Mullumbimby residents fought hard for a better outcome than what was proposed by developer Callum Sked on low lying land near the showgrounds.
As has been reported throughout, residents say they felt unsupported by Byron Shire Council, something that should be of concern for all residents.
There are legitimate concerns when a much higher density development is built on flood-prone land next to your home.
And it’s entirely reasonable for Council to require any developer to construct buildings that are sympathetic to the landscape that exists.
Yet it’s still unclear why Council let this DA slide into a deemed refusal.
Or why there was no staff report on the DA ever provided publicly.
Public submissions
The December 22, 2025 Land & Environment Court (L&EC) judgement by Commissioner Shona Porter reveals a lot around what she considered important, and what led to her conclusion.
One important aspect to the judgement was that public submissions carry little weight, unless residents join with Council in the courts.
Yet it is too costly for your average long-term Mullumbimby resident with modest means to join a court case, and that’s why we rely on Council to act on the community’s behalf.
While Commissioner Porter agreed ‘that the majority of the concerns raised by the community are genuine and relevant’, she believed it did not ‘rise to a contested issue that joins the parties’, and referred to a precedent case where it did.
Neighbour Ruth Levy told The Echo, ‘I was under no delusion that as an objector, I did not have ‘locus standi’ (standing in court)’.
She said, ‘So, I engaged my own town planning solicitor who provided me a legal opinion. I was also told that to be joined as a party to the proceedings, would cost me north of $70,000’.
‘So, what I’ve realised through this process is that only wealthy objectors, who have big money and can afford to be joined in these types of proceedings, actually have a say.
Ruth adds, ‘For the community, if Council decides it’s not in its interests to properly defend a matter, it doesn’t matter whether there are 100s or 1,000s of objector submissions’.
And it also appears that a higher weight is given to expert evidence than to community objections, with Commissioner Porter accepting this as part of the reason for approval.
Ruth said of this aspect, ‘I think this is the part I found the most disappointing – irrespective of the quality of one’s experts, according to this case, their evidence is always going to be given more weight’.
‘So, an objector with money can apply to be joined as a party to proceedings and engage top-brass experts, and only then will their evidence have weight’.
Also in her findings, Commissioner Porter said the DA was, ‘highly compliant with the key planning controls’, meaning that Council’s policy settings will allow much higher density in the future.
Commissioner Porter wrote, ‘I find that the proposed development is consistent with the desired future character that is facilitated by the suite of planning controls applying to the site.’
Ruth asked, ‘Who’s future desires? Certainly, not the communitys’. This is the largest development of its kind in Mullumbimby and will change the character of Mullum – is this the vision for the future?’
Hans Lovejoy, acting editor
News tips are welcome: [email protected]
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. 
