In the interests of informing the public and our members, this website previously provided links to the council's website, and to copies of documents necessary to fully understand the issues.

However in July 2004, several members of our group received a letter from solicitors acting on behalf of the council, demanding that council documents and links to the council's website be removed from this website.

Lacking the financial resources to defend any action brought by the council, 5 Acres Now had no choice but to comply.

This is an extraordinary misuse of both ratepayers' funds and copyright law, in a misguided attempt to stifle free and open discussion about an important issue.

Home | ABOUT US | Nonsense | Land Studies | Background

Rural Lands Study

Study supports residents: council fails to act

No real planning controls covered non-urban land surrounding Sydney until 1951, when a minimum lot size was declared – 5 acres (see zoning history). This remained in force until 1964, when, despite strong community opposition, the minimum lot size throughout most of the remaining non-urban land in Baulkham Hills was increased to 25 acres. Initially some exemptions were allowed, but by 1977 the minimum was firmly cemented into place through the Baulkham Hills council's Interim Development Order 118.

The effect of these regulations was that no lot smaller than 49 acres could be subdivided, even to excise a house.

Community pressure leads to study

Due to prior subdivision, a substantial number of lots in the area were already 5 acres or smaller, leading to pressure from the community to restore 5 acres as the minimum lot size.

In response to this pressure, the Baulkham Hills council commenced the first of the so-called "rural" lands studies in 1983. Covering the area from Castle Hill to Glenorie, it made a number of proposals, including 2 recommending restoring the 5 acre subdivision minimum to certain parts of Glenorie and Kenthurst. These were primarily ridge-top land already serviced by road, electricity, telephone, and in some parts, a reticulated water supply. It was carried out by council staff.

Only council-owned land re-zoned

Although the study found no major obstacles to further subdivision, the council ultimately resolved to proceed with rezoning only one of the areas identified as suitable – covering land largely owned by the council.

The water excuse

Re-zoning to allow subdivision to 5 acres in the other areas was rejected, based primarily on a statement from the Department of Planning that it "would not support any rezoning where the water board could not supply services". Ostensibly this was due to the absence of a reticulated water supply.

However given that some of the area already had a reticulated water supply, and that thousand of residents get along just fine with tank, dam, and bore water, the reason provided is simply nonsense. While a government department may not "support" development in an area without reticulated water, it is an issue that prospective residents are quite capable of deciding upon themselves.

Nothing doing

In 1986 a draft Local Environment Plan was exhibited covering the council-owned land that was to be rezoned, and was duly gazetted. Several reports came before council regarding re-zoning the other areas, but there was no further progress.

The council simply procrastinated until 1991, when community agitation triggered the second study.

Sydney's outer northwest

Areas recommended for 5 acre subdivision (yellow). Only the council-owned part near Kenthurst was re-zoned.

Top

5 acres – a reasonable minimum lot size for Sydney's outer northwest. 25 acres – ridiculous!