To Eurobodalla Shire Council

Dear Sir,

RURAL LANDS STRATEGY

Thank you the opportunity to comment on Council's Rural Lands Strategy (RLS). We congratulate Council for getting the strategy developed to the present state and support the basis for much of the philosophy contained therein. In particular we support intention to base land use determinations on carrying capacity. We also concur with making the important link with climate change.

In this however, we see the need for Council to take a lead in community discussions and be seen to be an innovator in the progress of ideas which bring the community along to accept the need for change and to take positive actions. Examples of actions Council might initiate are to act to reduce public and private land forest clearing and to encourage (by example?) the use of alternative energy.

Our following comments have been grouped using the format of the Strategy and page numbers have been included where referring to specific sections of the document.

Introduction

We note in statements about the Vision for the Shire that Council accepts its mandate to foster the image of Nature Coast. That by far the majority of land is managed by agencies not responsible to Council makes difficult the task of Council to oversee and ensure that land use is carried out within the spirit of the Nature Coast philosophy. Accepting that Eurobodalla is characterized by leisure and tourism and that employment is generally limited to the service and retail sectors the continued operation of exploitative industries without council input let alone veto, is untenable. In this regard we encourage Council to highlight the need for land use proposals by the major land management agencies such as Forests NSW and National Parks and Wildlife Service to be subject to Council review.

We are concerned however, about the preparation of this strategy prior to the determination of regional strategies from either the Department of Environment and Conservation or Department of Planning and without the detail of the final LEP template. Without the availability of these higher order policies the local plan is already suffering from a lack of direction and this may in time prove to be the cause of further delays in the promulgation of the local planning instrument.

Under the heading Sustainable Development (p2) is an undertaking to implement Local Agenda 21 but nowhere is that current agenda defined. What please is the current status Agenda 21 at ESC?

Of some concern is Council's position (p3) relative to that of the Catchment Management Authority (CMA). The objectives of the CMA may well be laudable but council should maintain a position of the authority for the approval of rural land use management proposals. The CMA is an as-yet untested body and conflict between Council and CMA interests could develop. Council should retain the right of review over CMA initiated plans.

Place based plans are seen to be good background documents but to ensure the implementation of goals set out in these plans the incorporation of controls into the LEP needs to be achieved.

At p4 and p10 lot sizes and dwelling size are said to be going to be determined based on environmental constraints determined for the land. How will decision makers match dwelling size to occupancy and will applications be refused on these grounds?

We also note the process of simulated modelling forecast. When would this modelling be done and would the results be incorporated in the LEP?

Maybe its just the wording but the LEP will have to conform in all respects with rather than just the strategic intent of the Regional Strategy.

The methods of monitoring performance of the LEP apparently rest on the development of tools currently being trialled or developed. Has the Towards Accountable and Sustainable Communities (TASC) model been developed to a point where its implementation can be considered with confidence? Similarly, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)-developed Land Parcel frame (p 7) is new tool for which we yet to see the benefits. With the effort being put into the research of these modelling tools, will the local community see compensation flowing to Council from the wider regional and state use of these ideas?

The use of regularly updated satellite imagery is supported as a way of monitoring land clearing as well as bushfires etc. Could such imagery be shared with the CMA or other agencies?

Demographic Background

Population growth forecasts are the basis of long term planning and should be easily understood. The relevance of much of the demographic information in the RLS is unstated. While the projections are interesting some further information as to how they specifically apply to the formulation of the RLS is warranted. For example, what additional infrastructure on rural lands might be contemplated as a result of the findings of aging or sea change? Further, if population growth of 3% was demonstrated in the years 2001-2004 (p10) why is growth forecast for the years 2001-2006 only 1.9%?

The importance of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing industries to the wealth of the Shire is demonstrated in the employment figures. These traditional industries have been in decline as a percentage of total employment since 1991 and could be forecast to fall further in the years ahead. Increased mechanisation of these industries may well also result in greater exploitation of the forested land with little benefit to the community. Now is the time for Council to press for a more realistic assessment of the present use of native forests and an evaluation of how the lands presently used for this purpose might be better protected for the community

Again, the relevance of the Sea change data (p13) is unstated. However, new rural residents should be made aware of the unlikelihood of increased levels of service over those which presently exist. To assist this process perhaps information such as a Council brochure / fact sheet might be made available through real estate agents.

Financing

The concept of reducing the spread of sealed roads is a way that Council might demonstrate its commitment to reducing the costly high speed road travel. Extra work may well be needed to ensure that erosion and sedimentation of waterways is not exacerbated by this policy. Controls on rural roads to slow traffic speed are also warranted.

Greater developer charges are supported as is the implementation of stewardship payments and incentives, the latter being seen as a great way to encourage activity in environmental management projects. Close monitoring of same would be required to ensure completion of tasks. Details need to be included in the LEP.

Conservation incentives instituted would need to be binding. Covenants have been found to be unenforceable and not capable of achieving desired constraint. Long term agreements linked to the land title are seen as better mechanisms. Even then, land redevelopments and subdivisions need to be closely evaluated to determine how valuable vegetation might be protected eg. restricting access and limiting development like fencing through areas of high conservation value.

The concept of Tradeable development Rights (TDR) (p18) is difficult to support. The 'right' to develop should always be weighed against the likely impact of any such development. Council should have the power to determine which development proposals meet the strict development and environmental guidelines. Should land be found to be unacceptable for development so be it. The need to placate would-be developers by a tradeable right is seen as an unnecessary complication.

To the contrary, in areas of low development potential, measures to reduce population pressure should be investigated, for example removal of development consent, closure of roads to through traffic, reduction of sedimentation sources and removal of stock / agricultural pressures on water courses.

Similarly, Bonus Development Rights are seen as a sop to developer interests. If land is unsuitable for development the onus should not be on Council to seek to compensate the land holder. Again Biodiversity Banking (p19), seems to have no direct benefit to the community; the test for development suitability needs to be the land constraints. If the land cannot be determined as having adequate development potential, it fails with compensation to the land holder being unnecessary.

Natural Hazards

Increased likelihood and effect of ocean inundation (p23) and coastal flooding can be anticipated as climate change progresses. Approval of development in areas of identified hazard should now only be contemplated where the developer is prepared to carry the risk and such can be enforced, eg deposit of substantial security deposits or the construction and maintenance of environmentally sound protection measures. The community cannot be expected to continue to be responsible for the security of land, infrastructure and residents, where development approval is sought in high risk areas.

The concept of personal responsibility rather than community responsibility for risk needs to be explored and formally accepted for developments proposed in high risk areas.

Have rural areas yet been mapped for flooding and inundation risk?

We support the directions, responses and actions for bushfire management (p24) but further believe that residents who choose to live in areas of risk should have to accept some of the responsibility for their lifestyle choice. No amount of regulation can remove all the risk and residents should be required to demonstrate their ability to provide, maintain and use first line property protection equipment and structures.

During the liaison process with the Rural Fire Service (RFS) in respect of clearing, please also emphasise the need to reduce the thrust for bigger and better access roads and fire trails. Better roads do not necessarily reduce the fire risk and often can be seen to exacerbate the problem.

Environment Protection

We agree with the emphasis on maintaining healthy ecosystems but recognize the continued need to support efforts to restore degraded ones (p28).

We further support the concept of 100m vegetated riparian buffers along rivers. Does this mean 100 metres on each side of the river and will similar buffers apply around wetlands? Will enforcement of the buffers consider the harmful effects of many present agricultural practices in the riparian buffer areas?

What please is the significance of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) maps at pp31-34? Are these illustrations to demonstrate what sort of mapping is possible? What mapping has been done on 1(a) and 1(a)1 land?

Fauna habitat (p30, 34, 37 and 39) is not sufficiently well protected and further priority investigation of areas required for the survival of endangered species is supported. Habitat is presently a weighted factor but we support the need to move to it becoming an absolute constraint.

Biodiversity certification of the LEP is not sufficiently well explained to allow confidence in the proposal. Inclusion of terms like 'significantly affect' have also left room for considerable destruction in the past. Until detailed fauna habitat studies are complete and absolute constraint areas are mapped, no biodiversity certification of the LEP should be contemplated.

In efforts to protect water catchments, cooperation between Council and other major land managers will be necessary to ensure that development undertaken by these agencies is within the spirit of this strategy and the LEP. Council should be pressing for the need for Council concurrence for agency plans before such are implemented. The key directions of Estuary management Plans should also be incorporated into the LEP

Of the Conservation Incentives (p41) we support the idea of incentives for landholders who agree to enter into Conservation Agreements but disagree on the need for either Bonus or Tradeable Development Rights (BDR) or (TDR). Developments should be assessed on their merits; if such proposals fail the tests the proposals should be refused without the need for compensation.

Settlement Patterns

We support the move to refrain from identifying Further Investigation Land (p45) and also to not rezone further land for rural residential purposes.

All future rural residential developments should be required to be as energy efficient as possible. Further, the extension of mains electricity infrastructure should be discouraged and residents assisted to utilise alternative renewable power systems. Road development should also be to the minimum standard possible so as to reduce traffic flow and speed.

In considering multiple occupancy developments the major consideration should be the environmental effect of the proposal on the land. While appearance of the development is important, of far greater importance is the protection of the natural attributes of the area and its community asset value eg as a water catchment. The carrying capacity model used should determine the level of residential and other development possible to be accommodated. Again, no benefit is thought to be gained from offsets. Development proposals should stand or fail upon the merits of each assessment.

In some areas, for example 1(a)1 zones, the level of occupancy must be closely monitored to ensure water catchments are not unduly stressed. Where present occupation is untenable resumption and 'dezoning' of land to remove dwelling entitlements should be contemplated.

The environmental effects of some of the proposed industrial areas should be carefully considered. The drainage line through the proposed Dalmeny industrial expansion area, for example, leads to a poorly drained lake.

Heritage

During the study of significant traditional industries, mention needs to be made of the deleterious effects of some of these activities. Just because some industries existed eg forestry, mining and fishing does not mean that these industries should be immune from criticism. We need the record to learn what was done in the past so that we might avoid the pitfalls of poor practice in future.

Economic Development

The Strategy's aims to protect agricultural land from subdivision and prevent conflict with neighbours are good ones. Other uses such as tourism and education will have to be carefully assessed and monitored or they could subvert the Strategy's aims.

Similarly, creating zones for intensive forestry could be counter productive to the aims. Already our native forest estate is under severe pressure with forests being sacrificed for little return to our community. Real endeavours to establish hard wood forest plantations on degraded farm land should be encouraged along with efforts to reduce native forest harvesting on public and private land.

What are 'right to farm' provisions which are proposed to be included in the LEP? Not all agricultural practices are good or in the best interests of our community or the environment. There should be some form of approval for farming developments rather than a 'right' and those processes deemed inappropriate, refused permission.

Many rural residents are quite happy with the relatively low level of services and infrastructure. Widening of roads, provision of bitumen surfacing, extension of the mains power grid and the installation of communication towers are examples of developments where the associated costs are too high in environmental and cultural terms to warrant imposition of the infrastructure. There are alternative solutions like satellite communications and solar power options which should be promoted.

The Rural Tourism Directions (p64) are good however the response which aims to 'promote tourism facilities that are of regional significance in terms of scale and economic benefits' appears inconsistent with the Directions. Where would the suggested larger scale tourism facilities be sited?

The need for extractive industries is acknowledged (p66) but what happens when there is conflict with Endangered Ecological Communities (EEC) such as with the Broulee sand quarry?

We support the apportioning the costs to the road network of extractive vehicle traffic but encourage these costs to be also applied to other heavy vehicle operators.

Many roadside quarry sites are in use throughout the shire. Generally they create a continuing construction site appearance which is inappropriate. We support the rapid rehabilitation of such sites with material being stored in central locations.

Infrastructure and Servicing

Council has the opportunity to encourage the development of modern sustainable rural communities with non threatening levels of infrastructure. Our earlier comments on the need for the use of alternative power and communications options for example are relevant. Low scale development does not have to mean lower standards of living nor of having to do without. Development of self reliant communities demonstrating use of alternative building design and infrastructure could have wide community benefit. The rollout of services by the likes of Country Energy and Telstra often has more to do with business expansion and marketing than provision of responsible sustainable options.

The continued use of landfill sites at both Brou and Surf Beach is problematic and Council should continue to emphasise the need for waste minimization. What alternatives to the provision of new landfill sites are being investigated?

The need to encourage cycle traffic and other alternate transport users is acknowledged although the widening of roads is not necessarily the answer. Efforts should also be made to reduce road speeds and the need for reliance on private motor vehicles. Environmental benefits should be the major determining reason for rural road improvements with resident amenity being managed by means other than widening and sealing of roads.

The employment of grassed verges (76) has benefits but also can attract grazing animals, posing alternate dangers to traffic. Speed reduction throughout the Shire may be hard to sell but is likely to be a necessary response to changing traffic options in the future. Significant roadside vegetation needs also to be identified and protected.

Summary

The action to involve the community in the development of the RLS is appreciated and we congratulate Council on making the effort. The document will presumably become a guiding document for the LEP but should be subject to regular review. Community attitudes will invariably change with changing circumstances.

We support the general thrust of the document and the use of land carrying capacity as the major determinant of development proposals. We see need for close cooperation with neighbouring councils to ensure regional cohesion and mutual advantage.

Climate change will require a significant shift in how our community develops. We see the need for Council to take the lead to encourage truly sustainable development in rural areas reducing pressure for the spread of hard infrastructure and promoting energy efficiency.

The format of the RLS needs to be improved to make it more easily reviewed electronically. The draft document was attractively presented but is difficult to handle. We suggest a smaller perhaps less glossy production and one more easily viewed on screen would serve as well.

We look forward to the eventual preparation of the integrated LEP.

Yours sincerely

for
Jenny Edwards
Secretary