Those privately benefitting from downplaying or hiding the public costs of their development often say the objectors are small in number and it’s a media beat-up. Indeed, hardly anyone in a community has the money, stamina, or detailed understanding of planning laws and procedures to effectively challenge a highly-motivated development team, or those on Council who are determined to see the development get up.
Good examples are 153 McAuleys Lane, where well-founded objections to the DA and Council’s approval process were nevertheless defeated by the Northern Rivers Planning Panel (NRPP).
An exception is the perennially unpopular 57 Station Street development application (DA). Possibly because it’s right in the centre of town, it has received both savvy scrutiny from residents and, as a result of people actually knowing what’s wrong with it, popular disquiet.
The project’s main backers are former mayor Cr Lyon, current Mayor Sarah Ndiaye (Greens), former councillor Asren Pugh (Labor), and Deputy Mayor Jack Dods (Ind), who aggressively dismissed residents’ concerns as being self-interested and baseless prior to the first, flawed, DA at a public meeting. Greens councillors have fallen in behind Cr Ndiaye to support the project. Redefects in the original DA were so bad it’s now been reworked, but not enough to address the issues, say critics.
Far from benefitting from ‘objector fatigue’, the revised DA drew a full hall at the Mullumbimby Ex-Services Club on Monday night as locals came together to look at the modified car park DA (10.2025.212.1) for 57 Station Street, Mullumbimby. Once again, there was frustration at the fact that the revised DA had not addressed many of the issues raised by the 743 submissions and 2,411-signature petition against the proposal, let alone been scrapped due to traffic, flood, sewer, and heritage issues, and the impact on local businesses.
‘It has taken them one year to redesign the DA after all our submissions. It’s still basically the same, and we still have the same issues,’ pointed out Mullumbimby Residents Association’s (MRA) Anando Heffley.
The meeting was attended by Byron Shire councillors Peter Doherty (Labor), Janet Swain (Labor), and David Warth (Ind). Ballina MP Tamara Smith (Greens) addressed the meeting, citing multiple reasons she has objected to the development and the vital role community voice plays in maintaining an effective, functioning democracy.
Ms Smith highlighted the impact of flooding, serious impacts on local businesses, and a lack of transparency in relation to what the community is getting in exchange for giving up its community-owned land.
Sewer line easement
The original DA proposed to illegally build over a sewer line – a problem that the proponents of the DA, within and outside Byron Shire Council (BSC), had not identified. The modified DA has placed a 3.7m easement on the southern boundary (Mcgoughans Lane to Station Street) above the sewer line, which does not meet the minimum required width of 4.2m.
Parts of the proposed new building are closer to the sewer pipe than allowed by planning rules, and it also has a walkway, and deep-rooted trees proposed to be planted directly on top of it.
The new proposed cantilever design of the upper floors over the sewer line also breaches planning policy, with BSC Floodplain Committee member, Karl Allen, pointing out that ‘if the sewer pipe ever needs repair, the building structure above could block access to it.’ He also said that BSC General Manager, Mark Arnold, had confirmed that ‘Council’s own engineers have not signed-off on the design’.
It appears the easement was supposed to provide access to the rear of the Burringbar Street businesses, such as Pink Lotus and The Other Joint, for grease trap cleaning and gas supplies; but with locked gates at either end and a fenceline between the rear of the shops and the easement with no access gates for the shops, it has failed to achieve this simple outcome.
Flooding
The DA claims that the easement provides an ‘overland flow path’ for floodwater from Mcgoughans Lane to Station Street, but as Mr Allen pointed out, ‘the gates will stop the overland flow path’ and they haven’t modelled the flow of water with the gates closed. The gates at either end of the easement are required to be locked because the site contains a boarding house.
‘The worst-case flood was never modelled, and neither was the last real one [in 2022], and there’s no probable maximum flood assessment,’ Mr Allen told the meeting.
‘According to them, the 2022 flood didn’t exist because they didn’t model it. They’re still using the old 2020 flood modelling, and the funny part about it is the NSW government’s own Resilient Homes program is using the 2022 flood levels to do house-raising, but in their own project, they’re not doing that.’
Mr Allen also pointed out that the DA hasn’t modelled the impact of the development on neighbouring properties, a requirement of BSC regulations.
‘There is nothing in the flood emergency response plan that addresses evacuating boarding house residents, some of whom may have mobility limitations, through a hazard zone.
‘What we’re asking for is a proper stormwater management plan under the development control plan (DCP), flow paths, on-site detention, and independently assessed impact on the Burringbar Street shops, a probable maximum flood assessment for the boarding house, an independent verification of the 10 mil afflux claim, the flood modelling [of the flowpath] with the security gates represented as closed.’
Mr Allen then highlighted that the DA doesn’t meet the required waste disposal measures for domestic and commercial use on the site.
Further, that even the smaller of the rubbish trucks suggested in the DA, which are not the larger ones used by Richmond Waste for this area, would not be able to service the building because the proposed loading bay is too small, the building over the loading bay is 3.5m in height, the same height as the small rubbish trucks, and there are potential risks of blocking the car park access during collection.
Traffic, parking, and toilets
Ms Heffley highlighted a range of issues around increased traffic for the town, and the fact that there are only 15 car parking spaces available for 32 dwellings.
An oft-repeated question since the original DA, apparently still unanswered, is where will the extra cars park? The development will demolish the ‘only public toilet in the town centre’. While Council have floated paying for a new one in Apex Park, further away from the town centre across the railway line, this is not a requirement placed on the developer.
The modified DA does not consider the impact of construction traffic and future increased traffic on the proposed access route to the site, which is the very narrow Mcgoughans Lane. Due to its width, at points only wide enough for one vehicle, the lane can be blocked by a single delivery truck, and has a very narrow turn and poor visibility turning onto Tincogan Street, the busy town centre northern ‘bypass’.
A call for new submissions highlighting these issues has been requested by the MRA. In particular, submissions request that replacement car parking and toilets in the town centre be completed prior to any work commencing at 57 Station St.
However, BSC has not committed to this. BSC have told The Echo that, ‘It has always been Council’s intention to have additional public car parking available on the edge of town to compensate for the loss of parking at 57 Station Street. This includes the provision of new public toilets. In the 2026/27 budget, there is funding for a parking study for Mullumbimby, which will identify future public parking sites.’
Heritage ignored
As Landcom has stated in their covering letter for the modified DA, ‘There is no material difference to the description of the development.’
Members of MRA agreed, highlighting that there is little difference in the height, bulk, and scale of the modified design. As Peter Brennan said, ‘Council’s own independent assessor, who reviewed the original DA, wrote about the importance of this site.’ He pointed out that the site is at the entrance to Mullumbimby, plays an important role in setting the visual amenity of the town and future development.
A letter received by MRA just before the meeting from leading heritage advisor Lisa Trueman stated that, ‘The proposed building has design and architectural character that does not respect the established heritage character and significance of the Mullumbimby Conservation Area and is entirely contrary to the objectives and policies of the Development Control Plan (DCP) in relation to the conservation area as provided.
‘The proposed development would result in a high level of adverse impacts on the significant historic character of the conservation area.’
In particular, she listed uncharacteristic form, bulk and massing, uncharacteristic and interface with the street, and highly uncharacteristic palette of materials.
Height limit sets precedent
The proposal exceeds height limits for the town by 2.7m with Mr Brennan pointing out that this new height limit will be used by future developers to exceed the 9m height limit of the town.
‘We are all seeing what’s happening in Byron Bay, where nearly every development is exceeding the prescribed height limits, and we don’t want that to start in Mullumbimby,’ he told the meeting.
Make another submission
MRA was clear that while previous submissions will still be valid, it is vital that people put in another submission, even if it is short, to point out that the issues raised in their first submission have not been adequately addressed.
Former councillor Duncan Dey also encouraged new submissions to seek a ‘deferred commencement’ that commits BSC to completing and having functioning both alternative car parking and toilets if the development is approved.
The meeting only touched on the primary issues with the DA – this story even less. Currently, Mr Allen is compiling a submission exceeding 250 pages on the new DA.
So if you want more information, contact MRA at: [email protected]. Submissions close for the revised DA (https://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/Council/Report-Requests-Feedback/Public-Notices/Exhibition-amended-development-application-57-Station-Street-Mullumbimby) on 16 August.
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. 
