5 acre lots banned since 1964

	Baulkham Hills. Growth has come to a standstill in the area coloured green. Detailed map >

25 acre minimum lot size: stifles growth; denies choice

Don't look to Sydney's outer northwest to escape the urban squeeze. While there's an abundance of suitable land, with most services in place, there's a dire shortage of building lots, thanks to 40-year-old planning controls prohibiting allotments smaller than 25 acres. Not only does this deny choice to prospective new residents; it has brought growth in the area to a standstill. MORE>>

• Policy justified with nonsense

When asked to justify the unwanted 25 acre zoning in the outer northwest, politicians and bureaucrats have a range of responses in their armoury. All have one thing in common: they're nonsense. MORE>>

• Residents overwhelmingly demand reduced lot sizes

At a series of community meetings held in 2003, residents unequivocally showed that their greatest concern is the present ban on subdivision of large lots. When surveyed, they rated the issue 4 times as important as any other affecting the area.  MORE>>

• Unable to subdivide, retirees forced to sell and relocate

Ineligible for pensions, unable to reduce their large land holdings to a manageable size, and faced with substantial maintenance costs, owners of large blocks in Sydney's outer northwest are left with no choice but to sell and move away.  MORE>>

Study attempts to impose ideology: ignores community

2001 Rural Lands Study: flawed from the start

Baulkham Hills council's response to continued pressure from the community for growth through subdivision has been a series of "Rural Lands Studies". Astonishingly, the most recent of these recommends a strategy of "no growth" – ignoring the very reason it was commissioned – yet the council has adopted it in full.  more>>

• Not credible

Costing $300,000, ratepayers expected the 2001 Rural Lands Study to be balanced and objective. However, through selection of aims, choice of language, frequent presentation of unsupported opinion as fact, and focus on "preservation of rural lands" while ignoring community aspirations, the study lacks both these qualities.  More>>

• $300,000 of cut & paste?

Comparison of the 2001 Baulkham Hills Rural Lands Study with one prepared for the Penrith council shows some remarkable similarities. In fact, some sections are word-for-word the same, including spelling mistakes. Perhaps not surprising, considering the same consultant prepared both, but worth $300,000?  More>>

• 69 submissions, not one amendment

In a blatant disregard of community expectations, the council failed to make a single word of amendment to the "no growth" strategy recommended in the latest Rural Lands Study. This was in spite of receiving 69 submissions – most highly critical of the study findings. More>>

• 4 studies – 20 years of procrastination

3 earlier studies, dating back to 1983, preceded the 2001 Rural Lands Study. These earlier studies all recommended permitting subdivision of large holdings to 5 acre allotments in selected areas, but the council quickly found reasons to reject them. In contrast, the latest study proposes a strategy of freezing development and preserving the past. Without any critical analysis, the council has accepted it in full.  More>>

• Cluster subdivision – the last stage before full urbanisation?

In the 2001 draft Rural Strategy report, the only concession to community demands for growth through subdivision is a proposal to allow "cluster subdivision" on lots larger than 50 acres. Since most lots in the area are too small to qualify, it is hard to understand why this was proposed. Unless, of course, it is the precursor to full urbanisation...  more>>