Time for inconsistent decision-making to end

Questions:

• Why should land that cannot be viably used for agriculture continue to be zoned for agriculture?
• Why should land that is overwhelmingly used for residential purposes continue to be zoned for agriculture, and have minimum lot sizes far larger than demanded by the market?
• What is justification for reducing the minimum lot size and allowing more housing in Maraylya, where land is more suited to agriculture, while not doing so in other parts where land is less suited to agriculture?
• Does the decision to reduce the minimum lot size in Maraylya but nowhere else fully comply with planning legislation and rules? How can the requirements of the section 117 directive on rural lands be set aside for one area but not another?
• How do they justify agriculture use on a minimum lot size of 1 – 2 acres in a cluster subdivision ?
• Why have they limited subdivisible land to start with 10 hectares and over?

Comments:

• Landowners have never been asked for their consent to having environmental zones and overlays placed over their properties. It is a gross invasion of ownership rights, and completely unwarranted.
• In their response to submissions, the council did not distinguish between those who would agree with cluster subdivision under community title, and those who would agree with cluster subdivision as long as community title was not mandatory. All were deemed to support “rural cluster subdivision”.
• It is discriminatory and unfair to allow landowners in one part of the rural area to subdivide while not allowing others.
• It is unreasonable to require a minimum of 10 hectares for cluster subdivision.
• It is unreasonable to exclude some areas from even the cluster subdivision proposal, and zone land for primary production (RU1) when it has never been used for that purpose.
• Many landowners went to a great deal of trouble to make submissions, after being encouraged to do so by the council on the basis that concerns raised would be taken seriously, not simply dismissed because they weren’t aligned with the council’s pre-determined plans. As landowners, we deserve better. The council should be required to amend the LEP to satisfy landowners’ concerns, just as they made 89 pages of amendments to satisfy concerns raised by the department of planning.

Correspondence with the Department & Minister

• Letter to Director General of Planning July 2011
• Response from Executive Director Planning Operations
• Followup letter to Executive Director Planning Operations
• Letter to Group Manager Strategic Planning, Hills Shire Council re biocertification
• Letter to Minister of Planning & Infrastructure
• Submission to review of Planning Act
• Planning Review Website