This is the question that Cr Walter Raynolds has asked of the Council more than once. A Draft of the 'Rural Residential, Rural and Environmental Areas Discussion Paper' was distributed to Councillors last week prior to the Bungendore meeting. This is the last of the four discussion paper which will inform the new Local Environment Plan (LEP). The discussion of the paper was also followed by a Notice of Motion from Cr Raynolds on policy for the 1A Rural Zone and specifically rural subdivision.
Although few Councillors appeared to have read it, there was vigorous, yet civil debate.
The most contentious issue is rural subdivision, and with the State Government set to ban Concessional allotments, the Council must decide what will be allowed.
The former Tallaganda Shire had 40ha minimum lots, but also allowed for concessionals. Since the 1991 LEP these were based on confusing acreages from the original holding in 1974.
Local Member Steve Whan has written to the paper today (page 2) saying that there is "No automatic entitlement to concessionals", although Council has been reluctant to refuse them. There are few Councils in NSW which still allow Concessionals, which were originally intended for family farm succession.
The Yarrowlumla Council did not have allow Concessional Lots but had a system of 'averaging', whereby an average of 80ha had to be maintained.
Mr Brett Falkiner of Captains Flat addressed the Council at length on behalf of the NSW Farmers saying "subdivision is a win win situation, there are no losers." Mr Falkiner referred to the great increase in the land's value when subdivided, and to the rental crisis in Queanbeyan, saying that Palerang had a "social responsibility to provide the new houses needed."
He added that there was no real domestic dog problem saying he had more trouble from native dogs and it was "harder to get a native dog than a neighbours dog."
Mr Falkiner argued that failure to allow farmers some subdivision after the drought "could put some farmers out of business".
He continued, "as a result of some subdivision, farming productivity will be higher. With the sale of 20 acres lots you can do a better job and do it more sustainable."
Addressing the argument that subdivision 'costs' council, he said that "developers pay for farms, water, roads, septic tanks, reports, section 94, new traffic, fees, and DAs - It costs council nothing".
Cr Raynolds agreed saying "if you assume no subdivision, then what you're doing is the very worst thing. Then the farmers will rape that land, flog it to the n'th degree...Don't let carpet baggers in." Urging the Councillors to state what they wanted, Cr Raynolds said that "In Tallaganda it is 40ha, but when taken in consideration with concessionals it is about 32ha. When Tallaganda Shire Council wrote the LEP, 40ha wasn't liked but we were trying to keep as many people as possible happy...In the western part of the Shire, averaging results in much less than 80 ha in the policy. I would like to see a 30 ha across the board."
Cr Harrex said he thought that Cr Raynolds "is being generous...100 acres is a lot to look after...I would be quite happy with a 2 - 3 acre block."
More in this week's Braidwood Times...
Email a friend