Rural Lands Study

2001 Rural Lands Study: flawed from the start

Baulkham Hills council's response to continued pressure from the community for growth through subdivision has been a series of Rural Lands Studies. Astonishingly, the most recent of these recommends a strategy of "no growth" – ignoring the very reason the study was commissioned – yet the council has adopted it in full.

The Rural Land Study was commissioned because of pressure from residents for growth through subdivision. Finding ways to achieve this should have been included as a key aim of the study. It wasn't.

Recommendation: freeze development & preserve the past

Overall, the study is not credible, because it lacks balance and ignores the aspirations of a great many in the area. With much of it drawn from studies of another area by the same author, it wrongly attributes Baulkham Hills with agricultural potential that it simply doesn't have. Then, based on that incorrect assumption, it argues for maintaining large lot sizes.

As a result, it has produced recommendations that propose minor, almost cosmetic changes to zone boundaries and uses. The key points are:

• Merge most of rural 1(a) with the rural 1(b) zone, but otherwise retain existing zone boundaries;
• Rename the zones. 1(a) & (b) now become "Rural Landscape"; while 1(c) & (d) become "Rural Mixed Uses".
• Set aside thousands of acres of bushland as "Nature conservation";
• After water and sewerage infrastructures have been improved, consider limited expansion in the designated village centres, and a small large-lot residential area.
• Subject to rafts of rules and regulations, permit "cluster subdivision" at a density of no more than 1 dwelling per 10 acres on lots larger than 50 acres in the "Rural Landscape" zone.

Although the final stage has not yet been completed, the outcome is already clear: vital concerns of the community have been ignored.

• Merging and renaming zones is not going to restore growth to the area, nor address any social equity concerns;
• Setting aside thousands of acres, most of it next to a large national park, is not going to restore growth to the area. Given the vast areas already in parks and reserves, it's not required;
• Cluster subdivision is neither what the community asked for nor wants, due to the small number of lots which would qualify because of the unreasonable minimum lot size (up from 25 acres to 50), the unreasonably-high density of 1 dwelling per 10 acres, and the complications of the required community titling.

Crucially, there is no quantitative analysis of how much growth would result from the "growth management" strategy presented in the draft Rural Strategy report; no doubt because it would be negligible. And although it mentions the fact that prior studies have been carried out, it ignores their findings regarding the need to provide sufficient lifestyle living lots to satisfy demand.

Fundamentally, the reports that make up the 2001 Rural Lands Study are nothing more than a long-winded, weak, and emotive monologue favouring the imposition of an ideology on the area – an ideology of freezing development and preserving the past. Mixed in with it is the dogma of urban consolidation – now discredited through the congestion it causes – and the mantra of bushland preservation, regardless of cost or reason.

No benefit to the community

Disturbingly, the $300,000 study fails to show how the strategy it recommends is in the interests of those who funded it – residents and ratepayers. If implemented, most of the recommendations would in fact directly oppose the interests of many in the area.

Private property rights undermined

Worst of all, there is no acknowledgement that the subject of the report is other people's land.

This arrogance, reflected in much of the study documentation, where planners and government bodies presume, without question, that they are the only groups with a legitimate right to make decisions about the future of privately-owned property, is the biggest failing of the study, and what agitates landowners the most.

Had the study recognised that it doesn't own the land, then it may have realised that owners will never accept outcomes based on flimsy, irrelevant reasons. It would have acknowledged that private property rights are an important part of our democracy, and undermining these by imposing detailed restrictions over the activities of landholders should only ever be contemplated in the most exceptional circumstances, for the strongest of reasons, widely supported in the community. Further, in such cases, every effort would then need to be made to compensate those expected to sacrifice their own choice and prosperity for the alleged benefits that planners and others claim.

Fact and reason give way to ideology

The study should have presented recommendations based on fact instead of ideology:

• The facts show that growth in the study area has fallen dramatically in recent years. This should have been recognised, and led to a recommendation to restore growth to a level comparable with that in the rest of the shire.
• The facts show that the community unequivocally supports growth through subdivision. This should have been recognised by recommendations setting a growth target, and the means to achieve it.
• The facts show that there is a demand for lifestyle residential living in the area of at least 150 lots per year. This should have been recognised through a strategy that permitted owners of large lots to subdivide to 5 acre allotments, as detailed in prior studies.
• The facts show that the best use for land in the area is lifestyle or urban residential. This should have been recognised through recommendations to work towards a goal of providing additional infrastructure to service such development, instead of using the lack of it as a circular argument against it.
• The facts show that many owners are disadvantaged by the current 25 acre minimum lot size in most of the area. This should have been recognised by reducing the restriction to a more reasonable 5 acres.

As it stands – a study that is nothing more than an ill-considered attempt to push an ideology onto the affected community – it has almost no support, and will not be accepted. Residents will continue to demand a fair say in their own future, and the future of their area, until reason prevails and a sensible goal is achieved.

The 2001 Rural Lands Study is being carried out in 3 stages:

• Stage 1 – Background Research & Strategy Framework
• Stage 2 – Strategy
• Stage 3 – Plan making

Stages 1 & 2 have been completed, resulting in hundreds of pages of reports. The key ones are:

• Background and Issues Report
• Community Consultation Report
• Draft Rural Strategy
• Report to Council on the Draft Strategy and submissions

The final stage will result in a new "Rural" Local Environment Plan and associated Development Control Plans, which the Council is planning to place on exhibition by July 2004.

We have no idea why they were chosen by the council for the study, but perhaps the fact that Edge has investigated rural planning issues for several other councils on Sydney's fringe had something to do with it.

Or maybe it had something to do with the qualifications of the consultant –  according to his website "currently completing a Masters of Town Planning thesis which will investigate and evaluate the methodologies available for preserving rural land in Australia".

We question whether someone focussed on the issue of "preserving rural land" is the right person to carry out a study instigated because of pressure from the community for growth through subdivision, especially in an area only called "rural" because of a state government directive to do so (see Rural - a misnomer).

Reading through the study documents, it's clear that they focus firmly on preservation, and very little on growth.

We've got more to say about that here >>.