us?’
Cr Cherry said not at all. ‘I would have been very happy to take any information you wanted to provide anytime today into consideration, and would have had no problems with that. And I’m sorry, I know that the timing of my ability to provide you with with amendments doesn’t suit you…’
The debate continued on the lateness of the document and who is the most busy, and who has other jobs as well – it just went on and on.
Cr Brinsmead it was no surprise that she wouldn’t support the amendments. ‘I think the staff submission was adequate and appropriate and further to that, I think it was balanced and it was measured. And I think that that’s what the community expects of us.
‘They don’t expect biased, unbalanced submissions based on views and opinions and ideology, and unfortunately, that is what we see in this chamber, time and time again from a certain few of my colleagues.
‘I don’t have an issue with people voicing their objection to Cudgen Connections whatsoever. I think that they are more than entitled to do that, and I would never disregard their reasons for doing so. However, as somebody that takes the fact that I represent the whole community, not just those that agree with me and my views and opinions and my ideology, I actually think that it’s important that everybody’s opinion is taken into account. And the reality is, is that there is a significant number of people out there that support this proposal, and I have spoken to them, and I’ve also spoken to those that are very much against it – it’s about 50/50, but we should never, ever be the voice for just one side, and Madam Mayor, that’s usually how you you are. You’re just the voice for one side and not the other.’
Play the ball and not the (wo)man
The mayor asked Cr Brinsmead to play the ball and not the man: ‘Could you just keep your comments to the issue, rather than attacking the person? Thank you.’
The amendment was put to a vote with it being carried – those for, councillors Cherry, Dennis and Byrnes, and those opposed, councillors Brinsmead and Hone.
The amendment then became part of the original staff recommendation, and a motion to be voted on, with the same outcome – councillors Cherry, Dennis and Byrnes, and those opposed, councillors Brinsmead and Hone.
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. 
