2001 Rural Lands Study – is it simply $300,000 of cut & paste?

Comparison of the Baulkham Hills Rural Lands Study with the one prepared for the Penrith council shows there are some remarkable similarities. In fact, some sections are word-for-word the same, including spelling mistakes. Perhaps not surprising, considering the same consultant prepared both, but worth $300,000?

At first glance, the various reports that make up the Baulkham Hills & Penrith Rural Lands Studies look different. But looks can be deceiving. While all instances of "Penrith" appear to have been excised from the Baulkham Hills reports, other things that search-and-replace can't handle have slipped through. And although locality-specific data such as maps and demographic information relate appropriately to each area, some inferences and conclusions do not. Substantial sections are virtually identical.

2 examples appear below. In both, the conclusions are inconsistent with the data because they have been prepared by cut & paste, but subsequently not been edited well enough to retain accuracy and relevancy.

For a study costing Baulkham Hill ratepayers $300,000, this is unacceptable. For that sort of money, it is reasonable to expect reports that are original, supported by relevant data, and objectively reflective of local community aspirations. It is not acceptable that the reports are poorly-copied, and full of unsubstantiated opinion and ideology presented as if it was based on relevant data drawn from the local area.

Cut & paste in the Rural Lands Study:

The take-up of rural residential development

"In fact it could be said that by creating rural residential lots, you are creating the demand because it will always be there and the supply will be low. However the takeup of rural residential development within the Penrith Local Government Area has been varied and not as high as would be expected. Data from Council's records shows that the subdivision take-up of land subdivided as a rural residential estate is high, however the subdivision of land that is already fragmented, for example in 2 hectare lots, is not as high. This can be seen from the data in table 17."

"In fact it could be said that by creating rural residential lots, you are creating the demand because it will always be there and the supply will be low. However the takeup of rural residential development within the Baulkham Hills Shire has been varied and not as high as would be expected. Data from other rural land studies shows that the subdivision take-up of land subdivided as a rural residential estate is high, however the subdivision of land that is already fragmented, for example in 2 hectare lots, is not as high. [Final sentence absent]"

• These excerpts are taken from longer 800-word almost-identical sections.
• Both excerpts repeat the same illogical assertion that demand is driven by supply, when in fact the reverse is true.
• No data is provided to support the claim that "takeup of rural residential development within the Baulkham Hills Shire has been varied and not as high as would be expected", no doubt because there is none available. Instead, there is a reference to data from "other rural lands studies", presumably the Penrith study. This is irrelevant, because data on development take-up from one study area cannot be used to support a claim made about development take-up in another area. And if it were relevant, it would contradict the (erroneous) point the author is trying to make in the preceding sentence, that demand is driven by supply.

Truck parking

"Complaints received by Council about rural truck operations often relate to the number of trucks or plant operating from the site. It would therefore be appropriate to place controls on the number of trucks that can be operated from a property. Having regard to the additional plant and machinery associated with trucking uses it would be appropriate to limit this to one truck and two pieces of plant. This would allow a person to operate a truck, backhoe, as well as a Bobcat or a combination of these. However the number of trucks would be limited to one as it is considered that more than one truck would not be in keeping with the amenity aspirations of residents of the area."

"Complaints received by Council about rural truck operations often relate to the number of trucks or plant operating from the site. It may therefore be appropriate to place controls on the number of trucks that can be operated from a property in a rural residential area. Having regard to the additional plant and machinery associated with trucking uses it would be appropriate to limit this to one truck and two pieces of plant. This may allow a person to operate a truck, backhoe, as well as a bobcat or a combination of these. However the number of trucks would be limited to one as it is considered that more than one truck would not be in keeping with the amenity aspirations of residents of the area."

• These excerpts are taken from much longer 2,500-word almost-identical sections covering several pages.
• According to these excerpts, both councils receive the same type of complaints, and the amenity aspirations of residents in both areas are identical.
• No data is presented to support the claims regarding the types of complaints received by the Baulkham Hills council relating to truck use.
• While truck parking may be an issue in Penrith, it is certainly not an issue in the non-urban area of Baulkham Hills. There is no data in the Baulkham Hills reports to substantiate the claim that "more than one truck would not be in keeping with the amenity aspirations of residents of the area". The only issues relating to trucks identified in the Community Focus workshops were noise, and the inadequacy of the roads for truck traffic.