Councillors vote against draft Plan

It seems that sense and reason are finally starting to prevail. On the 16th of September 2004, Councillors voted unanimously against adopting the council-officer-prepared draft Plan developed from the Rural Land Study. As well as providing virtually no opportunities for rural residential subdivision, the draft Plan astoundingly attempted to impose an environmental "protection" zone over 54% of the Shire, without the consent of landholders, and without offering any form of compensation for the loss of value suffered by owners.

The draft Rural Plan consisted of 2 documents–a draft Local Environment Plan (LEP), and a draft Development Control Plan (DCP)–together with a series of draft zone boundary maps.

In respect of restoring growth to the rural area, the plan delivered almost nothing. As had been expected, it proposed that properties larger than 50 acres be eligible for "cluster subdivision" at a dwelling density of 1 per 10 acres. Buried within the documents accompanying the plan was an acknowledgement that this would provide almost no additional opportunities for rural residential living, due to the small number of eligible properties. And since the "cluster" concept involves locating all the houses close to each other in a small group, it ignores the very reason people choose to live in a rural setting–so they can be surrounded by a rural environment, not neighbours' houses.

Apart from that, there was a proposal to rezone part of the area currently zoned 1(a) (100 acre minimum lot size) to 1(b) (25 acre minimum lot size); however due to subdivision which occurred prior to the current restrictions, this would have provided virtually no additional dwellings in the area. And not surprisingly the draft DCP contained the usual myriad of rules and restrictions, right down to prescriptions for the colours of houses, and a prohibition against masonry fences.

• Environmental Zone–unwanted & unnecessary

	An indication of the extent of the area (red) over which it was proposed to impose the restrictive environmental zone.

However perhaps the most unwelcome aspect of the draft Rural Plan was the proposal to blanket vast parts of the Shire with a so-called "Environmental Protection (Bushland) Zone", 7(b). Cutting clean through large sections of privately-owned property, this zone proposed a very restrictive set of uses, along with a minimum lot size of 100 acres, completely removing current and potential development rights. Many in the district view this as tantamount to land theft, as no compensation was proposed for the massive loss in value that current owners would bear if the proposal went ahead. Not only would it be completely undemocratic, as almost none of the affected owners agree or were even consulted, it would also undermine a key foundation of our society–private property rights.

If it does go ahead without compensation, it will set a dangerous precedent, which will almost certainly be used to justify additional reductions in the rights of private property owners in the future. There comes a point at which a line must be drawn to maintain freedoms. That line must be drawn through any proposals that take away the rights and wealth of private property owners, regardless of the reason.

Ostensibly this zone is deemed necessary to "protect" remaining bushland. However, with 56 million hectares of bush in NSW, there is simply no need to mandate protection at the expense of private property rights, and the detriment of present owners. Furthermore, most of those who occupy small acreage make conscious and positive efforts to maintain the bush, particularly if the primary use for the property is rural residential living, as advocated by 5 Acres Now. There are many examples in the Shire where the bush has been restored once farming and agriculture have ceased.

When the proposal was examined more closely, it quickly became apparent that the boundaries had been determined on an arbitrary basis, unrelated to any unique environmental value. In at least one case, a full environmental appraisal carried out prior to the release of the draft Rural Plan found no threatened species of Flora and Fauna; that all species present were well represented elsewhere in the state; and yet 70% of that property fell within the proposed zone. Any argument that the area is somehow unique would require comprehensive studies, not only in the affected area, but throughout the other 80 million hectares of the state, before any claim of uniqueness could be taken as fact. Such studies have not been carried out.

Many in the community appreciate the value of maintaining bushland. However it is unreasonable to require those who currently own such property to provide that amenity for the enjoyment of others, free of charge. It would confer a benefit on some at the expense of others. At the very least, any such proposal would need to incorporate some means of spreading the costs to those who benefit.

Finally, it is important to put this issue in perspective. With 56 million hectares of native vegetation in NSW alone, there should be more than enough to satisfy even the most avid environmentalist, and more than enough to sustain the natural environment for millennia. It must not be forgotten that Sydney is a city, not a nature reserve, and that the primary purpose of cities is to house people and businesses, not plants and animals.