Almost 400 attend public review meeting

Rural residents, some of whom had to travel long distances to Castle Hill, came out in force on the evening of the 16th February 2005 to show their overwhelming support for subdivision of large lots to 5 acres, and absolute opposition to the imposition of any environmental zone over their properties.

The meeting, conducted by Connell Wagner, (the consultants engaged by the council to assist with the review of the Rural Land Study), was held to provide an opportunity for residents to have input into the review process. It was opened by the Mayor, Sonya Phillips, assuring those present that the 7(b) environmental zone is not currently on the table, because the draft plan was unanimously rejected by councillors at the meeting of 16th September 2004. The Mayor also stated that Jennifer Westacott, the Director-General of DIPNR, had made it clear to her that DIPNR did not support "blanket 5 acre subdivision", but gave no reason.

In spite of the Mayor's assurance about the 7(b) environmental zone, it became the subject of repeated questioning. Many appeared convinced that the zone is still on the agenda, and believe that it will re-appear again when the review had been completed. One person drew attention to the way a "green belt" was introduced in North Ryde many years ago, only to be overturned a few years later, after affected owners had sold out cheaply to developers. It was suggested that history could easily repeat itself, because there were no sound reasons behind the proposal for the restrictive environmental zone in the draft plan. The overwhelming view expressed at the meeting was that a restrictive environmental zone, such as the 7(b) proposed in the draft plan, is unwanted and unnecessary.

The central topic of discussion was of course rural residential subdivision. Speakers from the audience covered the full range of issues, from the obvious lack of agricultural potential, to the injustice of denying choice to others who may wish to live in the area. No more than a handful of the almost 400 present expressed any opposition to the benefits (outlined elsewhere) this would bring to the district. There was a strong sense that "the time is right" to lift the ban on subdivision of large lots to 5 acres.

To deny that this issue is the key concern of the community would be absurd, however it must be remembered that those who attended are the very same people who attended previous community meetings, expressing the same overwhelming support for rural residential subdivision, yet the consultant engaged for those prior meetings reported this as "a contradiction in the aspirations of the community". It is to be hoped that the issue is not similarly misrepresented in the reports of the present consultant.

A disappointing aspect of the meeting was the confrontational and hurried manner in which it was conducted by the facilitator, especially considering the effort many made to attend. Some left the meeting feeling that they did not get the opportunity to express their views, and there was certainly no opportunity to debate any of the points put forward by the audience or the Mayor. There was also some disquiet at the lack of publicity about the meeting. Given the importance of the issue to those affected, and given the relatively small amount it would have cost the council to notify everyone in the rural area, this seems fair comment. Many in fact only knew about the meeting due to the voluntary efforts of 5 Acres Now members, who distributed leaflets, posters, and placed notices in the local media.