 |
|||
|
Home | ABOUT US | Nonsense | Land Studies | Background
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. With cluster subdivision, dwellings are located close together, leaving a large undeveloped residue lot. According to the 1991 Rural Lands Study (page 13), the "benefit" of this is "so that future urban development is not unduly prejudiced". In the 2001 Draft Strategy Report this is restated (page 66) as "so that the future urban subdivision potential is not compromised as much as it would be if subdivision is permitted to a 1 or 2 ha minimum lot size." Neither study provides any detail as to how smaller lot sizes prejudice or compromise urban subdivision. Presumably it makes it more difficult and expensive for developers, and may potentially limit choices about where roads and other infrastructure are situated. While this may suit the interests of future developers, it is does not satisfy those seeking a large-lot lifestyle residential property, as it removes one of the primary benefits sought – privacy. Nor is it what the local community want. Full urbanisation – a foregone conclusion?The fact that planners and bureaucrats are so opposed to subdivision to 5 acre allotments, and instead proposing only cluster subdivision, leads to the conclusion that much of the study area has already been designated for full urbanisation. Further evidence for this comes from the 1991 study, where it summarises (pages 12–13) work carried out by the Department of Planning in 1987 regarding rural-residential development in the Sydney region. Land was categorised into 4 categories. 2 covered land destined for future urban use – category 1 for use below a population of 4.5 million, and category 2 for use above that figure. Within both these categories, it proposed that the only type of subdivision permitted prior to full urbanisation would be cluster subdivision. Areas outside these categories were free to be subdivided into 1–5 acre residential allotments. It seems likely that these guidelines are still driving state government policy. If so, then the community can expect an announcement regarding full urbanisation of the area before 2010, when the population is likely to reach the target 4.5 million. |
|
Elsewhere on this website we outline
our efforts to trace the trail of decision-making back from
those affected by it. We concluded that although the local council is responsible for the Local Environment Plan and Development Control Plans covering the area, their role is really nothing more than that of another government bureaucracy, acting under instruction from the state government, and ignoring the local community. But given that the general thrust of controls survives changes of government, it seems highly likely that the real driver must lie outside of government. When we look at the policies proposed and ask who benefits, it seems clear that most of the big decisions are made in favour of those engaged in future urban development. In other words, the policies seem to be ultimately driven by large developer groups. How surprising. |