Draft LEP & DCP do not deliver

Following the loss of a rescission motion on 21 June 2005, the draft Rural Plan was submitted to the State Government for issuance of a "Section 65" certificate to enable it to be placed on public exhibition. The plan, hardly altered since it was rejected by the council on 16th September 2005, does not provide sufficient opportunity for growth in the district, and is not supported by residents.

In seeking to impose a sweeping environmental zone over most of the rural land in the shire, it will diminish landholders property rights without any form of compensation, and ignores the nearly unanimous call from the affected community to reduce minimum lot sizes.

Speaking to the original motion on 7 June 2005, councillors Harty and Tolar both referred to the need to sacrifice the interests of north ward residents for the greater good, while north ward councillor Shore spoke in favour of, then voted against, an amendment which would have at least removed the environmental overlay, and would have directed the council to explore reasonable subdivision.

The resolution of the Council was as follows. The draft Plan referred to is almost identical to the draft Plan rejected in September 2004:

1. Council request a Section 65 Certificate from the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources to enable the exhibition of the draft Local Environmental Plan attached as Attachment 2 to this report.
2. The draft Rural Lands Local Environmental Plan and draft Development Control Plan be placed on public exhibition upon receipt of a Section 65 Certificate from DIPNR for a minimum period of sixty (60) days.
3. Council seek the views of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources regarding village expansion ‘test sites’ as indicated in Attachment 5.
4. Council seek the views of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources regarding the possible subdivision of 25 acre lots into 5 acres and over which were previously used for farming, where Sydney Water provides a supply and a minimum of 100,000 litres of water in underground tanks is provided for each lot subdivided to be used for bush fire control and back-up domestic use.
5. Council include in the draft Local Environmental Plan for exhibition a definition of ‘rural enterprise’ as follows:
   “Rural enterprise means a building or place where rural zoned land is used for one or more commercial purposes related to agriculture and/or tourism but, in the Table to Clause 13, does not include a building or place elsewhere specifically defined in this Clause, or a building or place used for a land use elsewhere specifically found in this Clause."

To "seek the views" of the Department is an inadequate way to express the concerns of those affected by this plan. Proposals for a realistic level of growth should have been put into the draft Plan and supported by the sorts of reasons put forward on this website.

As it stands, the $300,000 allocated to the Rural Land Study has been largely wasted. Instead of a reasonable proposal for rural residential, residents now face an outcome that goes in exactly the opposite direction, further diminishing private property rights.

Here's what our President had to say in his address to the council on 7 June 2005:

"Councillors, what we have here on the table is a revised plan that has hardly changed since September last year, when it was rejected unanimously.

 We find that in spite of all the assurances that our concerns would be addressed, and that the environmental zone was no longer on the table, the plan is still based on a flawed Rural Land Study, and it’s still unacceptable, because it fails to fundamentally recognise that the role of zoning is to protect the amenity of areas according to the wishes of the residents of those areas, not according to the wishes of consultants or others living elsewhere.

Throughout this sorry saga, those of us most affected by this plan and the Rural Land Study have made 2 points crystal clear:

• We want a moderate level of growth in the area, and we believe that the best way to achieve this is by developing a detailed plan based on restoring the minimum lot size to 5 acres as it was prior to 1964;

• Secondly, we do not want, nor have we ever asked for, any form of “environmental protection” zone or overlay.

I don’t know how we could have made these points clearer. What will it take to get the message through?

We’ve made detailed submissions highlighting the problems with the Rural Land Study and review process, we’ve put forward sound reasons for our case, and we’ve seen hundreds turn out to public meetings, yet tonight we have in front of us a report recommending our wishes are essentially ignored – describing it merely as a “disadvantage” that our concerns won’t be addressed. The sole concession is a proposal to allow small communes on properties larger than 50 acres, but under so many restrictions that it defeats the benefits of rural living.
Important issues, such as the loss of property rights that result from zoning restrictions, are simply ignored. And nowhere in the report, or the studies for that matter, is there any detailed discussion of the benefits of moderate, market-driven development, or the costs of environmental restrictions.

This whole exercise is shameful. We are supposed to be living in a free and democratic society, with the right to self-determination, not in a centrally-planned totalitarian regime. If the overwhelming majority of large-lot landholders call for the minimum lot size to be reduced to 5 acres, changing the rules should be a mere formality, not a 30 – 40 year battle against public servants who have lost sight of their role in society.

No matter which way you look at it, housing at a density of 1 dwelling every 5 acres has minimal impact, and is a very reasonable way to achieve the moderate level of growth and prosperity demanded by the rural community, while at the same time delivering choice to others who are currently denied the opportunity of living on acreage. It completely misrepresents our position to call this “broad scale” subdivision, as this report does.

I’m hoping that tonight we might witness a display of sense and reason, and a recognition of the fact that the role of the council is to represent and act on the wishes of the community, not simply act as front-line soldiers for a government which seems to have lost its respect for freedom and private property rights. I’m hoping that tonight councillors recognise this, and throw out the environmental overlay, and insist that a new report is prepared, demonstrating the benefits of restoring moderate growth, prosperity, and choice, by re-instating a 5 acre minimum lot size, as the overwhelming majority in the affected area demand."