Councillors split over withdrawing council support for 57 Station Street DA

The raw debate that took place over the 57 Station Street car park development in Mullumbimby at the end of yesterday’s council meeting was enlightening, not only for the public, but also for the councillors.

An urgency motion was brought to the meeting by independent councillors Michael Lyon and David Warth, moving ‘that Council: 1. Advise Landcom it no longer supports the use of the carpark at 57 Station Street, Mullumbimby for an affordable housing development. 2. Requests State Government to work with Council on an alternative project [to the block north of Wollies on] Station Street, which has a far higher level of community support and preference.’

Cr Lyon made it clear that he no longer supported the project because it was a ‘death by a thousand cuts’ and that the council had been shut out of the process. 

Cr Lyon said, ‘The biggest problem I’ve had with it is the way that we’ve been shut out of the process’.

He also said he didn’t understand why McGoughans Lane had been used as the access, and the fact they still didn’t have a community housing partner (CHP) and that this development was supposed to have been delivered by 2024 were also reasons he didn’t support the evelopment application (DA) any longer. 

Lyon acknowledged that the DA lodged by Landcom ‘was pretty broadly unacceptable’ and that the height exceedances had been a surprise to councillors. ‘That was never discussed with us,’ he told the meeting. 

No councillors knew about the HAFF funding

Lyon then took issue with the fact that the project has been bundled with three other projects to receive Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) funding, which none of the councillors had known about until that day. It quickly became clear that Byron Shire Council (BSC) withdrawing support for the DA might impact the other projects that it had been bundled with. However, staff were unable to answer what those other projects were. 

According to the BSC General Manager, Mark Arnold, to receive the HAFF funding they needed to deliver 500 units of accommodation and that was why this project had been bundled with the other unknown projects.

Guaranteed or not?

This is despite the DA not yet having approval via the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP), it goes the the NRPP in October, raising the question that if it is not approved, what happens to the other unknown projects?

None of the councillors raised the point that if the DA was moved to the site north of Woolies on Station Street that it would produce the same amount of accommodation units or more, even if it started the DA from the beginning for that site. Nor did they ask if the HAFF funding could be retained for a future project at the alternative site, therefore ensuring the other three projects remained viable under the HAFF funding. 

What happened to transparency?

Labor councillor Janet Swain said she was ‘shocked and embarrassed that we’re having this conversation in full public, here. This is amateur hour. If you want to understand, if you want to actually find out, then ask, communicate with staff. Don’t do this in public. This is actually, I mean, I’ve already said, it’s embarrassing people.’

Independent Councillor Jack Dods agreed with Swain, telling the meeting, ‘This is ridiculous to be debating this right now. This is a reasonable project, despite the hysterics that have come from some of the objectors in this town.’

Greens councillor Elia Hauge, Lyon, and Warth were all clear to respond to Swain’s comments, saying that in public in the council chambers was exactly the right place to have this discussion as it was public land owned by the community.

‘I also just want to speak to the suggestion that it is somehow bad or wrong for us to be having this debate in public,’ said Cr Hauge. 

‘I think one of the biggest flaws has been how much of this has happened behind closed doors at various stages, and you know we’re making decisions about public land, about public money. I think we should have the debate in public. Major decisions like this should be as transparent as possible.’

Cr Hauge also said that she had persuaded Greens Councillor Michelle Lowe not to put a similar motion to this up last year because she had believed in the project at that point. She said that over the last few months she had found that key questions from the community could not be answered and did not appear to be in the agreement between council and Landcom as she had expected. 

‘I’m not worried about the density. I’m not worried about the bulk or the size, I’m not worried about the fact it is at the entrance to town,’ she told the meeting. ‘I’m worried about the adjoining businesses and their access. I’m worried about the use of the rear laneway. But obviously, what I’m worried about is this actually going to do what we’re all saying?

‘We have completely lost the confidence of this community over this development, and really our social license around that for me is completely called into question by the lack of clear agreement around what we’re actually delivering.’

Consent can’t be withdrawn

Staff made clear that the council could not withdraw their consent for the project as they had previously provided it.

The original motion was amended, after Crs Hauge and Lowe put an alternative motion, to ‘1. Advise Landcom it has strong concerns regarding the use of 57 Station Street, Mullumbimby for an affordable housing development, and seek urgent clarification regarding which projects in other LGAs might be impacted by a decision to withdraw from the development, given HAFF implications. 2. Requests State Government to work with council on an alternative project at 70 Station Street, which has a far higher level of community support and preference.’

Greens Mayor, Sarah Ndiaye was clear that she would not withdraw support for the Station Street DA saying, ‘I was assured last night that this wasn’t coming today’.

‘To spring it on everyone seems really opportunistic. It stinks of a stunt.

‘I absolutely understand the frustrations,’ said Ndiaye. ‘The idea that we can just pick this up and move it somewhere else are words that you have often yourself, Councilor Lyon, said how ridiculous they are. It’s completely farcical that we could remove consent, remove support, and then any government could take us seriously at all in relation to getting any development. You can’t be in favor of affordable housing and then not deliver it and pull out at the last minute.’

Will it actually be delivered?

During the debate Lyon made it clear that he didn’t believe that the project would ever be delivered whether or not it was approved in October. While Dods had made an impassioned speech in support of the DA, when pushed by Lyon, he admitted, with his head in his hands, that he also didn’t think the project would ultimately be delivered.

Cr Warth responded to the discussion saying, ‘I’m actually very heartened by what I’m hearing because this is the first fully frank discussion that all councillors have had on this. I feel that doing this in public is exactly what the community would like. And the idea that it’s ridiculous to do this in public, I totally think that’s wrong. This is the best conversation we’ve ever had on 57 Station Street.’

Pushed by Cr Lyon to declare his position on the DA, Warth responded, saying, ‘I feel that this particular project is deeply flawed. McGoughans Lane was the biggest flaw straight from the get-go. There are numerous issues with this. There’s significant community opposition to this, which has to be listened to. It’s all very well saying, “Ah, you know, we just have to push ahead”, but I don’t feel that’s the way.’

The vote on the motion was spilt four four with Crs Lyon, Hauge, Lowe, and Warth in favour and Greens Cr Delta Kay, Dods, Swain, and Ndiaye opposed. Mayor Ndiaye then used her casting vote to defeat the motion, saying she was voting the way absent Labor Councillor Peter Doherty would have voted, which he confirmed by email. 

CHP provider

Following the meeting Lyon told The Echo that the councillors had expected to be involved in the development and design of the DA once a CHP provider had been selected. He said that apparently one has now been ‘choosen’  but can’t be endorsed, as the other CHPs have to be given the opportunity to re-tender due to the change in HAFF funding requirements. 

Speaking to The Echo following the meeting Ndiaye said that, ‘I understand the frustration many in Mullumbimby feel about this site. Parking is genuinely scarce, and residents have waited a long time for answers. Those concerns are real and I recognise that.’

‘Withdrawing consent tonight would not have stopped the project progressing as consent has been given through a legally binding document. If the Planning Panel approves the application, Council remains committed to delivering compensatory parking, above what is lost, and new public toilets for the town. We will consult the community once concept designs are ready.’