THE BYRON SHIRE Volume 24 #35 Tuesday, February 9, 2010 Mullumbimby 02 6684 1777 Byron Bay 02 6685 5222 Fax 02 6684 1719 editor@echo.net.au adcopy@echo.net.au www.echo.net.au 21,000 copies every week
Valentines Day pages page ges 16 16–17 6 1177
N O C H A R G E F O R C H U T Z PA H
Court considers Tallowood Main Arm plans up before Council This Thursday Council will consider the first of three development applications currently active for residential subdivisions at Main Arm. The Main Arm Residents Association (MARA) comments: ‘Councillors approved proposals to rezone these lands in Main Arm back in 2007. They were assured of compliance with the award winning Byron Rural Settlement Strategy (BRSS). The developers offered a community park and amenities, an environmental education facility and a way of upgrading the deadly single-lane causeway leading into the village of Main Arm. ‘There was to be a state-of-the-art centralised wastewater system that would serve the new dwellings and resolve the Village’s historical sewage problems as well. The proposed commercial precinct would be just a quaint strip of potters and artisans From right to left: Peter Thomas Eddie, barrister for the applicant Bayview Land Development, Land and Environstudios. Sensibly, Councillors assessed ment Court Commissioner Robert Hussey, Adam Seton, solicitor for Byron Shire Council, and concerned residents those rezoning applications together look over plans near the proposed Tallowood Estate at the start of the court hearing. as one. This is unfortunately not the sors from Byron Shire Council, Joe state legislation, but when asked by case for this, the DA stage. Story & photo Lou Beaumont Davidson (Development Planner), another resident if it was in fact bindOn Monday February 8 at 9:30am the Emma Holt (Environmental Officer) ing, he said it was not, to which Mr Impact ignored Seton argued that it in fact was bindLand and Environment Court heard and Mark Robinson (Ecologist). ‘The Council staff report on the Before evidence was heard from ing. A matter which will be argued evidence from concerned residents Davis DA recommends approval of against the development application individual residents with concerns further in court. Mr Eddie said, ‘We don’t have to 21 houses each with its own indi(DA) for the first 31 lots of the pro- about the DA, Commissioner Hussey posed 240 lot Tallowood Estate subdi- requested clarity on the documents define how many stages we are plan- vidual wastewater system. There is vision in Mullumbimby. The DA was that were to be referred to during ning. The development will progress no consideration of the impact that submitted by developers Sarah and court proceedings, such as the plans organically in a westerly direction. the final 54 houses plus a commercial Eric Freeman (Bayview Land Devel- of the land parcel and proposed de- Currently we are seeking devel- zone will have on Main Arm (taking opment) and refused by Byron Shire velopment. Mr Eddie led the court opment consent for Stage 1 and in into account the two other DAs), or Council. The L&E Court hearing be- through a summary of the DA for conceptual form we are submitting of the impact that their 54 individual gan at the end of Tuckeroo Avenue, Stage 1 and briefly touched on the a guide to further proposed stages of wastewater systems will have on the Brunswick River and Blindmouth Mullumbimby, near the proposed concept proposal indicating the di- development.’ Some residents were concerned by Creek, on flooding, erosion and or site, and was to later continue at the rection of future stages of the development. the lack of a master plan, with Mr on stormwater flows. Similarly with Byron Bay courthouse. Mr Eddie and Mr Seton couldn’t Eddie responding, ‘Under the State the traffic increase, estimated at 20% Commissioner Robert Hussey opened Court proceedings and in- agree on the significance of the con- Environmental Planning Policy the in this report, but closer to 50% by the troduced Adam Seton, solicitor from cept proposal. Deborah Lilly from Minister has exempted the need for time all the building is over. ‘This DA does not produce the Marsdens acting for Byron Shire Mullumbimby Community Action a master plan for this development as Council; Peter Thomas Eddie, Bar- Network asked Mr Eddie whether the it was not deemed a major develop- goods promised at rezoning. The community park had to go, so did rister for the applicant Bayview Land concept plan was another name for a ment. This is not a big plan.’ To which one resident replied that the educational institute and other Development; the applicant’s town master plan. Mr Eddie told the Court amenities. And why isn’t the develplanner Steve Connolly; environmen- that the concept plan replaces the re- ‘it’s big to us.’ continued on page 7 oper being asked to cover the cost tal consultant Peter Parker; and advi- quirement for a master plan under
of upgrading the causeway out of his own pocket? Council staff recommend that Davis do the upgrade using his Section 94 contributions. These should go to defined shirewide facilities, to the whole community’s benefit rather than being localised to facilitate the development itself. This week’s report to Council highlights to just what degree Council planners are prepared to believe whatever is said by the developer’s consultants. Davis doesn’t use the consultants who made all the original promises. A key consultant now is Sydney-based Martens who represented Woolworths in their successful Land & Environment Court quash of Council and have thus brought Mullumbimby its “sewer on a bog”.
Smaller buffers ‘For example, Martens is claiming buffers to permanent waterways are as effective at ten to 15 metres as they are at the standard 100m required of the rest of us, and staff is agreeing with him. Another consultant Josh Davis wrote the report on soil contamination (Historical Landuse Study). At the same time a parallel report commissioned by MARA from Black Earth Services has been completely ignored. ‘Council planners’ reliance for critical information on reports produced by the developer’s consultants and their ignoring professional assessments offered in submissions on the DA is indicative of poor planning on their part. Just how much development can Main Arm realistically sustain before the environment is harmed and the amenity of Main Arm is destroyed? ‘The community is not opposed to a reasonable level of development that genuinely complies with Council strategies and guidelines and is in tune with the character of Main Arm village and its surroundings.’ ■ Letters, page 12
enrich your spirit
www.crystalcastle.com.au Open 7 Days 10am-5pm (NSW time) 81 Monet Drive, Mullumbimby 40 mins from Tweed Heads 20 mins from Byron Bay (02) 6684 3111
<echowebsection=Local News>