The wilfully blind cast their vote at Lismore City Council's ordinary monthly meeting of 10 December 2024

 

If there is one thing that can be relied on when it comes to Lismore City Council's elected representatives, it is that Cr. Big Rob, formerly known as Robert Bou-Hamdan, will seek to tear down rather than build on past community achievements.

This is yet another case in point.....

ECHO, 13 December 2024:

Lismore councillors Big Rob and Andrew Bing have led the charge to remove all CSG (coal seam gas) and nuclear free area signs from the Lismore local government area (LGA).

Speaking to the motion at the December 10 council meeting Cr Rob made it clear he wasn’t happy with what he sees as the negative messaging that the ‘CSG and nuclear free’ statement on the welcome to Lismore signage.

‘I even don’t like the signs on the bins, it has like 20 different things you cannot do,’ said Cr Rob emphasising his point.

Supporting the motion Cr Electra Jensen told the meeting that while she had supported the ‘No CSG’ campaign at the time but ‘we don’t want to rehash history [we want to] look to the future… it is time to move on.’....

Councillors voted six to four in favour of removing the CSG signs with Crs Gordon, Battista, Rob, Bing, Jensen and Krieg in favour and Crs Dalton-Earls, Knight-Smith, Guise and Waters opposed.

Following the meeting a rescission motion has been lodged by Crs Knight-Smith, Guise and Waters.

‘The fact that 87 per cent of LGA voted to be CSG free means the Krieg team would have their own constituents who would have supported the referendum,’ Cr Guise told The Echo.

‘I’d like them to listen to the sentiment of the community and recognise that they should proudly display those signs as a symbol of community pride and what we have gained from being gasfield free.

‘We’ve got a united, powerful community, we have protected our farmland, we have clean air and water. These signs are something that a farming and a food growing region should be proud of as it is essential to a food growing and agricultural region to have clean farmland and water,’ he said.

‘CSG is still a clear-a-present danger. You have communities fighting against gas fields across NSW and Australia right now. CSG is a dirty fossil fuel on par or worse than coal.’.....

Crs Gordon, Battista, Rob, Bing, Jensen and Krieg have chosen to ignore the long history of exploration and mining in north-east New South Wales from the 19th century to the present 21st century - gold, silver, copper, tin, antimony, coal, asbestos, mineral sands & coal seam gas being the principal commodities sought by the mining industry.

These councillors turn their eyes and minds from those maps showing current mining titles and exploration leases, as well as from maps pockmarked with coal seam gas drilling holes that Northern Rivers communities fought hard to stop proliferating ahead of then proposed gas fields.

Mining industry history across Australia clearly shows that mining titles can endure across many lifetimes, often changing hands down the years as long-term investments. History also shows us that state governments can and do grant new exploration licenses in areas where mining leases have lapsed or been dissolved by previous governments.

There is no binding 'never ever' promise on the part of governments when it comes to minerals, ores & metals that can still be found in the ground.

BACKGROUND

All current north-east NSW mining titles & applications for mineral and energy resource exploration, assessment and production, where a company or individual has the right to explore for or extract resources including petroleum, minerals and coal. All current titles for mineral and energy resource exploration, assessment and production.

MinView Geoscience Planning Portal mapping

All current & past north-east NSW exploratory drilling sites. Past coal seam gas drilling sites marked in yellow.

MinView Geoscience Planning Portal mapping

3.GEOLOGICAL SETTING, excerpt from Assessment of Mineral Resources in the Upper North East CRA Study Area:

The Upper North East Region (UNER) has a complex geological history extending from about 600 million years ago to the present. Rocks in the region have been brought together from sites of deposition as far away as sub-Antarctic areas. The region has undergone massive upheavals and some rock sequences which now abut were formed in different parts of the globe in settings ranging from volcanic island arcs to swampy basins. The area has been relatively stable as part of the Australian continent since about 200 million years ago but there have been periods of considerable volcanic activity most recently about 40-15 million years ago. Large parts of the region are now in an active erosional cycle but deposition of new sediments is occurring in many coastal lake and river systems. 

The UNER covers rocks of the New England Orogen (or New England fold belt), the Clarence-Moreton Basin and associated sub-basins, and younger rocks of Tertiary and Quaternary age which overlie these major provinces. The New England Orogen is a major geological zone which extends from the Newcastle area north to Far North Queensland. The Orogen comprises many rocks which formed in highly active geological regions where sediments from the deep ocean were being subducted and thrust into the Australian land mass at that time. They were mixing with sediments formed from the eroding mountains and volcanoes which existed on the margins of the continent. The Orogen has a complex structural history and the sedimentary rocks are generally folded and regionally metamorphosed. The Orogen includes a major plutonic province and there are numerous intrusive units, generally felsic in character, as well as extrusive volcanic rocks of similar age and composition.

In the north eastern part of the UNER the Orogen rocks are overlain by relatively flat-lying sediments of the Clarence-Moreton Basin (C-MB) and underlying sub-basins. This major basin formed after the crust had stabilised. This basin covers the New England Orogen rocks completely just north of the Region and sedimentary units can be traced across to the west to join with units comprising the vast sedimentary basins of central Australia.

During the Tertiary Epoch basaltic volcanism occurred along eastern Australia and was related to the formation of the Tasman Sea. Remnants of very large continental basaltic shield volcanoes are present in the Region, the major one being the Tweed volcano centred at Mount Warning. There has been substantial erosion throughout the region since these volcanoes formed.

Erosion has produced a major escarpment which extends through the UNER. Huge gorge systems have developed and the material removed has been deposited in coastal regions in rivers and lakes and out to sea.

[Assessment of Mineral Resources in the Upper North East CRA Study Area: A project undertaken as part of the NSW Comprehensive Regional Assessments, November 1999, p.4]

A solution to a vexing concern that has plagued the Lismore community since the catastrophic flood of 2022 or another relocation mirage that will dissolve over time?

 

A genuine solution to a vexing concern that has plagued the Lismore community since the catastrophic flood of 2022, another relocation mirage which will dissolve over time or a wedge allowing more farmland to be lost to urban development?

ECHO, 16 October 2024:

To assist with relocating dwellings purchased through the NSW Reconstruction Authority’s Resilient Homes program, Lismore City Council has received an exemption that could potentially open up additional rural sites for house relocations.

The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) has granted Lismore Council an exemption allowing staff to consider the suitability of existing rural allotments where no dwelling entitlement currently exists.

Under the Lismore Local Environmental Plan (LEP), a rural allotment must meet minimum lot size requirements for a dwelling entitlement. This is generally 40 hectares or 20 hectares in some areas. Many smaller rural lots also have dwelling entitlements because of the planning controls applicable when they were created.

However, many rural allotments do not meet the requirements for a dwelling entitlement for various historical reasons, generally because they were historically part of a larger land holding.

A dwelling entitlement does not automatically mean a dwelling can be built (or relocated) on the land. It means Lismore Council can consider a DA and assess the site’s suitability for a dwelling......

Council’s Head of Planning and Environment, Graham Snow, said it’s senseless to abandon structurally sound homes when they could be relocated to accommodate people.

‘It doesn’t make sense that we have hundreds of abandoned houses that are structurally sound that could be housing people,’ he said. ‘The challenge is to find suitable sites where they could be relocated. The Reconstruction Authority’s Resilient Lands program will facilitate house relocations to Goonellabah, East Lismore and North Lismore sites. Still, it could be years before some of these sites are ready.

‘Hopefully, this exemption from DPHI will increase the opportunity for buy-back recipients and others to find suitable rural lots for our historic timber homes,’ said Mr Snow.

Things to consider

Some key points regarding re-siting dwellings to rural lots and exemption terms include:

• The suitability of a rural site will need to consider buffers to existing agriculture and watercourses, vehicle access, biodiversity values and risk from bushfire and flooding, etc. In general terms, sites within the flood planning area will not be considered suitable.

• The exemption from DPHI applies for two years (until September 30, 2026).

• No additional rural subdivisions below minimum lot size are permissible. The exemption only applies to existing lots.

You can find more details and the full Fact Sheet on Lismore Council’s Future Housing page under the Relocating Dwellings tab at www.lismore.nsw.gov.au/Building-and-planning/Strategic-planning/Future-housing.

Michael & Natalie Hercus along with 10 other landowners are allegedly seeking to harm or destroy up to 1.5 million Indigenous artefacts on North Lismore Plateau

Banyam Baigham, The Sleeping Lizard
Click on image to enlarge

Michael McDonald Macky Hercus and Natalie Hercus (née Michaels) appear to be ensconced in one half of a $5 milllion dollar duplex on a leafy upmarket street in Point Piper, Sydney NSW. With her father Harry occupying the other unit.

Michael is the director and company secretary of Mackcorp Pty Ltd whose sole shareholder is Hercus Investments Pty Ltd. Hercus Investments in turn has both Michael & Natalie as directors and Natalie as the sole shareholder. Michael is also sole director, sole shareholder & company secretary of Allura Parklands Pty Ltd.

This former rugby union player & investment advisor and active property developer along with his former Sky News presenter wife are whimsically classified by realestate.com.au among the celebrity buyers and sellers of Sydney's waterside suburbs.

It could be considered unfortunate that they chose to become active participants in a move to effectively destroy the Widjabul Wia-bal People's spiritually and culturally significant Banyam Baigham (the Sleeping Lizard).

In was in May 2020 that the Winten Property Group's 2018 proposal for a large-scale 433-lot residential development on the North Lismore Plateau was rejected by the NSW Land & Environment Court.

In May 2021 Michael Hercus and Allura Parklands Pty Ltd, with other landholders Mr A J & Mrs D L Purtle, Mrs V Giacomini, Giacmor Pty Limited, Mr F Basso & Ms S Novkovic, Mrs M L & Mr G & Mrs L Mazzorana, Mrs L Massorana and Mr A R & Mrs F M Riordan, submitted their own large-scale 742 lot residential development plan for the same general area and had it refused by the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP) in December 2022.

Refusing to take no for an answer this 'celebrity buyers and sellers' couple, through Mackycorp Pty Ltd, presumably along with the other ten owners, have appealed the NRPP decision in the Land & Environment Court. In the process submitting the amended development proposal for 714 residential lots, including 7 large lots and 2 ‘super’ lots for future development), 2 neighbourhood business lots, plus residual lots, public reserves and associated infrastructure.

It appears to matter not a jot to 45 year-old Michael and 46 year-old Natalie Hercus - or indeed any of the other ten owners - that they are seeking to make money from the proposed destruction of a land form respected and guarded by a people and culture which has existed on Country since time immemorial. 

Given that Mackycorp's submitted Aboriginal Heritage Assessment (May 2024) indicates that many of the artefacts found on the proposed development site would on further investigation probably fall into a pre-1199 Common Era time period, this supports the presence of ancestors of the current Widjabul Wia-bal people living in the Lismore local government area since time immemorial.

It probably wouldn't even occur to any of them that their connection to the North Lismore Plateau is as ephemeral as the aerial lifespan of a Mayfly when compared to the Widjabul Wia-bal community's presence there.

Banyam Baigham, The Sleeping Lizard

Images: Change.org & David Lowe

North Lismore Plateau rejected development proposal with the light yellow section representing "Allura Parklands" containing 45 new roads, infrastructure and more than 700 residential dwellings. IMAGE: Echo, 18 January 2023.

ECHO, 18 January 2023:

On Thursday 15 December, it took the four panellists on the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP) less than half an hour, to unanimously decline the Development Application (DA) 5.2021.221.1 for the northern section of the North Lismore Plateau (NLP) also known as The Sleeping Lizard. Their overall reason? ‘Not in the public interest’.

ECHO, 20 July 2024:

The development of Lismore’s Sleeping Lizard – Banyam Biagham (the North Lismore Plateau) as a 742-residential-lot subdivision was rejected by the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP) as ‘not in the public interest’.

The DA is the biggest single development ever proposed in Lismore and includes massive bulk earthworks for infrastructure.

The developer, Mackycorp, is continuing to appeal the NRPP rejection of the staged development for 742 residential lots, two business lots, a future residential lot, 45 new roads, bulk earthworks and significant infrastructure following the failed Land and Environment Court (L&EC) conciliation meeting in February this year.

On July 15, 2024 Bundjalung Elder Mickey Ryan sought to join the ongoing North Lismore Plateau Court appeal following the developer recently submitting to the court a Cultural Heritage Assessment Report, containing test pit results carried out earlier this year.

‘The Report recommends that the developer obtain a permit to allow the estimated half to 1.5 million sub-surface artefacts be directly impacted by construction works, i.e harmed, destroyed or desecrated,’ explained Al Oshlack from the Indigenous Justice Advocacy Network representing Mr Ryan. [my yellow highlighting]

‘This development with all its flaws such as traffic, flooding, storm water, and even landslides will irretrievably destroy one of the most significant Aboriginal sites in the Bundjalung country. It’s vandalism and sacrilege to such a sacred place, this development is a toxic mix of stupidity and greed,’ Mr Oshlack said.

Lismore Council failed to defend Indigenous heritage

The L&EC accepted the application by Mr Ryan to be a party to the developer’s appeal to overturn the NRPP decision.

This was based on the fact that Lismore Council had chosen not to defend the cultural heritage of the site despite this being one of the key factors in the NRPP refusing the DA, Mr Oshlack told The Echo. [my yellow highlighting]

‘In the statement of facts and contentions Lismore Council was not going to defend the Aboriginal cultural heritage component. Even though it was a key basis for the rejection by the NRPP,’ he said.

‘The developer strenuously objected to Mickey Ryan being allowed to join the case.

‘Mickey Ryan won the joinder on Monday based both on the arguments of public interest and for justice – they were considered valid by the court thus Mickey Ryan has now been joined as second responder.’

The L&EC hearing is set down for an onsite hearing on August 12 followed by four days in Sydney.

NOTE: The Widjabul Wia-bal are recognised in law as holding native title over more than 11,500 hectares of what remains of their land and waters held by public authorities/government agencies in the Lismore local government area.

When political & business interests compete with environmental & societal needs, there is usually only one winner and in this case the Nimble Estates P/L-NSW Minns Government urban release proposal is shaping up to be just that

IMAGE:  REA Group 

Lismore City Council is in the process of progressing an urban release proposal on land at 1055 and 1055A Bruxner Highway, already given the preliminary nod by a Delegate of the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces Paul Scully on 13 September 2023.

The site is being put forward for mixed-use development, expected to deliver est. 320 dwellings and 150 commercial/industrial lots.

It is worth noting that in November 2022 a planning proposal was received by Lismore City Council from Nimble Estate Pty Ltd (Qld) landowners at 1055 and 1055 Bruxner Highway, Goonellabah (lots then identified as State Significant Farmland) and, it sought to amend the land zones, minimum lot size and height of building controls within the Lismore Local Environment Plan 2012 to enable future residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational development across the 75 hectares of this site.

Note: Nimble Estates Pty Ltd (registered 24 December 2021) is jointly owned by shareholders BG GRANT PTY LTD and EJUPI ENTERPRISES PTY LTD - Nimble Estate directors being BRIAN GERARD GRANT and NAGIP EJUPI. [ASIC, April 2024]

There is no firm undertaking for the provision of affordable lots or affordable house land packages on the residential section of this site.

Of the site as is, a Lismore City Council document has stated:

The site contains two small patches of Lowland Rainforest EEC under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act, 2016. But these areas would not meet threshold requirements under the Commonwealth EPBC Act. Similarly, there are patches of vegetation that could be recognised as ‘Lowland Rainforest in the NSW North Coast and Sydney Basin Bioregions – Endangered Ecological Community’. Council’s ecologist notes that the majority of the vegetation on the site is unmapped and that there is a high chance that scattered paddock trees are rainforest remnant trees and recommends that the scattered trees assessment of the BAM 2020 should be applied when assessing impacts on clearing any native vegetation at the Development Application stage....

A Council-owned strip of land adjacent to the site (which will provide access into 1055 Bruxner Highway) and the Tucki Tucki creek corridor are identified in the NSW Biodiversity Values Map, see Figure 11 in Part 4 Maps. It is considered that the Biodiversity Offset Scheme will be triggered due to a combination of a minor impact to the Biodiversity Values Mapping (approximately 260m2) and the native clearing threshold likely being exceeded due to clearance of native paddock trees. Based on the current proposal, the associated DA will be required to undertake a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report and calculate offset requirements in accordance with the NSW Biodiversity Assessment Method (2020).

The attached ecological report also identifies that a targeted survey for Hairy Joint Grass (Arthraxon hispidus), will be required as part of any future development application process and that Tucki Tucki Creek is mapped as habitat for the Purple Spotted Gudgeon (Mogurnda adspersa) which is a threatened freshwater species. Whilst not identified on the site, future restoration along Tucki Tucki Creek may assist with local recovery of the species.

This was the site 2014-2018.

            IMAGES: REA Group

Although the relevant planning documents were obliged to be on public exhibition from 3 March until 1 May 2024, there was an express statement that a public hearing is not required to be held into the matter by any person or body under section 3.34(2)(e) of the Act.

Echo, 25 April 2024:

Locals from Goonellabah and Lindendale have called out the proposed Goonellabah industrial precinct at 1055A Bruxner Hwy (Lot1 DP957677) and 245 Oliver Ave (Lot1 DP 1285218) as being the wrong use of the site.

Residents have told The Echo that they don’t oppose development of the site (Precinct 5) but that it should be developed for housing, not as an industrial precinct.

‘We support a residential development on this site, providing much needed housing for Lismore’s flood impacted residents as well as new workers and families to the area,’ said concerned residents of Goonellabah and Lindendale who contacted The Echo.

The Lismore City Council (LCC) Affordable & Diverse Housing Strategy (2022) forecasts a 13.6 per cent increase in the number of houses required in the next 20 years. There were also around 1,800 houses either destroyed or damaged in the 2022 floods that need replacing or moving to higher ground.

‘The 350 houses proposed in the Harmony Estate development is a good start, but we could do so much more.’

In a residential area

Residents have pointed out that the proposed industrial precinct is in the middle of the suburban growth corridor for Lismore and Goonellabah saying they expect the entire area up to Alphapdale Road could all become an extension of the Goonellabah residential community, as flood free housing is needed.

‘Why risk land use conflicts now and in the future including noise, odour, dust, smoke, heavy vehicle traffic, biosecurity and more?’ they asked.

They also point out that the proposed site is on the most elevated area and is positioned along an elevated ridge so it will be visible by surrounding residential areas as well as from the Bruxner Highway.

‘Surely this will create a shameful eyesore at the gateway to Goonellabah and completely contradict the council’s intent as stated in the Harmony Estate Urban Release Area DCP… “provide a positive scenic vista along the Bruxner Highway” (1.2.1 Harmony Estate Urban Release DCP). Why not retain the high ridge across Precinct 5 for much needed housing and community green space offering vistas across Goonellabah and out to the ranges?’ suggest residents. ....

Read the full article at:

https://www.echo.net.au/2024/04/housing-not-industrial-precinct-say-lismore-locals/

for further community opinion on potentially polluted/toxic surface water runoff during high rainfall from the industrial section of the proposed development and the three areas of potential Aboriginal Cultural Heritage significance with the 74ha site.

"The bad reality TV show" that is Lismore City Council continues to stumble from one poor planning or policy decision to another

 

Lismore City councillors
IMAGE: Lismore City Council

In October 2023 it was reported that the Santin Quarry was once more on the Lismore City Council agenda.

Local residents and farmers in the Alstonville area were objecting to the quarry being made operational again in part because of concerns regarding the impact its activities would have on the Alstonville aquifer.

Echo, 10 October 2023:

Lismore’s Santin Quarry ceased operation in 2021 after an attempt to extend the life of the quarry for 16 years failed. An appeal to the Land and Environment Court (L&EC) by Santin Quarry’s owner Mick Santin was subsequently withdrawn. Yet the quarry is back on the table and objectors are concerned that the current crop of conservative Lismore councillors will approve the extension regardless of the fact that the staff have recommended refusal.

Due to the ‘lengthy history’ of the Santin Quarry modification to the development application (DA) Lismore Council staff ‘engaged an independent town planner, GAT & Associates, to undertake the assessment’.

There were 35 submissions received in relation to the modification with ‘25 against and 10 in support’.

‘The public submissions raised several concerns, including impacts on the visual and acoustic amenity of the area and nearby properties, impacts on the road networks, koalas, and the legality of the potential for consent to extend the quarry’s life,’ stated the staff report.

‘The modification application has been assessed and is recommended for refusal.’ .....

Despite this  staff recommendation Council in the Chamber gave consent in a 5 to 4 vote and yet another poor planning decision, in a long line of poor policy and planning decisions that can be placed at the feet of Lismore City Mayor Steve Kreig and his supporters on Council, was underway.

Echo, 15 January 2024:

A local group is challenging the decision-making ability of Lismore Mayor Steve Kreig and his team in court, in what they say is yet another test of that team’s legitimacy.

The Monaltrie Area Community Association Incorporated (MACAI) have commenced Class 4 proceedings in the NSW Land and Environment Court arguing the Lismore City Council had no power to approve a Modification Application (MA) that was made by Michael Santin operating Santin Quarry.

The MA was approved by Mayor Kreig and his team on the 10 October 2023.

Seeking costs and an injunction

MACAI are seeking costs and that the council and Mr Santin be permanently injuncted from acting upon the approval.

MACAI commenced proceedings on January 9. The group alleges that Council did not have the power to approve a modification application (MA) to extend the life of the Santin Quarry, at Riverbank Rd.

The quarry at Monaltrie, 5 km from Lismore CBD, had a modification application approved by Lismore City Councillors in October last year. The application would allow a 12-year extension of the quarry, that owing to an expired consent, had ceased operations in February 2021.....

BACKGROUND

Lismore App, 11 October 2023:

As expected, the Santin Quarry application to extend its life for another 12 years to the 12th of May 2036, was keenly debated and easily dominated the Lismore City Council agenda.

What was not expected was the amount of drama that went on in the one-hour sixteen-minute discussion before the majority of councillors approved the extension 6 votes to 4 (Councillor Cook was away). Once again, it was like a bad reality TV show.

There were five public speakers who spoke in favour of the Lismore City Council (LCC) staff recommendation that the application not be approved. Council staff based that recommendation on the likelihood of the quarry having a significant acoustic impact on neighbouring properties, and the proponent has submitted insufficient information to assess whether all reasonable and feasible mitigation measures have been explored.

However, the five public speakers, one of which does not live on the land in the buffer zone near the quarry in Monaltrie, included previously disputed points that the DA (development application) is not substantially the same and the wording of the consent having expired or lapsed.

LCC staff sought outside legal advice and found the DA could be approved on both points finding the DA was substantially the same and council could extend the life of the quarry as the consent had expired. The sticking point was the acoustic impact.

Where the discussion started turning ugly was when some of the public speakers insinuated that a number of councillors personally knew Mr Santin and this may influence their decision to approve the extension.

One speaker said, "When making these decisions, associations and friendships need to be declared and decisions need to be made on facts, not friendships."

Earlier in the evening, a number of councillors did declare they knew Mr Santin and the association was non-pecuniary and non-significant.

Another speaker was concerned about the road width which was supposed to be widened to 6m but hadn't and was currently 4.9m making it dangerous for cars to pass trucks as they approached or left the quarry.

The final speaker was the catalyst for the meeting to be paused as councillors lost all perspective. To start the October meeting, Mayor Krieg asked councillors to remain respectful throughout tonight's proceedings. That reasoning unravelled at this point.

After prefacing her controversial comments by saying they were her own and she did not represent any body, community or organisation, the speaker went on to challenge the non-pecuniary, non-significant declaration saying, "It seems to me a very obvious conflict of interest."

There was a reference to undertones of nepotism and potential corruption if councillors voted against the staff recommendation.

It was at this point that Councillor (Cr) Rob moved a point of order and Mayor Krieg asked the speaker to stop talking. Something she did not do with Cr Rob sitting and continuing to talk also.

Mayor Krieg then banged his gavel asking for order as part of the gallery applauded. The mayor then threatened to clear the gallery if people could not be respectful to each other. The speaker continued to talk in reply to the mayor's comments before he issued one last warning that she would be removed if there was another outburst.

The speaker and another person spoke once more when Cr Rob stood to change the order of business as they walked out of the meeting. Mayor Krieg made another plea to the gallery to keep order or he would clear the gallery. This was challenged by Cr Guise.

"Mr. Mayor, can you please refer to the code of meeting practice where it gives you the right to clear the gallery based....."

At this point, the mayor is on his feet and refers to 6.9 of the code of meeting practice, "When the chairperson rises or speaks during the meeting, any councillor speaking or seeking to speak, must cease speaking and if standing immediately resume their seat."

Mr Guise then replied, "If you're gonna threaten to kick out the public members from a public facility, practising democracy, please refer to the code of meeting practice where you can do that. We are not in an autocratic regime, yet."

Mayor Krieg then adjourned the meeting for five minutes to find the relevant section.

When the meeting restarted five minutes later, Mayor Krieg reiterated 6.9 that when the chairperson stands, a councillor must immediately cease speaking and resume their seat. He then quotes 15.15, "All chairpersons of meetings of the council and committees of the council are authorised, under this code, to expel any person, other than a councillor, from a council or committee meeting for the purposes of section 10.2b.

The mayor then referred to 15.18, "A member of the public may, as provided by section 10.2a or b of the act, be expelled from a meeting of the council for engaging in or having engaged in disorderly conduct at the meeting. If I have to do it individually, so be it, but I will do it. Thank you, Councillor Guise for bringing those to everyone's attention."

Once the order of business was changed, Cr Rob put forward an alternative motion that the application for modification of the Development Consent to extend the life of the quarry be approved for a maximum of 12 years subject to the attached conditions. We later learnt that there were 44 conditions for the Santin Quarry to comply with over various timeframes of the consent. Some of those, like the acoustic noise mitigation measures were to be completed before any quarrying restarts while others were within the first six months of operation and some longer.

Councillor Guise expressed his reasons for not supporting the new alternative motion by outlining the history of the quarry, as well as asking his fellow councillors to support the staff's recommendation.

"Councillors, if you're contemplating ignoring a staff recommendation to refuse this, you are throwing out any adherence to the law. Any adherence to sensible planning decisions and you're ignoring what you folks said you were being elected for, which is to listen to staff recommendations and follow their recommendations. Please don't stand up in this chamber and say that you're going to go against the staff recommendation. When it's quite clear. This quarry will have unacceptable impacts on the community and it does not meet the basic legal threshold tests required for a development application modification."

Later Cr Rob asked Cr Guise what the staff recommendations were when the applications came to the LCC chambers in 2019 and 2020.

Cr Guise responded by saying he couldn't remember those recommendations. Cr Rob mentioned they were to approve the extension of the quarry's life to which Cr Guise replied, "Councillors did resolve to not give consent".

Non-compliance was an issue raised by Crs Bird, Guise and Ekins during the lengthy debate.

Acoustic earth mounds were to have been constructed at the start of the quarry thirty years ago but LCC's Eber Butron said that his understanding was that partial construction has occurred.

Cr Bird put forward a foreshadowed motion to defer the decision so councillors could understand the 44 new and updated conditions attached to the approval before Cr Ekins added more drama to an already bizarre discussion when she said that Mr Santin had donated money to the Greens last state election campaign.

Someone had complained to the General Manager that this caused a conflict of interest for Cr Guise and Ekins. The Greens returned the money but Cr Ekins said, "And in their view (the NSW Greens), it appeared to be an attempt to undermine the democratic process and to remove Council Guise and myself from this chamber."

To this point, no councillor had spoken for the motion to extend the quarry's life. A point not lost on Cr Bird who challenged those councillors to explain their decision.

Cr Rob, who was going to speak then rose and said, " How dare any councillor try and tell me what to do. I do what I want, as long as I believe it's within the code of meeting practice and the code of conduct. So, I'm not going to explain why I want to do this. I'm just going to approve it.

It was put to the vote which was won 6/4 with councillors Gordon, Hall, Jensen, Bing, Rob and Krieg in favour and councillors Guise, Colby, Bird and Ekins against......

Is the Perrottet Government an out-of-control political and planning juggernaut about to smash its way through NSW Northern Rivers communities?

BYRON SHIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

In which property developers get access to existing rail corridor and Mullum community loses green space......

  

Byron Echo, 1 March 2023

Byron Echo, 22 February 2023:

As previously reported, the entire railway corridor length in Mullum will become either medium-density ‘affordable housing’ or car parks, under a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 24 November between Council and the state government, which has a three-year expiry date.

The public were not informed of the plans until the MoU was presented as a Council agenda item. The MoU also includes Council’s ‘aspirations’ for access via the rail corridor to its land called Lot 4, enclosed by a bend in the Brunswick River.....

Note: Area 3" of "Map 2" will allegedly be "affordable housing focus". This areas coincide with the section of flood prone land chosen by Resilience NSW for landfill to accommodation emergency housing pods.

In which more flood storage is removed from the floodplain and where the direction of flood water traveling across Mullum township in a 100 ARI event is altered....

Byron Echo, 22 November 2022:

The Resilience NSW (ResNSW) Flood Report on the impact of the fill at the emergency housing site at Mullumbimby was finally released to the public on 7 November.

The report details the impacts that the fill, built up to current 1-in-100-year flood level under selected Scenario A, will have on flood levels for existing housing, in particular on Prince, Poinciana and Station Streets.

‘According to the report, there are 11 properties that will see an increase in flooding in a 1-in-100-year event, and 85 properties that will actually see a reduction in flooding in this type of event,’ said Byron Shire Mayor, Michael Lyon.

‘They might not want the fill to be removed.’

Two properties identified in the ResNSW Flood Report, with six units that were severely impacted by flooding in 2022, will see a 3cm increase of above-floor flooding as a direct result of the fill-in a 1-in-100-year flood (as labelled in 2020 by the North Byron Floodplain Management Study and Plan).

The temporary pod site will provide 40 units, for up to 160 people who were affected by the devastating February floods. However, there are key areas where the ResNSW Flood Report by BMT fails to provide adequate information on how their conclusions are drawn regarding the impact on existing houses and residents in these areas.

Local Councillor and hydrologist Duncan Dey pointed out that, ‘At 40 pages this is a very thin technical report and it has not provided the modelling and details needed to allow the public to see how they reached, or to confirm, the conclusions they have put forward. There is also no clue as to who did the actual modelling, or authored the report’.

3–6cm not a small increase

In their November Construction Update, ResNSW say that this is a ‘small increase in flood levels’. However, Cr Dey says that ‘in the profession, rises of 3cm or 6cm are not considered small’,

‘The government should accelerate the many flood mitigation options at its disposal, as described in the adopted North Byron Floodplain Risk Management Plan. That plan is a joint venture of Council and the NSW government. Work on those measures might well achieve a 3cm drop in flood levels at this and many other sites throughout the north of the Shire. Government should pursue that rapidly, before the next flood.’

Fill creates a levee

‘The flood report deals with current climate conditions only. It doesn’t deal with future flooding, which will be worse in 2050 or 2100. It doesn’t have to, because the fill is only there until the middle of this decade… or is it?

‘It looks at the 385m long fill site that runs parallel to the railway, plus an 80m northward extension as shown in Figure 4.1 of the report.

‘This fill acts as a levee bank. It totals 465m parallel to the railway and acts as a barrier to flow when the Brunswick Valley floods,’ explained Cr Dey.

‘The water flows west to east down the Brunswick Valley, that is, it flows from the Mullumbimby Showground across town towards the Industrial Estate.’

Flood velocity overlooked

The impact of the velocity, the speed that the water moves during the flood event, has not been presented in the report.

‘The reality is that these velocities have to have been modelled to obtain the water levels,’ said Cr Dey.

‘The ResNSW Flood Report contains no information about flood velocities and hence doesn’t consider their impacts. If you block a 465m width of a floodplain like this, you get still water behind the levee (on the east side) but you get a raging torrent around the two edges of the levee. By not examining velocities, government doesn’t have any picture of how they will impact Poinciana and Argyle Streets, which are the streams that the high velocity water will run down. The result could be that people who were able to get out of harm’s way under the pre-fill scenario may no longer be able to. One family escaped on 28 February by floating their kids to a neighbour’s elevated house using a kid’s three-ring pool as a life raft. Flood velocity must always be considered as well as flood depth.

‘Why were the velocities not reported and made publicly available to the community? They sit there in the computer model – it won’t run without them. We don’t know what the consultant was asked to do or report on as this has not been made public. The community is in the dark about the parameters being considered on their behalf by ResNSW.’

Long-term site?

The Mayor, Cr Lyon told residents when the report was released that there had ‘been talk of houses and other purposes here [on the fill site] for 20 years… Those conversations [regarding future removal of fill] are not for right now’, he said. However, the risk to existing houses if the fill remains long-term are significantly increased.

‘Under the state’s own Floodplain Development Manual, constructing works on a floodplain is only allowed after investigation through a proper Floodplain Study and Plan. We completed one in 2020. It doesn’t support a levee bank anywhere in the floodplain of the Brunswick River,’ explains Cr Dey.

‘As shown on Table 4 of the ResNSW Flood Report, the 100-year flood level is lowered under Scenario A for 85 properties while being raised for 11 properties. The story for rarer floods, like the 2022 flood, is far more unacceptable however, and must not be ignored, especially if the fill stays after 2025.

‘The report estimates 280mm of water above the floor level for one of the negatively impacted houses during a 1-in-100 year flood. However, they just experienced 800mm above floor level in the February 2022 flood. The report did consider the 2022 flood. Figures like Drawing 2.2 in the report indicate that a 100-year flood is 0.5m deep in Poinciana Street. However, flood marks indicate the 2022 level at half a metre higher.

‘It is likely that when the North Byron Floodplain Plan is reviewed for the 2022 flood, that review will raise the 100-year level for this area to the level experienced in February. That is an increase of half a metre above what was studied for the ResNSW Flood Report. This report has studied the wrong flood.

‘In planning law the 100-year flood is used to for setting floor heights for new constructions. When considering impacts of mitigation works, like levee banks, on existing residences, all floods should be considered, especially the floods of most concern to the people affected. In this case, that is the flood they just had.

‘The ResNSW Flood Report doesn’t consider the 2022 flood and how a repeat of that flood would behave with the fill in place.

Climate change

‘The ResNSW Flood Report ignores climate change, because it is for a two-year project, not the one the mayor is speaking about in relation to longer-term housing on the site. Climate change will make what is now the 100-year event occur more frequently. And similarly, the future 100-year flood is likely closer to the current 500-year flood.

‘For the current 500-year flood, the report shows that the fill of Scenario A (which is effectively a levee bank) lowers the flood level at 57 properties while raising it for 56 properties.

‘For the “Probable Maximum Flood”, the fill lowers flood levels at only two properties, while raising it at 52 properties. Most of those affected properties are west of the railway line, around Station Street.

‘ResNSW modelling shows a significant increase in flooding in Station Street for the 1-in-500-year flood scenario. If the fill remains long-term, these figures would be the ones that count. They show that this levee bank would be deemed unacceptable under normal scrutiny.’

The right consultant?

It is understood by The Echo that work done last decade on the North Byron Floodplain Management Study by BMT, previously known as WBM-BMT, had to be redone by a second consultant before it could be used. Byron Shire Council resolved (19-036) in February 2019 ‘that Council recognise the weakness of service provided by the consulting company which prepared the Flood Study [will] and consider that in future engagements’. So why did ResNSW choose this same consultant?

[my yellow highlighting]

Note: Mullumbimby Emergency Housing - Flood Impact Assessment by BMT (Official) was created for Customer: Symal Infrastructre Pty Ltd [sic]. The draft document went through six revisions between 27 October and 22 November 2022.

Symal Infrastructure Pty Ltd is a private corporation headquartered in Spotswood, Victoria, specialising in Construction, Civil construction, Building construction, Engineering, Earthworks, Plant hire, property development, and Landscaping according to its Linkedin entry. Its shareholders are listed by ASIC as: Bartolo Family Investments Pty. Ltd, R. Dando Investments Pty Ltd and Fairbairn Investments Pty Ltd.

The Mullumbimby Emergency Housing - Flood Impact Assessment has been endorsed by the NSW Perrottet Government.

Landfill area for emergency housing pods is outlined in red in this Google Earth snapshot. This landfill area will have to be extended north and west towards the Brunswick River and to the south, under the NSW Transport Asset Holding Entity (TAHE) proposal.

The Echo, Letters, 17 November 2022:

Resilience NSW was tasked to provide emergency housing for flood refugees. Byron Council and Transport NSW provided 3–5 year short-term leases for three greenfield sites – the rail land in Prince St, Mullum, the riverbank behind the Bruns sports field, and on public open space beside the preschool in Bayside Brunswick.

Nine months later the engineers are still filling and compacting the soil – right on the riverbank in Brunswick Heads and in Prince Street with B-double trucks cruising through our towns every day, for months on end, at phenomenal, unnecessary and unwanted expense.....

Digging trenches to provide services isn’t easier with tonnes of roadbase in the way.

The roadbase is needed so cars and trucks can drive over the sites instead of parking offsite and hiring a crane to lower the pods onto the foundations.

It’s the most insensitive, inappropriate design and construction undertaken in our Green Shire, seemingly without any consultation with, approval by, or oversight from Council – the leaseholder. It must be stopped before they dump fill at Bayside Brunswick too.

After months of costly activity we still haven’t got one house, yet our caravan parks are raking in the profits on their unfilled, unimproved land sites. There is no justification or necessity for this ugly brutalist style of development in the 21st century.

Who are these experts? The professionals over-engineering with this gold-plated use of public funds? Why has no one in power queried or challenged this excessive over-development on leased land? Where are those Byron Shire councillors and directors hiding? Even the work crews are embarrassed to talk about the environmental impacts.

There are far better ways to provide accommodation for those in dire need, just ask the community for advice – we’re giving it away for free.

LISMORE CITY LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

In which Lismore City Council becomes a local government for roads, rates and rats.....

The Echo, 2 March 2023:

NSW Planning Minister, Anthony Roberts, has removed planning powers from Lismore City Council. Councillors failed, on February 14, to constitute a local planning panel (LPP), which is designed to ‘speed up planning processes to support flood-recovery efforts’ that would have allowed them to nominate two members to the committee from a minister-approved pool of candidates.

The NSW government’s LPP usurps Council’s planning powers.

In a letter to Mayor Steve Krieg, Roberts said the failure ‘may result in confusion and uncertainty for planning processes in Lismore LGA.’

Under (s) 2.17 of the EP&A Act 1979, Roberts appointed ‘members to sit on Council’s behalf’.

All associated costs for the panel will be borne by Council, Roberts added.

Disempowering communities

Cate Faehrmann, Greens MP, planning spokesperson and lead candidate for the Upper House said, ‘The Planning Minister has a track record of disempowering communities to serve developer interests’.

‘The NSW government needs to establish a process that gives Lismore residents agency over the reconstruction process, not one that will let developers roll over the community to squeeze as much profit out of reconstruction as they can’.

‘The Lismore community has been crying out for greater transparency and control over the recovery process. Instead, the NSW Government has disempowered the community even further,’ said Ms Faehrmann.

‘The people of Lismore are anxious about how decisions are being made about the future of their city. The last thing they need is an undemocratic planning panel making decisions for them about what reconstruction is going to look like.

‘The fact that Lismore council needs to pay for the staff and facilities of the government’s sham planning panel is completely unacceptable. It’s another flagrant example of state government cost shifting which will hurt Lismore council ratepayers even more.

‘I’m calling on the government to reverse this decision and at the very least pay for the costs of this planning panel,’ she said.

Lismore needs transparency

Local councillor and Green Candidate for Lismore Adam Guise said, ‘It’s outrageous that the Liberal Planning Minister is riding roughshod over our community and sacking Lismore councillors from local planning decisions. Councillors were never consulted on this extraordinary announcement made by the Minister last year only days before Christmas.’

‘Lismore Council decided at its February meeting not to constitute a planning panel. Councillors resolved to keep our planning powers so that planning decisions are made locally with community involvement.....

[my yellow highlighting]