Community Liaison Group Meeting:
Summary of issues raised

Below is a summary of the points raised at the community liaison group meeting held on 1 February 2005, as recorded by Connell Wagner, the consultants assisting the council Working Group that is reviewing the Rural Land Study:

Rural Residential Subdivision

• historic approaches for subdivision rejected repeatedly - Rural Land Study not delivered - ignored justification put forward - representations not reflected/ignored

• water/sewer supply not a factor - tank water eg Box Hill - alternative on-site sewerage technology - self-sufficient

• want five acre subdivision for some areas - not all rural lands

• inconsistencies - rezoned/subdivided some areas

• anomalies - variety of lot sizes - unjust - need logical approach

• older community - sell off portion of land so can remain in area - families

• balance - rural and rural-residential - economic viability

• Rural Land Study - cut and paste from other Rural Land Study documents

• want to retain rural character and amenity - do not want wholesale clearing of vegetation

• small-lot subdivision does not preclude/hinder future urban development potential - just deal with it

• new fire restrictions - some areas cannot be developed - council and state government restrictions control development

• Rural Land Study flawed - based on ideology - question is not draft LEP but basis for draft LEP - no opportunity to comment on/influence Rural Land Study outcomes

• 458 residents at community meetings supported subdivision

• not interested in what other councils are doing

• distrust of planners - outside area - impose restrictions - societal benefits but costs borne by few individuals

• community should determine outcomes

• do not need water or sewer - need upgraded power - impacts on water quality?

• 69 percent of rural land 0.8-3ha lots - not huge potential for further subdivision

• crown land - aboriginal land - development potential - need to control lot sizes

• traffic implications of further subdivision - road upgrading requirements? - existing traffic volumes low - not local traffic - subdivision = more $ to spend

• development limit? is there one? should the market decide?

• rural enterprise zone = choice - should be introduced

• Rural Land Study recognised predominant land use is rural-residential - people want to

• live here - agriculture is dead - cannot compete

• need to quantify number of lots that can be subdivided - may not be many - need to know

• release of rural-residential lots will be staged and responsive to market demand

• urgent need for growth in shire

• anything over 5ha treated as asset - implications for aged pension

Cluster density subdivision

• not practical approach - should be based on density ratio

• forces people to live close together - opposite to what people want

Environmental protection

• imposed 7(b) zone - no logical platform for delineation of zone - should be scrapped

• disincentive to maintain bushland on private land - environment protected better without such zoning

• environmental protection zone - loss of values - compensation

• need for more justification/explanation for 7(b) zone - no logical answer provided - no nexus between Rural Land Study and draft LEP - 7(b) not previously mentioned during Rural Land Study process - privately funded national park - not equitable - no compensation

• why do we need 7(b) zone? - problem is 40ha minimum lot size restriction in 7(b) zone - what happens with existing undersized lots

• object to 7(b) zone - no compensation

• get rid of 7(b) zone - alternative protection measures eg clearing restrictions

• how do you guarantee bushland protection? - addressed in Rural Land Study - public vs private land - different approach? - public bushland areas sufficient

Village / Commercial expansion

• why Glenorie Village expansion not considered?

• lack of growth in Glenorie - business dying - no support services

• village area zoning - for commercial and not for residential - not mixed use

• design theme for villages - street trees etc - developed to attract people