[ Overview ] [ 2001 ] [ 1993 ] [ 1991 ] [ 1983 ]

Rural Lands Study

Local community funds study: findings rejected

Following the 1991 & 1983 Rural Land Studies, the council resolved to prepare a draft Local Environment Plan to rezone ridge-top land within the 1991 study area to 5 acres. However, in a move no doubt designed to frustrate the process, the council wrote to all affected landowners, advising that further investigations were required, which "council is unable to fund".

Consequently the third Rural Lands Study was funded by residents, raising the tens of thousands of dollars required through a voluntary contribution of $20 per acre.

In due course the investigations were completed. Further reports were requested. These were provided. Yet more reports were requested, and were provided. There were archaeological reports, flora and fauna reports, heritage item reports, sewage disposal reports, water reports, bushfire reports, reports of consultations with government departments, and so on. It took some 2 years to prepare and review.

Following consideration of all the reports, the study concluded that ridge-top land with a slope less than 33% should be re-zoned to permit 5 acre lots. Doing so would adequately satisfy environmental concerns, and result in a maximum of 421 lots if government-owned land was included, or 295 if it was not.

Spread over an area of some 6,000 acres, no-one could argue that this would be excessive, or even significant. In comparison with urban development areas, it is a drop in the ocean.

However this was not good enough for the council. Yet more reports were requested. One was a resident-funded investigation into the waterways, costing in the order of $30,000, and additional detail was requested in relation to reports already carried out in this and prior studies.

At this point, the consultant engaged by the resident group to prepare the study came to the conclusion "that he had exhausted all standard requirements and could see no end to the additional studies being requested and has had to retire from this study" (resident newsletter, 1 August 1997). Other planning consultants reviewed the extensive amount of work carried out and agreed that all reasonable requirements had been satisfied, and that in the normal course of events the rezoning would have proceeded.

Although the council stated in a letter to residents "if the consultants investigations can justify the case for rezoning, they will certainly be favourably considered by the council" this did not occur. A number of planners confirmed that the investigations were adequate, and in a normal course of events would have led to the rezoning, yet the council rejected the recommendations.

It's now clear that there was never any intention to rezone land in the area. The council callously engaged residents in an expensive wild goose chase, knowing all along that the land would not be rezoned. Some council officers even made off-the-record comments to residents to this effect. All along the council have been simply taking instruction from the state government, who do not wish to see the area developed as part of their urban consolidation efforts.

When applied in response to the wish of a local community, most would support them. But when used as a means of imposing unwanted controls, that support evaporates, since no-one in the affected community benefits.

In the case of the non-urban land in Sydney's outer north-west, residents never requested nor agreed with the 25 acre minimum lot size planning zone. It was imposed upon the area against resistance. Zoning history >>

As the original zoning was not carried out at the request of the community, it is wrong that the community should have to fund multiple studies to justify its removal.

Instead, the minimum lot size should first be restored to something more reasonable such as 5 acres.

Then recommendations that reflect the wish of the community can then be drafted, to ensure that future planning zones have widespread community support.