In short:
- Save Wallum, a group of residents which formed to fight a large urban development slated on highly sensitive ecological land in Brunswick Heads, is asking Council staff for proof around its consent conditions.
- While Byron Council staff refuse to comment on detailed questions around their support for the contentious DA, Greens councillors say they are still waiting for overdue legal advice on the matter.
- Save Wallum say they suspect the conditions may have been approved with mistakes, and say clarity around this decision could influence the current court case.
With development company Clarence Property before the courts over its plans to create residential lots over ecologically sensitive land in Brunswick Heads, a community group trying to preserve the area say they have not been provided with answers around whether Council process was properly applied.
A Save Wallum spokesperson told The Echo as Clarence Property is relying on Council’s DA approval in the courts as one of its main defences, having the answers could impact the court’s decisions.
Byron Council staff refused to comment to The Echo on detailed questions around their support for the contentious DA.
The long running saga saw the former mayor Michael Lyon support the development, while his councillor colleague, Cr Sarah Ndiaye, pushed against. It became a major election issue between the two, with Cr Ndiaye winning the mayoral race in 2024.
And while the mayor has been vocal in support of Wallum, when detailed questions were put to Cr Ndiaye, her Greens colleagues replied they have not been provided with overdue legal advice.
Save Wallum say, ‘Consent condition B4 of the Concept Plan Approval (July 9, 2013) is still contained in the revised Wallum Froglet Management Plan (2024 – s7. Compliance).
Save Wallum says that council staff accept that it has not been complied with.
‘If it has been changed, as senior staff stated at the Council meeting of September 5, 20204 to Duncan Dey’s question on notice (p94), is there evidence available?’
Save Wallum says there appears no evidence of this within the northern regional planning panel (NRPP) decision from May 16, 2023.
They say, ‘What has not been complied with is the 20m buffer on the central creek/drain for riparian protection’, on the eastern side of the central creek’.
It was the main sticking point of approval, they claim.
‘These buffers have been reduced over the years’.
Save Wallum says there may be confusion around consent condition B4, as there are three consent conditions, and they say staff may have been referring to B4 within the Preferred Project Report and revised statement of commitments from December 2012.
They say that if this mistake is corrected, it will impact a significant number of proposed lots, and possibly require the DA to be resubmitted.
They add Clarence Property is relying on Council’s DA approval in the courts, and that it is being used as one of the main defences.
‘The Federal Court decision is expected soon, so Save Wallum is keen to establish these facts’.
Timeline lapsed
When The Echo asked mayor Sarah Ndiaye about the claims, Greens Cr Elia Hague replied instead.
She told The Echo, I’ve asked (again) when we can expect the legal advice. The previous timeline we were given has now passed’.
‘It’s my understanding that it will be made public, as when I’ve asked when staff will publicly address Cr Dey’s question from last term the response is always “when we receive the legal advice”. I’ll clarify this’.
‘That’s what the legal advice is supposed to be addressing – do the original requirements around buffer zones apply, or not? Were the original requirements superseded by the stamped plans that the previous council approved? What buffer zone requirement can be enforced?
‘Regardless, it’s incredibly disappointing that the DA was approved with a stormwater plan that didn’t meet the original buffer zone requirements. While I don’t believe the DA should have been approved at all, it is unacceptable that essential environmental protections were not clearly conditioned in the approval’.
Save Wallum’s Luciana Bowen told The Echo, ‘It’s quite surprising that external legal advice on such a critical matter could take this long. The fact that watercourses and their riparian zones receive so little protection through the local planning process runs contrary to basic environmental science and undermines the health of our waterways and catchments.’
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. 
