Former mayor Michael Lyon has ‘taken issue’ with last week’s reporting of the terms of the non-binding agreement between Council and NSW government development agency Landcom over a much used Mullum carpark.
They plan to turn it into ‘affordable housing’ with shop fronts, and have faced fierce public opposition. The Echo published details last week around confidential documents surrounding the proposed $1 sale after a successful freedom of information request.
Cr Lyon said, ‘Firstly, the terms of agreement are non-binding. It is an agreement to negotiate the potential sale of the land to a community housing provider.
‘No agreement has been reached as of today, nor has any sale been agreed’.
Hans Lovejoy: This information was included in The Echo article – it states: ‘On May 4, 2022, a non-binding proposal (Annexure B – Term Sheet) was signed between Landcom and Council.’ The Echo agrees that the non-binding agreement is the agreed, intended terms of sale.
Mayor Sarah Ndiaye has stated the development will go ahead, no matter what.
Cr Lyon said, ‘Secondly, should a sale be agreed, the consideration for the car park land is not $1, but would include the transfer of the freehold title of two of the units to Council. The headline and front page are deliberately misleading, with this very relevant detail not covered until the final paragraphs of the story on page 5’.
HL: Those shocked by the low sale price can read details like that on pages 1 and 4.
Cr Lyon said, ‘Thirdly, the potential sale would not be to another government agency, but to an accredited Community Housing Provider(CHP)’.
HL: In the first paragraph it states this: ‘…Byron Shire Council (BSC) agreed with government development agency Landcom to sell the much-used Mullumbimby carpark at 57 Station Street to a yet-to-be confirmed community housing provider (CHP) for $1’.
‘Fourthly, as also outlined in the both the 2022 and 2023 term sheets, and in accordance with Council resolution, the land would have a requirement placed on title that ensures it is used for the purposes of affordable housing in perpetuity.
So to claim that this is at odds with something I said, as you do in the article, betrays a complete lack of understanding of what is going on. Whether there was to be a lease, or if the land was to be sold, the use of the site must be for affordable housing in perpetuity’.
HL: It is correct that initially the first term sheet says, ‘housing is to be retained for affordability over the long-term through either a long-term (50-year+) lease or transfer of title to a CHP to manage’. The second term sheet from August 3, 2023 says, ‘Freehold will be transferred to the CHP.
The transaction documents will include an appropriate mechanism to secure the use of the property for affordable housing in perpetuity.’
This is only what the public have knowledge of after those documents were released, and The Echo has sought the release of others which remain confidential.
‘Finally, the 2022 term sheet talks about either a lease or sale to a CHP, however Council’s position at the time, all debated in open session and on the public record, was to offer a 50-year lease when it made the decision to proceed with the development.
‘A period of time followed where the market was tested, and it was determined that even a 99-year lease was not feasible due to CHP equity requirements, and so Council resolved to sell the land as part of the realisation of the project.
‘While this decision was made during confidential session, due to commercial in-confidence information relating to the tenderers, the decision on the development itself had been made in open session at the end of a public debate over a two-year period leading up to the first vote on this site in 2022.
‘To say therefore that there has been ‘closed-door’ meetings ‘throughout the process’ is untrue and unfair, because the first meeting held in confidential session was over three years down the road of the process, after several Council resolutions that were held in open session.
‘The decision on the development itself, at that site, was taken in open session with full transparency’.
HL: To insist that Council have provided open and transparent governance does not accord with many motions passed which tabled confidential reports, along with multiple closed door workshops.
From 2022, here are a few: Motion 22-413 from 25 August 2022 says Council will ‘assure the community that there will be regular consultation at relevant stages in the project (Balson/Ndiaye)’.
At the 27 April 2023 meeting, Council tabled a ‘Confidential Evaluation Report’.
At the 22 June 2023 meeting, Council resolved (24-252) to update the agreement with Landcom and to proceed with a revised request for tender. The agenda and minutes report were confidential.
At the 23 May, 2024 meeting, Council resolved to sell the land to the project’s preferred CHP. This was a confidential agenda item. There is also no information available around its financial feasibility.
And as the public now knows, The DA was conducted without any input from Council, hence the project had to be withdrawn owing to a multitude of issues, one of which is the discovery of sewer mains beneath the subject site.
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. 
