The following is a Q&A with Cr David Warth and Greens Mayor Sarah Ndiaye around their justifications to give passage for a 39-large-lot contentious, DA at 53 MacAuleys Lane, Myocum (Development application 10.2023.454).
At the June 12, 2025 Council meeting they both supported an last minute amended planning proposal – done in secret – which includes the option of Council acquiring land at the Mullumbimby Road and McAuleys Lane intersection. While they say it is for public safety, the acquisition is required for developers John Callanan and Tim Mundy for their DA to be approved.
Echo: Just hoping to know if you know developer/applicant John Callanan, and if so in what capacity?
Yes I do know John Callanan. It is a small town and after living here for over 25 years I have met a lot of the locals. I have no business connections with John and we are not on socialising terms other than to say hi when I see him around town occasionally. I did film from his helicopter many years ago before drones were available to get a few aerial shots for a documentary. He didn’t charge me for this, which was very generous of him.
Council’s legal requirements for the planning agreement seemed to be informed within 45 mins behind closed doors by internal staff advice, despite this issue being on the table for months and months.
‘I felt it was appropriate for the Council to go into a confidential session for a while on this matter’.
Did you feel staff were pressuring you into doing this? Why was there a rush to pass this planning agreement?
‘I didn’t feel rushed by the staff to reach a decision’.
Landowner Jenny explained during public access that she had felt blindsided, and felt they were treated unfairly. She questioned why Council staff were negotiating on behalf of developers etc.
Why wasn’t there an apology to the landowners from Council for its poor engagement and process around this matter, and an attempt to ensure they are given support?
‘I talked at length with Jenny and Ken and I was deeply saddened to hear about the way they have been treated in regard to this matter. They are delightful people and deserve more respect.
‘I feel that Council staff acted in good faith in attempting to negotiate the sale of the small parcel of land needed to upgrade the intersection for the DA. There is a benefit for our community with these works and I assume that council staff considered direct involvement in the purchase to be the most effective way to achieve this.
‘I felt that this was not the best way to approach the sale and I was instrumental in adding a clause to encourage the developers to deal directly with Jenny and Ken.
‘I would like to see a far more compassionate and supportive manner adopted by Council staff towards resolving the sale with Jenny and ken. I personally apologise for the way in which it has been handled, and I will work with the Council to create a more considerate approach to community engagement’.
Your foreshadowed motion says Council could potentially compulsory acquire their land, which will benefit the DA. There is no mention of public safety in the foreshadowed motion.
As such, this potentially provides less of a financial return for the landowners rather than if it was done in private by the developers. Is this an advantage for the developers and a disadvantage for the landowners of the intersection?
‘The issue of compulsory purchase of the land required for the DA will be nullified by the developers dealing directly with Jenny and Ken. I trust that this will be resolved amicably and to the satisfaction of both parties’.
Do you accept that the process around this issue (DA and planning agreement) has been botched and covered up by staff? There is no acknowledgment in the recent staff report around a long list of issues, including identifying the previous exhibition and that the re-exhibition was owing to a mistake with the previous failure to notify that the NRPP were the consent authority, or the 28 days exhibition as required, as opposed to the original exhibition of 21 days, or that it failed to include the pre lodgement consultation, as defined in the Community Participation Plan for DA being determined by NRPP, also not referred to, as well as the failure to advise of BSC policy and State Practice Note around it’s obligations with land acquisition/developer contributions. Also councillors weren’t advised via the report of the RFI (Requests for Further Information ) by BSC to the applicant on the basis of issues raised by submitters, or council regarding deficiencies in the DA.
If this is correct, why wasn’t there an effort to address these issues before the vote?
‘Council staff did have to re exhibit owing to the NRPP being the consent authority’.
‘Council Staff considered the DA to be at a stage where it could be brought to the councillors’.
Part 2 of your foreshadowed motion encourages the developer to engage directly with the landowners, yet there appears no process for that.
And being ‘Part 2’ of a foreshadowed motion means it is not part of the planning agreement. How will ‘Part 2’ form part of the planning agreement given it not included in the planning agreement?
‘The process for the developers to deal directly with Jenny and Ken is a straight forward negotiation for sale of the required land. The developers would then donate the land to council for the roadworks’.
The adopted planning agreement puts the responsibility on Council to acquire/negotiate the land, if it choses. How is this clear process? If the applicant was able to negotiate successfully, as opposed to the adopted Planning Agreement, how would the land transfer to council proceed?
‘Confusion around developer contributions was clarified. The developers will pay developer contributions in addition to a contribution for the cycleway/ footpath and upgrade the intersection including land acquisition at their own cost’.
Q&A with Greens Mayor Sarah Ndiaye
Echo: Why didn’t you not speak during the debate on this important issue?
First, I want to note my deep respect for my colleague Cr Elia Hauge. While we did not vote the same way on this item, I value her considered contributions and the integrity she brings to our work on Council.
Given the length of the agenda and the formal structure of debate, I didn’t have an opportunity to speak to this item during the meeting – but I would have welcomed the chance. I appreciate this opportunity to explain my position in more detail.
Cr Elia Hague’s motion called for a delay until councillors were satisfied that they were meeting all legal requirements via independent advice. She said that neither the planning or legal staff were unable to identify any precedent in NSW where a planning agreement has required a council to acquire land for a third party. Instead, Council’s legal requirements seemed to be informed within 45 mins behind closed doors by internal staff advice.
Why was there was a rush to pass this planning agreement – was it because of the long litany of mistakes and poor process by the proponent and Council staff?
Cr Hauge’s motion was put forward late in the meeting and was not circulated prior due to time constraints. It came as a surprise to many of us, particularly because it diverged from the internal staff advice we had received and from where I believed discussions had landed during the break.
Her motion raised important questions about legal precedent – specifically, whether there is any example in NSW of a planning agreement requiring a council to acquire land for a third party. Cr Hauge did extensive research using available databases and was unable to find such a precedent. I had not had the opportunity to cross-check this myself, but I respect her diligence.
That said, my focus in this matter was on the issue of community safety. The intersection at McAuleys Lane and Mullumbimby Road has long been identified as problematic, and acquiring this parcel of land would allow for improved sight lines and a safer layout. In the balance of considerations, that weighed most heavily in my decision.
I’ve never felt pressured – by the developer or Council staff – to rush a decision. This property has been under discussion for over 15 years; this application has been ongoing since around 2020. To me, it made sense that Council arrive at a clear position before the matter progresses to the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP). That clarity benefits everyone – including the landowners, Council, and the broader community.
Landowner Jenny explained during public access that she had felt blindsided, and felt they were treated unfairly. She questioned why Council staff were negotiating on behalf of developers etc.
Why wasn’t there an apology to the landowners from Council for its poor engagement and process around this matter?
I completely understand the distress felt by the landowners and acknowledge the process has not been as clear or as smooth as it should have been. I, along with other councillors, spoke with them in person at the meeting and offered sincere apologies for the confusion. I believe the apology was heartfelt, and I’m sorry it may not have been more formally recorded in the meeting.
Your vote on the adopted amended motion by Cr Warth appears to give Council the powers to negotiate or compulsory acquire the landholder’s land at Mullumbimby Road and McAuleys Lane intersection.
If Council compulsory acquires the land, it provides less of a financial return rather than if it was done in private by the developers.
Doesn’t this motion put the interests of wealthy developers above that of a long term local couple, who are not engaged in the development industry?
This is not a simple case of developer versus resident. The situation has been clouded by confusion over who was meant to approach the landowners – I understand that Mr Callahan and his team believed it was Council’s role, and so they held back in good faith. Since the meeting, I have been told they have made contact with the owners.
What mattered most to me was the safety of the intersection and the community has also placed safety at the top of our hierarchy of decision making considerations. The acquisition – whether undertaken by Council or the developer – is about ensuring the safest possible outcome for the public.
At this point, I can’t confirm whether the land will be acquired via negotiation or compulsory acquisition. The intention is that the developer pursue a negotiated outcome, but the resolution gives Council the ability to act if necessary to secure the land for public safety. This is not a step taken lightly.
Was there evidence, advice or suggestion provided to councillors that the developer was going to take legal action if this wasn’t adopted now?
To be clear, there has never been any indication that I am aware of from the developer that legal action would be taken if this decision wasn’t made immediately. Any discussion of legal risk came from within the chamber as councillors sought to understand the implications of various scenarios – not from external pressure from the developer.
This was a difficult and complex decision involving long-running issues, real people, and competing concerns. I didn’t take the decision lightly. I believe the resolution we supported gives Council a path forward that balances the need for public safety with the hope for a negotiated, respectful outcome for the landowners.
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. 
