SLIDE 1
Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review 7 August 2018
NAVIGATE PLANNING
SLIDE 2 Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review
- State Agencies – 7
- Objections on environmental grounds:
- Community Groups – 17 submissions
- Pro-forma objections – 229 (5 types)
- Individual objections (environment) – 157
- Objections regarding Oaks Ranch – 24
- Specific Requests for changes – 40
- Submissions on other matters – 4
- Supporting Submissions - 32
TOTAL 510
SLIDE 3
Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – State Agencies – DPI Agriculture
Submission Response Supports a more flexible approach to land uses in rural zones providing provisions are developed in a DCP to minimise land use conflicts. Council intends to prepare a DCP to provide guidance, particularly for assessment of non-agricultural uses. Concerned about some additional land uses that are more appropriate in other zones and/or are inconsistent with zone objectives. A number of the uses identified as inconsistent are permitted with consent in rural zones under the Infrastructure SEPP (e.g. electricity generating works). Concerned about rural residential outcomes from proposed minimum lot size of 2ha as part of lot averaging in RU4 zone. Allowing lot averaging does not necessarily lead to rural residential development outcomes.
SLIDE 4 Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – State Agencies – DPI Agriculture
Submission Response Some areas proposed to be zoned RU1
- r RU4 are not suitable for agriculture.
The areas are currently zoned for rural activities. Does not support smaller lot sizes for areas 30a and 30b – class 3 ag land. Subject lands are surrounded by existing rural residential development.
SLIDE 5 Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – State Agencies – DPI Fisheries
Submission Response Recommends Council clearly identify difference between commercial and private marine infrastructure. LEP must use definitions in State Government’s Standard Instrument for LEPs. Planning documents should state that marine infrastructure requires State approvals. LEPs identify when development consent is required, they do not identify where other approvals are required. Objects to grazing as exempt development in E2 zone. This will not apply to coastal wetlands. Does not support lot averaging where it will impact on oyster growing areas. Lot averaging does not increase lot yield, and allows for subdivision with better
- utcomes. Impacts assessed with DA.
SLIDE 6 Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – State Agencies – DPI Fisheries
Submission Response Objects to removal of sealed road clause. Fisheries have assumed that the clause requires all new lots to have access to a sealed road. This is not the case. Does not support zoning land RU1, RU4
- r E4 adjoining waterways with good
riparian habitat. Zoning land does not, of itself, have impacts. Development or clearing can have impacts and these are subject to assessment (BAM required). Setback requirements. Does not support increased subdivision unless located to minimise water quality impacts. Development consent is required. Potential impacts on water quality can be assessed. Does not support removal of Terrestrial Biodiversity Map from LEP Information on map will still be used in development assessment.
SLIDE 7 Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – State Agencies – DPI Fisheries
Submission Response Supports updating of wetlands, watercourses and riparian lands and acid sulfate soils maps. Noted Supports increase in MLS for certain land at Narooma. Noted Does not support removal of E3 zone. There is no E3 zone in Eurobodalla. Recommends Batemans Marine Park Map be included in LEP The map relates to fishing and other activities where a marine park permit is
- required. The LEP is not the appropriate
document to contain this map.
SLIDE 8
Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – State Agencies – Heritage Division
Submission Response No objections Noted
SLIDE 9
Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – State Agencies – Mineral Resources
Submission Response No specific concerns with open land use tables. Noted Recommend making open cut mining permitted in RU4 and IN1 zones Agreed – this use is permitted with consent under the Mining SEPP in these zones. Proposal is consistent with Ministerial Direction 1.3 Noted
SLIDE 10 Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – Environmental Objections
Submission Response Removal of environmental protections Environmental protections primarily delivered through NSW Government legislation and policies. Proposal will result in widespread clearing of vegetation, loss of habitat, fragmentation of corridors, etc. Proposal provides for modest additional development in rural areas. No change to existing clearing approval regime. Object to removal of E3 zone protection,
- pening up large areas of land for
grazing, etc. E3 zone is not currently used in
- Eurobodalla. When it was proposed,
grazing was to be permitted. Most deferred land currently zoned rural and agriculture is permitted now.
SLIDE 11 Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – Environmental Objections
Submission Response Removal of 1000ha MLS allows significant and widespread subdivision. Most land is already fragmented to well below 1000ha. The proposal provides up to 122 additional lots. An open land use table means anything goes. Development consent is required and assessment in accordance with relevant legislation and policies will be undertaken. Object to grazing in E2 zones and impact
Grazing will not be exempt development in coastal wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas.
SLIDE 12 Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – Environmental Objections
Submission Response Council is ignoring expert advice, particularly from State Agencies. Advice is not being ignored. It is
- considered. Council disagrees with
some of the advice provided. Council has failed to take into account climate change impacts. Climate change was considered in the development of the RLS, which this planning proposal is implementing. The proposal is too large and complex for people to understand. A plain English guide was prepared to assist in understanding. Staff were available during exhibition period to assist.
SLIDE 13 Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – Environmental Objections
Submission Response Proposal will negatively impact Aboriginal cultural heritage sites, notably Gulaga. The proposal extends the identification
- f conservation areas (Aboriginal Places
- f Heritage Significance) over the
deferred lands, including for Gulaga. Proposal will threaten water quality and impact the oyster industry. A very small number of additional lots and dwellings are facilitated in oyster catchment areas. Protection of water quality will be a part of the assessment
- f development applications.
Proposal will threaten tourism as we will no longer be the Nature Coast. The proposal increases rural tourism
SLIDE 14
Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – Environmental Objections
Submission Response Concerned about increased fire risk. Small number of additional dwellings facilitated across the Shire, in areas where there are existing dwellings. Any proposed development must address Planning for Bushfire Protection. Object to removal of Terrestrial Biodiversity Overlay. Known environmental values are being ignored. The information will continue to be available to people and it will continue to be used for development assessment. Inconsistency with aims of Act, aims of LEP and Ministerial Directions. Planning proposal acknowledges inconsistencies where they exist and provides relevant justifications.
SLIDE 15 Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – Environmental Objections
Submission Response Critical of community consultation processes. Extensive consultation undertaken throughout development of RLS. Planning proposal consultation in excess
- f Minister’s requirements in the
Gateway Determination Request proposal be withdrawn and reviewed with a genuine community consultation panel. The planning proposal is not a review of the Rural Land Strategy. It seeks to implement the Strategy as adopted by Council.
SLIDE 16 Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – Specific areas of concern
Submission Response Area 12 – Guerilla Bay
agricultural and currently has an environmental zoning
E3 or E4 Current zoning part Coastal Protection 7(f1) and part Rural 1(c). Extensive agriculture permitted without consent in 7(f1) and 1(c) zones. Clearing currently requires consent. E4 zone would provide additional dwelling entitlements.
SLIDE 17 Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – Specific areas of concern
Submission Response Area 12a – George Bass Drive, Mossy Point
- whole site is EEC
- Adjoins important
wetland
zoned E2 Whole site is not EEC. Site is currently zoned Rural 1(c) which allows 2ha subdivision for dwellings. All of the EEC is proposed to be zoned E2. Impact of any development proposal on EEC and wetlands to be assessed with DA.
SLIDE 18 Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – Specific areas of concern
Submission Response Area 22b – Kyla Park Grazing Lands
important
RU1 zone will allow inappropriate development
Current zoning Rural 1(a) and Rural 1(c). Grazing Lands heritage listing being retained. Future land uses must be consistent with existing plans of management.
SLIDE 19
Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – Oaks Ranch
Submission Response Request removal of item 15 in Schedule 1 of ELEP 2012. This is not a relevant matter for this planning proposal. Object to no minimum lot size for Oaks Ranch. No minimum lot size already applies to the SP3 and RE2 parts of the site. The planning proposal applies a 40ha minimum lot size to the proposed RU1 portion which does not facilitate any additional lots.
SLIDE 20 Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – Requests for changes
Submission Response Requests for existing dwelling entitlements to be included on Dwelling Entitlements Map. Dwelling Entitlement Map is actually no longer required with removal of sunset clause. Strategy did not specifically refer to retention or removal of Dwelling Entitlement Map. Consider amending planning proposal to remove map. Request removal of E2 zone from property. The RLS Strategy recommended no changes to existing E2
- zoning. Allowing grazing as exempt addresses concern –
subject area is not mapped as coastal wetland. Requests for reductions in proposed minimum lot sizes. The planning proposal is consistent with the RLS. Any changes may require further community consultation. Should be considered as part of a stand alone planning proposal.
SLIDE 21
Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – Requests for changes
Submission Response Requests for additional dwelling entitlements. The subject properties do not have dwelling entitlement. Request change to proposed zoning. The planning proposal is consistent with the RLS. Any changes may require further community consultation. Should be considered as part of a stand alone planning proposal. Object to certain land uses being permitted. A land use being permitted with consent does not guarantee an approval will be issued. Impacts on adjoining properties and the environment will be assessed.
SLIDE 22
Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – Requests for changes
Submission Response Requests for minor mapping changes to better reflect the land. Minor discrepancies between mapping and the land features in rural areas is commonly a result of inaccuracies in the cadastre. No changes to the mapping recommended, as an update to the cadastre may resolve issue. Request lot averaging be applied to the RU1 zone. This was considered in the development of the RLS, but was not supported. Alternative subdivision outcomes could be considered through a site specific planning proposal.
SLIDE 23 Rural Lands Planning Proposal
Submission Review – Other matters
Submission Response Object to reduction in minimum lot size from 600m² to 550m² This is correcting an anomaly and to ensure consistency of MLS across residential areas. Object to inclusion of
limitation clause. The clause is proposed to ensure development does not impact on the flight path of the Moruya Airport. The clause does not prevent development, but requires referral for certain developments to CASA. Object to increase in minimum lot size for certain land at Narooma. This was included to ensure future subdivision does not impact on Wagonga Inlet.
