Byron Shire Council staff are refusing to reveal the cost to ratepayers of plans to develop, along with government-run developer Landcom, the 57 Station Street carpark into ‘affordable housing’ units.
It comes as Council staff released the public submissions around the beleaguered project, which will see ‘construction of affordable housing comprising shop-top housing with two ground-floor commercial premises and carparking, 28 apartments above, a ground-floor boarding house and demolition of existing public toilet, carpark, and associated services, and tree removal’.
The public subs come in at 1,519 pages and 193.8Mb.
Almost every submission is against the proposal.
Most names were redacted as per Council policy.
The first submission reads, ‘I’m 70 years of age, an (uninterrupted!) ratepayer in Byron Shire since 1993. Unfortunately, my spine was damaged during a botched forceps birth, hence I have some difficulties walking properly. This injury seems to impact my ability to move around freely much more with my advancing age’.
‘Your suggested vehicle parking and public facility alternatives will in all likelihood make it impossible for me to perform basic daily tasks in Mullumbimby, once the public toilets and the carpark in Station Street have been removed!’
Another wrote, ‘Not in the right carpark. Keep the toilets’.
One of the few in support wrote, ‘Shoppers [should] just be prepared to walk a little further and not expect that public land should be used for their lazy convenience. Mullum needs affordable housing more than it needs to protect a few car parks’.
Business impacts
Neighbouring business owner of The Other Joint cafe, Eva, said if approved, it would have a major impact.
She wrote, ‘We rely on the rear carpark for access to our grease trap which needs to be pumped out every three months. Our gas bottles are also delivered through the back, as bringing them through the cafe is not an option. Our cafe has a unique outdoor garden which nobody will want to use during the construction period due to ongoing noise and dust, therefore impacting our trade. We have been trading now just over ten years, having survived Covid, I thought our business was indestructible. However, I do believe that this could bring an end to our family business’.
Another cafe patron wrote, ‘It is an aesthetic travesty in the heart of old Mullum town. It fails the pub test of commonsense solutions to low-cost housing options’.
Within the Mullumbimby Residents Association’s (MRA) extensive objection, they state, ‘Council should advise the developer that there is a sewer line between the two manholes. Likewise, Council should advise that development over the sewer line is prohibited’.
It was admitted by Landcom and Council after the DA submissions closed that the sewer mains exist on the site, and were not taken into account, despite the project being in an advanced stage.
Questions around accountability for the cost to the public have not been answered by either government agency.
Local community against DA
Yet despite the ongoing bungles and mismanagement, councillors recently united and backed staff to progress with developing the site, despite more than 2,000 signatures being presented by locals calling for an alternative location. Alternative parking arrangements proposed include a new parking space to the north of the Woolies building, which is hundreds of metres away.
Another aspect to the ongoing saga, which has been brewing for years behind closed doors, is that the project has been unable to attract the interest of a community housing provider (CHP).
The proposal is to sell the land to a CHP and in return, two units would be retained for Council to house their staff, while the CHP would provide ‘affordable housing’ in perpetuity.
Councillors have admitted that they were not engaged with the project or Landcom throughout the years the DA was being formulated.
It led to a proposal which Cr Ndiaye said was ‘substandard’.
While Cr Ndiaye told The Echo, ‘We have been following proper process as to not get involved with the developers and the design’, it appears at odds with Council’s DA policy given Council are the landowners.
Too advanced to stop says Mayor
Council’s ‘Factsheet – Building in the Vicinity of Underground Infrastructure’, says, ‘It is the responsibility of the owner to determine the exact location of Council’s underground infrastructure which is/ or may be affected by the proposed building/document’.
Greens Mayor Sarah Ndiaye has said that as the project is so advanced, it is not possible to consider another location.
This is despite the mayor and other councillors asking residents at a public meeting to wait until the DA was submitted before making comment.
It puts into question whether councillors have exposed themselves and the community to financial liabilities.
As for, ‘Why not another site?’ Cr Ndiaye said, ‘The MRA, who have been the main force driving this campaign, have demonstrated against, and created petitions opposing every affordable housing initiative since I have been on Council. For example, Station Street next to Council, the two on Stuart Street and the [emergency housing] pods. I don’t think another site would really make a difference, but it’s not feasible anyway’.
So far, no evidence has been provided as to why another site is not feasible by Cr Ndiaye or staff.
The MRA reject claims made by Cr Ndiaye, which are echoed by Cr Jack Dods and Cr Asren Pugh.
FOI requests
A Government Information Public Access (GIPA) request (or freedom of information request) has been lodged by The Echo with Council around its costs incurred so far, as well as calling for the contract details between Council and Landcom (two government agencies) to be made public.
The reports comparing the different sites considered for ‘affordable housing’ by Council and how the current site was selected has also been requested.
The requests are made in the public interest owing to the proposal’s aim to sell public land for the benefit of a private enterprise (CHP), and the secrecy that has surrounded the project.
Current DA’s status
There is also conflicting information from Council’s General Manager Mark Arnold and the mayor around whether the current DA is relevant.
Mr Arnold told the MRA via email it has not been withdrawn, while Cr Ndiaye told The Echo, ‘Landcom’s DA will need to be resubmitted and go on public exhibition again’.
Landcom, as the applicant, refused to answer whether its DA has been withdrawn and referred The Echo’s question to Council. Council have confirmed that the current DA is still active.
A spokesperson for consent authority, the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP), told The Echo, ‘As Council is undertaking the assessment of this application, all submissions are to be directed to Council’.
The process that led to here began just after the 2022 floods, headed by then mayor Michael Lyon, behind closed doors.
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. 
