Why are we accepting poor development outcomes?

I have had a 50 year career in housing development – and especially affordable housing.

It started as principal architect of Lend Lease Homes then, along with Mirvac and Meriton, Sydney’s pre-eminent developers of density housing. It continued as NSW President of the Australian Institute of Architects, as a consultant to Landcom before that organisation stopped actively and directly developing land and housing, a professional consulting partnership the inaugural NSW Building Commissioner David Chandler, and 15 years active involvement with Byron Shire Council housing and planning committees. I resigned when a legally permissible affordable housing project was rejected by ill informed Council officers.

In those 50 years I have never seen a more ill-informed proposal than 57 Station Street, Mullumbimby.

I have great admiration for its architects, but their brief and information on the site’s limitations was the rough end of a very blunt stick.

Firstly, the choice of Landcom

I understand Council has neither the funds or, without doubt, the expertise to undertake the development itself. The current proposal appears to require substantial Council contributions by way of local services upgrades, the free transfers of land and more. The potential impact on our rates or the continuing deterioration of our roads and services must be an inevitable question.

Secondly, the whole development industry is currently very busy and demanding high level and experienced development skills.

I understand Landcom, after withdrawing from direct involvement some years ago, finds it very difficult finding high calibre development managers to undertake complex projects such as Station Street.

If the costs are excessive now – and they are – what are they likely to be on completion?

What will be the cost impact of inexperienced project managers who will be led up every expensive garden path imaginable? And why have modern methods of construction such as prefabrication not been considered? Others have, very successfully.

Will 57 Station Street offer affordable housing, even for key workers? I think not.

The apparent fact a nine metre high building, as required in the Mullumbimby Heritage Conservation Zone, will not work commercially does not bode well for the future.

And eleven metres is out of scale, offensive and against every part of the LEP and DCP.   

Examples exist

There are already models of high quality, low profile and potentially affordable housing in Mullumbimby. Walk down Stuart Street to number 116 – from the street it reads as two modest single storey dwellings either side of a common walkway.

In the depth of this 902 square metre lot eight modest dwellings and car parking were provided.

Or the north east corner of Argyle and Queen Streets with its 4 x 2 bed and 2 x 1 bed units in a two modest, well designed buildings.

Or the current proposal for 115-119 Stuart Street – around 50 small dwellings with more than adequate parking and half the $16.6 million cost of 57 Stuart Street. These types of sensitive designed and needs responsive development must be encouraged not challenged or, worst, rejected.

We also have the Old Mullumbimby Hospital site.

A well designed building with even a three or, dare I say it, four stories at the town’s southern entry might say something about a forward thinking 21st Century Council.

It should be considered without the ill informed, uncaring and risk averse officers we are currently burdened with. The latter, by the way, have barely paid lip service in at least 15 years to the challenges we face. Lots of paper, multiple reports and useless verbiage but no action.

Sweep a broom through the halls of mediocre power

Committees and reports are not the answer. A broom through Council’s intransigent officer ranks must be a necessary consequence.

We need nine Councillors – or five at worst – courageous enough to say stop, embrace new thinking, listen to its community, actively seek and act on new ideas, adopt tested, financially feasible models and actually get something done.

I don’t have all the answers. But I do have long experience to support these comments. And there are many who believe over 40 one, two and three bedroom dwellings could be provided on Council’s own car park area at far less cost, with modest short term impacts on parking numbers and no impact on the Library’s future.

All I ask on behalf of our community is a modicum of common sense and a bit of collective courage from a Council who must find answers and act on them now – not in another 15 years.