Rural Lands Study

Study supports residents: council resolves to act

It reached conclusions that were similar to those of the 1983 study, but with additional requirements relating to conservation and environmental protection. It also placed more importance on requirements laid down by state government departments.

Other relevant issues covered in some detail in the study were:

• A detailed estimate of the unsatisfied demand for 5 acre lots – "between 179 and 185 lots per year until the year 1996";
• Investigation into the supply of water, which recognised that roof tanks could be used, and that there were plans for expanding the reticulated system which may be sufficient to provide for the relatively small number of lots under consideration.
• Reference to a draft Planning Department internal document categorising certain land in the study area as suited to future urban development. It suggested that only "cluster subdivision" should be permitted in such areas, and that the minimum lot size for the "cluster" should remain at 25 acres, with a density of 1 dwelling per 5 acres, so as to make it easy to fully urbanise the area later. (Interestingly, such cluster subdivision is one of the recommendations in the 2001 study, but with everything doubled – only on lots of 50 acres or more, and a density of 1 dwelling per 10 acres.)

In regard to the subdivision potential of the study area, the study recommended reinstatement of 5 acres as the minimum allotment size. As with the 1983 study, the areas recommended for subdivision were along the ridges – Pitt Town Rd; Porters Rd; Cattai Ridge Rd; Boronia Rd; and Old Northern Rd north of the Glenorie village. It concluded that there was potential for about 316 new 5 acre lots.

However an additional constraint was suggested: that any land with a slope greater than 20% be excluded from calculation of the area eligible for subdivision, and placed into a special "protection zone".

This was unreasonable and unworkable. Arguments would result over the way the slope was measured, and while some in the community may accept a "protection zoning" covering such land, not including it in calculations of the eligible area would severely limit the subdivision potential of many blocks, and not satisfy residents goals. It also would override property rights, substantially reducing the value of some holdings – exactly opposite to the interests of residents.

Although the council did in fact resolve to prepare a Local Environment Plan according to the study recommendations, it quickly found a way to stymie this – a requirement that affected owners carry out and fund further studies, leading to the 1993 study.

• Providing a reticulated water supply to low density housing areas is not "efficient".

• Sooner or later owners will press for reticulated water in areas where there is none.

• Large residential lot subdivision should be discouraged because they use too much water.

What has happened to choice in all of this?

If residents are happy to rely on tank or bore water, why not let them?

And why shouldn't the reticulated water supply be expanded? Isn't that what progress is about? Efficiency and usage concerns are easily satisfied through appropriate pricing.

The water supply argument is nothing but a red herring designed to distract attention away from the key issue – the unreasonable restriction on subdivision.