Four or so years ago a development application was lodged for 37 small dwellings on this 1.23-hectare site on a quiet street near the Mullumbimby Showgrounds. Adjacent development is around 15 dwellings per hectare.
The current proposal increased the density by about 60 per cent to around 25 dwellings per hectare.
Byron Council rightly rejected the initial application as the site was considered to be flood-prone. The developer won its Land and Environment Court appeal.
Amended plans were then submitted with dwelling numbers reduced to 35 and floor levels adjusted to suit updated, but questionable, flood assessments.
Council refused the amended application and again the developer took Council to court.
A decision is imminent… but will probably go the developer’s way, as flooding was the only issue raised in the court proceedings.
Sadly, Council made no reference to the increased density or the Low Rise Housing Diversity Design Guidelines in either of its refusals.
Design quality, traffic issues and neighbourhood amenity were not considered important by Council. These, and more, appear to have been ignored as worthy grounds for refusal. This is more than a little strange.
Firstly, it seems the project’s Gold Coast interior designer is not registered by the Building Designers Association of Australia or the NSW Architects Registration Board.
The Chinbible St development requires either to be engaged as the accredited designer. Council appears unaware of, or has chosen to ignore, this fundamental statutory requirement.
Secondly, the design quality requirements and other significant elements embodied in the guidelines appear to have been ignored by Council’s officers.
Requiring compliance with the guideline’s objective 2.IN-3 should have been a start. This acknowledges the visual and environmental impacts of car parking and garages dominating a streetscape.
Council ignored this issue, which means 22 of the 35 total dwellings will have garages dominating the streetscape.
Thirdly, the guideline’s objective 2.1D-1 requires a designer to demonstrate how the built form, articulation and scale of a development relates to the local character of the area. A Design Verification Statement is required to describe how this is to be achieved and how the development’s built form contributes to the character of the local area. The required statement has not been provided and, given the observations noted above, would probably be meaningless verbiage.
It is not hard to convincingly argue these three requirements have never been addressed.
Did Council give these issues the attention they require?
Were the strong and well-argued objections of the local community acknowledged?
Has Council stated why flooding was the only reason for refusal when there were many others? The answers, clearly, are no.
The conclusion? Council has been derelict in its duty of care to the good folk of Mullumbimby.
Given Council’s apparent ignorance about quality design or the impact this inappropriate development will have on residents, local traffic and flooding, it will not be surprising to regard it as a social and economic failure in a few short years. But will the developer care?
I’ll leave that judgement up to the affected residents and others concerned with decisions made by Council and Council officers.
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. 
