2001 Rural Lands Study lacks credibility

Spin doctoring in the Rural Lands Study

Data and statistics which support the concerns of residents appear throughout the several reports that make up the Study, yet obvious conclusions are ignored or presented in such a way that it diminishes their importance. Taken together, the reports read as if the conclusions and recommendations were written first, then the body of the report edited to fit. Here are some examples:

• Failure to recognise low growth in the area

The Background & Issues and Draft Rural Strategy reports leave the impression that growth in the study area has been strong, and therefore needs to be contained. There is certainly no indication that growth has slowed dramatically in recent years.

However this misrepresents the data.

In the Background and Issues report, there is a section (p99) titled "Key Demographic Features of the Rural Lands". Old census figures are quoted, showing that the population increased by 1,400 between 1991 and 1996. No reference to the percentage increase, which was 10% over 5 years, or 2% per year.

This is immediately followed by the observation that "This was the third highest absolute growth after the urban areas". Then on page 113 the author claims that the study area is "One of the fastest growing districts in the shire"

Fast forward to the Draft Rural Strategy report. Here the demographic figures have been updated to reflect data from the 2001 census. This time the population in the study area only increased by 446. Again no reference to the percentage increase, which is only 3% over the preceding 5 years, or 0.6% per annum.

In this instance the author makes no comment at all about the data. No mention that growth has almost come to a standstill, nor does he draw any comparison with the growth in the rest of the shire over the same period, which was around 17%, or 3.4% per annum, representing some 20,000 additional residents.

An objective and balanced study would have drawn attention to this fact. It would have quoted growth figures in percentage terms, and made comparisons with other areas, instead of leaving it up to the reader. It would have observed that growth in the study area has only been 1/6th of that in surrounding areas, and for reasons of balance, recommended the issue be addressed.

• Downplaying the key concern of the community

The Rural Land Study was commissioned because of pressure from residents for growth. Most residents believe that the way to achieve that growth is by reducing the minimum lot size from 25 acres to 5 acres.

A series of community meetings were held to discuss the issues. At some of those meetings, participants were given 3 stickers each, and asked to indicate which issues concerned them the most by placing stickers against a list.

Page 15 of the Rural Lands Study Draft Strategy tabulates the results, showing 485 stickers placed for the issue of subdivision. The next highest issue, infrastructure, recorded 109, with environment & biodiversity, lifestyle, and land uses following.

These results unquestionably show that subdivision is by far the greatest concern in the community, yet this was written up in the report as "a contradiction in the aspirations of the community”!

There is no contradiction in the aspirations of the community. Given the figures, and given the mood at the meetings, an objective study would not have made this statement. The only contradiction is the misrepresentation in the report, where it paints a picture of a community so worried about potential loss of lifestyle and additional "strain on infrastructure" that they are divided over the issue of subdivision.

The fact is that the community is not divided over the issue of subdivision. Most fully support reducing the present minimum lot size from 25 acres to 5 acres, and are prepared to accept the impact on lifestyle. The resultant growth is seen as a strong benefit – the key to gaining improvements in infrastructure, rather than any impediment.

• Reaching irrelevant conclusions by focussing on irrelevant issues

Throughout the study documents there is a great deal of argument provided as to why rural land should be preserved. One of the key reasons put forward is a perceived need to "preserve" land for agricultural uses.

Based upon these arguments, the study recommends a strategy of maintaining the current restrictions on subdividing large blocks.

While these arguments may have some validity in the appropriate context, they simply don't apply to most of the study area.

Crucially, the study ignores the following facts:

• Earlier studies determined that only 5% of the land in the study area is fertile enough for agriculture;

• Much of that 5% is either already developed, or earmarked to be developed in the near future;

• The specific areas of land that the community want subdivided are not part of the 5% suitable for agriculture.

• The study area is not rural. It is urban fringe - the outer suburbs. It is only called "rural" because of state government directive issued in 1977 (see Rural land – a misnomer) instructing that term to be used for non-urban land.

Drawing on these facts, an objective and balanced study would not have dwelt on the issue of preserving rural land for its agricultural value. It would have noted that the predominant use is residential (78%), and found ways to develop that use in keeping with the communities wishes, instead of recommending ways to preserve a non-existent agricultural use.

• Distorting the outcome by focussing on issues that are important to the report's author, not the community

During the formal consultation process, and since then through letters and submissions, the community has made it unmistakeably clear where their key concerns lie. Most want growth in the study area, and most want that growth to occur through subdivision of large blocks to 5 acre allotments. Further, councillors have consistently repeated that the whole reason they commissioned the study was to find out what the community wanted, and find ways to achieve it.

Given this, one would expect the study to focus on those issues.

Instead, the draft Rural Strategy report contains a scant 3 page section (p13) summarising community meetings, which draws a conclusion that completely misrepresents both the data and the mood of the community (see Residents overwhelmingly demand lifting of ban).

Moving on, we find 17 pages devoted to "Constraints to development", followed by a 27 page section titled "Preserving rural land", most of which is irrelevant for the reasons outlined above.

To understand why the study reports don't focus on issues important to the community, it is instructive to visit the website maintained by the study's primary author. Sections of the study reports appear word-for-word in papers that the author has presented in his academic career. Further, according to his CV, he is "currently completing a Masters of Town Planning thesis which will investigate and evaluate the methodologies available for preserving rural land in Australia.", and interestingly, has completed similar studies for 5 other local government areas on the city fringe.

A balanced study, commissioned as this was in response to community concerns over lack of growth and subdivision restrictions, would not have dwelt on issues such as "Preserving Rural Land", but instead focussed on ways of achieving the goals of the community.

• Pushing an agenda onto the community

It's clear right from the outset that this Rural Lands Study is a serious attempt to resist community demands. In its stated aims and objectives, it ignores the very reason it was commissioned.

In the report brief, there is a background statement. It says:

"Over the past decade the Baulkham Hills council has been under increasing development pressure, based upon the need to accommodate an expanding urban area and representations from the rural community, to further consider subdivision development in the rural zoned lands of the Shire."

Somehow this led to the following aims:

• Protect and enhance a sustainable future for the rural lands;

• Involve the community and other stakeholders in the Study process, to ensure acceptance and ownership;

• Generate a sustainable land use strategy and environmental planning instruments for the study area.

Through defining a primary aim that does not reflect representations from the community, the council immediately fails in its duty to act in the interests of ratepayers and residents, fatally damaging the credibility of the study.

And while the council may argue that they have involved the community and other stakeholders in the study process, they most certainly have not satisfied the aim of ensuring acceptance and ownership.

Finally, because there is no clear definition of "sustainable", the last aim is so flexible that it could be taken to mean anything. In the study, it is assumed that it means freezing development and preserving the past.

A credible study would have set "Developing a framework for further subdivision" as one of its primary aims, given that the council's own background statement acknowledges that a primary reason the study was commissioned was because of "representations from the rural community to further consider subdivision".

It would have then gone on to set objectives such as "Determining the total number of lots that could be realised"; and "Determining appropriate controls that provide for further subdivision while retaining the open character of the area".

Yet the stated objectives are full of "protect"; "maintain"; and "preserve" – in no way reflective of the community's wish for growth through subdivision.

• Ideology replaces methodology

The reports prepared for the study reflect an ideology of freezing development and preserving the past. Where did this arise? Were there any scientifically-conducted studies of the area, or scientifically-based surveys of community attitudes and aspirations?

Sadly, none of this occurred. The great bulk of the reports comprise second-hand data, anecdotal evidence, and the private opinions of the primary consultant.

• No proper methodology was employed to determine the aims and objectives.

• No qualitative or scientifically-based surveys of the community were carried out. Instead, meetings were held that simply produced unranked lists of almost every issue imaginable. It was left up to the authors as to how this information was presented and emphasised.

• The reports focus on methods of freezing development and preserving the past. This issue was not raised at the community meetings, and is not what the community wants.

• No formal written submissions from the community were incorporated into the final strategy report.

Simply, the study lacks balance. It is nothing more than an expensive attempt to impose an unsupported ideology on the community. For this reason, the conclusions of the study must be set aside.

Why does the Baulkham Hills council always refer to the non-urban area in the outer northwest as "rural", when the largest land use in the area is residential? Surely it is more accurate to call it non-urban, urban fringe, or simply undeveloped land in the outer suburbs?

The council can't be blamed for this one. Back in 1977, the NSW Department of Planning issued P.E.C. circular C13 – New Zoning Policy for Land Outside Urban Areas – which states:

"The use of the zone 'Non-urban' is to be discontinued. In its place village, township, rural, and environmental protection are proposed."

So there we have it – lifted straight out of George Orwell's 1984. 

Bureaucratic nonsense

Take this piece of Alice-through-the-looking-glass, repeated several times by the Baulkham Hills council in the Summary of Submissions to the Rural Lands Study Draft Strategy:

"Demand for 2 ha lots is driven by supply."

If only it were that easy.

Over in the real world, we all know that supply is driven by demand, not the other way around.

Attempting to control demand by controlling supply was tried last century in several communist countries. It failed, leaving behind massive shortages. Policy justified with nonsense >>