Freedom of information documents released to The Echo have revealed that Byron Shire Council (BSC) agreed with government development agency Landcom to sell the much-used Mullumbimby car park at 57 Station Street to a yet-to-be confirmed community housing provider (CHP) for $1. Council will also get units under the deal.
The information only came to light after The Echo paid for a Government Information Public Access (GIPA), otherwise known as a freedom of information application.
The Echo argued the information was in the public interest, as it is public land being bought and sold between two government agencies, and is very contentious within the community given the lack of transparency and arguably poor process.
When The Echo asked BSC’s Greens Mayor, Sarah Ndiaye, for the documents before applying for the GIPA, she deferred to BSC’s General Manager Mark Arnold, who declined to provide the documents. He said it concerned Landcom as well as Council so BSC could not release them.
Previous mayor, Michael Lyon (whose comments appear at the end of this article), signed the documents provided to The Echo via the GIPA, and throughout the process led closed-door meetings to negotiate the sale and development of the site.
Council’s plans to redevelop 57 Station Street, Mullumbimby into 29 ‘affordable units’ with 24 car spaces and 150m2 of commercial space, has been roundly criticised by the community, with multiple petitions and a large volume of objections to the development application (DA) tabled.
The Mullumbimby Residents Association (MRA) called for BSC’s own carpark to be developed instead.
Yet councillors – including the Greens – have doubled down, refusing to answer questions or provide transparency to the community or The Echo around the project.
Instead, councillors attacked the MRA, and said the project will go ahead no matter what, regardless of community consultation feedback and despite arguably poor planning practice.
The Echo is one of many local businesses that would be adversely impacted should the development go ahead – the narrow rear alley McGoughgans Lane will be used as the sole vehicular access for the development and which will increase congestion on a laneway that is used for newspaper deliveries, as well as large truck deliveries for the IGA supermarket.
What do the documents say?
On May 4, 2022, a non-binding proposal (Annexure B – Term Sheet) was signed between Landcom and Council, which outlines objectives and conditions of the development.
The term appears to have expired, as it was only six months, however it appears to have been extended with the second Term Sheet (also released under the GIPA).
As for tenure, it states that the housing is to be retained for affordability over the long term through either a long-term (50-year plus) lease, or transfer of title to a CHP to manage.
This is seemingly at odds with repeated statements from Cr Lyon, who said the units would be leased ‘in perpetuity’.
As for the carpark, ‘Council is to retain ownership (through either freehold title or 99-year lease) of a carpark with 24 car spaces’.
This appears to allude to the remaining carpark spaces dedicated to the development.
The ‘financial commitment’ says ‘Landcom will perform its obligations on a cost recovery basis, and recover its external and internal (development management and overhead) costs for the project.’
It reads, ‘Landcom will have two years to satisfy the conditions, with the right to end the agreement earlier if it considers, acting reasonably, that the conditions will not be satisfied by the end of the two years’.
It reads, ‘Landcom will use reasonable endeavours to: Finalise and agree with Council concept designs for an affordable housing project that is generally in line with the project; partner with Council to confirm a CHP partner and enter an agreement to develop and manage the project’.
This is seemingly at odds with comments from Cr Ndiaye, who told The Echo it was appropriate for Council to not be involved with the project while Landcom prepared the DA.
Being uninvolved with the project also led to what Cr Ndiaye admitted was an unacceptable DA, and to the discovery – well into the project – of major drainage issues which has resulted in a complete redesign.
No costings have been provided when asked by The Echo.
Landcom will also ‘assist the CHP partner secure funding (from NHFIC and/or other parties as required) to deliver the project,’ states the documentation.
‘In conjunction with the CHP partner, obtain development consent for the project and pay the costs associated with obtaining the development consent (to be reimbursed by the CHP partner upon exercise of the option)’.
‘Upon the conditions being satisfied, the property will be transferred/leased to the CHP partner for the development of the project.’
As to which CHP partner has been selected, the information has been redacted. Council admitted some time ago that they couldn’t attract a CHP, and Landcom refuse to answer whether one is secured for the project.
Further Term Sheet
A further Term Sheet was signed on 3 August, 2023, which set a framework for ‘discussions and negotiations’ for the potential sale of the property.
While it said there were no legal obligations from the Term Sheet, it stated freehold title of the property ‘will be transferred to the CHP’.
A lot of details were repeated from the earlier Term Sheet document, with a few additions.
Following delivery of the project, it states that ‘Council will be transferred the freehold interest of two units, through a minimum 50-year lease at market rent.’
‘Council is to be offered the retail/commercial space through a long-term lease (10-15 years) at peppercorn rent’.
The Echo has appealed the decision to not disclose certain documents.
They are: Heads of Agreement from May 2024; Memorandum of Understanding from 7 August 2024; and Mullumbimby Affordable Housing Variation letter – extending term.
Cr Lyon has responded to this story, firstly stressing that despite the determination of councillors that the project will go ahead no matter what, at present there is only a non-binding agreement ‘to negotiate the potential sale of the land to a community housing provider. No agreement has been reached as of today [19 December], nor has any sale been agreed,’ he said. Secondly he stressed, as stated at the end of the story, if the potential sale goes ahead 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’. Thirdly, despite the role of Landcom, the final transfer would not be to another government agency, but to an ‘accredited CHP provider’ as stated in the story.
He also stated that ‘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 [clauses in the agreement are seemingly] at odds with something I said, 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.’
Cr Lyon also stressed the ‘transparency’ of the process, saying, ‘the 2022 terms 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 2-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 3 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.’
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. 
