Eurobodalla Shire Council - LEP Submission …...Council land Dalmeny Concerned about the revision...

LEP Submission Responses Wednesday, 14 December 2011

11:45:36 AM

Author Issue Sub issue Town/Locality Summary Staff Recommendation Staff Justification

Abbott, Derek E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Prefers E3 zone to the proposed RU2. (Their land is RU1.)

Statement of opinion.No action required

Abrahams, Gail E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide No environmental zones on private land. This is Eurobodalla not communist Russia.


Abrahams, Gail E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide Objects to the LEP taking away property rights and opposes the E3 zone applied to any private land. Objects to Council taking 25% carbon offset for interfering in private property.

Unsubstantiated and erroneous statement of opinion.No action required

Abslane, Tuey LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Adams, Adrienne E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Objects to the E2 zone applied to the council foreshore land. Concerned about future use and maintenance restrictions of the zone.

The recommendations of the Recreation Strategy adopted by Council in 2009 have been carried over into the draft LEP maps via zone amendments. In particular, this included giving effect to Strategies 4.1.1 Ensure development of open space and recreation facilities does not have an adverse impact on the natural environment or waterways and 4.2.1 Improve usability of natural areas through provision of facilities to support recreation opportunities.

Changes to the amount of RE1 zone have been made through its replacement with the appropriate E zone. This is particularly relevant for foreshore lands and bushland reserves in foreshore locations.

The Department of Planning’s guidance to councils is to apply the E2 Environmental Conservation zone to: •Coastal foreshores and land subject to coastal hazards, including climate change •Lands with high conservation values such as those containing riparian corridors and Endangered Ecological Communities (EEC)

Of importance to the community is what the E2 zone does not do:

The zoning of the land does not dictate the maintenance regime applicable to public foreshore land - current maintenance regimes can continue where they do not impact upon any endangered ecological community that may exist in the foreshore area Public access to the land will not be denied. The land will still be able to be used for picnicking, walking and passive recreation. The application of the zone reflects the suitability of land for development. Environmental Protection works including fire mitigation can occur on this land Existing boats sheds and boating facilities can remain on this land and existing use rights will thereafter apply to their future redevelopment Council works under the Infrastructure SEPP such as public toilets and associated car parking are exempt development

The RE1 zone is primarily for the development of active recreation areas and facilities such as; playgrounds, sports fields, gardens, swimming pools, gymnasiums, bowling alleys, ice rinks, stadiums, race tracks, tennis courts, golf courses and skate parks.

The E2 zone is primarily for passive recreation such as walking and picnicking and allows the development of walking tracks, seating, shelter, picnic areas, boardwalks and viewing platforms. In addition under the Infrastructure SEPP Council is able to develop facilities such as public toilets and associated car parking in this zone.

Notwithstanding the above, a review of the permissible land uses in the E2 zone has been completed and the following added as permissible with consent: water recreation structures

Also an additional objective has been added to the E2 zone to clarify that these are high profile areas and as such require a high standard of planning, development, maintenance and landscaping in order to balance conservation and recreation requirements and ensure they remain attractive and useable to residents and visitors.

Not supported

of 264


Adams, KL & AK E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Objects to the E2 zone applied to the council foreshore land. Concerned about future use and maintenance restrictions of the zone. Also an E2 zone will take away amenity and recreational opportunities that exist for residents. Believes the land is degraded and should not have a conservation zone. Requests a RE1 zone.










Not supported

of 264


Adams, Neil E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Concerned about the revision of lakeside land to natural bush.










Not supported

Afflick, Patricia LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Afflick, Peter LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Alexandrakis, Nick LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Allard, L & Bohlscheid, M

E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Batemans Bay Requests a zone change from E3 to a mix of E4 and R5.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopt strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land.The Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy which informs the LEP, was prepared using the most recent data available but remains subject to external influences and time lapsed. To address concerns raised about rural land use, Council is to prepare a Rural Lands Strategy to establish a new policy regime for appropriately regulating rural land use and development in the context of changing agricultural practices and ‘right to farm’. The analysis and findings of this strategy will inform the 5 year LEP review in terms of zone and land use activity.Until then, E3 zone application sound, and agricultural uses accommodate extensive agriculture and extractive industry.

Not supported

Allard, Lawrence E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Nelligen Opposes the E3 zone applied to the land. Requests RU4 or R2 instead.


Not supported

Allard, Lawrence E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Batemans Bay Requests a R5 zone be applied to the land instead of E3.


Not supported

Allard, Lawrence LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Allard, Lawrence LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Allen, Stephen E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide E3 zoning should remain as originally proposed. The community was told originally that proposed zones had been determined on the basis of scientific assessment against valid criteria. From what we now read, changes are proposed on the basis of the personal opinions of a small group of landholders, supported by a vocal minority whose credentials are, to say the least, conservative and uninformed.

Statement of support.No action required

Ambler, Edward Zone Request change Narooma Request: property to be in one title and zoned RU1; OR Council enable subdivision of the northern portion, and the north portion be RU2 zone; OR Council purchase the northen portion and incorporate into the adjacent crown land.

Severed parcel. E3 zone applied to northern portion. RU1 to southern portion. E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands.

Not supported

Anastasi, Adam LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Anastasi, Christina LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Anastasi, Christine LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Anastasi, Michael LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Anastasi, Tony LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Anderson, Andrew LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Anderson, Paul E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide Bad. Unsubstantiated statement of opinion.No action required

of 264


Anderson, Peter & Jennifer

Zone Request change Moruya Requests a review of the zone applied to multiple properties. Attached a copy each of the Pink and Blue PFs to the main submission.

RU1 zone to apply to the parcels zoned 1(a). RU4 to remain on the parcel zoned 1(c). Lawful entitlements otherwise remain with the land. Land use table provides for the uses specified. See attached response to Blue and Pink proformas.

See Blue & Pink#Blue%20&%20Pink.pdf#response attached using menu on the left

Anderson, Tracey LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Andren, Patricia E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone, and the benefits it has for establishing effective wildlife connectivity corridors.


Andrews, Jenny E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Durras Supports the E3 zone applied to land in and around Durras to protect the environment.


Andrews, Jenny E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Support Durras Supports the E2 zone applied to land in and around Durras instead of RE1. Review crown land portions 92-95 for E2.

E3/E2 zones applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound and consistent with environmental outcomes sought for the land.

No action required

Andy, Adrian LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Andy, Adrian LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Andy, Richard LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Andy, Richard LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Andy, Z LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Andy, Z LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


APP Corporation Pty Ltd

Zone Request change Shire wide Requests a change of zone for 2 sites to IN1; Nominate Moruya site for schedule 1; Environmental mapping be verified or removed.

LEP to include IN1 as only industrial zone with a full range of general industrial land use. (including concrete batching plants). Moruya site to be included in schedule 1.

Support/Part Support

Armstrong, David LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Armstrong, David LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Asbury, Ben LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Asbury, Joyce LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Asbury, Joyce LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Asbury, Melinda LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Asbury, Melinda LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Asbury, Peter LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Asbury, Peter LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Ashbury, Peter & Joyce

Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Bodalla Dwelling entitlement confirmed by Council search in 1996. Request schedule 1 listing.

Schedule 1 listing not required. Clause 4.2A (3)(c) applies.No action required

of 264


Atkinson, T & Hayes, M

E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

Avison, Sarah LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Backhouse, Irene LEP general General Shire wide No E zones on private land. Like for Like. Objects to the web being used to solicit comment of the E3/RU2 issue. Object to conflict of interest that council has in applying the E zone to obtain biocertification process. Objects to the loss of property values.

See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Backhouse, Rachel LEP general General Malua Bay Concerned about clarity and contradiction between the LEP and the land use matrix. Recommends like for like objectives for zoning. Objects to the limitations imposed by the E zones on land management like bushfire hazard reduction.


Backhouse, Rachel LEP general General Shire wide Landuse matrix anomalies corrected.See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Baer, Hans LEP general General Narooma Supports the submission made by the Narooma Chamber of Commerce.

See response to Narooma Chamber of Commerce.No action required

Baer, Hans Building Height Request change Narooma Requests a review of the building heights that apply to Forsters Bay.

Building heights applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Height application sound.

No action required

Bain, Lynn E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone, and the need for protection of the natural environment from unsuitable development. Dunecare have done work on public and private land a E3 zone. The community strategic plan also identifies protection of the environment as a major theme. Changes to E3 will have long term implications for sound environmental management.


of 264


Baker Deane & Nutt

Zone Oppose Moruya Objects to the SP2 zone applied to part of the land. The zoning is illogical, prohibits a range of development, quarantines the site for car parking. The zoning was applied in 1999 without any notification.

The land was identified in the background documents to the Urban LEP 1999 as car park/land required for carparking and zoned accordingly 5(d) Car park. This land has been transferred like for like into the draft LEP 2011 as SP2 Car park, and shown on the Land Reservation/Acquisition map to be acquired for car parking purposes. It is acknowledged that a recent car parking study of the Moruya Town Centre was completed (2011). This study showed the precinct in which this land is located with surplus car parking. Notwithstanding this, the study also found that this surplus parking was required to make up the shortfall of car parking from other precincts in the Moruya Town Centre that exist, and would remain as the town centre develops further to its maximum potential.

Clause 5.1 Relevant Acquisition Authority applies to the land and provides for Owner Initiated Acquisition under the Just Terms Compensation Act 1991. It also invokes the hardship provisions under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act.

Further, subclause 3 states that development on land to be acquired, before acquisition, may be used for any purpose subject to development consent.

Not supported

Baker, Jody LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Baker, Maureen LEP general General Tuross Commends the council on heights of buildings in Tuross; E2 zoning on natural area public reserves in Tuross and elsewhere in the Shire; E3 zone applied across the Shire and to certain private lands, rather the RU2. Questions the E3 zone on Kyla Park Grazing lands and its impact on the lease. Also questions the lot size on land at Anderson Ave. Seeks a larger lot size for this land.

The E3 zone applied to the Kyla Park grazing land will have no impact on the lease. The lot size proposed on the Anderson Street land is consistent with the zone of neighbouring lands. A development application is currently with Council for determination of a subdivision of this land into residential lots. The draft LEP has no bearing on this development application as under the current LEP the minimum lot size achievable is 450m2.

No action required

Baltrusch, Henriette

LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Bamman, Geoff LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Barber, Matthew LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Barker, Peter & Elizabeth

E4 Environmental Living zone

Oppose Narooma Objects to the E4 zone applied to neighbouring land 46 & 54 Tebbs Road, and the potential for subdivision. Believes the land should be RU1 with no subdivision.

Objects to the zone on neighbouring land which is E4. This land is currently zoned 1c.No action required

Barnes, Angus LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Barnes, Jason (head petitioner)

LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Barnes, Jason (head petitioner)

Zone General Shire wide Objects to Council having power to liquidate property rights without compensation. Objects to application and location of all zones in the LEP for various Shire wide and site specific reasons. Expects consideration of concerns, failure to do so could be seen as discrimination.

Compensation is not required for the application of E zones on private land particularly where supported by a relevant strategic policy or plan.

Broadly, the draft LEP reinforces and makes explicit the policy positions of Council and the NSW Government which in turn are a response to contemporary and wider community expectations.

The LEP is aligned with the South Coast Regional Strategy prepared by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy prepared and adopted by Council in consultation with the community; these plans having a 30 year planning horizon.

There are many factors that have influenced the content of the LEP including:•Population growth•Need for housing choice•Need for employment opportunities•Need to provide infrastructure•Need to protect natural ecosystems and scenic values•Lack of alternative transport modes

Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP including LEP practice notes and circulars.

All submissions to the LEP are considered on merit.

No action required

Barrett, Colleen E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Cadgee Inappropriateness of proposed E3 zoning on part of 25//752156; there are enough environmental safeguards on the land; uncertainty of existing use rights; request like for like; local environmental planning process is an impediment to emerging and diverse agricultural pursuits.


Not supported

Bartlett, Scott LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Barton, C G LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Barton, C G LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Bate, Harry LEP general Property rights Tilba District The LEP places impediments on running a farm.

Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples of where the LEP is placing additional impediments on running a farm.

No action required

Bate, Harry Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Tilba District Dwelling entitlement confirmed by Council search in 2008. Request schedule 1 listing.

2//1017506 is a 'holding' with dwelling entitlement that can be listed in Schedule 1.Support/Part Support

Bate, Harry LEP clause Request change Tilba District Objects to the requirement that a dwelling in a rural area will only be permissible if it has access to a council maintained sealed road. People will not be able to build in the rural areas of the Shire.

The LEP does not affect dwelling entitlements in this manner.

The LEP does however introduce the potential for rural land without a dwelling entitlement to obtain one if the land meets certain criteria – including minimum 40ha area, and that land has or can obtain access to a council maintained sealed road.

No action required

Bate, Harry Biodiversity protection Oppose Tilba District Objects to EEC mapped on land.

Periodic updates of this layer will occur as staff resources permit and or datasets become available through fieldwork or environmental studies.

No action required

Bate, Harry E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Tilba District Objects to part of the land being zoned E3. Requests RU2.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopt strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land.The Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy which informs the LEP, was prepared using the most recent data available but remains subject to external influences and time lapsed. To address concerns raised about rural land use, Council is to prepare a Rural Lands Strategy to establish a new policy regime for appropriately regulating rural land use and development in the context of changing agricultural practices and ‘right to farm’. The analysis and findings of this strategy will inform the 5 year LEP review in terms of zone and land use activity.Until then, E3 zone application sound, and agricultural uses accommodate extensive agriculture and extractive industry. Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 zone in the LEP.

Not supported

Bate, Narelle & Ben

Zone General Narooma Concerned about the land zonings replacing the urban expansion and other zones on the periphery of Narooma.

Zones and lot sizes applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Specific site mentioned discussed in attachment.

See Narooma response attached using menu on the left

Batemans Bay Development Consultancy

Subdivision Rural dual occupancy

Shire wide Requests a provision to enable the subdivision of approved detached dual occupancy in the current 1A zone, with consent conditional upon certain requirements.

Council has and continues to experience strong pressure for the subdivision of existing rural dual occupancies. The Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy states: SP29 prohibit the subdivision of land occupied by dual occupancy development to less than the minimum lot size determined by development suitability given location and lot size considerations. The subdivision of rural land for residential purposes is not permitted under the Rural LEP or in the draft LEP. Until such time as the Rural Lands review is completed to better inform Council about suitability, this is Council’s adopted policy position.

Not supported

of 264


Batemans Bay Development Consultancy

Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Bergalia Requests a schedule 1 listing. 7//716697 & 110 & 167//752137 together form an 'existing parcel' with dwelling entitlement that can be listed in Schedule 1.

The remaining lots identifed are not a 'holding' or 'existing parcel' and do not have dwelling entitlement/s. In the circumstances of the case the LEP cannot provide entitlements.


Baxter, Nataja LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Bayer, Steven from Edmiston Jones Architects

Land use table Industrial zone Shire wide Anomaly between land use table and land use matrix.

Anomaly corrected.Support/Part Support

Beashel, Michael Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Bergalia Requests Schedule 1 listing. A detailed property search is required to be undertaken at the land owners expense to determine whether dwelling entitlements exist. Should entitlements exist these can be added to Schedule 1 in a subsequent LEP amendment.

No action required

Beashel, Stephen E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide There is insufficient justification for the E3 zone. The E3 and RU2 zones have the potential to restrict and limit existing and future primary production enterprises. Put absolute constraints in a DCP not a LEP.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopt strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land.The Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy which informs the LEP, was prepared using the most recent data available but remains subject to external influences and time lapsed. To address concerns raised about rural land use, Council is to prepare a Rural Lands Strategy to establish a new policy regime for appropriately regulating rural land use and development in the context of changing agricultural practices and ‘right to farm’. The analysis and findings of this strategy will inform the 5 year LEP review in terms of zone and land use activity.Until then, E3 zone application sound, and agricultural uses accommodate extensive agriculture and extractive industry.Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 zonein the LEP.

Not supported

Beashels, J & M E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Bergalia Requests a change of zone applied to those portions E3 to RU1 to better accommodate the uses on the farm holding.


Not supported

Beder, Sharon E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Does not support a blanket replacement of E3 with RU2. The merits of E3 need to be decided with respect to each location.


Behan, Nadine Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Dignams Creek Dwelling entitlement confirmed by Council in 2011. Request schedule 1 listing.


Bell, Blake LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Bell, David LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Bell, Denise LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Bennett, Gary LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Bennette, Ursula LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Bennetts, Colin LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Bennetts, Colin LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Bennetts, Lynette LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Bennetts, Lynette LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Benson, Peter E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Shire wide Finds it disturbing that the LEP zones coastal foreshore areas E2. These areas should be RE1.










Not supported

Benyon, Jocelyn E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports E3 zones applied to land to achieve ecologically sustainable development.


of 264


Berick, John E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide Land resumed by a zoning which allows no use and provides no compensation, is against all our Australia concepts of natural justice.

Unsubstantiated statement of opinion.No action required

Bernard, Peter LEP general General Shire wide The LEP should be reviewed in totality and readvertised as a comprehensive LEP; The recent proposals have not been satisfactorily canvassed; It is not a comprehensive LEP under Section 65; It does not take into account all of the various legislative changes made to planning matters; Cannot find where council has complied with best practice guidelines for reclassification.

The draft LEP meets all statutory requirements. Council provided the public with access to all relevant information pertaining to the 2009 and 2011 draft LEPs during and outside exhibition periods.

No action required

Berry, Mark & Sue Zone Request change Broulee Requests a change of zone from E3 to SP3 to recognise an existing tourist facility.

The SP3 zone is applied to particular locations where tourism development is considered a focus. Stand alone accommodation uses are zoned consistent with the zone application methodology and adjoining lands and can operate under the auspices of existing use rights where necessitated by zone change. In this instance the land is zoned E3. E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. The Land is environmentally constrained. Zone application sound and appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Not supported

Best, Peter Land use table Council land Moruya Objects to the inclusion of residential development as permissible with consent in the zoning of the Moruya Airport.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) makes provision for residential development as permissible with consent on the Moruya Airport land. The SEPP overides the LEP.

No action required

Bettridge, Brad LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Bevege, Kim LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Bevege, Stephen LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Bice, Gail LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Binos, Peter Zone Support Longbeach Supports the E4 zone on 122 and RU1 zone on 126.


of 264


Biondo, P & M LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Birks, Andrew & Judy


Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone, and the need for protection of the natural environment from unsuitable development.


Birss, Barry E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Request change Moruya Requests a change of zone applied from E2 to SP1 for foreshore land at the airport for aviation safety purposes.

The E2 zone does not dictate maintenance regimes for foreshore land.Not supported

Blessington, Nathan & Cheryl

Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Narooma Land does not have a dwelling entitlement. Request ability to obtain a dwelling entitlement.

The land does not have a dwelling entitlement. In the circumstances of the case the LEP cannot provide entitlement.

Not supported

Blessington, Peter Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Narooma Requests consideration of a dwelling entitlement for the land.


Not supported

Blue Mist Pty Ltd E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Moruya E3 zone is inappropriate. RU1 should be applied.


Not supported




Not supported

of 264





Not supported




Not supported




Not supported

Blue, Vicki & Steven

Lot size Request change Moruya Requests a change of lot size from 2ha to 5000m2 for the land. The lot size applied severely handicaps the use of the property.

The 2ha lot size gives effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Lot size application sound and compatible with the development application process current for the land. Lot size application consistent with neighbouring lands.

Not supported

Blue, Vicki & Steven

Biodiversity protection Oppose Moruya Objects to the constraint map showing EEC on the land. Council staff have overstated the potential EEC on the property and requires correction.


No action required

Bogart, Helen E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Moruya Objects to the E3 zone and 2 hectare minimum lot size applied to the land as it takes away land value.

The land is zoned E4 not E3. The 2ha minimum lot size gives effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Lot size application sound. Lot size application consistent with neighbouring lands.

No action required

Bohlscheid, Rebecca


of 264


Boller, Julie LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Boller, Julie LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Boller, Mark LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Boller, Mark LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Bonner, Kate E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide No E3 on private land it will impact on property values. It is being applied to obtain biodiversity credits.


Booker, Alan & Enid

Zone Request change Moruya Requests a change in zone from R5 to RU1 for the land due to its location on the floodplain and its food production potential.

Split zone to be applied to the land. R5 above the flood line to retain residential development potential. Remainder of land to be zoned RU1.


Boom, Wayne Zone Request change Moruya Seeks a review of the split zones applied to the land to ensure that the RU1/RU2 zones are applied correctly.


No action required

Boulting, F Zone Council land Tuross Please confirm that the Kyla Park grazing lands retain their classification of "area if cultural significance" under the E3 zone.

The classification of land occurs under the Local Government Act 1993. The LEP has no impact on the classification of Kyla Park as an area of cultural significance.

No action required

Boulting, Marie Zone Council land Tuross Please confirm that the Kyla Park grazing lands retain their classification of "area if cultural significance" under the E3 zone.

The classification of land occurs under the Local Government Act 1993. The LEP has no impact on the classification of Kyla Park as an area of cultural significance.

No action required

Bourne, Jenny Land use table Request change Shire wide Requests the inclusion of "drive in take away food outlet" in the dictionary.

The Standard Instrument for preparing local environmental plans (LEPs) includes a Dictionary of standard definitions relating to land uses and other terms relevant to the interpretation and application of LEPs. The Dictionary is a mandatory provision and will be included in its entirety in all LEPs. To maintain consistency in planning language across the State, councils are not able to alter the standard definitions or directly add definitions to the Dictionary.

No action required

of 264


Bourne, John & Jenny Clayton

LEP mapping Request change Moruya Requests the riparian zone map be amended to reflect the current position of the waterway.

The Riparian Land and Waterways map overlay is based on mapping prepared by State Government using large scale topographical maps. This means that due to the scale of the original mapping, that the draft LEP map may not be accurate when zoomed in to the property level. Council does not have the resources to ground truth all the watercourses in the Eurobodalla so the watercourse mapping is indicative only and is used to flag the possibility of a watercourse being located on a property which should be considered when developing the land. Clause 6.6 sets out the matters that should be considered.

No action required

Bowerman, Mick LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Bowerman, Shannon


Boyden, D M E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Turlinjah Requests a E4 zone be applied to cluster 1 Kyla Park instead of E3.

E4 zone to be applied to Cluster 1.Support/Part Support

Bradstreet, Paul LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Bradstreet, Paul LEP general Council land Surf Beach Concerns remain with the B5 zone applied to Council land at Surf Beach. The LEP does not reflect the environmental work done to protect the extant vegetation on the site. These errors remain uncorrected.

The Surf Beach land has been zoned SP2 and B5 to provide for existing and proposed land uses consistent with Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy, Structure Plans and adopted Concept Plan. The environmental assessments associated with development on this land are ongoing and until completed zone adjustments cannot be given effect. Zone anomalies identified previously corrected where warranted.

No action required

Brager, Inge R5 Large Lot Residential zone

Request change Moruya Objects to the R5 zone applied to the land. Believes it does not reflect the present use of the land, and will make it harder to sell.

R5 zone retained on land. Additional agricultural land uses included in the R5 zone to acknowledge current activities undertaken by landowners on this land.Lot averaging provisions to apply to the subdivision of R5 land.


Brain, Arthur LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brain, Kerol LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Braines, Lyn & Bill LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Braines, Lyn & Bill E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide Requests that Council remove all the E zones currently applied to agricultural usage and modify the zonings to RU1.

The removal of all E zones and replacement with RU1 as requested cannot be supported or justified by State or Local Policy or LEP Practice Note or Direction.

Council has applied like for like in a manner consistent with the adopted strategic directions as recommended by the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy. The zones in the Rural LEP 1987 are: 1(a) Rural Environmental Constraints and Agriculture/ 1(a1) Rural Environmental Constraints, Water Catchment Protection and Agriculture.

The Agricultural land has been zoned RU1.The Environmental Constraints land has been zone E3.

Not supported

Bramston, Caitlin LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Bramston, Caitlin LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Bray, Peter E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Narooma Requests a change from E3 zone to RU1. The land is managed as a farm and the environment is looked after by a farm manager.

RU1 zone to apply to the land.Support/Part Support

Breasley, Bryan Zone Oppose Dalmeny Objects to the Dalmeny land release area due to the impact that this development would have on their amenity, the environment and infrastructure in the locality.

Land is zoned 10 Urban Expansion under the Rural LEP 1987. The R2 zone is applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Clause 6.2 also applies to the land.

Not supported

Brewer, David LEP mapping Error or anomaly Lilli Pilli Requests the minimum lot size on the R2 land portion be 1500m2 as previously agreed to by Council.

Minimum lot size of 1500m2 applied to the land.Support/Part Support

Brewer, David Zone Support Shire wide Transfer of current zones is a very positive undertaking of Council.


Brice, JA & RG E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Narooma Opposes the E3 zone applied to the land. Takes away all rights.


Broad, Joanne LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Broad, Matthew LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Brogan, Justin LEP general General Shire wide Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1).Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. The draft LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property. Clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEP.Farm management practices does not require approval under the LEP.Bushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11.Farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEP.Farm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule.

No action required

Brooks, Amanda Subdivision Rural dual occupancy

Tomakin Objects to the inability to subdivide rural dual occupancy development on the land. Does not agree with State and Local policy. Requests consideration of a clause to address the issue for existing rural dual occupancy development.


Not supported

Brooks, Amanda E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Tomakin Objects to the E3/E2 zone split applied to the land, as it will reduce the grazing potential on the land.

E3/E2 zones applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. The zones will not reduce the grazing potential of the land that currently exists.

Not supported

Brooks, Amanda LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Brooks, Amanda LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brooks, Brett LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brooks, Brett LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Brooks, Harry LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brooks, Harry LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Brooks, Harry & Dot


Oppose Tomakin Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land due to the impact it has on potential use. Requests the name of the EEC on the land.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. The zone will not reduce the grazing potential of the land that currently exists. The name of the EEC is Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest.

Not supported

Brooks, Harry & Dot

Subdivision Rural dual occupancy



Not supported

Brooks, Keith LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brooks, Phyllis LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Brooks,Phylilis LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Broomham, R E & S M

Lot size Request change Malua Bay Objects to 2 hectare lot size applied to the land. Requests 5000m2.

The application of the E4 zone enacts lot averaging provisions. This enables mixed lot subdivisions to occur in keeping with the constraints and capability of the land.


Broomham, R E & S M

Zone Request change Malua Bay Requests a change of zone applied to the land from RU4 to R5.

E4 zone applied. More appropriate than R5 in the circumstances of the case.Support/Part Support

Broomham, Robert E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Belowra Objects to the E3 split zone applied to the land. Requests RU2 to that part of the land.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopt strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land.The Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy which informs the LEP, was prepared using the most recent data available but remains subject to external influences and time lapsed. To address concerns raised about rural land use, Council is to prepare a Rural Lands Strategy to establish a new policy regime for appropriately regulating rural land use and development in the context of changing agricultural practices and ‘right to farm’. The analysis and findings of this strategy will inform the 5 year LEP review in terms of zone and land use activity.Until then, E3 zone application sound, and agricultural uses accommodate extensive agriculture and extractive industry. Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 zone in the LEP.

Not supported

of 264


Brosch, Jennifer Subdivision Rural dual occupancy

Shire wide Comments about the fact that same clause carried over for dual occupancy development on rural land but community title permitted on same land for tourist development.


No action required

Broulee Beach Estate

Zone Request change Broulee Requests consideration of the zones applied to the multiple parcels of land to maintain development potential for the land.

The business area in Broulee has been significantly rationalised in accordance with the adopted and endorsed Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy, and the Retail and Policy Guidelines – Neighbourhood Centres referenced by the strategy. The overall area has been reduced by eliminating the poorly located business area on Broulee Rd (approx. 1.5ha) and reducing, but increasing the density of the Train St area (approx 4ha reduced to 2ha). A B2 Neighbourhood centre zone has been applied to the latter site while the final location was determined with regard to road safety. Likewise the R3 Medium Density Zone was reviewed and placed suitably around the business zone lands. Any further reduction of the business zones in Broulee would be contrary to the actions of the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy.

Not supported

Broulee Developments Pty Ltd


Request change Broulee Requests a change of zone applied from E3 to R5 or E4 for the land.


Not supported

Brown , Mark LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brown Payton, LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brown, Austin LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brown, Graham LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Brown, Graham LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brown, J LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Brown, Julie LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Brown, Julie LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brown, Kathy LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Brown, Keith & Julia












Not supported

Brown, Kelly LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brown, Lorraine LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Brown, M LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brown, Matthew lep general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Brown, Matthew LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brown, Rebecca LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Brown, Rebecca LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brown, Rosemary LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brown, Stanley LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brown, Stuart LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brown, Trish LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brown, William LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Brunhuber, E LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Brunhuber, E LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Buchanan, Sybil Not LEP issue Oppose Sunshine Bay Objects to the shopping centre at Sunshine Bay.

Development application issue.No action required

Buchanan, Sybil RU2 Rural Landscape Zone

Support Shire wide Supports the RU2 zone applied to land.

Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 zone in the LEP.No action required

of 264


Bucknell, Richard LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Bucknell,Suzanne LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Burbidge, Greg E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Shire wide Opposes the E2 zone applied along coastal foreshore areas.










Not supported

of 264


Burbidge, Greg LEP general Oppose Shire wide Raises a number of concerns with the LEP, LEP process and also site specific zones.

R3 and single dwelling house prohibition: same considerations as 2009 request. Retained prohibition on strategic R3 land, but those lots no larger than a house lot have been zoned R2. Multi dwelling housing in R2 zone provides opportunity for staged single dwelling house development on this land on lots down to 300m2.


Burbidge, J LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Burbidge, Jan E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Oppose Shire wide Same as submission 377. Opposes the E2 zone applied along coastal foreshore areas.

Same as submission 377. The recommendations of the Recreation Strategy adopted by Council in 2009 have been carried over into the draft LEP maps via zone amendments. In particular, this included giving effect to Strategies 4.1.1 Ensure development of open space and recreation facilities does not have an adverse impact on the natural environment or waterways and 4.2.1 Improve usability of natural areas through provision of facilities to support recreation opportunities.










Burbidge, Jan LEP general Oppose Shire wide Same as submission 377. Raises a number of concerns with the LEP, LEP process and also site specific zones.

Same as submission 377.See Narooma response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Burbidge, K E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Yowrie Objects to the split zone RU1/E3 applied to the land. Requests the E3 be replaced with RU2.

RU1/E3 zone split reviewed and application sound. Rural activities accommodated. Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 zone in the LEP.

Not supported

Burbidge, Robin LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Burden, Lyn LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Burdon, Alan LEP general Request change Dignams Creek Requests an extension of time for LEP exhibition; Requests that all zoning be put on hold until a proper audit is conducted; Requests like for like zones; Requests that the proposals regarding sealed roads be abandoned; Requests rural dwelling controls be reviewed.

See Green response attached using menu on the left

Burgess, Anthony LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Burgess, Anthony LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Burke, Sean E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone applied to land. This is relevant to the land in the south. Believes that a proposed change to RU2 is at odds with the intent of the LEP.


Burns, Colin Biodiversity protection Request change Belowra Requests a review of the EEC mapped on the land as it is incorrect.


No action required

Burns, Colin LEP general General Shire wide Issues with the LEP process include: no notification of the LEP in 2009, although informed the second time around is overwhelmed; More feedback on decisions; Release of information to the public once submitted to the Department.


of 264


Burns, Colin Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Belowra Requests schedule 1 listing for relevant entitlements on the land.

A detailed property search is required to be undertaken at the land owners expense to determine whether dwelling entitlements exist. Should entitlements exist these can be added to Schedule 1 in a subsequent LEP amendment.

No action required

Burns, Colin Land use table Request change Belowra Requests the recognition of an existing airstrip on the land.

If airstrip lawful existing use rights will apply.No action required

Burns, Colin E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Belowra Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. It devalues the land and restricts use and imposes unnecessary green tape. Requests RU1 or RU2 as a fall back position.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 zone in the LEP.

Not supported

Burns, Colin Land use table Request change Belowra Requests the recognition of an existing gravel pit on the land.

Council does not know the whereabouts of existing private gravel pits, nor does it have the resources to locate and or map these. Existing uses rights will apply to lawful gravel pit activities on the land.

No action required

Butcher, John LEP general General Nelligen Objects to any changes to land use that will reduce property value.

In response to the unsubstantiated claims about property devaluation due to the LEP and the E3 zone Council has sourced relevant information.

Cessnock City Council engaged a local valuer (WBP Property Group Newcastle) to prepare an independent assessment of the impact of implementation of the proposed E3 zone under their draft LEP. This independent report concluded that the real differences between the current and draft LEP were not significant. There was little impact of values of land. Opportunities for rural enterprises had not been restricted, just managed into areas more suitable.

No action required

Butcher, John LEP general General Shire wide Finds the LEP difficult to understand due to its complexity.

No action required

Butcher, John LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Butcher, John E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Nelligen Opposes the E3 zone applied to the land. There is enough environmental protection. All rural land should be RU1.

The removal of all E zones and replacement with RU1 as requested cannot be supported or justified by State or Local Policy or LEP Practice Note or Direction.



No action required

Butcher, John Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Nelligen Requests schedule 1 listing. PIN 18047 is an 'existing parcel' with dwelling entitlement that can be listed in Schedule 1Support/Part Support

Butcher, John Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Nelligen Dwelling entitlement confirmed by Council search in 2010. Request schedule 1 listing.

PIN 18047 is an 'existing parcel' with dwelling entitlement that can be listed in Schedule 1Support/Part Support

of 264


Butcher, Paul & Heather

Zone Request change Tilba District Requests a change of zone for part of the land to be severed by the road widening to RU5.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Present LEP controls prohibit subdivision of rural land unless for agricultural purposes. Draft LEP does not change this situation. Land will be subject to Rural Lands Strategy.

Not supported

Butler, Anthony LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Butler, Anthony LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Butler, April LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Butler, Denise LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Butler, Denise LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Butler, Thomas LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Butler, Thomas LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Buttsworth, K Badullovich, T & M McKenzie

LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Caldwell, Robert LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Cantle, Jacqueline LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Capolupo, Nicola Zone Request change Malua Bay Requests a change of zone for land at Malua Bay from R2 to B2 to provide affordable alternative sites for people who want to open a business in Malua Bay.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Outside Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy directions and actions for the commercial centre hierarchy.

Not supported

of 264


Carden, Petrina Land use table Request change Shire wide Requests the inclusion of "drive in take away food outlet" in the dictionary.


No action required

Carden, Petrina E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Council is a leader in strategic planning. Doing away with E3 would be a backwards step. Keep E3 as mapped in LEP 2011.


Carey, Merryn LEP general General Dignams Creek See Pink response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Carlin, Sherrie & Chris












Not supported

Carr, Brian LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Carr, Margaret LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Carter, Denham LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Carter, Denham LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Carter, Jan LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Carter, Jan LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Carter, Victoria LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Carter, Victoria LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Cartwright, John LEP general Property rights Shire wide No environmental zones or overlays on any private land. A guarantee that no one will have any rights removed or eroded. The immediate removal of binding agreements, or future requirements for land owners to make such agreements without ground truthing.

Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples of where the inequity in Councils’ recognition of landowners’ legitimate expectations of development and not others, and the resultant division that is created within the community.

The NSW planning system is a merit based system not a property rights system.

“Some areas of the existing common law are relevant in the environmental field particularly the tort of nuisance and the law relating to restrictive covenants. The problem is that these areas of law were designed for other purposes – mainly the protection of land values – and they cannot readily be adapted to dealing with problems of environmental protection in a complex industrial society. In practice, they are of peripheral relevance to environmental law.” Farrier,D and P, Stein 2006

The issue of constitutional property rights has been subject to judicial and legal interpretation. The judgements are all very clear - there is no access to some ancient common law that might override current State legislation.

No action required

Cassidy, Theo LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Cassidy, Theo LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Cervenjak, Bert leP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Chapman, Linda E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone, and the need for good environmental protection. Also concerned that the previous resources of time and money taken to identify the most appropriate zone would be wasted if the zones change.


Charvot, Tammy LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Charvot, Tammy LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Chown, Craig & Jenny


Oppose Shire wide No to E3 for the restrictions it imposes on land.


Chown, Sheelah LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Chown, Sheelah LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Clarke, Brian RU1 Primary Production Zone

Support Moruya Land is zoned RU1. Wants it to remain RU1.

No change to current zone required.No action required

Clarke, Marylyn LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Clayton, Micheal LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

of 264


Clenton, Ian LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Clout, John RU2 Rural Landscape Zone

Support Moruya Supports RU2 applied to the land instead of E3.


Clout, John Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Moruya Request consideration of 2//826441 for listing in Schedule 1 to enable a "rural dwelling" on the land.


Not supported

Clout, John LEP clause Oppose Shire wide Objects to the requirement for a council maintained sealed road to build a dwelling. Believes it discriminates against landowners.

The LEP does not affect dwelling entitlements in this manner.


No action required

Clout, John RU1 Primary Production Zone

Request change Moruya Requests that all land be RU1 not split zoned.

The change from E3 to RU1 as requested cannot be supported or justified by State or Local Policy or LEP Practice Note or Direction.



Not supported

Clowes, Margaret LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Clowes, Margaret LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Clutterbuck, L Lot size Request change Bodalla Requests the ability to subdivide the land into 3 x 43ha lots with ability to erect a dwelling on each lot.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Present LEP controls prohibit subdivision of rural land unless for agricultural purposes. Draft LEP does not change this situation. Land will be subject to Rural Lands Strategy.

Not supported

of 264


Coastal Quarry Developments PL


Request change Mogo Requests RU1 zone for the land.

E3 zone retained on the land. Employment land potential to be investigated.Support/Part Support


RU1 Primary Production Zone

Support Broulee Supports the RU1 zone applied to the land.




Request change Broulee Accepts the E2 zone applied to the wetland. Requests E3 zone be changed to recognise extractive industry potential of the land. Either RU2 or RU1.

E3 zone retained on the land. Extractive industry included in the E3 zone as permissible with consent.




Request change Mogo Requests RU4 zone for the land.

E4 zone retained. Property to be included in schedule 1.Support/Part Support

Coastwatchers E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone applied to the land as it is supported by residents based on recent survey work and Eurobodalla 2030; Council has a legal obligation to include the E3 zone in the LEP; RU1 and RU2 zones are not appropriate for this land. Also supports the retention of the overlays in the LEP.


Coates, W LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Coates, W LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Coats, Robyn E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide The E3 zone must be retained at all costs. It is Council's responsibilty to preserve what little native habitat is left.


Cobban, Melanie LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Cockburn, Cobi E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Tilba District Requests a change of zone from E3 to E4 and a change of lot size to enable subdivision of a dual occupancy development.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Seeks a zoning change from E3 to E4 to enable small lot rural subdivision. E3 zone retained. Request outside South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Stategy recommendations. Notwithstanding the above, Council is to prepare a Rural Lands Strategy to review current planning policy on rural lands. The analysis and findings of this strategy will inform the 5 year LEP review, including zone and land use application.

Not supported

of 264


Colburn, Peter LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Colburn, Peter LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Colebrook, Derek LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Colebrook, Dorothy


Colebrook, Eric LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Colebrook, Eric LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Colebrook, Kerry LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Colebrook, Kerry LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Colebrook, Kerry Subdivision Rural dual occupancy



Not supported

Colebrook, Kerry E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Tomakin Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land due to the impact it has on potential use. Requests the name of the EEC on the land.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. The zone will not reduce the grazing potential of the land that currently exists. The name of the EEC is Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest.

Not supported

Colebrook, Kristin LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Colebrook, Lisa LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Colebrook, Lisa LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Colebrook, Michelle


Colebrook, Michelle


Colebrook, Paige LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Colebrook, Paige LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Colebrook, Rebecca


Colebrook, Rebecca


Colebrook, Shane LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Colebrook, Shane LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Colebrook, Stacey LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Colebrook, Stacey LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Colebrook, Stacie LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Colebrook, Stacie LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Colebrook, Stephen


Colebrook, Troy LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Colebrook, Vanessa


Colebrook, Vanessa


Colebrook, Warren LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Colebrook, Warren LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Colman, Steve E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the inclusion of the E3 zone in the LEP.


Condon, Julie & John

R5 Large Lot Residential zone

Request change Bimbimbie Requests the inclusion of animal boarding and breeding establishments in the R5 to reflect the current use.

R5 zone retained on land. Property to be included in schedule 1.Support/Part Support

Connaughtan, D J LEP general General Shire wide Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1).Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. The draft LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property. clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEPfarm management practices does not require approval under the LEPbushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11farm forestry and time harvesting does not require approval under the LEPfarm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule

No action required

of 264


Connaughton, John E4 Environmental Living zone

Oppose Moruya Objects to the E4 zone applied to the land with the 2 hectare minimum lot size. Out of character with surrounding land and restricts subdivision potential unduly. Does not agree with the mapped constraints that have been identified on the land.

The E4 zone and 2ha minimum lot size gives effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. The zone and lot size application sound and compatible with development applications made for neighbouring land. Presence of EEC previously confirmed from fieldwork undertken by staff and consultant or existing datasets. Periodic updates of this layer will occur as datasets are updated through fieldwork or environmental studies.

Not Supported

Connaughton, Joseph


Connaughton, Kristy


Connaughton, Rhonda


Connaughton, Stephen


Connell, L LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Connell, L LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Connell, Richard LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Connell, Richard LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Connolly, Katrina & Shaun


Request change Eurobodalla Opposes the E3/RU1 split zone applied to the land. Request RU1.

RU1/E3 zone split reviewed and zone application sound. Rural activities accommodated.Not supported

Connolly, Peter E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Eurobodalla Requests a review of the split zone boundary applied to the land.


of 264


Connor, Adrian LEP general General Shire wide Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1).Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. The draft LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property. clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEPfarm management practices does not require approval under the LEPbushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11farm forestry and time harvesting does not require approval under the LEPfarm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule

No action required

Connor, Adrian LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Conradsen, Ole E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Nerrigundah Objects to the split zone applied to the land. Requests RU1.


Constable, Jae & Narelle

Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Bodalla Dwelling entitlement confirmed by Council search in 2011. Request schedule 1 listing.

PIN 19016 is an 'existing parcel' with dwelling entitlement that can be listed in Schedule 1.Support/Part Support

Constable, Jae & Narelle


Request change Bodalla Object to the E3 zone as it restricts the current business use on the land. 3 options: Property be zone RU1; The section in between Stoney Creek, Ridge Road and the Highway be RU1 and balance RU2; Cleared section to the north and 30 contour be RU1 and the remainder RU2.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopt strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land.The Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy which informs the LEP, was prepared using the most recent data available but remains subject to external influences and time lapsed. To address concerns raised about rural land use, Council is to prepare a Rural Lands Strategy to establish a new policy regime for appropriately regulating rural land use and development in the context of changing agricultural practices and ‘right to farm’. The analysis and findings of this strategy will inform the 5 year LEP review in terms of zone and land use activity.Until then, E3 zone application sound, and agricultural uses accommodate extensive agriculture and extractive industry.Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 zone in the LEP.

Not supported

Constable, Phil LEP mapping Error or anomaly Dalmeny Review the application of the industrial zones at Dalmeny as it appears that a small area has been removed from the existing zones.

Zone anomaly corrected on the industrial land at Dalmeny.Support/Part Support

Constable, Phil Zone Request change Dalmeny Requests a review of the E3/R2 zone boundary applied to the land.

Request withdrawn.No action required

of 264


Constable, Phil E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Shire wide Objects to the extensive use of the E2 zone along the foreshore lands adjacent to urban lands.










Not supported

Conway Burrows & Hancock

Zone Request change Batemans Bay Requests a change of zone applied to the land from R5 to E4 an a minimum lot size down to 1 hectare to reflect a concept subdivision plan submitted.

The retention of the 2ha MLS is consistent with the existing subdivision pattern in the area. The application of the Lot Averaging clause to R5 land will enable applicant to achieve the desired outcome.

No action required

of 264


Conway Burrows & Hancock

Zone Request change Moruya Requests a change of zone applied to the land from R5 to E4 an a minimum lot size down to 5000m2 to reflect a concept subdivision plan submitted.

Review lot size to reflect current development consent and pending approvals.Support/Part Support

Cook, Andrew LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Cook, Jeffrey LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Cook, Penny E4 Environmental Living zone

Request change Moruya Requests that the E4 zone applied to adjoining land be changed to E2.

E4 zone retained. This vacant private land is not appropriate for the E2 zone.Not supported

Cooney, Greg RU2 Rural Landscape Zone

Support Shire wide Supports the use of RU2 instead of E3. The failure to use RU2 is at odds with the Infrastructure SEPP, and is better suited to significant areas of land.


Coppin, Col & Loretta

Zone Request change Jeremadra Requests a review of the zone applied to multiple properties.


Not supported

Coppin, Col & Loretta


Request change Jeremadra Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. Requests RU4 to enable the residential subdivision of rural land, consistent with adjoining development.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Seeks a zoning change from E3 to RU4 to enable small lot rural subdivision. E3 zone retained. Request outside South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy recommendations. Notwithstanding the above, Council is to prepare a Rural Lands Strategy to review current planning policy on rural lands. The analysis and findings of this strategy will inform the 5 year LEP review, including zone and land use application.

Not supported

Coppin, Melinda LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Coppin, Wayne LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Cormick, Peter LEP general General Araluen 1. Council needs to take a completely pragmatic approach and enable a like for like transfer of zones, to the extent that the SI zones allow. 2.The proposition to replace E3 by RU2 is immensely sensible for political reasons, if for no other. 3. Object to the zone splitting on my property should be RU1 up to 40m contour, RU2 beyond. 4. Remove RU1 from all Deua Valley and replace with RU2. 5. Council needs to amend the LEP Riparian Map to show Category 1 protection, as described in clause 6.6 for the Deua River to the Shire's boundary. 6. Suggest wording changes to objectives. 7. Objects to attached dual occupancy requirements. 8. Need to amend the wording of clause 4.2A.

The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars.

It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1).

RU1/E3 zone split reviewed and zone application sound. Rural activities accommodated.

Seek to amend the Riparian and Waterways map to include the Deua River as a category 1.

Agree to include secondary dwellings, and detached dual occupancy development subject to a local provision to give effect to SP38 and SP29 in the RU1 and E3 zones.

Wording of clause 4.2A subject to Parliamentary Counsel approval.


Cotterill, D LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Cotterill, D LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Cotterill, G LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Cotterill, P LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Cotterill, R LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Cotterill, R LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Cowman Stoddart LEP mapping Error or anomaly Catalina R2 portion of the land is without a minimum lot size. Requests a 550m2 minimum lot size be assigned consistent with R2 land generally.

Lot size anomaly corrected.Support/Part Support

Cowman Stoddart Lot size Request change Longbeach Requests a minimum lot size change from 2 hectares to 1 hectare for 2//250022 Cullendulla Drive Long Beach.

2ha lot size consistent with current and desired subdivision pattern in the larger local area. The LEP will have no effect on the merit assessment of a current development application.

Not supported

Cowman Stoddart RU1 Primary Production Zone

Request change Congo Request a change of zone applied from RU1 to E4 to enable the residential subdivision of rural lands with a minimum lot size ranging from 1500m2 to 2 hectares.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Seeks a zoning change from RU1 to E4 to enable small lot rural subdivision. E3 zone retained. Request outside South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy recommendations. Notwithstanding the above, Council is to prepare a Rural Lands Strategy to review current planning policy on rural lands. The analysis and findings of this strategy will inform the 5 year LEP review, including zone and land use application.

Not supported

Cox, Stephen LEP general Property rights Shire wide The LEP is in breach of constitutional rights. Councillors and staff will be exposed to a class action.





No action required

Crepinsek, Pia LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Crisp, Max & Kay E3 Environmental Management zone



Croft, Suzanne Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Tilba District Dwelling entitlement confirmed by Council search in 1984. Request schedule 1 listing.

PIN 25841 is an 'existing parcel' with dwelling entitlement that can be listed in Schedule 1Support/Part Support

Crole, Andrew LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Culic, Rosemarie LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Cullen, Matthew LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Cullen, Matthew LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Cumming, Margaret & John


Support Shire wide Supports E3 zones applied to land to protect the environment, consistent with Council's duty of care.


Cuncliffe, Ian LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Cunningham, A G & J H

Zone Request change Turlinjah Requests that the E3 portion of the land be zoned RU1; and if a split is applied that RU2 be applied to the E3 portion.

RU1/E3 zone split reviewed and zone application sound. Rural activities accommodated. Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 zone in the LEP. Land will be subject to Rural Land Strategy.

Not supported

Cunningham, Aleatha


Cunningham, John LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Cunningham, Margaret


Cunningham, Rachel


of 264


Cunningham, Rachel

LEP general Property rights Shire wide Statement provided to clarify for Council very important principles and legal realities that apply to freehold land in Australia.





No action required

Cunningham, Rachel


Cunningham, Rachel


dabyneplanning RU1 Primary Production Zone

Request change Nelligen The most appropriate zone based on the character and predominant land use of the subject property is RU1.




Not supported

dabyneplanning Land use table Exempt and complying

Shire wide The inclusion of additional subclauses (ja) and (jb) within section 3.3 will result in no exempt and complying development being permitted on the majority of the subject property.

For the purposes of public exhibition of LEP 2011 clauses 3.3(2) (ja) and (jb) were added to the standard clause.

This had the unintended consequence of restricting the application of exempt development throughout the Shire, in particular grazing of livestock on E3 land.

Agree. Remove the reference to clause 6.5 Biodiversity Protection in Clause 3.3 to enable the broader application of exempt development.


dabyneplanning E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Nelligen The proposed zone is inappropriate for the majority of the property given the use and character of the land being predominately rural.


Not supported

of 264


dabyneplanning E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Nelligen The E3 zone is based on environmental constraints mapping which has not been validated and therefore this should not inform the zoning of the property.

The zones in the Rural LEP 1987 are: 1(a) Rural Environmental Constraints and Agriculture/ 1(a1) Rural Environmental Constraints, Water Catchment Protection and Agriculture.

The RU1 and E3 zones have been applied in the LEP 2011, consistent with the relevant actions and directions of the South Coast Regional Strategy, South Coast Independent Review Panel, Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy:

Apply an environment protection zone to all areas identified as being of high conservation value based on landscape and environmental values rather than property boundaries

•Separate the current 1(a) Rural (Environmental Constraints & Agricultural Zone) into zones for environmental protection and agriculture using information contained in Council’s GIS and subject to ground truthing

•Apply separate zones in the new LEP to intensive agriculture (e.g. horticulture, forestry, turf farms), rural industries, (e.g. abattoirs), broad acre farming (e.g. dairying and livestock) and environmentally constrained land

and specific directions of the State Government (s117), LEP Practice notes and Circulars and the methodology agreed with Councillors. That is: define predominant land characteristic by contour, natural feature, cadastral boundary and vegetation cover and zone accordingly. Rural properties are now RU1, E3 or a combination where split zones required. The E2 zone has been applied to wetlands and other constraints.

The LEP is a comprehensive planning document with a broad focus and must be reflective of all current planning law. The LEP is obliged to align with the Policy position of Council and the NSW and Federal Governments.

In this instance the inclusion of clauses 6.5 and 6.6 is supported directly through the application of the LEP directions under the South Coast Regional Conservation Plan, which is given effect through the South Coast Regional Strategy. Further, the map overlays form part of the certified plan as endorsed by the Department and other State Agencies. The datasets that inform the map overlays have been derived from State and Local sources.

These local provisions/overlays do not prohibit development, but act as a head of consideration for the assessment and determination of development applications by a consent authority. These provisions exist now under State legislation and Council policy.

The need to take into consideration amongst other things - environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments exists now under the requirements of section 79C the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The benefit of inclusion of the overlay in the LEP is that it provides transparency for land owners and or land purchasers.

It is noteworthy that some submissions that objected to the E3 zone support the use of environmental overlays as an appropriate tool to manage land use and environmental issues.

No action required

of 264


dabyneplanning Land use table Request change Shire wide The range of permissible uses under the E3 zone do not allow for a sufficient range of rural land uses, particularly extensive agriculture, which is not currently proposed to be permittied with or without consent.

E3 zone retained. Extractive industry included with consent, extensive agriculture without consent in the E3 zone. Other rural activities already accommodated.


dabyneplanning Land use table Request change Shire wide The proposed E3 zone limits any rural based exempt and complying development under the SEPPs Code





Daly, Simon Land use table Request change Shire wide Requests the inclusion of "drive in take away food outlet" in the dictionary.


No action required

Daly, Simon E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Council has good environmental practices to remove E3 risks legal challenge.


Dason, Diane Land use table Request change Shire wide Requests the inclusion of "drive in take away food outlet" in the dictionary.


No action required

Davidge, John & Gaye

Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Moruya Requests schedule 1 listing. PIN 19408 is a 'holding' with dwelling entitlement that can be listed in Schedule 1. PIN 19047 is a 'holding' inconjunction with another lot and the dwelling entitlement has been exhausted.


Davidge, John & Gaye


Request change Moruya Requests a zone change applied to the land from RU1 to R5 to enable rural residential subdivision consistent with adjoining development.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Seeks a zoning change from RU1 to rR5 to enable small lot rural subdivision. E3 zone retained. Request outside South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy recommendations. Notwithstanding the above, Council is to prepare a Rural Lands Strategy to review current planning policy on rural lands. The analysis and findings of this strategy will inform the 5 year LEP review, including zone and land use application.

Not supported

Davis, B & N Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Brou Lake Dwelling entitlement confirmed by Council search in 2010. Request schedule 1 listing.


Davis, Bernadette E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone applied to land, for the protection of biodiversity corridors.


of 264


Davis, Bruce E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Dalmeny Feels that their land would be underutilised under the E3 or RU2 zone and request RU1.




Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 zone in the LEP.

Not supported

Davis, Bruce & Narelle

Heritage Oppose Dalmeny Objects to the Aboriginal Conservation Area on the neighbouring land. Seeks its removal in full.

Same considerations as 2009. Map amended then. Clause 5.10 of LEP 2011 is clear in the impact of the adoption of the AHC & cannot be responsible for existing conflicts or incorrect assumptions. This is a civil issue, not a planning issue.

Not supported





Davison, Lerae LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Davison, Lerae LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Dawson, Deb Zone Error or anomaly Shire wide Questions about the effect of certain land at Moruya, Batemans Bay and the industrial zones.

Changes made to the LEP to correct anomalies or errors.Support/Part Support

De Jager, Jeff LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

De Jager, Jeff LEP general General Shire wide Concerned about inconsistencies in LEP uses, restrictions on building a dwelling on rural land, arbitrary zone boundaries, currency of maps.

Changes made to the LEP to correct anomalies or errors. Concerns about rural development addressed in the attachment.

See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Debney, Robyn E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Durras Supports the E3 zone applied to land not RU2 or worse RU1.


of 264


Debney, Robyn E2 Environmental Conservation zone



No action required

Delahey, Jason Zone General Shire wide Objects to Council having power to liquidate property rights without compensation. Objects to application and location of all zones in the LEP for various Shire wide and site specific reasons. Expects consideration of concerns, failure to do so could be seen as discrimination.







No action required

Dever, Diane LEP clause Oppose Shire wide Objects to Clause 4.2A and the requirement for a sealed council road for a dwelling on rural land.

The LEP does not affect existing dwelling entitlements in this manner.


No action required

Dever, Diane LEP general Rural zone Shire wide Urge Council to undertake a rural lands study to record where the prime land is in the Shire.

Rural Lands Strategy to commence 2012.No action required

Dibden, Julie E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Tilba District Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. Request the land be zoned RU2 or RU1.


Not supported

Dibden, Julie Biodiversity protection Request change Tilba District Requests the removal of the NRS corridor from the land.


No action required

Dibden, M E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Tilba District Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. Requests RU2.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands.Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 zone in the LEP.

Not supported

of 264


DiBella, Angelo E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Benandarah Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. It restricts use and will take away my retirement.

Unsubstantiated statement of opinion. E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands.

No action required

Dobson, Tony E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

of 264


Docherty, John & Margot


Request change Merricumbene Requests the RU1 zone be applied to their land instead of E3. E3 is too restrictive.


Not supported

Dolton, Noel Land use table Request change Moruya Council should include environmental protection works without consent in the RU1 zone.

The LEP includes environmental protection works in the RU1 zone without consent.No action required

Douglas, Paul LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Douglas, Will E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone applied to land generally to conserve the natural environment. Happy with the E3 zone applied to his land.


Downey, Wayne LEP mapping Error or anomaly Moruya Requests a review and change to the E2 zone boundary on the land to align with the northern boundary.

Support boundary adjustment to High Flood hazard contour on the grounds of existing approval for a subdivision and dwelling.


Downie, Noel & Rita

LEP mapping Error or anomaly Tuross Requests the reinstatement of the R2 zone on the land that is 2g.

Zone anomaly corrected on the residential land at Tuross.Support/Part Support

Drake, Penny LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Dunkley, Bradley LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Dunkley, Gwenette LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Dunn, Ross E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide No blanket conversion of E3 to RU2. Should be on an individual basis.


of 264


Dunne, Megan LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Dyer, D R E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Council is legally required to properly manage the Shire in a manner consistent with ESD under the Local Government Act. To remove E3 from the LEP would ignore this and the majority opinion of the Shire's residents.


Dyer, Les & Dawn E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone and overlays applied.


Ecostove.com.au LEP general General Shire wide Concerned with the basis for determining LEP zones; Concerned with the process for developing the LEP; Concerned with the changes to the LEP since 2009.

Standard list of issues that has been addressed in the proforma submission repsonses.See Green & Yellow#Green%20&%20Yellow.pdf#response attached using menu on the left

Edebohls, Laurie E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Nerrigundah Supports the E3/RU1 split zone applied to the land.


Edebohls, Susan E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Nerrigundah Supports the E3/RU1 split zone applied to the land.


Edmunds, Guy LEP general General Shire wide Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1).Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. The draft LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property. clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEPfarm management practices does not require approval under the LEPbushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11farm forestry and time harvesting does not require approval under the LEPfarm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule

No action required

Edwards, Bruce Zone Support Batemans Bay Supports the R2 zone applied to the land.

Statement of supportNo action required

Edwards, Bruce LEP clause Request change Rosedale Requests a review of the application and wording of clause 6.2 Development Control Plans for urban release land.

New subclause in 6.2 to clarify exemption requirements.Support/Part Support

of 264


Edwards, Bruce Zone Request change Batemans Bay Concerned about the impact that the E2/W1 zone is having on the potential of the land.

Same considerations as 2009 request. W1/E2 zones consistent with the level of coastal hazard and risk as identified in several reports . It would be contrary to the DoP planning guidelines (in particular principles 3 & 4) to intensify the development potential of this land under the current LEP.

Not supported

Edwards, Bruce Lot size Support Longbeach Supports the lot size applied to the land.


Edwards, C & others












Not supported

of 264


Edwards, Robert & Jenny

Zone Support Mossy Point Supports the E zones applied in and around Mossy Point. However would like to see the E zone reinstated to the Broulee land that is now Residential. Change the B2 zone on land near the school to R2.


Elliot, William Snr LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Elliott, Carla LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Elliott, Janet LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Elliott, William LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Ellwood, Stephen LEP general General Shire wide Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1).Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. The draft LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property. clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEPfarm management practices does not require approval under the LEPbushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEPfarm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule

No action required

Ely, Colin LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

of 264


Elzerman, E LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Elzerman, J LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Elzerman, Kim LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Elzerman, Kim LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Elzerman, Kim LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Elzerman, Kim LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Elzerman, Kim LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left



Elzerman, M LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Elzerman, P LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Elzerman, T LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Emerson, James E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Nerrigundah Split zone has been applied to the land. Objects to the E3 zone applied to the top of the property. Believes there is no logic behind this split. Requests RU1.

RU1/E3 zone split reviewed and zone application sound. Rural activities accommodated. Land will be subject to Rural Lands Strategy.

Not supported

of 264


Ennis, Colleen LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Ennis, Colleen LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Ennis, Colleen LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Eurobodalla Koala Projects

Zone Environmental zone

Shire wide Need to preserve Shire wide habitat and connectivity corridors. LEP zoning needs to allow for this to occur.


Eurobodalla Ratepayers Association chair Geoff Plews

LEP general General Shire wide LEP is flawed and should be withdrawn to avoid any further waste of time. ERA attended all meetings and were disappointed with the conduct of staff. Absence of councillors and low level of participation of those that did attend was of concern. The LEP does not adequately reflect the 741 submissions put to council early last year. Extensive use of E3 without quality assurance is not acceptable. ERA rejects staff assertions about the State governments role. Look at Bega and Shoalhaven as examples. ERA sees the council's attempt to rescue the situation with the RU2 proposal as unworkable. Council must: withdraw the LEP, redraw the rural zones like for like.


Euscher, Hans Land use table Rural dual occupancy

Narooma Objects to the requirement for attached dual occupancy development on RU1 and E3 land as it is unreasonable.

Agree to include secondary dwellings, and detached dual occupancy development subject to a local provision to give effect to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategies Actions SP38 and SP29 in the RU1 and E3 zones. Subdivision of this type of development remains prohibited.


Evans, Geoff & Corinne Kelly


Oppose Eurobodalla Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. E3 is impractical, prohibitive and unfair.


No action required

of 264


Ewing, Penelope LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Ewing, Penelope LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Faber, Valerie E3 Environmental Management zone



Fafie, Richard Zone General Shire wide Objects to Council having power to liquidate property rights without compensation. Objects to application and location of all zones in the LEP for various Shire wide and site specific reasons. Expects consideration of concerns, failure to do so could be seen as discrimination.







No action required

of 264


Fafie, S Zone General Shire wide Objects to Council having power to liquidate property rights without compensation. Objects to application and location of all zones in the LEP for various Shire wide and site specific reasons. Expects consideration of concerns, failure to do so could be seen as discrimination.







No action required

Falcioni, Enrico RU2 Rural Landscape Zone

Support Moruya Requests the RU2 zone be applied to the land. Believes E3 diminishes land value and lifestyle.


Farmer, J E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Oppose Tuross Objects to the E2 zone applied to the land.

E2 zone retained on the wetland.Not supported

Farrant, Adrian E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Nelligen Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. Believes that it restricts agricultural activities undertaken on the land like cultivating fruit and vegetables, keeping of livestock, bees and also timber harvesting. Requests a rural zone.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. Rural activities accommodated.

No action required

Farrant, Adrian E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Nelligen Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. Requests RU2.


No action required

Farrington, Andrew LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Fenn, Chris E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide Opposes E3 and believes that the E3 and RU2 question has been mishandled.

Due to concerns expressed by the community at public meetings relating to the E3 zone, Council responded by proposing the following:

FSM11/107 MOTION Councillor Fergus Thomson THAT: 1. Council request the General Manager to investigate the options and abilities to amend the Draft Local Environmental Plan 2011 with respect to removing E3 – Environmental Management on privately owned lands. 2. The current exhibition material be amended, if possible, to provide an alternative for the community to comment during the current exhibition period.

This decision was put to the community for discussion by extending the exhibition period by a further two (2) weeks.

There was substantial media coverage of this proposal including radio interviews by the General Manager and Mayor, print articles in local papers, in addition to emails and information on Council’s website. It is noteworthy that Council did receive 641 pro forma letter types (including this) in opposition to this question and other matters associated with E zones, environmental overlays, rural planning and LEP process. Based on this submission it could be concluded that it is a non-representative submission.

Notwithstanding the above, all submissions received are considered on planning merit.

No action required

Fenn, Chris LEP general Oppose Shire wide Asks that the Councillors not support the LEP and take into account the meaning of the word environmental in Act not as used in the LEP.


Fenn, Chris E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Moruya Objects to the E3 zone applied to part of the land. It will have a negative impact on the development potential of the land and the financial arrangements of the landowners. This has not been considered by staff properly.

This parcel of land has been the subject of lengthy discussions with relevant council staff, state agencies and the land owners so as to deliver a development outcome, given the constraints that exist on the land, and the recommendations of the Sensitive Coastal Lands Report. The proposed E3 zone applies to that part of the land affected by the presence of an EEC; and was part of an agreed outcome by the landowner as a trade-off for an urban residential subdivision on a part of the land less constrained. The E3 part of the land provides for a house site. It is noteworthy that a development application for the land is currently with Council.

No action required

Ferrante, Carol LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Ferrante, Tony LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Fielden, M LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Fielden, Marcus LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Fielding, Geoff Building Height Residential zone Shire wide Requests that height limits in the R3 zones be increased to enable 4 storey development.

Storeys are not a height control in the LEP. 4 storey development may be achieved within the draft LEP building heights in certain appropriate locations through good design.

No action required

Fink-Downes, Courtney


Support Shire wide Supports E3. It is not appropriate to replace E3 with RU2 on the land. E3 provides for sustainable development and sound planning outcomes.


Fisher, Travis LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Flew, Andrew LEP mapping Error or anomaly Tuross Requests the reinstatement of the R2 zone on the land that is 2g.


Flower, E LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Fone, Fiona LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Fone, Fiona LEP general general Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Foran, Carol E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide There should be no environmental zones in the LEP.


of 264


Foran, Carol Biodiversity protection Oppose Shire wide There should be no wild life corridors or EECs on private land.


Foran, Carol E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide There should be no environmental zonings on rural land.


Foran, Carol Biodiversity protection Oppose Shire wide No wildlife corridors on private land.


Foran, Laurance E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide There should be no environmental zonings on rural land.


Forbes, Tony LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Foster, Jennifer LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Fozzard, Ray LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Freedman, Kathleen

LEP general Property rights Shire wide Not allowing farmers to properly use their land. Please do not pass these laws.

Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples of where the LEP is not allowing farmers to use their land as they currently do.

No action required

Freedman, Kathleen


Freedman, Kathleen


Freedman, L LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Freedman, L & Schwarz, P


Request change Bingie Requests a change of zone from E3 to RU1 for Lot 141 DP 856799.




The land will be subject to the Rural Lands Strategy.

Not supported

Freedman, Laurence

Land use table Rural dual occupancy

Shire wide Objects to the requirement for attached dual occupancy development on RU1 and E3 land as it is unreasonable.



Freedman, Laurence

Land use table Rural zone Shire wide Objects to land zoned for primary production only having one agricultural use permitted without consent. What about farm forestry, bed and breakfast establishment and child care centres.

The RU1 zone permits a full range of land use for primary production purposes including bed and breakfast, and home based child care in lieu of child care centres. Development consent for farm forestry is not required under the LEP; as such the term does not appear in the Dictionary in the LEP. Agree to include secondary dwellings, and detached dual occupancy development subject to a local provision to give effect to SP38 and SP39 in the RU1 and E3 zones.

No action required

Freedman, Laurence

Land use table Rural zone Shire wide Objects to the requirement that a dwelling in a rural area will only be permissible if it has access to a council maintained sealed road.



No action required

Freedman, Laurence

LEP clause Oppose Shire wide Objects to the 5 year sunset provision for holdings and parcels.

In drafting the LEP 2009 Council made a policy decision to sunset the historic potential for dwellings on ‘holdings’ and ‘existing parcels’. The sunset provision was extended from 3 years to 5 years, and also landowners have been able to have land listed in Schedule 1 to protect bonafide dwelling entitlements for ‘holdings’ and ‘existing parcels’ under the Rural LEP where supported by a council property search.

No action required

Freedman, Laurence


Freedman, Laurence


Freedman, Lynn LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Freedman, Rodney LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Freeman, Vanessa E4 Environmental Living zone

Oppose Bimbimbie Objects to the E4 zone applied to the land. Objects to the 25% offset off everyones property against biodiversity.

E4 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Offset claim is erroneous.

Not supported

Freer, Bradley LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Frieds of Durras Zone Request change Durras Request a change of zone for land in Durras to E3 and E2 zones.


No action required

Fuller, Stephen LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Gadens lawyers Zone Oppose Moruya Objects to the SP2 zone applied to part of the land. The zoning is illogical, prohibits a range of development, quarantines the site for car parking, and the downsizing of zone would be a windfall for council if it decides to compulsorily acquire the land.




Not supported

of 264


Galloway, Julie E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

Gatehouse, Chris LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Geoff Fielding Developments Pty Ltd

Building Height Business zone Batemans Bay Requests that the height limit of 1 and 3 Hill Street and 2 and 6 Bent Street be increased to 18m.

Building heights in Batemans Bay Town Centre informed by the Batemans Bay Structure Plan. The site is elevated in part and an 18m height limit would be inappropriate for this location given the potential tower development that could result.

Not supported

of 264


Gerondal, Monica Biodiversity protection Oppose Bingie Objects to the EEC mapping on the land.


No action required

Gerondal, Monica LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Gibson, S J Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Coila Dwelling entitlement confirmed by Council search in 2011. Request schedule 1 listing.


Gibson, Trevor E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Malua Bay Requests the ability to build a separate caretakers residence on the land. Request a review of the where the urban expansion zone and E3 zone apply.

Agree to include secondary dwellings, and detached dual occupancy development subject to a local provision to give effect to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategies Actions SP38 and SP29 in the RU1 and E3 zones. Subdivision of this type of development remains prohibited. E3 zone retained.


of 264


Gill, Susan E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

of 264


Gillian, P LEP general General Shire wide Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1).Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. The draft LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property. clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEPfarm management practices does not require approval under the LEPbushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEPfarm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule

No action required

of 264


Gillmore, Dave & Vicki












Not supported

Gleeson, I & E LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Goldman-Baird, Alison


Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone applied to the land as it meets all planning criteria. Removal of E3 would be to bow to a minority group.


Goldsmith, Christopher












Not supported

of 264


Goldsmith, Lyn E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Opposes E2 zone on Council land. Supports RE1 instead.










Not supported

of 264


Goldsmith, Lynette E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

Goodsell, K LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Goodsell, K LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Gorst, Carol LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Gorst, Carol LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Gould, James LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Gow, Peter E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone applied to protect environmental values of the Eurobodalla Shire.


Grady, Hellen LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Grady, Hellen LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Graham, Neil RU2 Rural Landscape Zone

Support Tilba District Supports RU2 on the land instead of E3. E3 is too restrictive.


Graham, Phillip LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Graham, Phillip LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Grant, Deborah R5 Large Lot Residential zone

Rural dual occupancy

Bodalla Objects to the requirement for attached dual occupancy development.

Attached dual occupancy and secondary dwellings that may be detached permissible with consent in R5 zone.

No action required

Grant, Deborah Land use table Request change Bodalla Requests the inclusion of bee keeping in the R5 land use table.

Additional agricultural land uses included in the R5 zone to acknowledge current activities undertaken by landowners on this land.


Gray, Robyn LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Gray, Tammy LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Gray, Warwick LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Greentree, Neil LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Griefahn, Daniel LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Griefahn, K LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Griefahn, K LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Griefahn, M LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Griefahn, M LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Griefahn, Renate LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Griefahn, Renate LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Griefahn, Tim LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Grimson, Craig E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Benandarah Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. Requests RU1.


No action required

of 264


Grindrod, Ian Land use table Rural dual occupancy

Nelligen Objects to the requirement for attached dual occupancy development on RU1 land as it is unreasonable.



Gutteridge, Jill E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Shocked that Council would consider changing the E3 zone. E3 zones currently act as a buffer area. Not appropriate that all land in the Shire be available for development. Environmental values belong to everyone. Legislation exists to protect the environment.


Haack, Julene LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Habitat Residential PL

Zone Request change Moruya Requests a change of zoning from R5 to R2 on the land the subject of the approved development DA615/08.

R5 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. Development consent for Seniors Living granted but not enacted. LEP does not affect development consent.

Not supported

Hack, E & A LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Hack, E & A LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Hall, Amanda LEP general general Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Hall, Beryl E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

Hall, Clint LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Hall, Clint LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Hall, G E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

of 264


Hall, Greg LEP general General Shire wide Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1).Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. The draft LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property. clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEPfarm management practices does not require approval under the LEPbushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEPfarm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule

No action required

Hall, Ken LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Hall, Mandy E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Objects to the E2 zone applied to coastal foreshore land adjoining urban areas.










Not supported

Hall, Marshall E4 Environmental Living zone

Request change Narooma Narooma has a lack of available building sites within the town. The E4 zone is unacceptable. The land must be residential with a 500m2 lot size.

Land is currently zoned Residential Environmental Constraints 2(ec). Land has been zoned E4 Environmental Living with some lots given a 1500m2 lot size and some a 2 hectare minimum lot size.

This zone is consistent with Council’s zone transfer methodology. The minimum lot size proposed reflects the environmental constraints affecting the land and servicing capacity available to the land.

No action required

of 264


Hall, Valda LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Hall, Valda LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Hamer, Chris E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Moruya Requests a change of zone applied from E3 to E4 to enable the residential subdivision of rural land, consistent with adjoining development.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Seeks a zoning change from E3 to E4 to enable small lot rural subdivision. E3 zone retained. Request outside South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy recommendations. Notwithstanding the above, Council is to prepare a Rural Lands Strategy to review current planning policy on rural lands. The analysis and findings of this strategy will inform the 5 year LEP review, including zone and land use application.

Not supported

Handson, Peter E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports E3 zone being included in the LEP to protect the environment.


Hanks, Sharon Zone General Shire wide Objects to Council having power to liquidate property rights without compensation. Objects to application and location of all zones in the LEP for various Shire wide and site specific reasons. Expects consideration of concerns, failure to do so could be seen as discrimination.







No action required

Hanlon, Ron Land use table Request change Shire wide Requests the inclusion of "drive in take away food outlet" in the dictionary.


No action required

Hann, John LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Hann, John LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Hann, John E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide The E3 zone limits land management and must be amended or removed.


The E zones under the draft LEP do not impose limitations on land management of private property: Clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEPFarm management practices does not require approval under the LEPBushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11Farm forestry and time harvesting does not require approval under the LEPFarm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule

Not supported


Oppose Buckenbowra The LEP is inconsistent in its use of zones in the Buckenbowra valley and this needs to be corrected.

Council has applied like for like in a manner consistent with the adopted strategic directions as recommended by the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy. The zones in the Rural LEP are: 1(a) Rural Environmental Constraints and Agriculture/ 1(a1) Rural Environmental Constraints, Water Catchment Protection and Agriculture.


The Land will be subject to Rural Lands Strategy.

No action required

Hann, John LEP general Property rights Shire wide The LEP infringes on landowners rights - produces negative environmental and economic gain.





No action required

Hann, John Biodiversity protection Oppose Shire wide No reason for habitat and other corridors on private land.


Hann, John Land use table Rural zone Shire wide The LEP only allows one agricultural land use permitted with consent. This restricts farm diversification.


No action required

Hann, John Not LEP issue General Shire wide Compensation should be paid for private land restricted by the E3 zone.

Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples of where losses or additional costs will result from the LEP.

The NSW Planning system is a merits based system not a property rights system.

No action required

of 264


Hann, John LEP general Property rights Shire wide Council has adopted a LEP that infringes on the property rights and well being of many ratepayers and landowners.





No action required

Hann, John Not LEP issue General Shire wide The LEP reduces investment and land values. The Council has failed to properly consider the LEP on land values and investment in agri business.

The Standard Instrument for preparing local environmental plans (LEPs) includes a Dictionary of standard definitions relating to land uses and other terms relevant to the interpretation and application of LEPs.

In response to the unsubstantiated claims about property devaluation due to the LEP and the E3 zone Council can provide the following:


No action required

Hann, John Land use table Rural dual occupancy

Shire wide Objects to the prohibition on detached dual occupancy on rural lands.




Oppose Nelligen Amend the LEP to allow our entire holding to be zoned RU1.

Not supported

Hann, John LEP general Rural zone Shire wide The loss of existing use rights after 12 months is unacceptable. Concern about the restriction on grazing of livestock on E3 land as exempt due to exclusions under clause 3.3.





Hann, John Not LEP issue General Shire wide Compensation should be paid for private land restricted by the E3 zone.



No action required

of 264


Hann, Marie E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide E3 severely limits the legitimate use of agricultural land. Present zones are inconsistent with land in the Buckenbowra Valley. The splits are arbitrary. The LEP adversely affects the economic livelihood of the rural landholders. Council must adopt a LEP that does not infringe on the property rights of ratepayers.

Responses to these issues given in other responses to Hann.No action required


Oppose Shire wide Then E3 zone has been applied inconsistently.


Hann, Marie Rural dwellings Oppose Shire wide Rural land has been discriminated against by not being able to build or develop unless access is via a council sealed road.



No action required

Hann, Marie LEP general Property rights Shire wide The LEP infringes on landowners rights - produces negative environmental and economic gain.





No action required

Hann, Marie Not LEP issue General Shire wide Rural ratepayers are being treated unequally.



Oppose Shire wide Farming land is unworkable if the portions are split.


Hann, Marie Not LEP issue General Shire wide Investment opportunities are being eroded by council restricting development.


Hann, Marie Biodiversity protection Oppose Shire wide Corridors over private land are overkill, unnecessary and unfair.


of 264



Oppose Shire wide E3 zones reduce usable size of land holdings making it uneconomic to conduct agricultural enterprises.



Oppose Shire wide E3 zones restrict present and potential use.


Hann, Marie Not LEP issue General Shire wide Compensation should be paid for private land restricted by the E3 zone.



No action required

Hann, Paul LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Hann, Paul LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Hann, Paul Not LEP issue General Shire wide Compensation should be paid for private land restricted by the E3 zone.


Hann, Paul Not LEP issue General General 50% of our elected Councillors appear to show total disinterest in the LEP meeting and ratepayers


Hann, Paul LEP general Oppose Shire wide Opposes the LEP. It should be redrafted.


Hann, Paul E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Nelligen Amend the LEP to allow our entire holding to be zoned RU1.

The zones in the Rural LEP are: 1(a) Rural Environmental Constraints and Agriculture/ 1(a1) Rural Environmental Constraints, Water Catchment Protection and Agriculture.

The RU1 and E zones have been applied in the LEP 2011, consistent with the relevant actions and directions of the South Coast Regional Strategy, South Coast Independent Review Panel, Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy (e.g. NE30 & NE31 & RI1), specific directions of the State Government (s117), LEP Practice notes and Circulars and the methodology agreed with Councillors. That is: apply appropriate zoning in consideration of dominant land use and character; capability as influenced by soil, topography and vegetation cover; access, natural hazards and continuity with neighbouring zones.

Rural properties are now RU1, E3 or a combination where split zones required. The E2 zone has been applied to wetlands and other constraints.

The land will be subject to the Rural Lands Strategy.

Not supported

Hann, Paul Not LEP issue General Shire wide Council appears to have a hidden agenda to put E zones on private land as revealed at the meeting on the 18 October.

Unsubstantiated and erroneous statement of intepretation of the meeting 18 October.No action required

of 264


Hann, Paul LEP general Property rights Shire wide Council has adopted a LEP that infringes on the property rights and well being of many ratepayers and landowners.





No action required

Hann, Paul Land use table Rural zone Shire wide The LEP only allows one agricultural land use permitted with consent. This restricts farm diversification.



Hann, Paul Zone Oppose Buckenbowra The LEP is inconsistent in its use of zones in the Buckenbowra valley and this needs to be corrected.



No action required

Hann, Paul Land use table Request change Shire wide Allow extensive agriculture without consent in the E3 zone like Bega Valley.

'Extensive agriculture' is included in the E3 zone as development without consent.Support/Part Support

Hann, Paul LEP general Property rights Shire wide The LEP infringes on landowners rights - produces negative environmental and economic gain.





No action required

Hann, Paul Land use table Rural dual occupancy




of 264


Hann, Roselyn LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Hann, Roslyn LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Hann, Stephen E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Buckenbowra Oppose E zones and the limitations imposed on land management and the impact on land value and land use that the zones creates. Council is under no obligation to use these zones on private land.

The E zones under the draft LEP do not impose limitations on land management of private property.

Clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEPFarm management practices does not require approval under the LEPBushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11Farm forestry and time harvesting does not require approval under the LEPFarm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule





Not supported

Hansen, Karen E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone applied to land.


of 264


Hanson, G M & Jacobsen, V












Not supported

of 264


Hanvey, Peta Zone Council land Dalmeny Opposes the zone and development of Council land at Dalmeny for urban residential.










Not supported

Hardman, Wendy E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the retention of the E3 zone. Important refuge for biodiversity and threatened species, contribute to establishing effective wildlife connectivity corridors.


of 264


Hardwick, Rebecca Lot size Oppose Shire wide Concerned about the lot size applied to certain lands and their inability to support OSSM.

The LEP sets a minimum lot size for the consideration of development only. The need to take into consideration amongst other things - environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments exists now under the requirements of section 79C the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act when assessing and determining a development application.

No action required

Hardy, Stephen Zone Request change Bodalla Requests a review of the rural zone applied to the land along Wilshire Lane to RU5 to form an extension to the Village.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Seeks a zone change from RU1/RU5 for Lot 29 DP 13566 to acknowledge existing development and enable lodgement of a "Bodalla Masterplan" for the redevelopment of a community title development of up to 30 houses. Direct zone transfer from 3a to RU5 and 1a to RU1. Outside Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy recommendations and actions. The land area has been recognised as part of the Former Bodalla Estate Cultural Landscape Area as adopted by Council in 2011. Existing development potential recognised in this zoning.

No action required

Hargraves, Graeme LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Hargraves, Graeme LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Harpley, Matthew LEP general General Shire wide Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1).Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. The draft LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property. clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEPfarm management practices does not require approval under the LEPbushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEPfarm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule

No action required

Harris, Michael E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide It is not Council's perogative to tell me what I can and can't do with my land. Added to this is the incompetent way the rezoning has been presented to me. Changing from E3 to RU2 is a step in getting it right.


Harris, Michael LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Harris, Michael Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Cadgee Dwelling entitlement confirmed by Council search in 2011. Request schedule 1 listing.


of 264


Harris, Sharon LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Harrison, Anthony Land use table Environmental zone

Shire wide Would like to see neighbourhood shops included as permissible with consent in the E3 zone to enable local needs to be serviced.

No justified demand for this stand alone land use. Outside Eurbodalla Settlement Strategy recommendations.

Not supported

Harrison, Rhiannon LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Harrison, Tubby E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide Supports RU2 zone applied to private land instead of E3.


Hart, Jason LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Hartmann, Keith LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Harton, Nick LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Hassall, D LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Hassell, Huon E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Bingi Objects to the E3 zone applied to land that has previously been used for primary production.


Not supported

Hassell, Huon & Frances


Oppose Bingie Opposes the E3 zoned applied to the land. Requests RU1.


Not supported

of 264


Hatch, Lyndall E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Very important that the E3 zone be retained.


Hattersley, Paul Zone Council land Dalmeny Opposes the zone and development of Council land at Dalmeny for urban residential.










Not supported

of 264


Hattersley, Paul Zone Council land Dalmeny The land west of Dalmeny is inappropriately zoned for urban release.










Not supported

Haughton, Heather E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the inclusion of the E3 zone and overlays in the LEP, to support ecologically sustainable development.


of 264


Haughton, Peter E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the retention of E3 on the land. A great deal of time and resources has been spent in mapping areas suitable for development and or requiring protection.


Head, Julie LEP general General General The LEP is about more power and money, than environment. The state government and LEP belong in Russia.


Healey, John LEP clause Error or anomaly Shire wide Concerned about the ability to carry out minor boundary adjustments on rural land under the LEP.

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure inadvertently removed the capacity for rural boundary adjustments without the need for consent when amending the Standard LEP instrument in 2010. Council has included a local provision in the LEP to reinstate this provision.


of 264


Healey, John E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Shire wide Objects to the extensive use of the E2 zone along the foreshore lands adjacent to urban lands.










Not supported

Healey, John Lot size Oppose Narooma Some urban and urban expansion zones have been dezoned by way of minimum lot size application.

Zone and lot size applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone and lot size application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. Site specific comments in attachment.


of 264


Healey, John Lot size Oppose Shire wide Objects to the minimum lot sizes adopted in rural residential types of zones.



Healey, John LEP clause Oppose Shire wide Objects to the definition of 1987 holding in the LEP as it places a planning control on the actual ownership and not the land itself.

Wording of definition corrected.Support/Part Support

Heffernan, J & K LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Heffernan, Jason & Kylie


Oppose Moruya Feels discriminated and restricted by the E3 zone applied to the land. Requests RU1.


Not supported

Heffernan, Julie LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Heffernan, Stephen

Zone Request change Moruya Requests a change of zone for the crown land occupancy 32446 from E2 to E3 or RU1.

E2 zone retained along foreshore. Grazing of livestock can continue under the auspices of existing use rights.

Not supported

Heffernan, Stephen

Zone Request change Moruya Requests a change of zone from IN1 to RU1 for part of 1//972523.

Land proposed to be zoned industrial in 2006. Confirmed in adopted employment lands strategy. Zone retained to enable further investigation.

Not supported

Heffernan, Stephen

Biodiversity protection Oppose Moruya Objects to the wildlife corridor on the land to the east.


No action required

Heffernan, Stephen

Zone Request change Moruya Requests a change of zone for the swamp on 1//972523 from E2 to E3 or RU1.

E2 zone retained. Land is a wetland.Not supported

Heffernan, Stephen

Zone Request change Moruya Requests a change of zone for the public reserve land from RE1 to RU1.

Split zone applied consistent with planning proposal to reclassify land and current lease boundary.Not supported

Heffernan, Stephen


of 264


Helmreich, Hubert LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Helmreich, Jenny LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Henderson, Sue Land use table Rural dual occupancy

Narooma Objects to the requirement of attached dual occupancy in the E3 zone as it is restrictive and will devalue the property.



Henry, I & M LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Herrmann, Paul RU2 Rural Landscape Zone

Support Nerrigundah Supports the RU2 zone instead of E3 on the land.


Herrmann, Paul E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Nerrigundah Objects to the E3 zone applied to part of the land. Requests RU1.


Not supported

Herrmann, Paul Land use table Rural zone Shire wide It is imperative that environmental protection works, farm buildings, intensive livestock, intensive plant agriculture and roads be permitted without consent in the RU1 zone.



Herrmann, Paul Land use table Environmental zone

Shire wide Environmental protection works and roads should be permitted without consent in the E3 zone. Home industries include with consent.

Land uses provided for in the E3 zone.No action required

Heycox, Peter & Janet


of 264


Heyde, Thelma E3 Environmental Management zone



Heyde, Thelma E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Support Durras Supports the E2 zone applied to land in and around Durras instead of RE1.


No action required

Hickey, Kate LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Hill, Jennifer Land use table Request change Shire wide Requests the inclusion of "drive in take away food outlet" in the dictionary.


No action required

Hill, Reina E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone, and the need for protection of the natural environment from unsuitable development.


Hindmarsh, Iain LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Hindmarsh, Rebecca


of 264


Hitchcock, Ian E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

of 264



Council land Dalmeny Objects to the E2 zone applied to the land. Requests RE1.










Not supported

of 264



Council land Dalmeny Objects to the E2 zone applied to foreshore land. Fourth submission because of council staff misinformation.










Not supported

of 264


Hitchcock, Ian & Patricia












Not supported

of 264


Hogan, Rory E3 Environmental Management Zone

Oppose Benandarah Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. Requests a rural zone.


Not supported

Hogan, Rory E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Benandarah Requests the RU1 zone be applied to the land, and building entitlement be granted.

E3 zone retained. The land does not have a dwelling entitlement. In the circumstances of the case the LEP cannot provide entitlement.

Not supported

Hogg, Rachel LEP general General Shire wide Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1).Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. The draft LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property. clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEPfarm management practices does not require approval under the LEPbushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEPfarm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule

No action required

Holland, Guyon Zone Request change Narooma Requests a change of zone from B2 to R3 for the land to retain its current medium density development potential.

R3 zone applied to provide a better zone transfer from 2(t). R3 more appropriate for the land given its location, topography and access.


Hollis, Troy Zone Request change Moruya Concerned about the restriction on certain land uses in the IN2 zone proposed. In particular concrete batching plants. Request IN1 over all of the Moruya industrial land.

LEP to include IN1 as only industrial zone with a full range of general industrial land use including concrete batching plants.


Holt, Neil LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Holt, Simon E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Durras Supports the E3 zone applied to land not RU2 or worse RU1.


of 264


Holt, Simon E2 Environmental Conservation zone



Hopkins, Elizabeth Biodiversity protection Oppose Tilba District Objects to the biocorridor mapping on the land as it is incompatible with current and future use.

Statement of opinion. The LEP does not impact upon farm management practices including parasite and disease management that may affect stock. Pathogens exist in the environment irrespective of any proposed biocorridor.

No action required

Hopkins, Geoffry Biodiversity protection Oppose Shire wide Biocorridor is a serious encumbrance on the management of dairy cattle due to the transmission of parasites and diseases from native wildlife to domestic animals and livestock.


No action required

Hopkins, Graham Biodiversity protection Oppose Tilba District Objects to the biocorridor mapping on the land as it is incompatible with current and future use.


No action required

Hopkins, Michelle & Howard, Chris


Support Shire wide Supports the E zones applied to the landto ensure long term ecological maintenance and viability of high conservation areas. Also the separation of urban areas with bushland maintains the coastal character of the Shire.


of 264



Zone Council land Dalmeny The zone of the Council land at Dalmeny should be E instead of R2 to protect the environment and maximise ecological integrity.










Not supported



Support Shire wide Supports the use of the E2 zone to protect the coastal strip.


Hopkins, Susan & Johnathon


Support Moruya Thanks Council staff for being informative. Are happy with E3 on their land.


of 264


Hosking, Phyllis E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

of 264


Howard, Tony LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Howe, Karen LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Howe, Kim E2 Environmental Conservation zone



Howe, Kim LEP general Oppose Shire wide Same as submission 377. Raises a number of concerns with the LEP, LEP process and also site specific zones.


of 264


Hughes, Danny LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Hughes, Jeanne LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Hughes, Jim LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Hunt, Garry & Rhonda

Zone Oppose Dalmeny Objects to the R3 zone applied to the land and the prohibition on single dwellings.

Same considerations as 2009. Retained prohibition on strategic R3 land, but those lots no larger than a house lot have been zoned R2. Multi dwelling housing in R2 zone provides opportunity for staged single dwelling house development on this land on Lots down to 300m2.

Not supported

of 264


Hunter, Alan E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Opposes the E2 zone on Council land as it is ill conceived. Supports RE1.










Not supported

Hunter, Dave Biodiversity protection Oppose Shire wide Opposes the interpretation of mapped areas of EEC.


No action required

Hunter, Dave RU2 Rural Landscape Zone

Support Shire wide Supports RU2 zone applied to the land instead of E3.


of 264


Hurley, Fay LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Hurley, J LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Hurley, J & Negus, G












Not supported

of 264


Hurley, T & F E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

Hurley, T & F E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Nerrigundah Opposes the E3 zone applied to the land. Request RU2 instead.


No action required

of 264


Hurren, Merinda Zone General Shire wide Requests that Council contact all ratepayers that are affected by the LEP and give a summary of the current zoning and the changes in the draft LEP.

All property owners were notified of the exhibition of the draft LEP.No action required

Hurt, Colin E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Nelligen Objects to E3 applied to part of the land. Requests all RU1.


Not supported

Hurt, T E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Congo Objects to the E3 zone applied to part of the land. Requests RU2.


No action required

Hyland, Keith E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Jeremadra Requests a RU4 or RU2 zone applied to the land instead of E3.

Severed parcel. E3 retained consistent with remainer of parcel, and to reflect vegetation cover and development potential.

Not supported

Innes, Ashlee LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Innes, Ben LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Innes, Elizabeth LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Innes, Marc LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Innes, Mark LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Innes, Neil LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Innes, Robin LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Innes, Roslyn LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Innes, Stephen Zone Environmental zone

Shire wide No E zones on any land. Do not want another layer of environmental constraints over these lands. Never seen anything quite as groundless.


Innes, Stephen Not LEP issue General Shire wide Objects to pay parking. Not an LEP issue.No action required

Innes, Wendy E4 Environmental Living zone

Oppose Longbeach Objects to the E4 and E2 zones that have been applied to the land. Requests a rural residential zone.

Zone and lot size applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone and lot size application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. E4 is a best fit rural residential zone under the Standard LEP.

No action required

of 264


Ireland, Jocelyn E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Opposes the E2 zone applied to the land. It will cause a bushfire hazard and also give snakes and vermin unrestricted access to residences.










Not supported

Ireland, P & J LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Ison, Elizabeth LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Ison, Jodie LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Ison, Stephen LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Issa, John Zone General Shire wide Objects to Council having power to liquidate property rights without compensation. Objects to application and location of all zones in the LEP for various Shire wide and site specific reasons. Expects consideration of concerns, failure to do so could be seen as discrimination.







No action required

Issa, Maxine Zone General Shire wide Objects to Council having power to liquidate property rights without compensation. Objects to application and location of all zones in the LEP for various Shire wide and site specific reasons. Expects consideration of concerns, failure to do so could be seen as discrimination.







No action required

of 264


Ivory, Mick Zone Council land Tuross Supports the E3 zone on Kyla Park grazing land and E2 zone on foreshore areas.










No action required

of 264


Jack, Warren Zone General Shire wide Objects to Council having power to liquidate property rights without compensation. Objects to application and location of all zones in the LEP for various Shire wide and site specific reasons. Expects consideration of concerns, failure to do so could be seen as discrimination.







No action required

Jackson, Hayden LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Jackson, Luke LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Jackson, Patrick LEP general General Shire wide Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1).Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. The draft LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property. clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEPfarm management practices does not require approval under the LEPbushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEPfarm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule

No action required

Jackson, R & Burbidge, E


Oppose Bodalla Opposes the E3 zone applied to the land. Attached 2 copies of the Blue PF to the main submission.


of 264


Jaggers, James LEP general General Shire wide Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1).Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. The draft LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property. clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEPfarm management practices does not require approval under the LEPbushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEPfarm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule

No action required

Jaggers, Jane LEP general General Shire wide Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1).Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. The draft LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property. clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEPfarm management practices does not require approval under the LEPbushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEPfarm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule

No action required

James, Deborah LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

James, Deborah LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

James, Peter E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Rosedale Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. Does not support RU2, wants RU1.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. Rural activities accommodated. Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 zone in the LEP.

No action required

James, Peter LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

James, Peter LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Jay, Trevor & Greg E4 Environmental Living zone

Request change Congo Requests a change of zone applied from E4 to RU4 with current subdivision potential of up to 7 lots retained.

Zone and lot size applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone and lot size application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands.

No action required

of 264


JBA Planning RU2 Rural Landscape Zone

Support Broulee Supports RU2 zone applied to the land instead of E3.


Jeffrey, Anne LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Jeffrey, Leslie LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Jeffrey, Phillip R5 Large Lot Residential zone

Request change Moruya Requests a change of zone from R5 to R2 for Section 49 Lot 4.

R5 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. Development consent for Seniors Living granted but not enacted. LEP does not affect development consent.

Not supported

of 264


Jeffrey, Richard & Sally












Not supported

Jetset Properties Zone Request change Sunshine Bay Requests a B2 zone be applied to the land, supporting economic analysis submitted.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Objects to B1 zoning on Lot 229 Cunningham Crescent Sunshine Bay seeks B2 and a change to the maximum floor area of 125m2 for a neighbourhood shop under clause 5.4. B1 zone consistent with Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and Greater Batemans Bay Structure Plan directions and actions for commercial centres. The floor area of neighbourhood shops is unchanged. B1 zone application consistent with Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy ED1 and Land and Environment Court decision.

Not supported

of 264


John Healy & Associates

Lot size Oppose Narooma Objects to the dezoning by lot size of land in Narooma. Lot size should be consistent with Structure Plan.



Johnson, Michael LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Johnson, Michael LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Johnson, Shelley R5 Large Lot Residential zone

General Moruya Asks what is council going to benefit from the R5 zone being applied to the land.

The Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 (Standard Instrument) sets out 35 standard zones for councils to use when preparing new principal local environmental plans (LEPs) for their local government areas.

Councils may select zones as appropriate to the needs of their local areas, taking into account any relevant State or regional planning guidance.

Zones have been determined on a best fit basis.

No action required

Johnson, Tiziana LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Johnston, Stephen LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Johnston, Stephen LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Jones, Michael Zone Request change Tilba District Requests the RU5 Village zone be applied to the historic Police Station/Residence and Historic Courthouse in Tilba.

RU5 zone applied to the land. Minimum lot size retained.Support/Part Support

Katz, Mary E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports E3 zone and overlays being applied to all environmentally sensitive lands. To remove it would be a waste of Council time and money.


Keany, Lyndall LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Keany, Lyndall LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Keany, Michael LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Keany, Michael LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Kearey, Paul E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Deua Valley Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. Requests a rural zone.


Not supported

Kearey, Paul E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Araluen Requests a change of zone for that part of the land from E3 to RU1.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopt strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land.The Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy which informs the LEP, was prepared using the most recent data available but remains subject to external influences and time lapsed. To address concerns raised about rural land use, Council is to prepare a Rural Lands Strategy to establish a new policy regime for appropriately regulating rural land use and development in the context of changing agricultural practices and ‘right to farm’. The analysis and findings of this strategy will inform the 5 year LEP review in terms of zone and land use activity.Until then, E3 zone application sound, and agricultural uses accommodate extensive agriculture and extractive industry.Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 zone in the LEP.

Not supported

Kearey, Paul Land use table Rural dual occupancy

Araluen Rural workers dwellings are not permitted in the rural zones and any second dwelling must be attached.

Secondary dwellings and attached dual occupancies are considered as useful to cater for rural workers, and shared accommodation for itinerant workers may be argued to be ancillary to certain types of rural land uses.

The draft LEP already includes attached dual occupancy development in the RU1 zone.

Agree to include secondary dwellings, and detached dual occupancy development subject to a local provision to give effect to SP38 and SP39 in the RU1 and E3 zones. Subdivision of this type of development remains prohibited.


Kearey, Paul Rural dwellings Oppose Araluen Objects to the requirement that a dwelling in a rural area will only be permissible if it has access to a council maintained sealed road. People will not be able to build in the rural areas of the Shire.



No action required

of 264


Kearey, Paul Zone Oppose Moruya Objects to the SP2 zone applied to the land as the land has been constructed as a carpark.




Not supported

Keeplan E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Moruya Objects to E3 zone applied to the land as it will curtail bonefide agricultural pursuits on the property. Requests RU1.


Not supported

Keeplan Zone Request change Malua Bay Requests a change of zone from R2 to B2 for the land and adjoining properties.

Same considerations as 2009. Outside Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy directions and actions for the commercial centre hierarchy.

Not supported

Kellett, Clint LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Kellett, Robin LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Kelley, John LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Kelly, Geoff & Corinne


Oppose Eurobodalla Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. E3 is impractical, prohibitive and unfair.


of 264


Kelly, Huego LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Kennedy, Brian E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Oppose Bodalla Objects to the E2 zone that cuts through the middle of the land. It will stop access and cattle grazing. Request all RU1 instead of E2.

E2 zone retained on land. No impact on current lawful activities. This was discussed with Mr Kennedy in numerous meetings.

No action required

Kerans, Stina & Garry

Zone Request change Narooma Requests a change from the R5 zone applied to R2 or R3 to better reflect the use and potential of the land for tourist development.

R5 zone retained. Low impact tourist and visitor accommodation and ecotourist facilities permissible with consent. Existing use rights otherwise will apply to motel development.

Not supported

Kerr, M P E4 Environmental Living zone

Oppose Moruya Feels discriminated and restricted by the E4 zone applied to the land. Requests like for like and R5 zone.


Not supported

Kerr, M P LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Kershaw, K M E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

Kershaw, P & Walpole D


Oppose Nerrigundah Opposes the split E3 zone on the land. Request RU1.


Keyte, Adam LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Kidd, Caroline & Barry


Council land Dalmeny Objects to the E2 zone applied to the council foreshore land. Concerned about future use and maintenance restrictions of the zone. Believes we are stealing recreational land that was promised to residents.










Not supported

of 264


Kidd, Carolyn E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

King, Bruce Biodiversity protection Oppose Moruya Requests the removal of the wildlife corridor and habitat mapping from the land.


No action required

King, Lisa Maree Biodiversity protection Request change Moruya Requests a review of the EEC on the land.


No action required

of 264


King, R W & E R E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Moruya Requests a review of the E3 zone applied to the land. Seeks RU1.


Not supported

King, T & Tandy P E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Dignams Creek Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land it is overly restrictive and impacts on our rights.

Statement of opinion without facts.No action required

King, T & Tandy P Land use table Request change Dignams Creek Requests that existing use rights be retained on rural land.

Existing use rights apply subject to the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations.

No action required

King, T & Tandy P LEP general Rural zone Dignams Creek Supports the points made by the Dignams Creek community in its proforma submission.

See Green response attached using menu on the left

King, T & Tandy P Land use table Request change Dignams Creek Requests that restrictions be relaxed on home business and home industry definitions.

Home industry and home business uses appropriately defined and provided for in the land use table.

No action required

Kingsbury, C & Van Gemert, F


Request change Dalmeny Requests the removal of the E2 zone from the land and R2 applied to all the land. DA has been granted over part of the land.

E2 zone to be retained for the following reasons:•20m buffer for Category 2 stream is the current boundary for the E2 Zone.•1% flood level is within the 20m buffer therefore there would not be an improved outcome for the developer by adjusting boundary of E2 to the 1% flood level•No improved outcome for developer if the E2 was removed and assessment was considered on the overlay boundaries•The area delineated as E2 is marked as proposed public reserve – ie, it is going to be E2 anyway•Has an existing approval and substantial commencement therefore the LEP has no impact on the development.•Future development of residual lot will still need to consider the Category 2 and 3 overlays•E2 unlikely to impact on constructing access to future development

Not supported

Kingsbury, C & Van Gemert, F


Request change Dalmeny Requests the removal of the E2 zone from the land and R2 applied to all the land. DA has been granted over part of the land.

E2 zone to be retained for the following reasons:•20m buffer for Category 2 stream is the current boundary for the E2 Zone.•1% flood level is within the 20m buffer therefore there would not be an improved outcome for the developer by adjusting boundary of E2 to the 1% flood level•No improved outcome for developer if the E2 was removed and assessment was considered on the overlay boundaries•The area delineated as E2 is marked as proposed public reserve – ie, it is going to be E2 anyway•Has an existing approval and substantial commencement therefore the LEP has no impact on the development.•Future development of residual lot will still need to consider the Category 2 and 3 overlays•E2 unlikely to impact on constructing access to future development

Not supported

of 264


Kingsbury, Christine

LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Green response attached using menu on the left

Kippin, Judith LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Kite, Barry & Jennifer

Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Currowan Requests Schedule 1 listing. PIN 18957 is an 'existing parcel' with dwelling entitlement that can be listed in Schedule 1.Support/Part Support

Klekner, Peter LEP general General Shire wide Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1).Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. The draft LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property. clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEPfarm management practices does not require approval under the LEPbushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEPfarm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule

No action required

Korsten, Mark LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Korsten, Mark LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Kotvojos, Greg Land use table Rural zone Dignams Creek Objects to land zoned for primary production only having one agricultural uses permitted without consent. What about farm forestry, bed and breakfast establishment and child care centres.



of 264


Kotvojos, Greg Rural dwellings Oppose Dignams Creek Objects to the requirement that a dwelling in a rural area will only be permissible if it has access to a council maintained sealed road. People will not be able to build in the rural areas of the Shire.



No action required

Kotvojos, Greg Rural dwellings Oppose Dignams Creek Objects to the 5 year sunset provision for holdings and parcels. Landowners should not lose existing entitlements.


No action required

Kotvojs, D Rural dwellings Oppose Shire wide Objects to the restrictions on rural dwellings and dual occupancy development in the rural areas.

Concerns about rural development addressed in the attachment.See Green response attached using menu on the left

Kotvojs, Fiona Land use table Request change Shire wide The farm forestry be included in the RU1 zone as permitted with consent. All farm forestry be able to continue regardless of the zone.

Development consent for farm forestry is not required under the LEP; as such the term does not appear in the Dictionary in the LEP.

No action required

Kotvojs, Fiona Rural dwellings Request change Shire wide Requests all building entitlements for all lots be retained and deletion of clause 4.2(5), 4.2A(4) and 4.2A(5).



No action required

Kotvojs, Fiona Rural dwellings Request change Shire wide Requests 4.2A(4) be deleted. The LEP does not affect existing dwelling entitlements in this manner.


No action required

of 264


Kotvojs, Fiona Land use table Rural zone Shire wide Requests clause 4.2A(5) be deleted, and rural workers dwellings be included in the RU1 zone with consent.

Unecessary to delete provision. The LEP does not affect existing dwelling entitlements in this manner.


In relation to rural worker's dwellings, while Council has not asked for these to be permitted in its LEP, should Council wish to permit rural worker's dwellings, it would need to justify the need for these to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The Department would need to consider the nature of the rural land uses, the availability of alternate accommodation for rural workers and the distances between settlements and farms.


The draft LEP already includes attached dual occupancy development in the RU1 zone. Agree to include secondary dwellings, and detached dual occupancy development subject to a local provision to give effect to SP38 and SP39 in the RU1 and E3 zones.


Kotvojs, Fiona Land use table Request change Shire wide The size limits for home business and home industry are too restrictive and nedd to be reviewed.

Home industry and home business uses appropriately defined and provided for in the land use table.

Not supported

Kotvojs, Fiona Land use table Rural dual occupancy

Shire wide Where attached dual occupancy is permitted this be changed to detached dual occupancy



Kotvojs, Fiona Land use table Rural zone Shire wide Revise the land use tables and change the activities permitted without consent.



Kotvojs, Fiona E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide Land is zoned E3 that should not be. All 1a land should be zoned RU1, unless the landowner requests RU2 or E3.


Kotvojs, Fiona Land use table Rural zone Shire wide Revise the land use tables and change the activities permitted with consent.



of 264


Kotvojs, Fiona Not LEP issue General Shire wide Impact on rates. Has Council considered this.

The LEP and rates systems are independent of one another.

Information about the impact of zone changes impacting on rates has been communicated at public meetings and in individual correspondence to a landowner of R5 land in South Moruya.

Where zones have been transferred like for like e.g. 1c to R5 there will be no change in rating category due to a change of zoning.

Where properties experience a change in zoning from e.g. urban expansion to residential there may be an increase in land values, which may impact on rates in the longer term.

No action required

Kotvojs, Fiona Rural dwellings Request change Shire wide Requests all dwelling entitlements be retained and clause 4.2A(5) be deleted.



No action required

Kotvojs, Fiona Not LEP issue General Shire wide Real estate agents have indicated that land values can be expected to reduce on lots that have their existing dwelling entitlements removed.



No action required

Kotvojs, M & D LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Kotvojs, Martin LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Green response attached using menu on the left

Kovacs, Frank & Janet

Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Coila Dwelling entitlement confirmed by Council search in 2010. Request schedule 1 listing.

Historic lot. See submission 98.No action required

Kovacs, Frank & Janet

Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Coila Dwelling entitlement confirmed by Council search in 2010. Request schedule 1 listing.

PIN 22469 is a historic lot. PIN 34225 is an 'existing parcel' with dwelling entitlement that can be listed in Schedule 1.


Kowal, Chris Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Nerrigundah Dwelling entitlement confirmed by Council search in 2010. Request schedule 1 listing.


Kowal, Chris E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Nerrigundah Requests a E3/RU1 split zone be applied to the land.


Land will be subject to Rural Lands Strategy.

Not supported

of 264


Kowal, Chris Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Nerrigundah Dwelling entitlement confirmed by Council search in 2010. Request schedule 1 listing.


Kukolic, Kruno E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Araluen Understand the rationale of the split zone. Request a review of the zones as applied to the land to better suit the land.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands.Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 zone in the LEP.

Not supported

Kurup, Ulla E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Nerrigundah Objects to the split zoning RU1/E3 applied to the land. Requests all RU1.



Not supported

Ladmore, Sienna Bella


Ladmore, Sienna Bella


Lamont, Grant LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Lamont, Grant LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Lamont, P LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Lamont, P LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Lamont, Scott LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Lange, Mr S LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Lange, Mrs D LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Langtry, M LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Langworthy, Ian E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Narooma Opposes the E3 zone as applied to the land. RU2 is totally inappropriate. Request RU1 zone.


Not supported

Lapland Pastoral Co P/L


Lapland Pastoral Co P/L


Larkin, Maree LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Latta, Mark LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Lavis, Dennis LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Lavis, James LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Lavis, James LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Lavis, Jim LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Lavis, Jim LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Lavis, Jim LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Lawler, C E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Cadgee Requests consideration to remove all E3 applied to the land to RU1.



Not supported

of 264


Lawler, Jane E3 Environmental Management zone




Not supported

Lawler, Moira E3 Environmental Management zone




Not supported

Law-Smith, Susan LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Law-Smith, Susan LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Le Page, Anthony E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Narooma Oppose the E3 zone applied to the land. Not appropriate west of the highway and Corunna Lake.


Not supported

Le Sueur, Lindsay E4 Environmental Living zone

Support Moruya Supports the E4 zone applied to land in and around Moruya Heads.


Le Sueur, Lindsay E4 Environmental Living zone

Request change Moruya Request a zone change of a crown road adjoining his land from E3 to E4 to enable a road to be built for a single dwelling.

Roads permissible with consent in E3 and E4 zones.No action required

of 264


Lea, Chris E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Objects to the E2 zone applied to the council foreshore land. Concerned about future use and maintenance restrictions of the zone. Request RE1 zone.










Not supported

of 264


Lea, Chris E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

Leechman, Colin LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Leechman, Kate LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Leopardi, Christine E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Believes 5 acres or less is not rural land and should be E3.


Lewis, June E3 Environmental Management zone



of 264


Lewis, Marie E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Opposes the E2 zone on Council land as it is totally inappropriate. Supports RE1.










Not supported

of 264


Lewis, Thomas E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Objects to the E2 zone applied to the land as it will allow rampant growth of coastal vegetation with the effect of destroying the character of that part of Dalmeny.










Not supported

Lontis, Neil LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Loudon, S LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Louitt, Adam LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Love, Cheryl RU1 Primary Production Zone

Support Shire wide Modify the current E zones to RU1 and apply like for like zoning principles in the Eurobodalla Shire.




Not supported

Love, Cheryl Zone Environmental zone

Shire wide Requests that Council remove all E zones applied to land zoned for agricultural usage.




Not supported

Love, Janene & Dorothy

RU2 Rural Landscape Zone

Support Shire wide Supports RU2 zone on private land instead of E3.



Zone Environmental zone





Not supported







Not supported

Love, Melissa LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Love, Melissa LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Love, Nathan E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide Requests that Council remove all E zones applied to land zoned for agricultural usage.




Not supported

Love, Nathan RU1 Primary Production Zone





Not supported

Love, Nathan LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Love, Nathan LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Love, Stephen RU1 Primary Production Zone





Not supported

Love, Stephen Zone Environmental zone





Not supported

of 264


Love, Stephen & Cheryl


Support Shire wide Supports RU2 zone instead of E3 on private land.


Low, John & Caroline












Not supported

Lowe, Anthony RU2 Rural Landscape Zone

Support Shire wide Supports RU2 on the land instead of E3.


of 264


Lowe, Tony E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Potato Point Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land as it will after the use and value of the land. Requests RU1.




No action required

Lucre, J M E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Moruya Opposes the E3 zone applied to any land, believes it is unAustralian.


Lymdoors Pty Ltd Zone Request change Broulee Request consideration of the land be deferred until completion of the Broulee Biocertification Project.

Land is zoned Residential under the LEP. Any biocertification project is undertaken separate to the LEP process.

No action required

Lynch, M A LEP general Oppose Shire wide Objects to the LEP zones, overlays and infringement on property rights Blue PF type issues). Objects to E3 zone applied to land.


Lynch, Michael R5 Large Lot Residential zone

Request change Moruya Would like to see agricultural activities included in the R5 zone to clarify that animals can be kept on R5 land.



Lynch, Michael Biodiversity protection Oppose Moruya The corridor layer is another form of governance where other acts exist and should be removed.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Native Vegetation Act, Threatened Species Conservation and Noxious Weeds Acts exist and operate independently of each other. Each piece of legislation mentioned has specific areas of influence, whereas the regulation of development in a holistic sense falls to local government which must ensure that the land use patterns in a locality support sustainable development and comply with existing legislation and policy.

No action required

Lynch, Michael Biodiversity protection Oppose Moruya The extant vegetation and EEC boundaries are wrong and need to be adjusted.


No action required

Lynch, Peter E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports E3 zone applied to the land. Believes Council has invested wisely to map and classify the landscapes to protect sensitvie areas.


Lynch, Ritchley R5 Large Lot Residential zone

Request change Moruya Would like to see agricultural activities included in the R5 zone to clarify that animals can be kept on R5 land.



of 264


Lynch, Ritchley Biodiversity protection Oppose Moruya The extant vegetation and EEC boundaries are wrong and need to be adjusted.


No action required

Lynch, Ritchley Biodiversity protection Oppose Moruya The corridor layer is another form of governance where other acts exist and should be removed.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Native Vegetation Act, Threatened Species Conservation and Noxious Weeds Acts exist and operate independently of each other. Each piece of legislation mentioned has specific areas of influence, whereas the regulation of development in a holistic sense falls to local government which must ensure that the land use patterns in a locality support sustainable development and comply with existing legislation and policy.

No action required

of 264


Macauley, Colin E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Concerned about the E2 zone applied to council land particularly McMillan Crescent Head land.










Not supported

MacCallum, Malcolm BBLALC

Not LEP issue General Shire wide Wants to confirm that private native forestry approvals are not impacted by the LEP.


No action required

MacKenzie, David Riparian land and waterways

Request change Shire wide Requests a reconsideration of the riparian zone defined in the LEP.

Acknowledge concerns. Drafting of local provision provided by Parliamentary Counsel to comply with Cabinet stipulations. More specific controls to be included in development control plan.

No action required

of 264


Maclennan, Bruce RU2 Rural Landscape Zone

Support Shire wide Supports RU2 zone instead of E3 on their land.


Maconochie, Frank E3 Environmental Management zone



Madigan, Rosemary


of 264


Maher, Jackson E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Recommends RE1 be applied to the Dalmeny Kianga foreshore to allow current use to continue.










Not supported

of 264


Maher, Maree E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Recommends RE1 be applied to the Dalmeny Kianga foreshore to allow current use to continue.










Not supported

of 264


Maher, Michael E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Recommend RE1 be applied to the Dalmeny Kianga foreshore to allow current use to continue.










Not supported

of 264


Maher, Patrick E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Recommend RE1 be applied to the Dalmeny Kianga foreshore to allow current use to continue.










Not supported

Maher, Roslyn Zone Request change Moruya Objects to the E4 zone applied to the land. Requests R5 and a 5000m2 lot size.

The zone and lot size gives effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. The zone and lot size application sound and compatible with development applications current for land in the area.

Not supported

Malavey, Alana LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Malavey, Alana E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Moruya Objects to the E3 zone applied to part of the land. It will have a negative on the development potential of the land and the financial arrangements of the landowners. This has not been considered by staff properly.


Not supported

Malavey, Alana LEP general Oppose Shire wide Asks that the Councillors not support the LEP and take into account the meaning of the word environmental in Act not as used in the LEP.









No action required

of 264









No action required

Malavey, Alana Zone Request change Moruya Land is R2. Seeks R3 Medium Density Housing as the block has all the infrastructure and is close to town. Concerned about the 3 dwelling rule in R2 zone.

R2 zone retained. Zone application sound. Multi dwelling housing is permitted with consent which enables 3 or more dwellings to be constructed on the land. Subdivision down to 300m2 lot size is permitted for this type of development.

Not supported

Malavey, Alana LEP general Oppose Shire wide Asks that the Councillors not support the LEP and take into account the meaning of the word environmental in Act not as used in the LEP.


Malavey, Corrinne LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Malavey, Corrinne LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Malavey, Corrinne E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Moruya Objects to the E3 zone applied to part of the land.It will have a negative on the development potential of the land and the financial arrangements of the landowners. This has not been considered by staff properly.

This parcel of land has been the subject of lengthy discussions with relevant council staff, state agencies and the land owners so as to deliver a development outcome, given the constraints that exist on the land, and the recommendations of the Sensitive Coastal Lands Report for this land. The proposed E3 zone on part of this land applies to land affected by the presence of an EEC; and was part of an agreed outcome by the landowner as a trade-off for an urban residential subdivision on a part of the land less constrained. The E3 part of the land provides for a house site only given the EEC on the remainder of the land. It is noteworthy that a development application for the land is currently with Council.

No action required

Malavey, Corrinne LEP general Oppose Shire wide Asks that the Councillors not support the LEP and take into account the meaning of the word environmental in Act not as used in the LEP.









No action required

Malavey, Corrinne LEP general General Shire wide Asks Councillors not to support the LEP. Believes the RU2 and E3 issue has been mishandled. Zones should reflect "like for like".


Malavey, Corrinne R5 Large Lot Residential zone

Request change Moruya Objects to the R5 zone applied to the land does not have rural focus. Requests RU4.



of 264


Malavey, Corrinne Lot size Oppose Moruya Objects to the 2ha lot size applied to the land as it is inconsistent with adjoining development that has smaller 1ha lots. Requests 2000m2 lot size.

Lots less than 2ha in area in this locality have not been able to achieve OSMS, RFS and ecological requirements through the development application process. Time and money has been spent by landowners with the result being larger lot sizes. Smaller lots also introduce lifestyle choice conflicts with regards to small lots impacting on existing agricultural uses in the area.

Not supported

Malavey, Corrinne Land use table Oppose Moruya Objects to the requirement for attached dual occupancy and secondary dwellings. This takes away the right of the land owner to erect another dwelling for a family member or rental other than attached to the main dwelling.





Malavey, Corrinne Biodiversity protection Oppose Moruya Objects to the Habitat corridor and EEC mapping on the land as it is a working farm.


No action required

Malavey, Corrinne Zone Request change Moruya Land is R2. Seeks R3 Medium Density Housing as the block has all the infrastructure and is close to town. Concerned about the 3 dwelling rule in R2 zone.


Not supported








No action required

of 264


Malavey, Corrinne LEP general Oppose Shire wide Asks that the Councillors not support the LEP and take into account the meaning of the word environmental in Act not as used in the LEP.


Malavey, Greg Zone Environmental zone

Shire wide E zones should not be applied to any private land. RU2 is not the answer to E3. Concerned about the deceit in changing the zones in LEP. This issue should stop the LEP. Not convinced that planning staff have an unbiased view to this process. Believes the methodology is flawed.

Separate correspondance with Mr Malavey about the LEP has occurred. In particular a letter from the Mayor dated 19 October 2011, addressed the strong views that he expressed about staff and the LEP process.

No action required

Malavey, Greg LEP general General Shire wide A zone protocol that clearly lists the best comparative zone; No environmental zones on private land except wetlands; All zones on a like for like basis; Expand development without consent in all zones to save time and work; Remove the bio corridor from the LEP; Fix the incongruous zones; Make the LEP clear and easily understood; Staff and Councillors to respect people simple rights; Council staff to show more empathy.


Malavey, Greg LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Malavey, Greg LEP general Oppose Shire wide Asks that the Councillors not support the LEP and take into account the meaning of the word environmental in Act not as used in the LEP.


of 264


Malavey, Greg E3 Environmental Management zone







No action required




Not supported

Malavey, Greg LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Malavey, Greg Zone Request change Moruya Land is R2. Seeks R3 Medium Density Housing as the block has all the infrastructure and is close to town. Concerned about the 3 dwelling rule in R2 zone.


Not supported

of 264









No action required

Malavey, Greg LEP general General Shire wide Asks that the Councillors not support the LEP and take into account the meaning of the word environmental in Act not as used in the LEP.


of 264









No action required

Malavey, Greg LEP general General Shire wide Asks that the Councillors not support the LEP and take into account the meaning of the word environmental in Act not as used in the LEP.


Malavey, Greg Zone Request change Moruya Land is R2. Seeks R3 Medium Density Housing as the block has all the infrastructure and is close to town. Concerned about the 3 dwelling rule in R2 zone.


Not supported

Malavey, Kurt LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Malavey, Kurt LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Malavey, Kurt E3 Environmental Management zone



Not supported








No action required

Malavey, Kurt LEP general Oppose Shire wide Asks that the Councillors not support the LEP and take into account the meaning of the word environmental in Act not as used in the LEP.


Malavey, Kurt Zone Request change Moruya Land is R2. Seeks R3 Medium Density Housing as the block has all the infrastructure and is close to town. Concerned about the 3 dwelling rule in R2 zone.


Not supported

of 264











No action required



Malavey, Kurt R5 Large Lot Residential zone

Request change Moruya Objects to the R5 zone applied to the land does not have rural focus. Requests RU4.



of 264









No action required

Malavey, Kurt Lot size Request change Moruya Objects to the 2ha lot size applied to the land as it is inconsistent with adjoining development that has smaller 1ha lots. Requests 2000m2 lot size.

Lots less than 2ha in area in this locality have not been able to achieve OSMS, RFS and ecological requirements through the development application process. Time and money has been spent by landowners with the result being larger lot sizes. Smaller lots also introduce lifestyle choice conflicts with regards to small lots impacting on existing agricultural uses in the area.

Not supported

Malavey, Kurt Land use table Oppose Shire wide Objects to the requirement for attached dual occupancy and secondary dwellings. This takes away the right of the land owner to erect another dwelling for a family member or rental other than attached to the main dwelling.



Malavey, Nadia LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Malavey, Nadia LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Malavey, Nadia E3 Environmental Management zone



Not supported

Malavey, Nadia LEP general Oppose Shire wide Asks that the Councillors not support the LEP and take into account the meaning of the word environmental in Act not as used in the LEP.









No action required

of 264









No action required

Malavey, Nadia LEP general Oppose Shire wide Asks that the Councillors not support the LEP and take into account the meaning of the word environmental in Act not as used in the LEP.


Malavey, Nadia Zone Request change Moruya Land is R2. Seeks R3 Medium Density Housing as the block has all the infrastructure and is close to town. Concerned about the 3 dwelling rule in R2 zone.


Not supported

Mally, Christof LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Mally, Vera LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Mansfield, B E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Moruya Request a change of zone applied from E3 to RU1 or RU2.


Not supported

Maras Holdings Pty Ltd


Request change Guerilla Bay Requests a split zone of E3 and E2 be applied to the land.

Split zone to be applied from supplied information.Support/Part Support

of 264


Marcadet, Margot E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports E3 zone being applied to the land to protect environmentally significant lands.


Marks, S E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide Concerns about the E3 zone and its application.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound.

No action required

Marr, Michelle E4 Environmental Living zone

Oppose Moruya Objects to the E4 zone applied to the land. Requests like for like and R5 applied to the land. DA current with Council and does not want the LEP to undermine development potential.

E4 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. Lot size application sound and compatible with the development application process current for the land.

No action required

Mars, Kerrie LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Marsden, L LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Mass, Owen LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Mass, Owen LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Mass, P LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Mass, P LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Masserot, Therese LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Mathews-Bennett, Belinda

Lot size Oppose Narooma The minimum lot size proposed in rural residential zones and the zones limit further development potential in Narooma.



Matthews, K & B LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Green response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Mauger, David Zone General Shire wide Objects to Council having power to liquidate property rights without compensation. Objects to application and location of all zones in the LEP for various Shire wide and site specific reasons. Expects consideration of concerns, failure to do so could be seen as discrimination.







No action required

May, Paul E3 Environmental Management zone



May, Paul E2 Environmental Conservation zone



No action required

Mayo-Ramsay, Julia


Request change Eurobodalla Requests DP 752145 be changed to RU1 to be in keeping with the use of the land.

RU1/E3 zone split applied to creek.Support/Part Support

McCann Vicki LEP general General Shire wide Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1).Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. The draft LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property. clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEPfarm management practices does not require approval under the LEPbushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEPfarm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule

No action required

of 264


McCarthy, Alison E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Narooma Objects to the E3/RU1 split applied to the land. Requests all RU1.


McConaghy, J E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Meringo Delete all E designated zones especially E3. Legislation needs to be modified. Compensation made available for the loss of property rights.



No action required

McFadden, Kevin E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Jeremadra Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. Requests a RU1 zone as that will give like for like.



No action required

McGarry, J LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

McGrath, Brendon LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

McGrath, P E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Moruya Object to the E3 zone applied to the land. It is totalitarian or green communism. Wants like for like and RU2 or RU4 to enable small rural subdivision.



No action required

McHugh, Xavier LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

McInnes, B LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

McIntyre, Colin LEP general General Moruya The LEP is inflexible and Council has not listened to the community. The R5 zone is vague and restrictive. The biocorridor covers most of Moruya and agains limits the use of private land.


McIntyre, Colin LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

of 264


McIntyre, Colin LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

McKay, Denise E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Maloneys Beach

Opposes any change to the E3 zone in the vicinity of Maloneys Beach and the National Park.


McLagan, Diane E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide No E3 on private land. Statement of opinion.No action required

McLagan, Diane LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

McLagan, Diane LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

McLagan, Ross E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide No E3 on private land. Statement of opinion.No action required

McLagan, Ross LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

McLagan, Ross LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

McLauchlan, R LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Green response attached using menu on the left

McLauchlan, R LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Green response attached using menu on the left

McLaughlin, George


Bodalla Objects to the requirement for attached dual occupancy as it is unreasonable in certain circumstances.



McLaughlin, George


Support Shire wide Supports the RU2 zone instead of the E3 zone.


of 264


McLaughlin, George


Oppose Bodalla Object to the E3 zoning on private land; the imprecise desk study approach to detemining zone boundaries; the prohibition on detached dual occupancy.



Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP.



McLoughlin, Brett LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

McMahon, M J LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

McMillan, Lachlan E2 Environmental Conservation zone



McMillan, Lachlan LEP general Oppose Shire wide Same as submission 377. Raises a number of concerns with the LEP, LEP process and also site specific zones.


McNeile, E E4 Environmental Living zone

Oppose Tuross Oppose the inclusion of Kyla Park clusters in the E4 zone. Contrary to the original intent of the subdivision. Concerned about dual occupancy development being permitted in the E4 zone.

Prohibition on dual occupancy in the Kyla Park clusters to be included schedule 1.Support/Part Support

of 264


McPaul, Alan lep general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

McPaul, Alan LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

McPaul, Christine LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

McPaul, Christine LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

McPaul, Edward LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

McPaul, Edward LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

McPaul, Elizabeth LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

McPaul, Elizabeth LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

McPaul, Samuel LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

McPaul, Samuel LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

McQualter, W & C LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Mead, Julie LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Menregs, John LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Mettam, Robert E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Opposes the E2 zone applied to the land. It will cause a bushfire hazard and also give snakes and vermin unrestricted access to residences.










Not supported

of 264


Mezzino, D E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Objects to the E2 zone. The E2 zone has not been sufficiently evaluated.










Not supported

of 264


Mezzino, F & D E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

Michael Brown Planning Strategies

Zone Request change Moruya Amend the residential zone boundary to align with the boundary of the approved subdivision.

Zone and lot size mapping reflects the flood line. Existing activated development consent is not affected by the LEP.

No action required

of 264



Lot size Request change Moruya Amend the lot size map to reflect a minimum lot size of 500m2 for the residential component of the subject land.

550m2 lot size applies to the residential land. No subdivision of flood prone land. Existing activated development consent is not affected by the LEP.

Not supported


LEP mapping Request change Moruya Review the zoning of the residue part of the land with adjoining lands to the east.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Submission on behalf of owner of Lots 76 - 90 DP 752151 South Head Road Moruya (Blue Mist P/L) seeks a zoning change from RU2 to R2 for this land. Believe the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and Moruya Structure Plan ignore the development potential of this land for urban purposes. Outside Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and Moruya Structure Plan. In direct conflict with South Coast Regional Strategy. Adequate land supply in locality. A Rural Lands Strategy undertaken will inform the 5 year LEP review.

No action required


Zone Request change Moruya Make a relevant notation on the flood planning map that approved civil works nay amend the impact noted on the plan.

Not an LEP issue.No action required


LEP mapping Request change Moruya Council review the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and Moruya Structure Plan and include the subject land on its urban release area map for urban development.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Submission on behalf of owner of Lots 76 - 90 DP 752151 South Head Road Moruya (Blue Mist P/L) seeks a zoning change from RU2 to R2 for this land. Believe the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and Moruya Structure Plan ignore the development potential of this land for urban purposes. Outside Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and Moruya Structure Plan. In direct conflict with South Coast Regional Strategy. Adequate land supply in locality. A Rural Lands Strategy undertaken will inform the 5 year LEP review.

No action required


Not LEP issue General Moruya Council note the limitations of the constraints mapping and review this as part of the above investigation.

Comments noted but not relevant to LEP.No action required

Miles, Ian Zone Request change Broulee Requests a tourism zone be applied to Broulee along the beach front areas.

The SP3 zone is to be applied to particular locations where tourism is considered a focus. Stand alone accommodation uses are to be zoned consistent with adjoining land and can operate under the auspices of existing use rights if the zone does not specifically accommodate that use. Otherwise the land use tables provide adequate opportunities for accommodation and tourism development consistent with zone objectives.

No action required

Miles, Ian Land use table Request change Broulee Requests more flexibility in the zoning applied in Broulee to provide new opportunities for tourist development.

The SP3 zone is to be applied to particular locations where tourism is considered a focus. Stand alone accommodation uses are to be zoned consistent with adjoining land and can operate under the auspices of existing use rights if the zone does not specifically accommodate that use. Otherwise the land use tables provide adequate opportunities for accommodation and tourism development consistent with zone objectives.

No action required

Miles, T & L LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Miller, Richard E2 Environmental Conservation zone



No action required

of 264


Miller, Richard E3 Environmental Management zone



Miller, Samantha LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Milner, Frank LEP general Oppose Shire wide The LEP is flawed. Reason for objection made clear by Eurobodalla Ratepayers Association. E3 must be elimiated from the LEP.


Minehan, Jayden LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Minehan, Jayden LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Minehan, Lindsay LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Minehan, Lindsay LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Minehan, Maddison


Minehan, Maddison


Minehan, Mark LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Minehan, Mark LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Minehan, Michelle LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Minehan, Michelle LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Misfeld, Ivan E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Bodalla Requests like for like zone and RU2 or RU4 applied to the land not E3.


Not supported

Mitchell, Kenneth LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Mitchell, Megan LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Mitchell, Megan LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Mitchell, Rhett Zone Request change Nelligen Requests a change of zone applied from E4 to RU4.


Not supported

Montgomery Planning Solutions

Zone Request change Broulee Requests a change of zone from B2 to R3 for the land.

The business area in Broulee has been significantly rationalised in accordance with the adopted and endorsed Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy, and the Retail and Policy Guidelines – Neighbourhood Centres referenced by the strategy. The overall area has been reduced by eliminating the poorly located business area on Broulee Rd (approx. 1.5ha) and reducing, but increasing the density of the Train St area (approx 4ha reduced to 2ha). A B2 Neighbourhood centre zone has been applied to the latter site while the final location was determined with regard to road safety.

Not supported

Montgomery, David & Gillian

Zone Request change Bingie Same as submission 25 and 203.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Seeks a zoning change for Portion 225 DP 752137, Congo from RU1 to E4 to enable small lot rural subdivision. RU1 zone to be applied. South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy or agencies do not support increased development in catchment of high conservation value lakes. Subdivision of rural land is not consistent with South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy. The Rural Land Strategy undertaken will inform the 5 year LEP review.

Not supported



Request change Bingie Believes there are compelling reasons as discussed previously with Council staff to rezone the land to E4 and enable subdivison consistent with the E4 zone.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Seeks a zoning change for Portion 225 DP 752137, Congo from RU1 to E4 to enable small lot rural subdivision. RU1 zone to be applied. South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy or agencies do not support increased development in catchment of high conservation value lakes. Subdivision of rural land is not consistent with South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy. The Rural Land Strategy undertaken will inform the 5 year LEP review.

Not supported

of 264



Zone Request change Coila Land is unsuitable for RU1 request a change to E4 to enable rural residential subdivision.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Seeks a zoning change for Portion 225 DP 752137, Congo from RU1 to E4 to enable small lot rural subdivision. RU1 zone to be applied. South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy or agencies do not support increased development in catchment of high conservation value lakes. Subdivision of rural land is not consistent with South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy. A Rural Land Review will be undertaken to inform the 5 year LEP review.

Not supported

Moore, Leanne LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Moore, Ray LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Moore, Ray LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Moore, Robert LEP general Property rights Shire wide Council's across the board are using Agenda 21 template via LEP and all sorts of environmental back door clauses. Be warned.


Moreton, Shane LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Moreton, Shane LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Morgan, June Zone Council land Dalmeny Opposes the zone and development of Council land at Dalmeny for urban residential.










Not supported

Morris, Ainslie E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone applied to protect environmentally sensitive areas.


Morris, Stephanie LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Morrison, Jan LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Morrison, Jan LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Morrison, Neil LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Morrison, Neil LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Mortlock, Shaun LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Moss, Vivien E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Deua Valley Requests the E3 section of the land be zoned RU1 as it is an olive grove.


of 264


Mossop, Michael & Jennifer












Not supported

of 264


Mossop, Mike E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Objects to the E2 zone applied to the foreshore of Lake Mummaga it is not appropriate and will contribute further to potential flooding in the area.










Not supported

of 264


Murphy, Ian E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Cadgee Inappropriateness of proposed E3 zoning on part of 25//752156; there are enough environmental safeguards on the land; uncertainty of existing use rights; request like for like; local environmental planning process is an impediment to emrging and diverse agricultural pursuits.


Not supported

Murray, Bill LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Green response attached using menu on the left

Murray, Bill LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Green response attached using menu on the left

Murray, Maureen Zone Residential zone Narooma Objects to the R3 zone applied to the land, and prohibition on single dwelling house development.

Same considerations as 2009. Retained prohibition on strategic R3 land, but those lots no larger than a house lot have been zoned R2. Multi dwelling housing in R2 zone provides opportunity for staged single dwelling house development on this land on lots down to 300m2.

Not supported

Mustard, Tim LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Narooma & District Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Inc

LEP general General Narooma Comments: Deeply concerned about the lack of area set aside for appropriate development; Properties zoned urban expansion should retain their existing rights; Agree with the change from RE1 to E2 for coastal areas, except when neighbouring existing residential settlements; Concerned about the reduction in industrial land; Believe the land use table should be expanded for IN2; believes the current retail precincts are sufficient.



Nash, Harold LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Nash, Harold LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Nature Coast Marine Group


Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone applied to land.



Riparian land and waterways

Request change Shire wide Requests a review of the riparian buffer in the LEP clause to 90m.

Acknowledge concerns. Drafting of local provision provided by Parliamenary Counsel to comply with Cabinet stipulations. More specific controls to be included in development control plan.

No action required


Land use table Request change Shire wide Requests a change to the definition of electricity generating works to exclude works which generate electricity using products from native forests.

The Standard Instrument for preparing local environmental plans (LEPs) includes a Dictionary of standard definitions relating to land uses and other terms relevant to the interpretation and application of LEPs.

The Dictionary is a mandatory provision and included in its entirety in all LEPs. To maintain consistency in planning language across the State, councils are not able to alter the standard definitions or directly add definitions to the Dictionary

Councils must give effect to any relevant State or regional planning guidance when determining permitted and prohibited land uses. In addition, where the permissibility of certain land uses is provided for under a relevant SEPP (e.g. Infrastructure SEPP), there is no need to include these types of development in Standard Instrument LEPs.

No action required


Biodiversity protection Support Shire wide Supports the corridor mapping although raises concern about the mapping of the Moruya town centre.


No action required



Support Congo Suuports the E2 zone applied to the foreshore land in Congo village.



Land use table General Shire wide Seeks the phasing out of existing use rights on land.

Existing use rights apply to land in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations.

No action required

Naughton, Patricia E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Bodalla Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. Requests RU1.


Not supported

Naughton, Patricia Land use table Rural zone Shire wide Objects to the with consent activities in the agricultural zone that have been reduced in the LEP.



of 264


Naughton, Wayne Rural dwellings Oppose Shire wide Thinks it is unfair that building entitlements are linked to a council maintained sealed road. Objects to rural dual occupancy being attached.




No action required

Naughton, Wayne RU2 Rural Landscape Zone

Support Bodalla Supports RU2 applied to the land than E3.


Naughton, Wayne & Patricia


Support Bodalla Our land should be RU1 as our property is a complete working farm unit.




Not supported

Naughton, Wayne & Patricia


Bodalla Requests the right to a detached dual occupancy be preserved on the land once the new LEP is implemented.



Nebelung, Justin LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Nebelung, Seline LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Nebelung, Selmar LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Neil, Michael Zone Request change Moruya Objects to the IN1 zone applied to part of their land.

Land proposed to be zoned industrial in 2006. Confirmed in adopted employment lands strategy. Zone retained to enable further investigation.

Not supported

Neuber, Dieter E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Tilba District Property was purchased as an extension to Kent Farm. E3 zone is not acceptable. Request change to RU1.

Land is zoned RU1.No action required

Neuber, Dieter LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Neville, Carol LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Green response attached using menu on the left

Neville, Carol E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Cadgee Inappropriateness of proposed E3 zoning on Parts of 1//731390; 82 & 100//630060; 25 & 121//752156.


Not supported

Neville, Carol Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Cadgee Dwelling entitlement confirmed by Council search in 1997. Request schedule 1 listing.

The portions together form a 'holding' with dwelling entitlement that can be listed in Schedule 1.Support/Part Support

Newell, Ean LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Newell, Ean LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Newell, Ean LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Newman, Ross LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Newnham, Marshall


Nicol, Alex LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Nicol, Alex LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Nicol, S J Land use table Rural dual occupancy

Dignams Creek See Green response attached using menu on the left

Nicol, S J LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Green response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Nicol, Tom LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Green response attached using menu on the left

Noble, Keith Zone Request change Narooma Requests land to be zoned E4 with a 2 hectare minimum lot size. Or the land listed in Schedule 1.

Land is zoned RU1. Present controls prohibit subdivision of rural land unless for agricultural purposes. Landowners have bought and developed land knowing this. Draft LEP does not change this situation. Subdivision of rural land is not consistent with South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy. The Rural Lands Strategy undertaken will inform the 5 year LEP review.

Not supported

Noble, Keith & Carol


Oppose Narooma Objects to the RU1 zone applied to the land as it is fundamentally flawed and needs to be changed to a suitable zone. Request E4.

Land is zoned RU1. Present controls prohibit subdivision of rural land unless for agricultural purposes. Landowners have bought and developed land knowing this. Draft LEP does not change this situation. Subdivision of rural land is not consistent with South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy.The Rural Lands Strategy undertaken will inform the 5 year LEP review.

Not supported

Noble, Keith & Carol

Lot size Oppose Narooma Objects to the 1000+ha lot size applied to the RU1 land. Requests a 2ha lot size.

Land is zoned RU1. Present controls prohibit subdivision of rural land unless for agricultural purposes. Landowners have bought and developed land knowing this. Draft LEP does not change this situation. Subdivision of rural land is not consistent with South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy. A Rural Land Review will be undertaken to inform the 5 year LEP review.

Not supported

Northrop, Diane Heritage Request change Bodalla Requests the removal of the Stoney Creek Aboriginal Heritage Conservation Area from the land.

Same considerations as 2009. Map amended then. Clause 5.10 of LEP 2011 is clear in the impact of the adoption of the Aboriginal Heritage Conservation Area & is not be responsible for existing conflicts or incorrect assumptions. This is a civil issue, not a planning issue.

Not supported

Northrop, Elissa Heritage Request change Bodalla Requests the removal of the Stoney Creek Aboriginal Heritage Conservation Area from the land.


Not supported

Northrop, Justin Heritage Request change Bodalla Requests the removal of the Stoney Creek Aboriginal Heritage Conservation Area from the land.


Not supported

Northrop, Murray Heritage Request change Bodalla Requests the removal of the Stoney Creek Aboriginal Heritage Conservation Area from the land.


Not supported

Nowlan, M LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Nye, Andrew LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Nye, Andrew LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Nye, Charles LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Nye, Charles LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Nye, Christine LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Nye, Christine LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Nye, James LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Nye, James LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Nye, L LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Nye, L LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Nye, Maryanne LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Nye, Maryanne LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Nye, Paul LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Nye, Paul LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Nye, T LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Nye, T LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Nye, T LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Nye, Tara LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Nye, William LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Nye, William LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Nye, William LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Nye,T LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

O Connell, Tom & Annette


Oppose Mogendoura Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land as it takes away existing rights.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. Rural activities accommodated. Unsubstantiated statement about loss of property rights.

Not supported

of 264


O Reilly, Belinda LEP general Council land Shire wide Council owned and managed lands should not be constrained in any way, especially for clean energy production or carbon farming potential.










Not supported

of 264


O Reilly, Belinda E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Bodalla Opposes the E3 zone applied to the land. Request RU1.


Not supported

O Reilly, Belinda Land use table Rural dual occupancy

Bodalla Cannot understand the justification for attached dual occupancy in the RU1 and E3 zones.



O'Meley, Grant LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

O'Meley, Jennifer LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

O'Meley, Steve LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Parker, Lance E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Benandarah Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land: may limit or deny access to my property; Objects to the LEP restricting rural dwellings to council maintained sealed roads. Objects to the restriction on attached dual occupancy and no rural workers dwellings; Objects to the LEP only allowing one agricultural use permitted without approval.

Issues addressed in attached response.See Green response attached using menu on the left

Parrish, Darren LEP general General Shire wide See Pinkresponse attached using menu on the left

Parrish, Darren LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Parrish, DW & SM E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Oppose Bodalla Objects to the E2 zone that has been applied to Lots 1,9 and 8 DP 752132. Requests a rural zone.


of 264


Parrish, DW & SM E3 Environmental Management Zone

Oppose Bodalla Objects to the E3 zone that has been applied to Lots 18-23 & 3 DP 752132. Requests a rural zone.


Not supported

Parrish, Emily LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Parrish, Emily LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Parrish, Matthew LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Parrish, Matthew LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Parrish, Sharon LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Parrish, Sharon LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Parrish, Sharon LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Parsons, Troy LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Parsons, Troy LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Paschalidis, Stefan LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Patent Development Pty Ltd

LEP general General Moruya The draft LEP suggests some changes to the State Government concept plan which is unacceptable.

Agree. Concept approval granted by the State Government is not impacted by the LEP.No action required

of 264


Paul, Michael LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Pazychodzka,Ruth LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Pazychodzka,Ruth LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Pearce, Christine & Michael


Request change Runnyford Requests a change of zone from E3 to RU1 for the land to reflect the land status and use.



Not supported

Pearce, Christine & Michael


Request change Runnyford Requests a change of zone from E3 to RU1 for the land to reflect land status and use.

E3 zone reviewed and zone application sound. Location environmentally sensitive. Zone accommodates grazing of livestock.


Not supported

of 264


Pearson, Doug E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Opposes the E2 zone on Council land as it is ill conceived. Supports RE1.










Not supported

of 264


Peck, E & L E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Eurobodalla Objects to the E3 zone applied to part of the land. Requests RU2 or RU1.


Not supported

of 264


Peel, Leanne E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

Pengillly, Jean E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Concerned about the removal of E3 zone and environmental overlays from the LEP. Believes it is up to Council to develop a sensible balance between landowners rights and the environment.


of 264


Perkins, John E2 Environmental Conservation zone



No action required

Perkins, John E3 Environmental Management zone



Petith, Carol LEP general Property rights Shire wide No environmental zones or overlays on private land. Stop locking up land that is private. We do not live in a dictatorship.


Petith, Dennis LEP general Property rights Shire wide No environmental zones or overlays on any private land. A guarantee that no one will have any rights removed or eroded. The immediate removal of binding agreements, or future requirements for land owners to make such agreements without ground truthing. The LEP ignore private ownership rights.





No action required

Petrella, Donna LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Phelps, L E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

of 264


Phin, Peter & Rhonda


Oppose Moruya Oppose the E3 zone applied to the land. Request RU1.


Not supported

Phin, Peter & Rhonda

Biodiversity protection Oppose Moruya Request the removal of EEC mapping from Lot 275.


No action required

Pierpoint, Logan LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Pierpoint, William LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Pike, Chris Land use table Residential zone Narooma Objects to the R3 zone and the prohibition on single dwelling houses.


Not supported

Pike, Sandra Land use table Residential zone Narooma Objects to the R3 zone and the prohibition on single dwelling houses.


Not supported

of 264


Pisanos, PJ & GJ E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

Place Planning Design Environment

Zone Support Batemans Bay Supports the SP3 and schedule 1 listing for the Marina.


Plews, Beth LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Plews, Geoff E3 Environmental Management Zone

Oppose Shire wide Objects to the E3 zone applied to any land. Requests a rural zoning for 71 Coila Creek Road.


Not supported

Plews, Geoff E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide Objects to the E3 zone applied to any land. Requests a rural zone.


Not supported

Plews, Geoff E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide Objects to E3 zone applied to any land. Can see no reason for E overlays. Believes RU2 is just as restrictive. Requests a RU1 zone.


Not supported

Plews, Geoff LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Pollock, Lex LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Pollock, Robert LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Portbury, Geoffrey Lot size Request change Tilba District Request a change to the 1500m2 lot size applied to the land.

1500m2 lot size already applied to the land.No action required

Potts, Charity LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Potts, Charity LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Poulton, Nina E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Request change Maloneys Beach

Requests a change of zone for Lot D DP1213 from E4 to E2.

Unable to identify subject lot from description given.No action required

Power, Caroline E3 Environmental Management zone



Prentice, A LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Prentice, S LEP general General Shire wide See Pinkresponse attached using menu on the left

Prestage, Ralph LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Preston, Mark LEP general General Shire wide Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1).Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. The draft LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property. clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEPfarm management practices does not require approval under the LEPbushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEPfarm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule

No action required

of 264


Price, Dean LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Price, Maureen LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Price, Robyn LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Pritchard, G & J Lot size Request change Malua Bay Requests an E4 zone with a 2 hectare lot size be applied to the land.

Land is E4. 2ha lot size applied.Support/Part Support

Provent Pty Ltd Zone Request change Mossy Point Requests changes be made to the zone boundaries proposed on the land, and also the inclusion of permanent residential development component for the land.

Changes to zone boundary to be made to the maps. Permanent residential development component included in schedule 1.


Provent Pty Ltd Zone Request change Mossy Point Requests changes be made to the zone boundaries proposed on the land, and also the inclusion of permanent residential development component for the land.

Changes to zone boundary to be made to the maps. Permanent residential development component included in schedule 1.


Radcliffe, Geoffrey E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide No way you can make rural land E3.

Statement of opinion. Council has applied like for like in a manner consistent with the adopted strategic directions as recommended by the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy. The zones in the Rural LEP are: 1(a) Rural Environmental Constraints and Agriculture/ 1(a1) Rural Environmental Constraints, Water Catchment Protection and Agriculture.


No action required

Radcliffe, Geoffrey E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Bodalla Opposes the E3 zone applied to the land, should be RU1.


Not supported

of 264


Ramsay, Anne E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

of 264


Ramsay, Anne E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Opposes the E2 zone on Council land as it is totally inappropriate. Supports RE1.










Not supported

Ramsay, Damien LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Ramsay, Pauline LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Ramsay, S Zone Request change Narooma Requests a zone change from RU1 to RU4 to enable the subdivision of land, like the adjoining land.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Seeks a zoning change from RU1 to RU4 to enable small lot rural subdivision. E3 zone retained. Request outside South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy recommendations. Notwithstanding the above, Council is to prepare a Rural Lands Strategy to review current planning policy on rural lands. The analysis and findings of this strategy will inform the 5 year LEP review, including zone and land use application.

Not supported

Rault, Anne E3 Environmental Management Zone

Support Araluen Supports the RU1/E3 zone split applied to the land.


Reader, Brian LEP general Rural zone Nelligen Proposes a zone and lot size change for the land to enable development that would benefit council from additional development and ratepayers.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Land is zoned RU1. Present controls prohibit subdivision of rural land unless for agricultural purposes. Landowners have bought and developed land knowing this. Draft LEP does not change this situation. Subdivision of rural land is not consistent with South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy. A Rural Land Review will be undertaken to inform the 5 year LEP review.

Not supported

of 264


Reed, A H M E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

of 264


Reid, Glen & Edwards, Amanda


Oppose Moruya Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. Requests RU1.


Not supported

Reid, Joan LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Reid, Kerry & Motbey, Janette

Zone Request change Moruya Requests a change of zone applied from E4 to RU4.

E4 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands.

Not supported

Reid, Kerry & Motbey, Janette

Lot size Request change Moruya Requests a change of lot size applied from 10 hectares to down to 2 hectares that to reflect a concept subdivision plan submitted.

Lot size applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Lot size application sound. E4 zone provides for lot averaging.

Not supported

Reid, Roydon LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Reipler, Tom LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Reipler, Vanessa LEP general Exhibition Shire wide The council has failed to meet its legislative requirement under section 66 of the Act as it did not exhibit a local environmental study with the LEP.

The Council was not required to prepare a local environmental study to exhibit the LEP. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure determined in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 that the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and the South Coast Regional Strategy were sufficient to guide and inform the LEP by letter dated 2 April 2007.

No action required

Reipler, Vanessa LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Rice, Jake LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Rice, Peter LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Rice, Suzanne LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Riepler, K E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. We are taking away property rights.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. Rural activities accommodated. Unsubstantiated statement about loss of property rights.

Not supported

Risk, Joanne Land use table Request change Shire wide Requests the inclusion of "drive in take away food outlet" in the dictionary.


No action required

Ristuccia, Bart LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Ritchie, Alan LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Ritchie, Kate LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Rivett, David RU2 Rural Landscape Zone

Support Broulee Supports RU2 zone applied to the land instead of E3.


Rixon, Jarahlea LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Rixon, Jarahlea LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Roast, Bianca LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Roast, Guy LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Roast, Larissa LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Roast, Renee LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Robards, Kevin Subdivision Rural dual occupancy

Bodalla Objects to the inability to subdivide rural dual occupancy development on the land. Does not agree with State and Local policy.


Not supported

Robards, Paul Subdivision Rural dual occupancy

Bodalla Objects to the inability to subdivide rural dual occupancy development on the land. Does not agree with State and Local policy.


Not supported

Roberts, Chris Land use table Request change Shire wide Requests that "emergency services facilities" be included in all zones as permissible.

Land use provided for in appropriate zones in the LEP. State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure also applies.

No action required

Roberts, Chris E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Nerrigundah Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land due to the restrictions that it imposes. Requests a rural zone. Supports the RU2 zone.


Not supported

Roberts, Chris LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Roberts, Chris E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Belowra Objects to E3. Seeks like for like zones. Requests RU1 on the whole of the land. RU2 is also acceptable for the E3 part of the land. Trusts council employees and councillors who review the submission will exercise due diligence.



Not supported

Roberts, Mark E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Narooma Objects to the E3/RU1 split applied to the land. Requests all RU1.


Robins, Anita Land use table Request change Shire wide Requests the inclusion of "drive in take away food outlet" in the dictionary.


No action required

Rogers, Damien Zone Property rights Shire wide Does not want any land rights removed or diluted in the LEP or in any legislation; does not want any environmental zonings/overlays. To choose between RU2 and E3 is a contravention to the peoples instructions to Council; Council is deceptive in asking this question; All land should be RU1; Council is acting as a dictatorship and should comply with the 1988 referendum and cease making illegal regulations.


Rogers, Damien Zone Oppose Moruya Objects to zoning of 10 & 11//758710 Queen Street Moruya. Requests a commercial zoning with flexibility.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Seeks a zoning change for Lots 10 and 11 DP 758710 Queen Street Moruya from RU1 to Business. The Moruya River Flood Study and Plan maps this lot as a "floodway". A change of zoning or development potential cannot be justified given the constraints imposed by the mapped flood hazard and current State and Local Policy requirements. However Clause 5.3 Development Near Zone boundaries applies.

No action required

Rogers, Damien LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Rogers, Damien LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Rogers, Damien LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Rogers, Damien LEP general General Shire wide 1 of 14 submissions made by Damien Rogers. Plagurised material from various sources with no apparent relevance to the LEP. Any LEP issue contained within the text needed to be clearly articulated and able to be identified for consideration by staff.

No action required


No action required


No action required


No action required


No action required


No action required

Rogers, M LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Rogers, Paul LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Rogers, Robert LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Green response attached using menu on the left

Rolfe, Michael Subdivision Rural zone Narooma Letter of support Doc 50999 submission made by Ambler.

See response to submission 57.See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Rooke, C LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Green response attached using menu on the left

Rose, Phil Land use table Residential zone Shire wide Concerned about the R3 zones not permitting single dwellings.


Not supported

Rose, Phil Zone General Narooma Concerned about the land zonings replacing the urban expansion and other zones on the periphery of Narooma.



of 264


Rose, Phil Zone Industrial zone Narooma Concerned about the lack of industrial sites in Narooma.

Agree. Council seeks to address this issue through the implementation of the adopted Employment Lands Strategy 2011.

No action required

Rose, Phil Land use table Rural dual occupancy

Shire wide Concerned about the requirement of attached dual occupancy in certain zones.



Russack, J B E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Dignams Creek Opposes the E3 zoned applied to the land. Requests RU1.


Not supported

Russack, Jeannine LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Russack, Jeannine LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Russack, Robert E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Narooma Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. Requests a rural zone.


Not supported

Russack, Robert LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Russack, Robert LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Russell, Aaron LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Russell, Aaron LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Russell, Bruce Rural dwellings Oppose Dignams Creek Objects to the requirement that a dwelling in a rural area will only be permissible if it has access to a council maintained sealed road.



No action required

Russell, Cherie LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Russell, Cherie LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Russell, Cheryl LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Russell, Cheryl LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Russell, June LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Russell, June LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Russell, Norman LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Russell, Norman LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Russell, Quentin LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Russell, Quentin LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Rutherford, G & Mitchell, E

R5 Large Lot Residential zone

Request change Moruya Requests the addition of beekeeping to the land use table for all zones.




Biodiversity protection Oppose Moruya Requests the removal of EEC and biodiversity corridor mapping from the land.


No action required

of 264



Lot size Request change Moruya Requests a reduction in the lot size to 5000m2 for the land.

Lot size applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Lot size application sound.

Not supported


Zone Request change Moruya Requests a zone change from R5 to RU4 for the land.

R5 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands.

Not supported

Ryan , Amanda LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Ryan, Michael E3 Environmental Management zone



No action required

Ryan, Michael LEP general Oppose Shire wide Asks that the Councillors not support the LEP and take into account the meaning of the word environmental in Act not as used in the LEP.









No action required

of 264



Oppose Moruya E3 inappropriate location. No attachment submitted.

Incomplete application.No action required

Ryan, Michael LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Rygate & West Biodiversity protection Request change Batemans Bay Requests that the EEC mapped be verified .


No action required

Rygate & West Lot size Request change Batemans Bay Objects to the 1000 hectare lot size applied to the land as it constitutes a prohibition on the subdivision of land. Requests 1500m2 lot size which is similar to adjoining R5 land.


Not supported

Rygate & West E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Batemans Bay Requests a change of zone applied to the land from E3 to R5 or E4, due to proximity to other R5 zoned land and availability of services.


Not supported

Rygate & West Lot size Request change Nelligen Objects to the 1000 hectare lot size applied to the land as it constitutes a prohibition on the subdivision of land. Requests a 40 hectare lot size to permit the subdivision of the land into 2 housing lots.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. Land will be subject to Rural Lands Strategy.

Not supported

Rygate & West Zone Request change Nelligen Requests a change of zone applied to the land from E3 to RU2. The zoning does not accord with the rural residential actions in the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. Council has not made any formal decision to include RU2 zone in the LEP.

Not supported

Rygate & West Zone Request change Malua Bay Queries the application of a R5/E4 split zoning on the subject land. Request lot averaging in the R5 zone.

Lot averaging in R5 zone included in the LEP.Support/Part Support

Rygate & West Lot size Request change Malua Bay Requests a change of lot size applied from 2 hectares to 5000m2 to provide a range of lifestyle alternatives.

The application of the E4 zone will enable the lot averaging clause to apply. This enables mixed lot size subdivisions in keeping with the constraints and capability of the land.


of 264


Rygate & West Zone Request change Malua Bay Requests a change of zone applied to the land from RU4 to R5 due to proximity to other residential zoned land and availability of services.

E4 zone to be applied. More appropriate that R5 in the circumstances.Support/Part Support

Sagar, Janice & Steve Doyle


Support Congo Supports the E3 zone applied to their land. Support the objectivesof E3. Welcome the changes in land use included in the E3 to reinstate a range of land use activity for this land.


Saltet,Tessa Zone Environmental zone

Shire wide No environmental zones on private land.


Sampson, Greg & Lois


Request change Narooma Requests a change from E3 to RU2 or E4 for the land.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 in the LEP.

Not supported

Sampson, Jay Lot size Oppose Narooma The minimum lot size proposed in rural residential zones and the zones limit further development potential in Narooma.



Saunders, Stephen E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide The present E3 zone is mild and well informed and should be retained.


Savimaki, T & Georgeff, D


Savimaki, T & Georgeff, D


Scheltema, Amanda


Oppose Shire wide The E3 zoning is overrestrictive and unreasonable. RU2 is more appropriate.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. Rural activities accommodated. Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 in the LEP.

No action required

Schmidt - Lierman, Joerg


Support Merricumbene Supports the RU2 zone applied to the land instead of E3.


Schmidt-Lierman, Joerg


Request change Merricumbene Supports the RU2 zone applied to the land instead of E3.

E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Land zoned consistent with neighbouring lands. Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 in the LEP.

Not supported

of 264


Schutt, Elaine E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Maloneys Beach

As the zoning may affect the Sea Acres development, requests that the E3 zone remain.


Schwarz, Evie LEP general Oppose Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Schwarz, Mark LEP general General Shire wide Can't get head around all the green rubbish in the LEP.


Schwarz, Mark E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide Object to the LEP planned intrusions into how my property is managed. People are not aware of how there property rights will be impacted. Will seek compensation.


Schwarz, Peter Zone Oppose Shire wide States that the LEP method of separating rural land and environmentally sensitive land has no policy basis through any state or local strategies and does not discern between vegetated rural land and land of real high conservation value.

The zones in the Rural LEP 1987 are: 1(a) Rural Environmental Constraints and Agriculture/ 1(a1) Rural Environmental Constraints, Water Catchment Protection and Agriculture.



•Separate the current 1(a) Rural (Environmental Constraints & Agricultural Zone) into zones for environmental protection and agriculture using information contained in Council’s GIS and subject to ground truthing

•Apply separate zones in the new LEP to intensive agriculture (e.g. horticulture, forestry, turf farms), rural industries, (e.g. abattoirs), broad acre farming (e.g. dairying and livestock) and environmentally constrained land

and specific directions of the State Government (s117), LEP Practice notes and Circulars and the methodology agreed with Councillors. That is: define predominant land characteristic by contour, natural feature, cadastral boundary and vegetation cover and zone accordingly. Rural properties are now RU1, E3 or a combination where split zones required. The E2 zone has been applied to wetlands and other constraints.

The LEP is a comprehensive planning document with a broad focus and must be reflective of all current planning law. The LEP is obliged to align with the Policy position of Council and the NSW and Federal Governments.

No action required

Schwarz, Peter E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide E3 and RU2 zones are unacceptable, RU2 introduced to soothe public anger. RU1 is acceptable.


of 264


Schwarz, Peter Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Bingie Requests schedule 1 listing for 141//856799, 171//752137 & 1//1038542

1//1038542 is a 'holding' with dwelling entitlement that can be listed in Schedule 1. 141//856799 and 171//752137 together form a 'holding' and the dwelling entitlement has been exhausted.


Scicluna, W LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Scott, Brian LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Scott, Brian LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Scott, Brooke LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Scott, Brooke LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Scott, Renee LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Scott, Renee LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Selems, Rebecca LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Selems, Rebecca LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Selems, Sharon LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Sellick, Jackie LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Sellin, Kjell E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Narooma Opposes the E3 zone applied to the land. Request RU1.


Not supported

Seymour, S LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Shea, Terry LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Shea, Terry LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Shephard, Alan E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Bodalla Objects to the RU1/E3 split zones applied to the land. Requests RU1 on all the land.



Not supported

Shepheard, Clyde LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Shepheard, Clyde LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Shepheard, Dean LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Shepheard, Evan Drain


Shepheard, Evan Drain


Shepheard, H LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Shepheard, Helen LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Shepheard, Jessica LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Shepheard, Keith LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Shepheard, Rosemary


Shepheard, S LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Shepheard, S LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Shepheard, Terri LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Shepheard, Terri LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Shepheard, York LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Shepherd, Clive LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

of 264


Shepherd, Tim E3 Environmental Management zone



No action required

Shepherd, Tim LEP general Oppose Shire wide Asks that the Councillors not support the LEP and take into account the meaning of the word environmental in Act not as used in the LEP.


Shepherd, Tim E3 Environmental Management zone







No action required

of 264


Shickling, Danny E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

Shields, Kathy LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Shields, Kathy LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Shields, Steve LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Shirley, Dean LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Shoemark, Denver LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Silvester, Brian E4 Environmental Living zone

Oppose Malua Bay Opposes the E4 zone applied to the land as it does not provide for grazing of livestock.

E4 zone to include grazing of livestock.Support/Part Support

Simms, James E3 Environmental Management Zone

Support Congo Supports the E3 zone as applied to Portion 1, west of Congo village.


Simms, Phillip LEP clause Oppose Shire wide Objects to the wording of clause 4.3(1)(a) which states "desired future character of the locality". It is subjective and needs a definition.


Simms, Phillip LEP clause Oppose Shire wide Objects to the wording of clause 6.12 2(a) and (b) which states" design excellence" and " high standard of architectural design". It is subjective and needs a definition.


Sinclair, KJ & DJ E3 Environmental Management zone



of 264


Skeen, Vivienne LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Smedley, Damien E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Narooma Requests a change of zone for the land from E3 to RU1.


Not supported

Smith, Catherine E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Moruya Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land as it is restrictive. Requests RU1.


Not supported

Smith, Clint LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Smith, F LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Smith, Gary LEP general General Coila Does not want existing use rights reduced; the LEP should not restrict agricultural activities; E2 and E3 zones should be used to protect coastal areas with high environmental value.


of 264


Smith, Jim LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Smith, Kaye Zone Request change Narooma Requests consideration of a zone that will enable low to medium density development.

Land is 2g and R2 in draft LEP. Multi dwelling housing is permissible with consent in the R2 zone.No action required

Smith, Ken & Carol R5 Large Lot Residential zone

Request change Moruya Objects to the R5 zone applied to the land. Believes it does not reflect the present use of the land. Requests a like for like 1c zone.



Smith, Ken & Carol LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Smith, Ken & Carol Biodiversity protection Oppose Moruya Objects to environmental zones and overlays in the LEP. Requests the removal of the overlays from the land.


No action required

Smith, Ken & Carol R5 Large Lot Residential zone

Request change Moruya Objects to the R5 zone applied to the land. Requests RU4.



Smith, Kylie LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Smith, Peter E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Araluen Objects to the E3/RU1 split zone applied to the land. Requests RU1.


Smith, Peter LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Smith, Richard LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Smith, Robyn LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Smith, Tamara LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Smith, Tamara LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Smith, Troy LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Smith, Troy LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Snape, Ron LEP mapping Request change Tilba District Requests the removal of the "rainforest" mapping on the land.

Mapped endangered ecological community converted to extant native vegetation.Support/Part Support

Snape, Ron Lot size Error or anomaly Tilba District Request that the lot size map be corrected to reflect the development proposal prepared for the land.

Lots sizes to reflect development proposal.Support/Part Support

South East Forest Rescue

LEP general General Shire wide Council should keep the E3 zone; Council should keep the approval regimes under the Native Vegetation Act; Tighten the loopholes in clauses 6.5 & 6.6; Reword the RU3 zone to 'Forests'; Amend the definition of 'electricity generating works to expressly prohibit nuclear plants, biomass power plants, pellet factories that use products from native forests.

Statement of support. Changes to LEP considered consistent with policy and Standard LEP template.

No action required

of 264


Southwell, Brian Zone Property rights Shire wide Objects to Council having power to liquidate property rights without compensation. Objects to application and location of all zones in the LEP for various Shire wide and site specific reasons. Expects consideration of concerns, failure to do so could be seen as discrimination.







No action required

Spasic, F LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Stanley, Richard E4 Environmental Living zone

Oppose Bimbimbie Objects to the E4 zone applied to the land. Objects to the 25% offset off everyones property against biodiversity.

E4 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound. Offset claim is erroneous.

Not supported

Stekelenburg Van, Nick


Shire wide Objects to the requirement for attached dual occupancy on RU1 land. Believes it is aimed at getting people out of the bush and into surburbia.



Stekelenburg Van, Nick

Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Dignams Creek Dwelling entitlement confirmed by Council search in 2010. Request schedule 1 listing.


Stenhouse, Anthony


Stenhouse, Anthony


of 264


Stenhouse, Anthony

Not LEP issue General Tilba District Seeks clarification that a current development consent will be unaffected by the LEP.

Activated development consents will not be impacted by the LEP.No action required

Stenhouse, Anthony

LEP general Exhibition Shire wide Requests an extension of time. Rejects the LEP in its current form.

8 week exhibition period complete.No action required

Stenhouse, Elizabeth


Stenhouse, Elizabeth


Stenhouse, Mary LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Green response attached using menu on the left

Stewart, Henry LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Stewart, Sasha LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Stewart, Sasha LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Stockley, Jeffrey LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Stockley, Jeffrey LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Stockley, Rosemary LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Stockley, Rosemary LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Stone, Brett LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Stuart, Charles E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide Objects to the arbitary rezoning of land.

Unsusbstantiated statement of opinion.No action required

Suthern, John LEP mapping Error or anomaly Tuross Requests the review of the E2 zoning on the foreshore area and boatsheds at Tuross.


Sutton, Alan E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports E3 zone in the LEP. Statement of support.No action required

Swan, Alan LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Swan, Alan LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Swan, Alan LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Sweeney, Peter Land use table Rural dual occupancy

Runnyford Objects to the requirement for attached dual occupancy development on RU1 and E3 land as it is unreasonable.



Sweeney, Peter E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Runnyford Opposes the E3 zone applied to the land. Denigrates rights and privilages.


of 264


Sweeney, Peter & Maureen

Zone Oppose Runnyford States the RU1 zone is not the same as existing 1a. Objects to the E3 and E2 zones applied in part to the land. Requests like for like zone.



No action required

Sweeney, Peter & Maureen


of 264


Swinton, Alisa E2 Environmental Conservation zone











Not supported

of 264


Switala, George LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP, it degrades the rights of all people. Is in direct conflict with fee simple.





No action required

Tabjer, Adrian E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Woodlands Rejects the E3 zone on the land as it will diminish the value of the land. Wants RU1.


Not supported

Tabjer, Adrian LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Tabjer, Adrian LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Tajber, Stacey LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Tajber, Stacey LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Tallowang Partners P/L


Tallowang Partners P/L


Talmora Cemetery Consultants


Talmora Cemetery Consultants


of 264


Tebbatt, Gary E3 Environmental Management zone


This parcel of land has been the subject of lengthy discussions with relevant council staff, state agencies and the land owners so as to deliver a development outcome, given the constraints that exist on the land, and the recommendations of the Sensitive Coastal Lands Report for this land. The proposed E3 zone on part of this land applies to land affected by the presence of an EEC; and was part of an agreed outcome by the landowner as a trade-off for an urban residential subdivision on a part of the land less constrained. The E3 part of the land provides for a house site only given the EEC on the remainder of the land. It is noteworthy that a development application for the land is currently with Council.

No action required

Tebbatt, Gary E3 Environmental Management zone



No action required

Tebbatt, Gary LEP general Oppose Shire wide Asks that the Councillors not support the LEP and take into account the meaning of the word environmental in Act not as used in the LEP.

Unsusbstantiated statement of opinion.No action required

Tebbs, Peter LEP general Exhibition Shire wide Requests a 12 week exhibition period.


Tebbs, Peter Biodiversity protection Request change Narooma Requests a review of the vegetation mapping that applies to the land.


No action required

Tebbs, Peter RU2 Rural Landscape Zone

Support Shire wide Supports the RU2 zone instead of the E3 zone.


Tebbs, Peter Land use table Rural dual occupancy

Shire wide Objects the the requirement for dual occupancy to be attached in the E3 zone.



Tedder, Gillianne Land use table Request change Shire wide Requests the inclusion of "drive in take away food outlet" in the dictionary.


No action required

Telman Holdings, Pty Ltd

Zone Request change Sunshine Bay Supports submission 238 and requests a B2 zone be applied to the land for a shopping centre development.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Objects to B1 zoning on Lot 229 Cunningham Crescent Sunshine Bay seeks B2 and a change to the maximum floor area of 125m2 for a neighbourhood shop under clause 5.4. B1 zone consistent with Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and Greater Batemans Bay Structure Plan directions and actions for commercial centres. The floor area of neighbourhood shops unchanged. B1 zone application consistent with Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy ED1 and Land and Enviornment Court decision.

Not supported

Tennant, Chris LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


The Moorings Development Ltd

LEP clause Error or anomaly Tomakin Requests a property description change for Schedule 1 to reflect the location of the development proposed.

Property description corrected in Schedule 1.Support/Part Support

Thomas, Jenny & Errol


Oppose Moruya Oppose the E3 zone applied to the land as it prohibits detached dual occupancy and is more restrictive the RU1. RU2 is a more appropriate zone.




No action required

Thomas, Ken LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Thomas, Matthew LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Thompson, Amanda


Thompson, Amanda

Land use table Request change Tilba District Farm forestry is not included in the RU1 land use table and farmers should have a right to remove selected trees for RAMA under Native Vegetation Act.


No action required

Thompson, Amanda

Biodiversity protection Oppose Tilba District Objects to the biocorridor mapping and EEC mapping on the land. Do not understand the definitions and impossible to make an informed decision without this information.


No action required

of 264


Thompson, Amanda

LEP general Property rights Tilba District Supports Fiona Kotvojs submission. Also does not wish any farm to have a zoning encumbrance on their land.





No action required

Thompson, Amanda

LEP general Request change Tilba District Supports Fiona Kotvojs submission. Same 5 issues as submission 59649.

See response to submission 686.No action required

Thompson, Amanda

LEP general Request change Tilba District Same 5 issues as Document 59649.


Thompson, Brohdan



Thompson, Denham



Thompson, Dorothy


Thompson, Dorothy



Thompson, Doug LEP general Request change Tilba District Same 5 issues as Document 59649.


Thompson, Fergus Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Belowra Requests schedule 1 listing. PIN 29450 is an 'existing parcel' with dwelling entitlement that can be listed in Schedule 1.Support/Part Support

of 264


Thompson, G & Cameron, P












Not supported

Thompson, Glen LEP general Rural zone Dignams Creek See Green response attached using menu on the left

Thompson, Glen LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Green response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Thompson, Glen LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Green response attached using menu on the left

Thompson, Glen LEP general Request change Tilba District Same 5 issues as Document 59649.


Thompson, Graham


Thompson, Graham



Thompson, Heath Biodiversity protection Oppose Tilba District Requires the removal of the EEC and biocorridor mapping from the land as it is not consistent with farm management.


No action required

Thompson, Heath E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Tilba District Requests a change of zone from E3 to RU1 for all of the land.


Not supported

Thompson, Heath Biodiversity protection Request change Tilba District Requests a review of the EEC mapping and suggests its replacement with extant vegetation mapping.


No action required

Thompson, Heath E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Tilba District Requests a change of zone from E3 to RU1 on all of the land.


Not supported

Thompson, Heath Biodiversity protection Oppose Tilba District Requires the removal of the biocorridor mapping from the land as it is not consistent with farm management.


No action required

Thompson, Huon LEP general Request change Tilba District Same 5 issues as Document 59649.


of 264


Thompson, Janet LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Thompson, Sarah LEP general Request change Tilba District Same 5 issues as Document 59649.


Thomson, Ewan E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Belowra Objects to E3 zone applied to the land. Objects to the E3/RU2 swap. All agricultural land should be RU1.


No action required

of 264


Thomson, Ewan E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Council land Dalmeny Objects to the E2 zone applied to foreshore land. Requests RE1.










Not supported

Thomson, Judith E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Worried that important areas of bushland will be assumed for development unless protected by E3.


Thurston, Philip LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Tilley, Lorna E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone applied to the land to protect the environment and objects to any downgrade to RU2.


Tilzey, Richard RU2 Rural Landscape Zone

Support Shire wide Supports RU2 zone instead of E3, as it is less restrictive and more sensible for rural lands that need environmental protection.


Todd, Vanessa LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Todd, Vanessa LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Tomkins, Robert & Frances

LEP general Property rights Shire wide The Council should pressure the State Government to abandon the LEP process and instead develop a comprehensive strategy to address environmental issues. The attack on property rights of rural landowners should be abandoned.


Tompkins, Len E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide Objects to the E3 zone applied to vast areas of the Shire. Recommends RU1.


Not supported

Tompkins, Len Zone Request change Moruya Objects to the R5 zone applied to land on Dwyers Creek Road. Requests RU1.

R5 zone retained on land. Additional agricultural land uses included in the R5 zone to acknowledge current activities undertaken by landowners on this land.

Not supported

Tony Berry & Associates





Tony Berry & Associates

Rural dwellings Oppose Shire wide Objects to the 5 year sunset provision for holdings and parcels. Landowners should not lose existing entitlements.


No action required

of 264


Touzel, Adam E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Narooma Opposes the E3 zone applied to the land. Request RU1.


Not supported

Townend, Brian E4 Environmental Living zone

Request change Tuross Requests the reinstatement of the prohibition on dual occupancy development in the Kyla Park clusters.


Townend, Brian E4 Environmental Living zone

Request change Tuross Requests the reinstatement of the prohibition on dual occupancy development in the Kyla Park clusters.


Trewin, Lola LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Trewin, Lola LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Turner, Nick LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Turtiainen, Juhu LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Turtiainen, Juhu LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Tyler, Angela LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Tyson, W A LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Tyson, W A LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


urPlan Zone Request change Currowan Requests the removal of the E2 zone applied to part of the land and RU1 be applied over all of the land.


urPlan Zone Request change Nerrigundah Requests the removal of the E3 zone over that part of the land to protect the hard rock quarry material source, and replacement with RU1 & RU2.

E3 zone retained on the land. Extractive industry included in the E3 land use table.Not supported

urPlan Lot size Request change Mogo Requests a review of the minimum lot size applied to 1//60785 to enable retention of current subdivision potential.

The zone and lot size gives effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. The zone and lot size application sound

Not supported

urPlan Land use table Schedule 1 listing Sunshine Bay Requests the inclusion of 'moveable dwellings' and or 'tourist and visitor accommodation' for that portion of lot 2 zoned RE2. Or SP3 for that portion of the land.

Same considerations as 2009 request. The land is currently zoned Open Space and is privately owned. The R2 zoning is intended to legitimise the existing residential use only consistent with DoP guidelines regarding existing use. The RE2 zone is a like for like zone transfer from existing to standard LEP; Caravan parks which offer accommodation only have been zoned RE2 consistent with DoP guidelines. The SP3 zone as requested is intended for tourist precincts and tourist destinations that sit outside commercial areas.The LEP permits ancillary uses such as dwellings with consent in the RE2 zone - and are not able under the standard LEP to be listed in land use table.It would be contrary to the DoP planning guidelines (in particular principle 3 & 4) to intensify the development potential of this land under the current LEP.

Not supported

urPlan Land use table Schedule 1 listing Batehaven Requests the inclusion of 'moveable dwellings' and or 'tourist and visitor accommodation' for lot 3 zoned RE2. Or SP3 for the land.

Same considerations as 2009 request. Seeks a zoning change from RE2 for SP3 or additional uses to permit a redevelopment of the existing caravan park for upmarket tourist accommodation. The RE2 zone is a like for like zone transfer from existing to standard LEP; Caravan parks which offer accommodation only have been zoned RE2 consistent with DoP guidelines. The SP3 zone as requested is intended for tourist precincts and tourist destinations that sit outside commercial areas.The LEP permits ancillary uses such as dwellings with consent in the RE2 zone - and are not able under the standard LEP to be listed in land use table.It would be contrary to the DoP planning guidelines (in particular principle 3 & 4) to intensify the development potential of this land under the current LEP.

Not supported

urPlan E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Nelligen Requests a change to the E3 zone applied to the land and RU2 applied instead.

Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 in the LEP.No action required

Usher, Christine LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Varens, C LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Verma, Wendy LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Verri, Marie LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Versey, Brian Not LEP issue General Shire wide Discussion about the LEP and Community Strategic Plan.

Matters raised taken into consideration.No action required

Versey, Brian LEP general General Shire wide Comments about the LEP and the community strategic plan. Support for the inclusion of the E3 zone in the LEP. States that the LEP need to emphasis the Local Government Act requirements to promote ecologically sustainable development. Objects to the removal of E3 from the LEP as it will decrease protection of the environment. Encourages opportunities for neighbours to comment on development. Believes there is insufficient reference to landscaping in the LEP which can encourage suitable orientation of buildings and reduction in energy use.

Matters raised taken into consideration.No action required

Vidgen, Matthew LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Vieth, Albert E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Shire wide Believes the E3 zone is too restrictive and not in the interest of the landowners or the environment.


No action required

Vieth, Albert Zone Support Nelligen Supports the RU4 zone applied to the land.


Vogel, Susan Zone General Shire wide Objects to Council having power to liquidate property rights without compensation. Objects to application and location of all zones in the LEP for various Shire wide and site specific reasons. Expects consideration of concerns, failure to do so could be seen as discrimination.







No action required

Waerstad, D LEP general General Shire wide Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1).Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. The draft LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property. clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEPfarm management practices does not require approval under the LEPbushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEPfarm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule

No action required

Wagner, C & Pearce, D

Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Narooma Requests schedule 1 listing. The lots together form an 'existing parcel' with dwelling entitlement that can be listed in Schedule 1.


of 264


Wagner, C & Pearce, D


Oppose Narooma Objects to the split zoning applied to the land, as they believe they land does not fit the E3 criteria.


Wagner, Caroline Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Mystery Bay Dwelling entitlement confirmed by Council search in 2002 and 2009. Request schedule 1 listing.

The lots together form an 'existing parcel' with dwelling entitlement that can be listed in Schedule 1.


Wagner, D & Pearce, D M

Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Mystery Bay Dwelling entitlement confirmed by Council search in 2002 and 2009. Request schedule 1 listing.

The lots together form an 'existing parcel' with dwelling entitlement that can be listed in Schedule 1.


Walker, Jim & Ruth E4 Environmental Living zone

Oppose Tuross Opposes the inclusion of Kyla Park clusters in the E4 zone. Contrary to the original intent of the subdivision. Concerned about dual occupancy development being permitted in the E4 zone.


Walker, Joanne E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports E3 zone being applied to the land to protect environmentally significant lands.


Walker, Joanne Land use table Request change Shire wide Requests the inclusion of "drive in take away food outlet" in the dictionary.


No action required

Walton, Nick LEP general Oppose Tuross Objects to the ability for people to rent out their homes as short term rental accommodation.

Against State Government and Council policy to impose restrictions on short term holiday accommodation.

No action required

Wanner, Alicia LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Wanner, Alicia LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Ward, Graeme LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Ward, J M LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Ward, Kerryn LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Ward, R LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Warden, Quentin LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Warden, Quentin LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Wark, Julian Zone Request change Moruya Requests a review of the R2/E2 split zone boundary applied to the land.

Zone split gives effect to the flood line consistent with neighbouring properties.Not supported

Watts, Greg E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports E3 applied to the land.


Watts, Greg LEP general Village zone Shire wide Eurobodalla is a Shire of villages. Need to create a mix of use and a sense of community in these villages.


Watts, Michael & Sonya


Request change Moruya Request a change of zone applied from E3 to RU1.


Not supported

Weckert, Darryl LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Wellard, Jane E2 Environmental Conservation zone


Same as submission 377. The recommendations of the Recreation Strategy adopted by Council in 2009 have been carried over into the draft LEP maps via zone amendments. In particular, this included giving effect to Strategies 4.1.1 Ensure development of open space and recreation facilities does not have an adverse impact on the natural environment or waterways and 4.2.1 Improve usability of natural areas through provision of facilities to support recreation opportunities.










Wellard, Jane LEP general Oppose Shire wide Same as submission 377. Raises a number of concerns with the LEP, LEP process and also site specific zones.


of 264


Wells, Graham LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Wensing, Frank LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Weston, June LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Wetzell, Ashleigh LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Wetzell, Ashleigh LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Whale, M & C and McGrath, P


Oppose Moruya Object to the E3 zone applied to the land. It is totalitarian or green communism. Wants like for like and RU2 or RU4 to enable small rural subdivision.



Not supported

Whan, Anthony E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide To remove E3 and the overlays would ignore the legal requirements encumbent on Council to manage the Shire.


Whan, Anthony Biodiversity protection Support Shire wide Supports habitat corridor mapping, particularly the forested corridor for the Congo-Bingie Greater Gliders.


of 264


Whan, Anthony E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide To remove E3 and overlays from the LEP would ignore legal requirements for Council to manage the Shire to achieve ESD.


Wheat, Richard E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Narooma Objects to the E3 zone applied to the land. Requests a rural zone RU4 or RU1.


Not supported

Wheatley, J LEP general General Shire wide See Yellow response attached using menu on the left

Wheeler, Jason LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Whipp, Matthew LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

White, Adrian E2 Environmental Conservation zone

Oppose Kiora Objects to the E2 zone applied to the dam as it will devalue the property.


White, Dianne LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

White, Helen LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

White, Jedda LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

White, John LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

White, K LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Green response attached using menu on the left

of 264


White, Nicholas LEP general Rural zone Dignams Creek See Green response attached using menu on the left

White, Nioka LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

White, Peter LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

White, Peter LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

White, Peter LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

White, Pirralee LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

White, Shayana LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

White, Stanleen LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

White, Tayara LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Whitelaw, Stuart Land use table Request change Shire wide Requests the inclusion of "drive in take away food outlet" in the dictionary.


No action required

Wiggins, Stuart & Julie

Biodiversity protection Oppose Moruya Objects to a wildlife corridor placed over the property and the impact it will have on farming practices.


Wilden, Jennifer E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone to ensure the existing wildlife corridors and natural beauty are maintained.


of 264


Wilden, Jennifer Land use table Request change Shire wide Requests the inclusion of "drive in take away food outlet" in the dictionary.


No action required

Willcocks, Robert LEP general Rural zone Shire wide See Green response attached using menu on the left

Willes, Vicki E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Shire wide Supports the E3 zone applied to the land to better protect the biodiversity of the rural areas.


Williams, Brooke LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Williams, Catherine LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Williams, Daniel LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Williams, Jayden LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Williams, Mitchell LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Willis, Adrian Land use table Rural dual occupancy

Narooma Objects to the requirement for attached dual occupancy development on RU1 and E3 land as it is unreasonable.



Willis, Adrian Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Narooma Requests schedule 1 listing. Schedule 1 listing not required. Clause 4.2A (3) (c) applies.No action required

Willis, Adrian E3 Environmental Management zone

General Narooma General comments about E3 and RU2 zones.

Amendments made if supported by policy.No action required

Willis, Adrian LEP general Exhibition Shire wide Requests extension of time to consider LEP to 12 weeks.


of 264


Willis, Roy LEP mapping Request change Mossy Point Requests ground truthing of watercourse/gully on land and the presence of EEC.


The Riparian Land and Waterways map overlay is based on mapping prepared by State Government using large scale topographical maps. This means that due to the scale of the original mapping, that the draft LEP map may not be accurate when zoomed in to the property level.

Council does not have the resources to ground truth all the watercourses in the Eurobodalla so the watercourse mapping is indicative only and is used to flag the possibility of a watercourse being located on a property which should be considered when developing the land. Clause 6.6 sets out the matters that should be considered.

No action required

Wilson, AM LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Wilson, Paul LEP general General Shire wide Council plan is flawed and morally corrupt.


Wood, Ian E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Tilba District Request a change of zone applied from E3 to E4 to enable the residential subdivision of rural land, consistent with adjoining development.


Not supported

Wood, Richard E3 Environmental Management zone

Request change Tilba District Requests a change of zone from E3 to E4 and a change of lot size to enable subdivision of a dual occupancy development.


Not supported

Wooden, John Zone General Shire wide Objects to Council having power to liquidate property rights without compensation. Objects to application and location of all zones in the LEP for various Shire wide and site specific reasons. Expects consideration of concerns, failure to do so could be seen as discrimination.







No action required

of 264


Wooden, Margaret Zone General Shire wide Objects to Council having power to liquidate property rights without compensation. Objects to application and location of all zones in the LEP for various Shire wide and site specific reasons. Expects consideration of concerns, failure to do so could be seen as discrimination.







No action required

Wooden, Margaret Zone General Shire wide Objects to Council having power to liquidate property rights without compensation. Objects to application and location of all zones in the LEP for various Shire wide and site specific reasons. Expects consideration of concerns, failure to do so could be seen as discrimination.







No action required

Woodford, James E3 Environmental Management zone

Support Bingie Supports the E3 zone applied to land to recognise the environmental values of land.


Woodley, Amanda LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Woods, D A LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Yeates, Ian LEP general Property rights Shire wide Opposes the LEP. Direct conflict with fee simple rights. Oppose any environmental zonings or overlays on private property. The LEP needs to be amended to restore missing rights and uses.





No action required

Youakim, Emad LEP general General Shire wide See Pink response attached using menu on the left

Young, Barrie Zone Request change Turlinjah Requests a E4 zone be applied to cluster 1 Kyla Park instead of E3 with rural lots 78 and 79 being RU1 or RU2.

E4 zone to be applied to Cluster 1. E3 zone to be retained on larger rural lots.Support/Part Support

Zammit, Chris LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Zammit, Jennifer LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

of 264


Zenith Town Planning

Zone Request change Moruya Requests a business zone be applied to the land to reflect the current land use.

Same considerations as 2009. Submission on behalf of owners of Lots 200 and 201 DP 714184 Princes Highway Moruya (Blue Gums) seeks zoning change from R2 to Business. Development consent issued for part of the proposed use. Submission details existing uses rights applying to the land to enable further development to proceed consistent with previous uses. The application of a Business zone outside the existing town centre is inconsistent with the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and Moruya Structure Plan.

Not supported

of 264



LEP general General Shire wide The potential impacts of the LEP on land values and businesses have not been considered. An economic impact analysis should been undertaken with a particular focus on the effects of environmental zoning on primary production.

Broadly, the LEP reinforces and makes explicit the policy positions of Council and the NSW Government which in turn are a response to contemporary and wider community expectations.

The LEP is aligned with the South Coast Regional Strategy prepared by the Department of Planning and the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy prepared and adopted by Council in consultation with the community; these plans having a 30 year planning horizon.


In dealing with each of the above factors there are financial benefits in the form of cost savings to ratepayers, as well as potential cost returns to those same ratepayers due to planned outcomes.

These outcomes are to be achieved through land use zone application and development controls that:•Strengthen the role of the major centres of Batemans Bay, Moruya and Narooma and reinforce a commercial hierarchy to ensure that neighbourhoods are centred around services and civic facilities.•Provide opportunities for greater diversity in retail, commercial, business development by supporting active and vibrant town and village centres.•Define future urban areas previously zoned Urban Expansion 10, which if not for a zoning change would not proceed due to the Native Vegetation Act.•Consolidate growth in identified urban and existing rural residential areas to prevent unsustainable patterns of development.•Limit coastal/urban sprawl between settlements.•Provide efficient infrastructure and services by managing land release and development to ensure orderly and economic development.•Facilitate tourist development diversification and growth throughout the Shire.•Provide a greater range of housing choice to address various lifecycle stages and socio-economic categories.•Protect and enhance the cultural, heritage, ecological and visual characteristics of the Shire.

Particular benefits to rural land owners under the LEP in addition to the above, include:•Removal of green tape regulations i.e. clearing of native vegetation not requiring consent under the LEP. •Farm management practices not requiring consent under the LEP.•Bushfire hazard reduction not requiring consent under the LEP.•Enable new dwelling entitlements to be obtained on rural and environmental zoned land where 40ha exists and that the lot has access to a Council maintained sealed road.•Community title subdivision of tourist and visitor accommodation on rural and environmental zoned land. •Farm building, rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained under SEPPs Code and Exempt Development Schedule in LEP.•Lot averaging subdivision provisions included for E4 zoned land.

In addition to the above and in response to the unsubstantiated claims about property devaluation due to the LEP and the E3 zone Council can provide the following:

Cessnock City Council engaged a local valuer (WBP Property Group Newcastle) to prepare an independent assessment of the impact of implementation of the proposed E3 zone under their draft LEP. This independent report concluded that the real differences between the current and

No action required

of 264


draft LEP were not significant. There was little impact of values of land. Opportunities for rural enterprises had not been restricted, just managed into areas more suitable.


LEP clause Exempt and Complying

Shire wide Clause 3.3 references preclude exempt and complying on E3 land.






Rural dwellings Schedule 1 listing Runnyford Clarify the current listing in Schedule 1 contains all relevant parcels.

The lots together form a 'holding' with dwelling entitlement that can be listed in Schedule 1.Support/Part Support



Oppose Runnyford Opposes the E3 zone on their rural land at Runnyford and Buckenboura.


Not supported


LEP mapping Error or anomaly Tuross Requests the reinstatement of the R2 zone on that part of the land that is 2g.



Biodiversity protection Request change Moruya Requests the modification of the extent of EEC shown on the map, and the removal of the biodiversity corridor shown on the map for the land.


No action required


Land use table Request change Moruya Requests the inclusion of bulky good premises and restaurants/cafes with consent in the IN2 zone.

Land uses not appropriate for Industrial zone.Not supported


Zone Support Moruya Accepts the zone and lot sizes shown for the land, consistent with the masterplan for The Brae.




General Rosedale Supports the E4 zone applied to the land. Supports the inclusion of a Lot Averaging provision in the LEP for E4.


of 264



Zone Request change Narooma Requests a split zoning E4/R2 be applied to the land based on contour. The E2 zone be retained on the eastern boundary. Alternatively apply a 1500m2 lot size to the current E4 zone.

E4/E2 zone to be retained. A split lot size of no subdivision and 1500m2 will apply.Support/Part Support


Zone Request change Dalmeny Requests a SP3 zone be applied to the eastern portion of the land to recognise the approved tourist recreation facility.

The SP3 zone is applied to particular locations where tourism development is considered a focus. Stand alone accommodation uses are zoned consistent with the zone application methodology and adjoining lands and can operate under the auspices of existing use rights where necessitated by zone change. In this instance the land is zoned E3. E3 zone applied to give effect to adopted strategies, policies and legislation to manage the use and development of the land. Zone application sound and appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Not supported


LEP clause Request change Dalmeny Requests that clause 4.1AA be amended to enable approved tourist recreation facilities to apply for community title subdivision.

Wording of clause 4.1AA changed.Support/Part Support


Biodiversity protection Request change Dalmeny Requests that the extent of EEC on the land be reviewed.


No action required


Zone Schedule 1 listing Benandarah Requests that the approved industrial use on 20//1071515 be included in schedule 1.

The approved industrial use was manufacture of mobile dwellings. Records indicate that this use commenced and has since ceased. The proposed RU1 zone prohibits the use, and existing use rights would no longer apply under the LEP should the use be abandoned. From this submission it is clear that there is intention in a reasonable time for this use to recommence. A listing in Schedule 1 is not required.

No action required


Biodiversity protection Request change Benandarah Requests that the extant vegetation mapping be amended to reflect the vegetation.


No action required



Request change Benandarah Requests all the land be RU1 or the E3 zone be amended to reflect the vegetation.


Not supported

of 264



Heritage Request change Batemans Bay Adjust the boundary of the C2 Heritage Conservation Area to coincide with the boundary of the resort.

The Hanging Rock Creek line altered a number of times between the 1890s and 1959.According to Aboriginal oral histories the creek was utilised during the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, as a meeting, teaching and resource collection place, that is, during and after the creek line was altered. Post 1960s, cultural usage of the creek diminished due to water quality issues, however the associative heritage significance remained in relation to past use. Hence, regardless of the changes to the creek line and water quality, the associative heritage values continue to relate to Hanging Rock Creek in its past and present condition and location. As noted by the ESC archaeologist, the heritage values associated with Hanging Rock Creek rely on social and historical, rather tangible archaeological evidence. Same considerations as 2009. Map amended then. Clause 5.10 of LEP 2011 is clear in the impact of the adoption of the AHC.

Not supported


Zone Request change Batemans Bay Remove the E2 zone from 2//734790 and 3//749983.

SP3 zone to be applied to 2//734790 and 3//749983.Support/Part Support


Building Height Request change Batemans Bay Requests maximum building height of 16m be applied to the resort development.

Building heights for this site informed by the Greater Batemans Bay Structure Plan. This site has already been granted a greater height than recommended in the Structure Plan. Any further increase in height will have the potential to adversely impact on the amenity enjoyed by the surrounding residential development.

Not supported


Land use table Schedule 1 listing Batemans Bay Requests the addition of moorings and mooring pens in the R3 zone for part of 12//124295 through use of schedule 1.

To accommodate the future development needs of the site as a whole, moorings and mooring pens will be added to schedule 1 for part of 12//124295.



LEP general General Shire wide Apply the SP3 tourist zone to all tourist establishments; Permit tourist and visitor accommodation in the town centre of Moruya; Review the impact of 'backzoning' urban expansion land; return absolute constraints to a development control plan; Review clause 3.3 of the LEP and definition of environmentally sensitive land; Supports lot averaging and integrated housing provisions.

The SP3 tourist zone applies to regional tourist attractions consistent with the intent of the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy; Tourist and visitor accommodation in the town centre of Moruya permitted with consent and subject to clause 6.4; Urban expansion lands have been zoned in accordance with Policy, Sensitive Coastal Lands report, development consents/approval pending; Development overlays have been included in the LEP to give effect to State policy, plans and datasets; Clause 3.3 has been amended to broaden the application of exempt development; Note the support for lot averaging and integrated housing provisions.

No action required

Ziegler, Frank LEP general General Shire wide See Blue response attached using menu on the left

Ziegler, Michael E3 Environmental Management zone

Oppose Mogo Objects to the E3 zone that has been applied to the land. Believes it is not consistent with other land in the area and with expectations after the exhibition of the 2009 LEP.


of 264


Ziegler, Michael Zone Request change Mogo Requests a zone change from RU1 to R2 for Lots 10-12 Veitch & Short Streets.

Infill development to Mogo village, zoning will effect more efficient lot arrangement to urban size lots that are serviced. Minor significance. Environmental impacts can be resolved at development application stage. R2 zone applied to land. Lot size fixed to retain existing density of development on land.Consistent with Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy action SP 32.


Ziegler, Michael Zone Request change Mogo Requests a zone change from E3 to RU2 or R5 for 1//124925.

E3 zone retained on this constrained and visually prominent land. Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 in the LEP.

Not supported

of 264

Blue

Issue Response

1. I object to the application of any E zones to private lands on the basis that the Native Vegetation Act and the Threatened Species Act already adequately protects environmentally sensitive land from inappropriate development or use.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Native Vegetation and Threatened Species Acts exist and operate independently of each other. Native Vegetation Act: This Act regulates the clearing of native vegetation on all land in NSW, except for excluded land listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. The Act outlines what landowners can and cannot do in clearing native vegetation. Threatened Species Conservation Act: This is an Act to provide for the conservation of threatened species, populations and ecological communities of animals and plants (although the Act does not generally apply to fish). The Act sets out a number of specific objects relating to the conservation of biological diversity and the promotion of ecologically sustainable development. Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: This Act establishes the basis for the NSW planning system. It relies on two main planning techniques to regulate land use: zoning and development standards. Neither the Native Vegetation Act nor the Threatened Species Act substitute for assessment of appropriate land use under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 (Standard Instrument) sets out 35 standard zones for councils to use when preparing new principal local environmental plans (LEPs) for their local government areas. Councils may select zones as appropriate to the needs of their local areas, taking into account any relevant State or regional planning guidance. Councils may not add new zones, create subzones, or change the name of a standard zone. The zones in the Rural LEP 1987 are: 1(a) Rural Environmental Constraints and Agriculture/ 1(a1) Rural Environmental Constraints, Water Catchment Protection and Agriculture. The RU1 and E3 zones have been applied in the LEP 2011, consistent with the relevant actions and directions of the South Coast Regional Strategy, South Coast Independent Review Panel, Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy:

• Apply an environment protection zone to all areas identified as being of high conservation value based on landscape and environmental values rather than property boundaries

• Separate the current 1(a) Rural (Environmental Constraints & Agricultural Zone) into

zones for environmental protection and agriculture using information contained in Council’s GIS and subject to ground truthing

• Apply separate zones in the new LEP to intensive agriculture (e.g. horticulture, forestry,

turf farms), rural industries, (e.g. abattoirs), broad acre farming (e.g. dairying and livestock) and environmentally constrained land

and specific directions of the State Government (s117), LEP Practice notes and Circulars and the methodology agreed with Councillors. That is: define predominant land characteristic by contour, natural feature, cadastral boundary and vegetation cover and zone accordingly. Rural properties are now RU1, E3 or a combination where split zones required. The E2 zone has been applied to wetlands and other constraints. The LEP is a comprehensive planning document with a broad focus and must be reflective of all current planning law. The LEP is obliged to align with the Policy position of Council and the NSW and Federal Governments.

2. I object to the application of overlays such as Biodiversity and Habitat corridors on private land as it will limit usage now and in the future, and a vast majority of the Shire is set aside to provide for this purpose already. I object to the inaccurate and arbitrary manner in which Habitat Corridor overlays have been applied in many instances. E.g. the Eastern side of Vulcan St, Moruya which comprises a large proportion of the Moruya CBD.

Councils can add local clauses to address specific local circumstances where justified. These could be as a result of relevant planning components of council’s local strategic planning, or required under a section 117 direction, or regional or metropolitan strategy. Any such local clauses are not to be inconsistent with and should not undermine the effect of: the mandated clauses in the Standard Instrument; the permissibility or otherwise of a land use as detailed in the Land Use Table; or any other relevant State and regional policies, strategies, directions etc. In this instance the inclusion of clauses 6.5 and 6.6 is supported directly through the application of the LEP directions under the South Coast Regional Conservation Plan, which is given effect through the South Coast Regional Strategy. Further, the map overlays form part of the certified plan as endorsed by the Department and other State Agencies. The datasets that inform the map overlays have been derived from State and Local sources. These local provisions/overlays do not prohibit development, but act as a head of consideration for the assessment and determination of development applications by a consent authority. These provisions exist now under State legislation and Council policy. The need to take into consideration amongst other things - environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments exists now under the requirements of section 79C the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The benefit of inclusion of the overlay in the LEP is that it provides transparency for land owners and or land purchasers. It is noteworthy that some submissions that objected to the E3 zone support the use of environmental overlays as an appropriate tool to manage land use and environmental issues.

3. I object to the application of E3 to private land as it imposes an unnecessary layer of green tape for land owners. In most instances, Council has not defined the attributes that have been identified to warrant the application of the E3 zone. In most instances, Council has not demonstrated that the agricultural activities that are being prohibited in proposed E3 zones are having an adverse environmental impact. Council is under NO obligation to use these zones on private lands.

Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples of where the LEP will result an unnecessary layer of green tape. The LEP is a requirement under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to regulate land use. The RU1 and E3 zones have been applied in the LEP 2011, consistent with the relevant actions and directions of the South Coast Regional Strategy, South Coast Independent Review Panel, Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy (e.g. NE30 & NE31 & RI1), specific directions of the State Government (s117), LEP Practice notes and Circulars and the methodology agreed with Councillors. That is: define predominant land characteristic by contour, natural feature, cadastral boundary and vegetation cover and zone accordingly. Rural properties are now RU1, E3 or a combination where split zones required. The E2 zone has been applied to wetlands and other constraints.

4. I object to the limitations imposed by E zones on land management on private property, in particular Fire hazard reduction, weed control and routine maintenance. These routine management practices will be made more difficult, costly and potentially

The E zones under the draft LEP do not impose limitations on land management of private property. Clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEP Farm management practices does not require approval under the LEP Bushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11 Farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEP Farm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under

SEPPs Code and Exempt development schedule

represents an even greater risk life and property than already exists.

5. I object to the confusing and misleading use of the term “Exempt Development” with respect to agricultural activities on E3 zoned land as the implied exemption is extinguished by the presence of EECs or Extant vegetation. In almost every instance, Extant Vegetation is a trigger for E3 zones to be applied.

Clause 3.3 defines an ‘environmentally sensitive area’ where exempt or complying development must not be carried out. Agree. Clause 3.3 to be amended to remove the reference to clause 6.5 in the LEP to enable the broader application of exempt development.

6. I object to the Proposed E3 /RU2 Zone swap as it is misleading and confusing. The RU2 zone definition has changed from the RU2 in Draft LEP 2009 and the RU2 2011 definitions have NOT received a Section 65 to enable exhibition as part of this Draft LEP 2011.

Public opinion was sought in accordance with a Council resolution FSM11/107 to determine the community’s views on the potential use of RU2 or E3 to those E3 zoned areas under the current LEP. To clarify the certified 2009 LEP contained the E3, RU2 and RU1 zones which were applied to the land with a different methodology given that split zones could not be used at this time in the LEP. The application of zone reflected the differences between the zones as required by the LEP Practice Notes. The certified 2011 LEP contained only the E3 and RU1 zones. It was made clear in the public meetings, through the press, emails to Council’s distribution lists, and on Council’s website what it was that Council was suggesting. The RU2 zone does not form part of the certified draft LEP. Should Council seek to pursue the inclusion of the RU2 zone in the LEP it is highly likely that the LEP would need to be re exhibited.

7. I object to the fact that the Draft LEP 2011 has been exhibited without a Local Environmental Study to guide, accompany and inform the preparation of the LEP.

Council was not legally required to prepare a Local Environmental Study to exhibit the LEP. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure determined in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 that the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy were sufficient to guide and inform the LEP by letter dated 2 April 2007.

8. I object to the fact that despite the absence of accurate data, that Council has solicited responses that specifically relate to environmental impacts from uninformed members of the community upon which it intends to rely in making decisions with respect to zoning.

Erroneous and unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples of where Council has solicited responses that relate to environmental impacts from uninformed members of the community. Public opinion was sought about the RU2/E3 zones in accordance with a Council resolution. The question posed to the public via Council’s LEP exhibition web portal was: which zone is more appropriate RU2 or E3 to those E3 zoned areas under the current LEP. Interestingly, members of our community have been approached and fed incorrect and misleading information on the LEP including much of the content of certain pro forma submissions. Consistent zoning decisions have been made on the basis of endorsed (and publicly exhibited) Strategies and methodologies.

9. I object to the process that Council has employed

Due to concerns expressed by the community at public meetings relating to the E3 zone. Council responded to these concerns by:

via the website based solicitation of community comment on the Proposed E3 /RU2 Zone Swap. This process enables multiple votes / comments to be lodged by an individual and is non –representative. This process encourages an uninformed emotive response to Yes / No questions with or without one liner comments, that focus on one small portion of a complex document, results in community division, and subverts informed and productive debate.

FSM11/107 MOTION Councillor Fergus Thomson THAT: 1. Council request the General Manager to investigate the options and abilities to amend the Draft Local Environmental Plan 2011 with respect to removing E3 – Environmental Management on privately owned lands. 2. The current exhibition material be amended, if possible, to provide an alternative for the community to comment during the current exhibition period. This decision was put to the community for discussion by extending the exhibition period by a further two (2) weeks. There was substantial media coverage of this proposal including radio interviews by the General Manager and Mayor, print articles in local papers, in addition to emails and information on Council’s website. It is noteworthy that Council did receive 641 pro forma letter types (including this) in opposition to this question and other matters associated with E zones, environmental overlays, rural planning and LEP process. Based on this submission it could be concluded that it is a non-representative submission. Notwithstanding the above, all submissions received are considered on planning merit.

10. I object to the changes in definition of agricultural uses in the RU1 Zone that result or may result in a net loss of flexibility and autonomy for land owners whose successful agribusiness ventures require the ability to introduce, vary, increase, decrease, discontinue and resume any and all agricultural operations that they currently undertake, or may undertake in the future.

The Standard Instrument for preparing local environmental plans (LEPs) includes a Dictionary of standard definitions relating to land uses and other terms relevant to the interpretation and application of LEPs. The Dictionary is a mandatory provision and included in its entirety in all LEPs. To maintain consistency in planning language across the State, councils are not able to alter the standard definitions or directly add definitions to the Dictionary Councils must give effect to any relevant State or regional planning guidance when determining permitted and prohibited land uses. In addition, where the permissibility of certain land uses is provided for under a relevant SEPP (e.g. Infrastructure SEPP), there is no need to include these types of development in Standard Instrument LEPs.

11. I object in principle to the existence of the RU2 zone, which will require the landowner to put in a DA to vary, extend increase or alter existing agricultural operations. All agricultural land should be zoned RU1.

The RU2 zone is one of the zones available to Council to select in a LEP. The draft LEP as certified does not include the RU2 zone. Council has proposed to zone its agricultural land RU1.

12. Whilst I object in principle to the need for the RU2 zone, if a decision is to be made between the application of an E3 zone versus an RU2 zone, I instruct Council to adopt a default position of RU2 on all private agricultural land

Comment noted. Council has not made any formal decision to include the RU2 in the LEP.

currently zoned Rural 1 (a).

13. I object to the adverse effect that E3 zoning will have in preventing growth in primary production, preventing landowners developing land to its full potential and impeding expansion and diversification of agricultural activities.

Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples of where the LEP will result in preventing growth in primary production and landowners developing land to its full potential. Zones have been applied in accordance with directions provided by the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy having regard to the physical constraints on the land and land capability.

14. I object to the commandeering of agricultural land by E3 zonings without compensation for the resultant loss of use of that land.

Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples of where losses or additional costs will result from the LEP. The NSW Planning system is a merits based system not a property rights system. The zones in the Rural LEP are: 1(a) Rural Environmental Constraints and Agriculture/ 1(a1) Rural Environmental Constraints, Water Catchment Protection and Agriculture. The RU1 and E zones have been applied in the LEP 2011, consistent with the relevant actions and directions of the South Coast Regional Strategy, South Coast Independent Review Panel, Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy (e.g. NE30 & NE31 & RI1), specific directions of the State Government (s117), LEP Practice notes and Circulars and the methodology agreed with Councillors. That is: define predominant land characteristic by contour, natural feature, cadastral boundary and vegetation cover and zone accordingly. Rural properties are now RU1, E3 or a combination where split zones required. The E2 zone has been applied to wetlands and other constraints.

15. I object to the conflict of interest that exists in the incentive Council has to apply E zones to private land for the purposes of acquiring development credits via bio-certification processes.

Unsubstantiated statement not supported by fact. The Biocertification process is not a consequence of an LEP. The two are quite independent, have separate applications and are given effect through two different Acts. A Biodiversity Certification Strategy is developed by a planning authority and assessed by the Office of Environment and Heritage with certification conferred by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Council does not have any “financial incentive” to apply E zones to private lands in LEPs. Council’s interest in the current Eurobodalla Biodiversity Certification Projects is of a planning authority, not on the basis of financial gain.

16. I object to the inequity in Councils’ recognition of landowners’ legitimate expectations of development and not others, and the resultant division that is created within the community

Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples of where the inequity in Councils’ recognition of landowners’ legitimate expectations of development and not others, and the resultant division that is created within the community. The NSW planning system is a merit based system not a property rights system. “Some areas of the existing common law are relevant in the environmental field particularly the tort of nuisance and the law relating to restrictive covenants. The problem is that these areas of law were designed for other purposes – mainly the protection of land values – and they cannot readily be adapted to dealing with problems of environmental protection in a complex industrial society. In practice, they are of peripheral relevance to environmental law.” Farrier,D and P, Stein 2006 The issue of constitutional property rights has been subject to judicial and legal interpretation. The judgements are all very clear - there is no access to some ancient common law that might override current State legislation.

17. I object to the Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples.

inequitable manner in which Urban Expansion zones have been applied, the application of E3 zones to Urban Expansion areas, the raising of minimum lot sizes and the adverse impacts this will have on land supply, and the ability of the Shire to build affordable housing. Council should update the Residential Land Monitor to quantify the loss of housing yield.

There is no equivalent zone for ‘urban expansion’ in the Standard LEP. Council is unable to zone all land under current urban expansion zone to residential due to constraints. Instead land has been:

• Zoned consistent with Sensitive Coastal Lands Panel Report, South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy;

• Zoned consistent with current development proposals and or development consents where that information has been available in time for the LEP;

• Zoned as per outcomes from site visits with Agencies and Councillors during the LEP review process

There is only one area of urban expansion land now proposed to be part zoned E3 under the draft LEP. This land is at East Moruya. This parcel of land has been the subject of lengthy discussions with relevant council staff, state agencies and the land owners so as to deliver a development outcome, given the constraints that exist on the land, and the recommendations of the Sensitive Coastal Lands Report. The proposed E3 zone applies to that part of the land affected by the presence of an EEC; and was part of an agreed outcome by the landowner as a trade-off for an urban residential subdivision on a part of the land less constrained. The E3 part of the land provides for a house site. It is noteworthy that a development application for the land is currently with Council.

18. I object to the lack of clarity in Councils descriptions of Small Rural Lands Zones leaving ratepayers without the ability to make considered submissions.

Unsubstantiated statement. There is no “small rural land” zone. The Standard LEP provides 35 zones for councils to use when preparing new principal LEPs for their local government areas. Councils may select zones as appropriate to the needs of their local areas, taking into account any relevant State or regional planning guidance. Councils may not add new zones, create subzones, or change the name of a standard zone. The suite of zones that Council has used on the 1C lands includes:

RU4 Small Lot Primary Production

R5 Large Lot Residential

E4 Environmental Living These zones have been applied consistent with LEP practice notes and State and Council policy. All relevant information about these zones was available on Council’s website, or through the links provided to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure website.

19. I object to the lack of information about the rates variations on each zone.

The LEP and rates systems are independent of one another. The LEP and rates systems are independent of one another. Information about the impact of zone changes impacting on rates has been communicated at public meetings and in individual correspondence to a landowner of R5 land in South Moruya. Where zones have been transferred like for like e.g. 1c to R5 there will be no change in rating category due to a change of zoning. Where properties experience a change in zoning from e.g. urban expansion to residential there may be an increase in land values, which may impact on rates in the longer term.

20. I object to any E zones applied to small rural lands. At minimum, zones on these lands should reflect the present 1C Zones and

The E4 zone has been applied to some of the existing 1C lands as has the RU4 and R5 zones. The DPI Practice Note states: This zone will be typically applied to existing low impact residential development. This may include areas already zoned for rural residential that have special conservation values. Where lands have

maintain opportunities and use of surrounding area.

higher conservation values and fewer intended land uses than the E4 zone, an E2 or E3 zone may be appropriate. Regional councils should distinguish carefully between the E4 zone, the RU4 Rural Small Holdings and R5 Large Lot Residential zones to address environmental, agricultural and residential land capabilities respectively. Where small holdings undertake agricultural production such as viticulture or cropping such as growing berries, the RU4 zone should be considered. If there are few environmental considerations, then R5 may be the appropriate zone. Lot sizes applied to these 1C areas reflects the existing development pattern where exhausted, or the guidelines set by the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy Actions SP26.

21. I object to the absence of detail on use of small rural zones which are unclear as to future use of the land in terms of Stock, stock yards, fire hazard reduction, weed management, and harvesting of timber for rural infrastructure

As stated above there is no “small rural zone”. As stated above the new LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property.

Clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEP Farm management practices does not require approval under the LEP Bushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11 Farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEP Farm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under


22. I object to the activation of the Native Vegetation Act in residential zones

The LEP does not activate the Native Vegetation Act. The Act sets out where and to which zones it applies. It currently does not apply to ‘urban zones’. The R5 Large Lot Residential zone however is a rural zone under the LEP template. This land which is currently rural residential 1(c) is currently affected by the Native Vegetation Act and will remain so under the LEP unless amendments to the Act and Regulation exclude it. The LEP effects no change in regard to this issue.

23. I object to the absence of Economic Impact Studies evaluating the adverse impacts of losses in Real Estate value and lost investment and jobs in the Shire.

Unsubstantiated claim without any empirical date or examples of where the LEP will result in loss of real estate value and investment in the Shire. Broadly, the LEP reinforces and makes explicit the policy positions of Council and the NSW Government which in turn are a response to contemporary and wider community expectations. The LEP is aligned with the South Coast Regional Strategy prepared by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy prepared and adopted by Council in consultation with the community; these plans having a 30 year planning horizon. There are many factors that have influenced the content of the LEP including:

Population growth

Need for housing choice

Need for employment opportunities

Need to provide infrastructure

Need to protect natural ecosystems and scenic values

Lack of alternative transport modes In dealing with each of the above factors there are financial benefits in the form of cost savings to ratepayers, as well as potential cost returns to those same ratepayers due to planned outcomes. These outcomes are to be achieved through land use zone application and development controls that:

Strengthen the role of the major centres of Batemans Bay, Moruya and Narooma and reinforce a commercial hierarchy to ensure that neighbourhoods are centred around services and civic facilities.

Provide opportunities for greater diversity in retail, commercial, business development by supporting active and vibrant town and village centres.

Define future urban areas previously zoned Urban Expansion 10, which if not for a zoning change would not proceed due to the Native Vegetation Act.

Consolidate growth in identified urban and existing rural residential areas to prevent unsustainable patterns of development.

Limit coastal/urban sprawl between settlements.

Provide efficient infrastructure and services by managing land release and development to ensure orderly and economic development.

Facilitate tourist development diversification and growth throughout the Shire.

Provide a greater range of housing choice to address various lifecycle stages and socio-economic categories.

Protect and enhance the cultural, heritage, ecological and visual characteristics of the Shire.

Particular benefits to rural land owners under the LEP in addition to the above, include:

Removal of green tape regulations i.e. clearing of native vegetation not requiring consent under the LEP.

Farm management practices not requiring consent under the LEP.

Bushfire hazard reduction not requiring consent under the LEP.

Enable new dwelling entitlements to be obtained on rural and environmental zoned land where 40ha exists and that the lot has access to a Council maintained sealed road.

Community title subdivision of tourist and visitor accommodation on rural and environmental zoned land.

Farm building, rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained under SEPPs Code and Exempt Development Schedule in LEP.

Lot averaging subdivision provisions included for E4 zoned land. In addition to the above and in response to the unsubstantiated claims about property devaluation due to the LEP and the E3 zone Council can provide the following: Cessnock City Council engaged a local valuer (WBP Property Group Newcastle) to prepare an independent assessment of the impact of implementation of the proposed E3 zone under their

draft LEP. This independent report concluded that the real differences between the current and draft LEP were not significant. There was little impact of values of land. Opportunities for rural enterprises had not been restricted, just managed into areas more suitable.

24. I object to the loss of value of ratepayer’s assets as a result of zonings that remove or place at risk dwelling entitlements.

The LEP does not potentially place at risk existing dwelling entitlements. Avenues exist for land owners to validate and register entitlements in perpetuity. The LEP does however introduce the potential for rural land without a dwelling entitlement to obtain one if the land meets certain criteria – including minimum 40ha area, and that land has or can obtain access to a council maintained sealed road.

I recommend that the following principles and changes be applied to the Draft LEP 2011: 1. To meet a “Like -for- Like” objective for zonings , that considers not only the natural environment, but the social and economic environments and seeks to minimize adverse effects on land owners 2. To produce a document that is clear consistent with the aims and objectives of the ESS and SCRS 3. That precedence is given to the concerns and submissions of the owners of private property in decisions about the zonings that will be applied to those private lands.

The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1). Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. All submissions to the LEP are considered on merit.

Pink

Issue Response

Standard Instrument: contains a range of land use zones to apply to rural, residential, commercial, industrial and other areas. It also contains zones to apply to areas that are environmentally sensitive, including the E3 Environmental Management zone. LEP Practice Note PN 11-002 issued on 10 March 2011 contains the following description of the purpose of the E3 zone: This zone is generally intended to be applied to land that has special ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic attributes, or land highly constrained by geotechnical or other hazards.

The Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 (Standard Instrument) sets out 35 standard zones for councils to use when preparing new principal local environmental plans (LEPs) for their local government areas. Councils may select zones as appropriate to the needs of their local areas, taking into account any relevant State or regional planning guidance. Councils may not add new zones, create subzones, or change the name of a standard zone. The zones in the Rural LEP 1987 are: 1(a) Rural Environmental Constraints and Agriculture/ 1(a1) Rural Environmental Constraints, Water Catchment Protection and Agriculture. Rural properties are now RU1, E3 or a combination where split zones required. The Agricultural land has been zoned RU1. The Environmental Constraints land has been zone E3. The E2 zone has been applied to wetlands and other constraints.

Local planning directions: The objectives of Direction 1.5 are to protect the agricultural production value of rural land, and facilitate the orderly and economic development of rural lands for rural and related purposes. The direction applies when a new LEP affects lands within an existing or proposed rural or environment protection zone (including the alteration of any existing rural or environment protection zone boundary). The new LEP must be consistent with the Rural Planning Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008. These principles are appended for your information

The Minister for Planning, under section 117(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) issues directions that relevant planning authorities such as local councils must follow when preparing LEPs. Direction 1.5 Rural Lands applies when: (a) a council prepares a draft LEP that affects land within an existing or proposed rural or environment protection zone (including the alteration of any existing rural or environment protection zone boundary) or (b) a council prepares a draft LEP that changes the existing minimum lot size on land within a rural or environment protection zone. Direction 1.5 Rural Lands states: A draft LEP to which clauses (a) or (b) apply must be consistent with the Rural Planning Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008. A draft LEP to which clause (b) applies must be consistent with the Rural Subdivision Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008. Note: State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 does not require a council to review or change its minimum lot size(s) in an existing LEP. A council can transfer the existing minimum lot size(s) into a new LEP. However, where a council seeks to vary an existing minimum lot size in an LEP, it must do so in accordance with the Rural Subdivision Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008.

The objective of Direction 2.1 is to protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas. The new LEP must include provisions that facilitate the protection and conservation of environmentally sensitive areas and must not reduce the environmental protection standards that apply to the land. The use of an environmental protection zone is not stipulated as a means to achieve this objective. Nor does it require the use of a habitat corridor over large areas of farmland. Direction 3.1 applies when an LEP affects land within an existing or proposed residential zone, or any other zone in which significant residential development is permitted, e.g. the Urban Expansion zone. The LEP must include provisions to encourage the provision of housing that will broaden housing choice, and make more efficient use of existing services but cannot contain provisions that will reduce residential densities.

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure were satisfied in certifying the draft LEP 2011 that Council had met the rural planning principles as prescribed by the SEPP clause 7 a-h including ensuring consistency with any applicable regional strategy or applicable local strategy endorsed by the Director General. Direction 2.1 Environment Protection zones applies when: a council prepares a draft LEP. Direction 2.1 Environmental Protection zones states: A draft LEP shall include provisions that facilitate the protection and conservation of environmentally sensitive areas. A draft LEP that applies to land within an environment protection zone or land otherwise identified for environment protection purposes in a LEP shall not reduce the environmental protection standards that apply to the land (including by modifying development standards that apply to the land). This requirement does not apply to a change to a development standard for minimum lot size for a dwelling in accordance with clause (5) of Direction 1.5 “Rural Lands”. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure were satisfied in certifying the draft LEP 2011 that Council was consistent with this Direction by giving effect to the applicable regional strategy and applicable local strategy endorsed by the Director General. Direction 3.1 Residential zones applies: to all councils. when a council prepares a draft LEP that affects land within:

(a) an existing or proposed residential zone (including the alteration of any existing residential zone boundary),

(b) any other zone in which significant residential development is permitted or proposed to be permitted.

Direction 3.1 Residential zones states: A draft LEP shall include provisions that encourage the provision of housing that will:

(a) broaden the choice of building types and locations available in the housing market, and

(b) make more efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, and (c) reduce the consumption of land for housing and associated urban

development on the urban fringe, and (d) be of good design.

A draft LEP shall, in relation to land to which this direction applies:

(a) contain a requirement that residential development is not permitted until land is adequately serviced (or arrangements satisfactory to the council, or other appropriate authority, have been made to service it), and

(b) not contain provisions which will reduce the permissible residential density of land.

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure were satisfied in certifying the draft LEP 2011 that Council was consistent with this Direction by giving effect to the applicable regional strategy and applicable local strategy endorsed by the Director General.

Local Strategies: South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and Structure Plans, in particular the Moruya Structure Plan

Issue addressed elsewhere in response.

The impacts of the E3 zone: The E3 zone will severely reduce any growth in primary production in Eurobodalla Shire. It will prevent the expansion of agricultural activities and the ability of a land owner to develop land to its full potential. The wisdom of this zone will be in the spotlight as food security becomes more and more of a global issue. In our view, given the above circumstances, the Draft LEP 2011 is inconsistent with the thrust and objectives of the ESS

Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples of where the LEP will result in an unnecessary impost on farmers or restrict existing or new activities. The zones in the Rural LEP are: 1(a) Rural Environmental Constraints and Agriculture/ 1(a1) Rural Environmental Constraints, Water Catchment Protection and Agriculture. The E zones under the draft LEP do not impose limitations on land management of private property.

Clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEP Farm management practices does not require approval under the LEP Bushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue

of clause 5.11 Farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEP


• Apply an environment protection zone to all areas identified as being of high conservation value based on landscape and environmental values rather than property boundaries

• Separate the current 1(a) Rural (Environmental Constraints & Agricultural

Zone) into zones for environmental protection and agriculture using information contained in Council’s GIS and subject to ground truthing

• Apply separate zones in the new LEP to intensive agriculture (e.g.

horticulture, forestry, turf farms), rural industries, (e.g. abattoirs), broad acre farming (e.g. dairying and livestock) and environmentally constrained land

and specific directions of the State Government (s117), LEP Practice notes and Circulars and the methodology agreed with Councillors. That is: define predominant land characteristic by contour, natural feature, cadastral boundary and vegetation cover and zone accordingly. The LEP must be reviewed every 5 years providing opportunity to accommodate emerging industries/land uses should this be required.

Land supply The E3 zoning of Urban Expansion and rural residential land coupled with larger minimum lot sizes will decrease the supply of urban residential land. This begs the question as to how Council

The Standard LEP provides 35 zones for councils to use when preparing new principal local environmental plans (LEPs) for their local government areas. Councils may select zones as appropriate to the needs of their local areas, taking into account any relevant State or regional planning guidance. Councils may not add new zones, create subzones, or change the name of a standard zone. The E3 zone has not been applied to any Rural Residential Lands. The suite of zones that Council has used on the 1C lands includes:

intends to provide for demand over coming years. Alternative approaches: Council is under no obligation to apply the E3 zone in the Draft LEP 2011 or to even use the E3 zone at all. Alternative approaches to address environmentally sensitive land have been used by other councils. Some have successfully negotiated with state agencies to use an ‘overlay’ and a standard natural resource management clause. This means that rural land will be zoned RU1 Primary Production or RU2 Rural Landscape and allow for a similar range of land uses as currently permitted. Proven wetlands, EECs and riparian corridors are mapped and the clause requires council to consider the impacts of development proposals and how any impacts will be managed. The outcome is less onerous on land owners yet Council still satisfies the objectives of Local Planning Directions 2.1 Environment Protection Zones and 3.1 Residential Zones. Another alternative is to only apply the E3 zone to land that is currently zoned as either environment protection or open space, or where the land has been verified by survey to be of high conservation value. This approach has also been acceptable to state agencies.



E4 Environmental Living These zones have been applied consistent with LEP practice notes and State and Council policy. Lot sizes applied to these 1C areas reflects the existing development pattern where exhausted, or the guidelines set by the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy Actions SP26. It is noteworthy that there is only one area of urban expansion land now proposed to be part zoned E3 under the draft LEP. This land is at East Moruya. This parcel of land has been the subject of lengthy discussions with relevant council staff, state agencies and the land owners so as to deliver a development outcome, given the constraints that exist on the land, and the recommendations of the Sensitive Coastal Lands Report. The proposed E3 zone applies to that part of the land affected by the presence of an EEC; and was part of an agreed outcome by the landowner as a trade-off for an urban residential subdivision on a part of the land less constrained. The E3 part of the land provides for a house site. It is noteworthy that a development application for the land is currently with Council. In response to alternative approaches: Councils can add local clauses to address specific local circumstances where justified. These could be as a result of relevant planning components of council’s local strategic planning, or required under a section 117 direction, or regional or metropolitan strategy. Any such local clauses are not to be inconsistent with and should not undermine the effect of: the mandated clauses in the Standard Instrument; the permissibility or otherwise of a land use as detailed in the Land Use Table; or any other relevant State and regional policies, strategies, directions etc. In this instance the inclusion of clauses 6.5 and 6.6 is supported directly through the application of the LEP directions under the South Coast Regional Conservation Plan, which is given effect through the South Coast Regional Strategy. In addition the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy actions N15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 specifically require Council to protect native vegetation, ecosystems, threatened species and high conservation land in the LEP. The tools available to Council to comply with these directions are zone and overlay. Further, the map overlays form part of the certified plan as endorsed by the Department and other State Agencies. Council has 3 environmental overlays in the LEP. Acid Sulphate soils - This map shows areas of acid sulphate soils (See clause 6.3) Biodiversity Protection - This map shows areas of sensitive biodiversity outside of National Parks (see Clause 6.5). Riparian land and waterway - This map shows sensitive waterways and water bodies (see Clause 6.6) The datasets that inform the map overlays have been derived from State and Local sources. These local provisions/overlays do not prohibit development, but act as a head of

consideration for the assessment and determination of development applications by a consent authority. The need to take into consideration amongst other things - environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments exists now under the requirements of section 79C the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The benefit of inclusion of the overlay in the LEP is that it provides transparency for land owners and or land purchasers.

Amendments to the LEP: The purpose of this submission is to request that Council remove all E zones currently applied to land zoned for agricultural usage and modify the zonings to RU1. Similarly, we would ask that the Council apply ‘Like for Like’ zoning principles within the Eurobodalla Shire.

The removal of all E zones and replacement with RU1 as suggested cannot be supported or justified by State or Local Policy or LEP Practice Note or Direction. Council has applied like for like in a manner consistent with the adopted strategic directions as recommended by the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy. The zones in the Rural LEP 1987 are: 1(a) Rural Environmental Constraints and Agriculture/ 1(a1) Rural Environmental Constraints, Water Catchment Protection and Agriculture. The Agricultural land has been zoned RU1. The Environmental Constraints land has been zone E3.

Green

Issue Response

1. Objects to the requirement that a dwelling in a rural area will only be permissible if it has access to a council maintained sealed road. People will not be able to build in the rural areas of the Shire.

The LEP does not affect existing dwelling entitlements in this manner. The LEP does however introduce the potential for rural land without a dwelling entitlement to obtain one if the land meets certain criteria – including minimum 40ha area, and that land has or can obtain access to a council maintained sealed road.

2. Objects to the 5 year sunset provision for holdings and parcels. Landowners should not lose existing entitlements


3. Objects to the removal of rural workers dwellings from the LEP. This will make it harder for farmers to get quality farm managers.

In relation to rural worker's dwellings, while Council has not asked for these to be permitted in its LEP, should Council wish to permit rural worker's dwellings, it would need to justify the need for these to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The Department would need to consider the nature of the rural land uses, the availability of alternate accommodation for rural workers and the distances between settlements and farms. Secondary dwellings and attached dual occupancies are considered as useful to cater for rural workers, and shared accommodation for itinerant workers may be argued to be ancillary to certain types of rural land uses. The draft LEP already includes attached dual occupancy development in the RU1 zone. Agree to include secondary dwellings in the RU1 zone.

4. Objects to the requirement for attached dual occupancy as it will deter family members moving back to the farm.

In relation to detached dual occupancy development. The current Rural LEP 1987 permits it. Based on advice from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and their policy position at the time of drafting the LEPs 2009 and 2011, detached dual occupancy was removed from these draft LEPs. The basis for this position being that permitting detached dual occupancies leads to increased pressure for subdivision in rural zones and the fragmentation of rural lands. More recently the Department has relaxed its position, and is willing to consider dual occupancies (detached) and secondary dwellings in rural zone as an alternate form of residential accommodation. SP38 of the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy states: permit detached dual occupancy only where the second dwelling is of minimal visual impact, is ancillary to the main dwelling, is compatible in terms of design and materials and is capable of accommodating rural workers or for use as rural tourist accommodation. The draft LEP already includes attached dual occupancy development. Agree to include secondary dwellings, and detached dual occupancy development subject to a local provision to give effect to SP38 in the RU1 and E3 zones. Notwithstanding the above, Council has and continues to experience strong pressure for the subdivision of existing rural dual occupancies. The Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy states: SP29 prohibit the subdivision of land occupied by dual occupancy development to less than the minimum lot size determined by development suitability given location and lot size

considerations. The subdivision of rural land for residential purposes is not permitted under the Rural LEP or in the draft LEP. Until such time as the Rural Lands review is completed to better inform Council about the impact of rural living development on agriculture and amenity, this prohibition remains adopted policy.

5. Objects to land zoned for primary production only having one agricultural use permitted without consent. What about farm forestry, bed and breakfast establishment and child care centres.

Councils must give effect to any relevant State or regional planning guidance when determining permitted and prohibited land uses. In addition, where the permissibility of certain land uses is provided for under a relevant SEPP (e.g. Infrastructure SEPP), there is no need to include these types of development in Standard Instrument LEPs. The RU1 zone permits a full range of land use for primary production purposes including bed and breakfast, and home based child care in lieu of child care centres. The exceptions being forestry and rural workers dwellings. Development consent for farm forestry is not required under the LEP; as such the term does not appear in the Dictionary in the LEP. Agree to include Forestry in the RU1 zone. In relation to rural worker's dwellings, Council has not asked for these to be permitted in its LEP. Should Council wish to permit rural worker's dwellings, it would need to justify the need for these to the Department. The Department would need to consider the nature of the rural land uses, the availability of alternate accommodation for rural workers and the distances between settlements and farms. Secondary dwellings and attached dual occupancies are considered as useful to cater for rural workers and shared accommodation for itinerant workers may be argued to be ancillary to certain types of rural land uses. The draft LEP already includes attached dual occupancy development in the RU1 zone. Agree to include secondary dwellings and detached dual occupancy in the RU1 and E3 zones as discussed.

Yellow

Issue Response

1. I object to the redefinition of “sensitive lands” as defined in Part 3.3, and in particular to the addition of clauses 3.3(2)(ja) and (jb). The definition of “sensitive land” is adequately defined in the State SEPP and should not include unidentified and unassessed lands at the whim of Council.

Clause 3.3 defines an ‘environmentally sensitive area’ where exempt or complying development must not be carried out. Note that in 2011, the clause was amended to clarify that environmentally sensitive area includes land reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 in relation to exempt and complying development. Whilst the LEP clause direction states that additional areas may be added to this list, any such additions must be agreed by the Department of Planning and must be in addition to (and not repeat) those in the SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008. These additional areas do not apply to exempt or complying development arising out of other environmental planning instruments such as the SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008. For the purposes of public exhibition of LEP 2011 clauses 3.3(2) (ja) and (jb) were added to the standard clause. This had the unintended consequence of restricting the application of exempt development throughout the Shire, in particular grazing of livestock on E3 land. Agree. Remove the reference to clause 6.5 Biodiversity Protection in Clause 3.3 to enable the broader application of exempt development.

2. I object to the requirement for any landowners to provide an environmental study of their land prior to lodgement of a DA. Any environmental study required for development approval must relate to the development sought. Requiring studies outside of the DA process opens up potential abuses where a landowner could be required to do extensive studies of his entire property before being allowed to even submit a DA for something relatively minor. All studies must relate to the development.

Not a requirement of the LEP. A statement of environmental affects is a requirement under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and is a document that forms part of a development application submitted to a consent authority for consideration. The contents of which is stipulated under Schedule 1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation.

3. I object to the use of “Voluntary Agreements” of any sort in the Development Approval process. No agreement can be 'voluntary' where an approval relies on it, and amounts to a form of extortion.

Not a requirement of the LEP. Under the Local Government Act, 1993, it is part of Council’s charter to properly manage, develop, protect, restore, enhance and conserve the environment of the area for which it is responsible. Council must ensure that the land use patterns in a locality support sustainable development and comply with existing legislation and policy. International, national, state and regional governance directly influences Councils operations and the discharge of statutory responsibilities must be consistent with these laws and adopted standards – including the development assessment process. Dependant on the individual circumstance, Council may accept a range of development solutions, including some forms of voluntary agreement, where such mechanisms satisfy legislative requirements and outcomes.

4. I object to any management plan, voluntary agreement or conditions of consent being registered on a land title. No single landowner can speak for generations to come, nor impose management actions on future generations. It is beyond the rights of any individual to impose labour on others who may inherit a property and also inherit the requirement to continue works without their consent. In particular where failure to comply can be prosecuted. Zoning is enough to limit what people can do on their land. The planning system is set up for this purpose and people should know what they’re buying when they buy it.

Not a requirement of the LEP. See comments in 3.

5. I object to Clause 6.5 which has a practical effect to import a much higher test to the environmental standard which would normally only apply to Threatened Species or an element of the environment. I object to the lack of criteria, listing process or scientific determination, and the elevating effect of the term “to avoid any adverse environmental impact” as it appears in 6.5(4) and similar clauses.

Clause 6.5 Biodiversity Protection is a local clause. Councils can add local clauses to address specific local circumstances where justified. These could be as a result of relevant planning components of council’s local strategic planning, or required under a section 117 direction, or regional or metropolitan strategy. Any such local clauses are not to be inconsistent with and should not undermine the effect of: the mandated clauses in the Standard Instrument; the permissibility or otherwise of a land use as detailed in the Land Use Table; or any other relevant State and regional policies, strategies, directions etc. In this instance the inclusion of clause 6.5 is supported directly through the application of the LEP directions under the South Coast Regional Conservation Plan, which is given effect through the South Coast Regional Strategy. In addition the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy actions N15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 specifically require Council to protect native vegetation, ecosystems, threatened species and high conservation land in the LEP. The tools available to Council to comply with these directions are zone and overlay.

The wording of clause 6.5 is that determined by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in consultation with the Office of Environment and Heritage. This clause is one of the suite of environmental model clauses that are available for use by local councils in drafting their LEPs. The wording of this clause has been approved by the Parliamentary Counsel as legally sound. These local provisions/overlays do not prohibit development, but act as a head of consideration for the assessment and determination of development applications by a consent authority. The need to take into consideration amongst other things - environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments exists now under the requirements of section 79C the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The benefit of inclusion of the overlay in the LEP is that it provides transparency for land owners and or land purchasers.

6. I object to the application of any E zones to private lands on the basis that the Native Vegetation Act, Threatened Species Act, EP&A Act and Noxious Weeds Act already adequately protect environmentally sensitive land from inappropriate development or use.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Native Vegetation Act, Threatened Species Conservation and Noxious Weeds Acts exist and operate independently of each other. Each piece of legislation mentioned has specific areas of influence, whereas the regulation of development in a holistic sense falls to local government which must ensure that the land use patterns in a locality support sustainable development and comply with existing legislation and policy. Native Vegetation Act: This Act regulates the clearing of native vegetation on all land in NSW, except for excluded land listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. The Act outlines what landowners can and cannot do in clearing native vegetation. Threatened Species Conservation Act: This is an Act to provide for the conservation of threatened species, populations and ecological communities of animals and plants (although the Act does not generally apply to fish). The Act sets out a number of specific objects relating to the conservation of biological diversity and the promotion of ecologically sustainable development. Noxious Weeds Act: This Act provides for the identification, classification and control of noxious weeds across the State Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: This Act establishes the basis for the NSW planning system. It relies on two main planning techniques to regulate land use: zoning and development standards. Neither the Native Vegetation Act nor the Threatened Species Act substitute for assessment of appropriate land use under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 (Standard Instrument) sets out 35 standard zones for councils to use when preparing new principal local environmental plans (LEPs) for their local government areas. Councils may select zones as appropriate to the needs of their local areas, taking into account any relevant State or regional planning guidance. Councils may not add new zones, create subzones, or change the name of a standard zone. The zones in the Rural LEP 1987 are: 1(a) Rural Environmental Constraints and Agriculture/ 1(a1) Rural Environmental Constraints, Water Catchment Protection and Agriculture. The RU1 and E3 zones have been applied in the LEP 2011, consistent with the relevant actions and directions of the South Coast Regional Strategy, South Coast Independent Review Panel, Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy:


Separate the current 1(a) Rural (Environmental Constraints & Agricultural Zone) into zones for environmental protection and agriculture using information contained in Council’s GIS and subject to ground truthing

Apply separate zones in the new LEP to intensive agriculture (e.g. horticulture, forestry, turf farms), rural industries, (e.g. abattoirs), broad acre farming (e.g. dairying and livestock) and environmentally constrained land

and specific directions of the State Government (s117), LEP Practice notes and Circulars and the methodology agreed with Councillors. That is: define predominant land characteristic by contour, natural feature, cadastral boundary and vegetation cover and zone accordingly. Rural properties are now RU1, E3 or a combination where split zones required. The E2 zone has been applied to wetlands and other constraints. The LEP is a comprehensive planning document with a broad focus and must be reflective of all current planning law. The LEP is obliged to align with the Policy position of Council and the NSW and Federal Governments.

7. I object to the application of overlays such as Biodiversity, Habitat corridors and Extant Vegetation on private land as it will limit usage now and in the future and a vast majority of the Shire is set aside to provide for this purpose already. I object to the inaccurate and arbitrary manner in which Habitat Corridor overlays have been applied in many instances. e.g. the commercial and industrial areas of Moruya. In particular I object to their application where no „detailed background assessment of high environmental value‟ has been undertaken. (LEP Practice Note PN 11-002_

Councils can add local clauses to address specific local circumstances where justified. These could be as a result of relevant planning components of council’s local strategic planning, or required under a section 117 direction, or regional or metropolitan strategy. Any such local clauses are not to be inconsistent with and should not undermine the effect of: the mandated clauses in the Standard Instrument; the permissibility or otherwise of a land use as detailed in the Land Use Table; or any other relevant State and regional policies, strategies, directions etc. In this instance the inclusion of clauses 6.5 and 6.6 is supported directly through the application of the LEP directions under the South Coast Regional Conservation Plan, which is given effect through the South Coast Regional Strategy. Further, the map overlays form part of the certified plan as endorsed by the Department and other State Agencies. The datasets that inform the map overlays have been derived from State and Local sources. These local provisions/overlays do not prohibit development, but act as a head of consideration for the assessment and determination of development applications by a consent authority. These provisions exist now under State legislation and Council policy. The need to take into consideration amongst other things - environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments exists now under the requirements of section 79C the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The benefit of inclusion of the overlay in the LEP is that it provides transparency for land owners and or land purchasers. It is noteworthy that some submissions that objected to the E3 zone support the use of environmental overlays as an appropriate tool to manage land use and environmental issues.

8. I object to the application of any E zone to private land as it imposes an additional unnecessary layer of legal restrictions for land owners. In most instances, Council has not defined the attributes that have been identified to warrant the application of the E3 zone. In most instances, Council has not demonstrated that the agricultural activities that

Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples of where the LEP will result in unnecessary layer of green tape. The LEP is a requirement under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to regulate land use through the use of zones and development standards. The RU1 and E3 zones have been applied in the LEP 2011, consistent with the relevant actions and directions of the South Coast Regional Strategy, South Coast Independent Review Panel, Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy (e.g. NE30 & NE31 & RI1), specific directions of the State Government (s117), LEP Practice notes and Circulars and the methodology agreed with Councillors. That is: define predominant land characteristic by contour, natural feature, cadastral boundary and vegetation cover and zone accordingly. Rural properties are now RU1, E3 or a combination where split zones required. The E2 zone has been applied to wetlands and other constraints.

are being prohibited in proposed E3 zones are having an adverse environmental impact. Council is under NO obligation to use these zones on private lands.

9. I object to the limitations imposed by E zones and “sensitive lands” definitions on land management on private property, in particular Fire hazard reduction, weed control and routine maintenance activities. These routine management practices will be eliminated or made impossibly difficult and costly. These limitations potentially represent an even greater risk to life and property than already exists.

The E zones under the draft LEP do not impose limitations on land management of private property. Clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEP Farm management practices does not require approval under the LEP Bushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11 Farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEP Farm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under


10. I object to the misleading use of the term “Exempt Development” with respect to agricultural activities on E3 zoned land as the implied exemption is extinguished by the presence of “sensitive lands” as redefined in this LEP.

Clause 3.3 defines an ‘environmentally sensitive area’ where exempt or complying development must not be carried out. As previously stated, clause 3.3 will be amended to remove the reference to clause 6.5 in the LEP to enable the broader application of exempt development.

11. I object to the Proposed E3 /RU2 Zone swap as it is misleading and confusing. The RU2 zone definition has changed from the RU2 in Draft LEP 2009 and the RU2 2011 definitions have NOT received a Section 65 to enable exhibition as part of this Draft LEP 2011.

Public opinion was sought in accordance with a Council resolution FSM11/107 to determine the community’s views on the potential use of RU2 or E3 to those E3 zoned areas under the current LEP. To clarify: the certified 2009 LEP contained the E3, RU2 and RU1 zones which were applied to the land with a different methodology given that split zones could not be used at this time in the LEP. The application of zone reflected the differences between the zones as required by the LEP Practice Notes. The certified 2011 LEP contained only the E3 and RU1 zones. It was made clear in the public meetings, through the press, emails to Council’s distribution lists, and on Council’s website what it was that Council was suggesting. The RU2 zone does not form part of the certified draft LEP. Should Council seek to pursue the inclusion of the RU2 zone in the LEP it is highly likely that the LEP would need to be re exhibited.

12. I object to the fact that the Draft LEP 2011 has been exhibited without a Local Environmental Study to guide, accompany and inform the preparation of the LEP.

Council was not legally required to prepare a Local Environmental Study to exhibit the LEP. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure determined in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 that the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy were sufficient to guide and inform the LEP by letter dated 2 April 2007. As previously stated, zone application in the draft LEP 2011 is consistent with these strategies.

13. I object to the fact that despite the absence of accurate data, that Council has solicited responses that specifically relate to environmental impacts from uninformed members of the community upon which it intends to rely in making zoning decisions.

Erroneous and unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples of where Council has solicited responses that relate to environmental impacts from uninformed members of the community. Public opinion was sought about the RU2/E3 zones in accordance with a Council resolution. The question posed to the public via Council’s LEP exhibition web portal was: which zone is more appropriate RU2 or E3 to those E3 zoned areas under the current LEP. Interestingly, members of our community have been approached and fed incorrect and misleading information on the LEP including much of the content of certain pro forma submissions. Consistent zoning decisions have been made on the basis of endorsed (and publicly exhibited) Strategies and methodologies.

14. I object to the process that Council has employed via the website based solicitation of community comment on the Proposed E3 /RU2 Zone Swap. This process enables multiple votes / comments to be

Due to concerns expressed by the community at public meetings relating to the E3 zone,Council responded by proposing the following: FSM11/107 MOTION Councillor Fergus Thomson THAT: 1. Council request the General Manager to investigate the options and abilities to amend the Draft Local Environmental Plan 2011 with respect to removing E3 – Environmental Management on privately owned lands. 2. The current exhibition material be amended, if possible, to provide an alternative for the

lodged by an individual and is non –representative. This process encourages an uninformed emotive response to Yes / No questions with or without one liner comments, that focus on one small portion of a complex document, results in community division, and subverts informed and productive debate.

community to comment during the current exhibition period. This decision was put to the community for discussion by extending the exhibition period by a further two (2) weeks. There was substantial media coverage of this proposal including radio interviews by the General Manager and Mayor, print articles in local papers, in addition to emails and information on Council’s website. It is noteworthy that Council did receive 641 pro forma letter types (including this) in opposition to this question and other matters associated with E zones, environmental overlays, rural planning and LEP process. Based on this submission it could be concluded that it is a non-representative submission. Notwithstanding the above, all submissions received are considered on planning merit.

15. I object to the changes in definition of agricultural uses in the RU1 Zone that result or may result in a net loss of flexibility and autonomy for land owners whose successful agribusiness ventures require the ability to introduce, vary, increase, decrease, discontinue and resume any and all agricultural operations that they currently undertake, or may undertake in the future.

The Standard Instrument for preparing local environmental plans (LEPs) includes a Dictionary of standard definitions relating to land uses and other terms relevant to the interpretation and application of LEPs. The Dictionary is a mandatory provision and included in its entirety in all LEPs. To maintain consistency in planning language across the State, councils are not able to alter the standard definitions or directly add definitions to the Dictionary Councils must give effect to any relevant State or regional planning guidance when determining permitted and prohibited land uses. In addition, where the permissibility of certain land uses is provided for under a relevant SEPP (e.g. Infrastructure SEPP), there is no need to include these types of development in Standard Instrument LEPs.

16. I object in principle to the existence of the RU2 zone, which will require the landowner to put in a DA to vary, extend increase or alter existing agricultural operations. All agricultural land should be zoned RU1.

The RU2 zone is one of the zones available to Council to select in a LEP. The draft LEP as certified does not include the RU2 zone. Council has proposed to zone its agricultural land RU1.

17. I call on Council to issue like-for-like zoning without downzoning or limiting in any way the rights and uses of individual lands today.

Council has applied like for like in a manner consistent with the adopted strategic directions as recommended by the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy. The zones in the Rural LEP are: 1(a) Rural Environmental Constraints and Agriculture/ 1(a1) Rural Environmental Constraints, Water Catchment Protection and Agriculture. The Agricultural land has been zoned RU1. The Environmental Constraints land has been zone E3.

18. I object to the adverse effect that “sensitive lands” including E zoning will have in preventing growth in primary production, preventing landowners developing land to its full potential and impeding expansion and

Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples of where the LEP will result in preventing growth in primary production and landowners developing land to its full potential. Zones have been applied in accordance with directions provided by the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy having regard to the physical constraints on the land and land capability.

diversification of agricultural activities.

19. I object to the commandeering of “sensitive lands” and E zonings without compensation for the resultant loss of use of that land. No economic analysis has been undertaken as to the significant losses and additional costs that would be sustained under this LEP, particularly by rural landowners across the shire.

Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples of where losses or additional costs will result from the LEP. The NSW Planning system is a merits based system not a property rights system. The zones in the Rural LEP are: 1(a) Rural Environmental Constraints and Agriculture/ 1(a1) Rural Environmental Constraints, Water Catchment Protection and Agriculture. The RU1 and E zones have been applied in the LEP 2011, consistent with the relevant actions and directions of the South Coast Regional Strategy, South Coast Independent Review Panel, Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy (e.g. NE30 & NE31 & RI1), specific directions of the State Government (s117), LEP Practice notes and Circulars and the methodology agreed with Councillors. That is: apply appropriate zoning in consideration of dominant land use and character; capability as influenced by soil, topography and vegetation cover; access, natural hazards and continuity with neighbouring zones. Rural properties are now RU1, E3 or a combination where split zones required. The E2 zone has been applied to wetlands and other constraints.

20. I strongly object to the conflict of interest that exists in the incentive Council has to apply E zones to private land for the purposes of acquiring development credits via the biocertification processes.

Unsubstantiated statement not supported by fact. The Biocertification process is not a consequence of an LEP. The two are quite independent, have separate applications and are given effect through two different Acts. A Biodiversity Certification Strategy is developed by a planning authority and assessed by the Office of Environment and Heritage with certification conferred by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Council does not have any “financial incentive” to apply E zones to private lands in the LEP. Council’s interest in the current Eurobodalla Biodiversity Certification Projects is of a planning authority, not on the basis of financial gain.

21. I object to the inequity in Councils ‟recognition of landowners” legitimate expectations of development and not others, and the resultant division that is created within the community.

Unsubstantiated statement. The NSW planning system is a merit based system not a property rights system. “Some areas of the existing common law are relevant in the environmental field particularly the tort of nuisance and the law relating to restrictive covenants. The problem is that these areas of law were designed for other purposes – mainly the protection of land values – and they cannot readily be adapted to dealing with problems of environmental protection in a complex industrial society. In practice, they are of peripheral relevance to environmental law.” Farrier,D and P, Stein 2006 The issue of constitutional property rights has been subject to judicial and legal interpretation. The judgements are all very clear - there is no access to some ancient common law that might override current State legislation.

22. I object to the inequitable manner in which Urban Expansion zones have been applied, the application of E3 zones to Urban Expansion areas, the raising of minimum lot sizes and the adverse impacts this will have on land supply, and the ability

Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. There is no equivalent zone for ‘urban expansion’ in the Standard LEP. Council is unable to zone all land under current urban expansion zone to residential due to constraints. Instead land has been:

• Zoned consistent with Sensitive Coastal Lands Panel Report, South Coast Regional Strategy and Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy;

• Zoned consistent with current development proposals and or development consents where that information has been available in time for the LEP;

• Zoned as per outcomes from site visits with Agencies and Councillors during the LEP review process

of the Shire to build affordable housing. Council should update the Residential Land Monitor to quantify the loss of housing yield.

There is only one area of urban expansion land now proposed to be part zoned E3 under the draft LEP. This land is at East Moruya. This parcel of land has been the subject of lengthy discussions with relevant council staff, state agencies and the land owners so as to deliver a development outcome, given the constraints that exist on the land, and the recommendations of the Sensitive Coastal Lands Report. The proposed E3 zone applies to that part of the land affected by the presence of an EEC; and was part of an agreed outcome by the landowner as a trade-off for an urban residential subdivision on a part of the land less constrained. The E3 part of the land provides for a house site. It is noteworthy that a development application for the land is currently with Council.

23. I object to the lack of clarity in Councils descriptions of Small Rural Lands Zones leaving ratepayers without the ability to make considered submissions.

Unsubstantiated statement. There is no “small rural land” zone. The Standard LEP provides 35 zones for councils to use when preparing new principal LEPs for their local government areas. Councils may select zones as appropriate to the needs of their local areas, taking into account any relevant State or regional planning guidance. Councils may not add new zones, create subzones, or change the name of a standard zone. The suite of zones that Council has used on the 1C lands includes:



E4 Environmental Living These zones have been applied consistent with LEP practice notes and State and Council policy. All relevant information about these zones was available on Council’s website, or through the links provided to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure website.

24. I object to the lack of information about the rates variations on each zone.

The LEP and rates systems are independent of one another. Information about the impact of zone changes impacting on rates has been communicated at public meetings and in individual correspondence to a landowner of R5 land in South Moruya. Where zones have been transferred like for like e.g. 1c to R5 there will be no change in rating category due to a change of zoning. Where properties experience a change in zoning from e.g. urban expansion to residential there may be an increase in land values, which may impact on rates in the longer term.

25. I object to any E zones or “sensitive land” definitions applied to small rural lands. At minimum, zones on these lands should reflect the present 1C Zones and maintain opportunities and use of surrounding area.

Clause 3.3 defines an ‘environmentally sensitive area’ where exempt or complying development must not be carried out. The E4 zone has been applied to some of the existing 1C lands as has the RU4 and R5 zones. See 23 above. The DPI Practice Note states: This zone will be typically applied to existing low impact residential development. This may include areas already zoned for rural residential that have special conservation values. Where lands have higher conservation values and fewer intended land uses than the E4 zone, an E2 or E3 zone may be appropriate. Regional councils should distinguish carefully between the E4 zone, the RU4 Rural Small Holdings and R5 Large Lot Residential zones to address environmental, agricultural and residential land capabilities respectively.

Where small holdings undertake agricultural production such as viticulture or cropping such as growing berries, the RU4 zone should be considered. If there are few environmental considerations, then R5 may be the appropriate zone. Lot sizes applied to these 1C areas reflects the existing development pattern where exhausted, or the guidelines set by the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy Action SP26.

26. I object to the absence of detail on use of small rural zones which are unclear as to future use of the land in terms of Stock, stock yards, fire hazard reduction, weed management, and harvesting of timber for rural infrastructure

As stated above there is no “small rural zone”. As stated above the draft LEP does not impose limitations on land management of private property.

Clearing of native vegetation does not require approval under the LEP Farm management practices does not require approval under the LEP Bushfire hazard reduction does not require approval under the LEP by virtue of clause 5.11 Farm forestry and timber harvesting does not require approval under the LEP Farm buildings and rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained with consent or under


27. I object to the activation of the Native Vegetation Act in residential zones

The LEP does not activate the Native Vegetation Act. The Native Vegetation Act sets out where and to which zones it applies. It currently does not apply to ‘urban zones’. The R5 Large Lot Residential zone however is a rural zone under the LEP template. This land which is currently rural residential 1(c) is currently affected by the Native Vegetation Act and will remain so under the LEP unless amendments to the Act and Regulation exclude it. The LEP effects no change in regard to this issue.

28. I object to the absence of Economic Impact Studies evaluating the adverse impacts of losses in Real Estate value and lost investment and jobs in the Shire

Unsubstantiated claim without any empirical date or examples of where the LEP will result in loss of real estate value and investment in the Shire. Broadly, the LEP reinforces and makes explicit the policy positions of Council and the NSW Government which in turn are a response to contemporary and wider community expectations. The LEP is aligned with the South Coast Regional Strategy prepared by the Department of Planning and the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy prepared and adopted by Council in consultation with the community; these plans having a 30 year planning horizon. There are many factors that have influenced the content of the LEP including:

Population growth

Need for housing choice

Need for employment opportunities

Need to provide infrastructure

Need to protect natural ecosystems and scenic values

Lack of alternative transport modes In dealing with each of the above factors there are financial benefits in the form of cost savings to ratepayers, as well as potential cost returns to those same ratepayers due to planned outcomes. These outcomes are to be achieved through land use zone application and development controls that:

Strengthen the role of the major centres of Batemans Bay, Moruya and Narooma and reinforce a commercial hierarchy to ensure that neighbourhoods are centred around services and civic facilities.

Provide opportunities for greater diversity in retail, commercial, business development by supporting active and vibrant town and village centres.

Define future urban areas previously zoned Urban Expansion 10, which if not for a zoning change would not proceed due to the Native Vegetation Act.

Consolidate growth in identified urban and existing rural residential areas to prevent unsustainable patterns of development.

Limit coastal/urban sprawl between settlements.

Provide efficient infrastructure and services by managing land release and development to ensure orderly and economic development.

Facilitate tourist development diversification and growth throughout the Shire.

Provide a greater range of housing choice to address various lifecycle stages and socio-economic categories.

Protect and enhance the cultural, heritage, ecological and visual characteristics of the Shire.

Particular benefits to rural land owners under the LEP in addition to the above, include:

Removal of green tape regulations i.e. clearing of native vegetation not requiring consent under the LEP.

Farm management practices not requiring consent under the LEP.

Bushfire hazard reduction not requiring consent under the LEP.

Enable new dwelling entitlements to be obtained on rural and environmental zoned land where 40ha exists and that the lot has access to a Council maintained sealed road.

Community title subdivision of tourist and visitor accommodation on rural and environmental zoned land.

Farm building, rural outbuildings and dams can be obtained under SEPPs Code and Exempt Development Schedule in LEP.

Lot averaging subdivision provisions included for E4 zoned land.

In addition to the above and in response to the unsubstantiated claims about property devaluation due to the LEP and the E3 zone Council can provide the following: Cessnock City Council engaged a local valuer (WBP Property Group Newcastle) to prepare an independent assessment of the impact of implementation of the proposed E3 zone under their draft LEP. This independent report concluded that the real differences between the current and draft LEP were not significant. There was little impact of values of land. Opportunities for rural enterprises had not been restricted, just managed into areas more suitable.

29. I object to the loss of value of ratepayers’ assets as a result of zonings that remove or place at risk dwelling entitlements among other things.

Unsubstantiated statement without any empirical data or examples. The LEP does however introduce the potential for rural land without a dwelling entitlement to obtain one if the land meets certain criteria – including minimum 40ha area, and that land has or can obtain access to a council maintained sealed road. The LEP does not potentially place at risk existing dwelling entitlements. Avenues exist for land owners to validate and register entitlements in perpetuity.

30. The public have spoken with virtually unanimous decisions at all public meetings to reject this Draft LEP and its aims. Throw this Draft LEP in the Bin!

Statement of opinion.

I recommend that the following principles and changes be applied to a re-draft of the LEP 2011:

1. To meet a “Like -for- Like” objective for zonings, that considers not only the natural environment, but the social and economic environments and seeks to minimize adverse effects on land owners.

The LEP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Template LEP, practice notes and circulars. It has been drafted with specific reference to the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy and South Coast Regional Strategy including the current separation of the rural zones into two zones: one for environmental protection (E3) and the other for agriculture (RU1). Council must produce a LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP. All submissions to the LEP are considered on merit. All property owners were notified of the exhibition of the draft LEP.

2. To produce a document that is clear and readily understandable by the majority of residents and landowners in the shire, without the need for professional consultation.

3. That precedence is given to the concerns and submissions of the owners of private property in decisions about the zonings that will be applied to those private lands.

4. That all landowners affected by zoning or potential downgrading of their rights are personally notified by registered post well prior to any effect taking place.

Narooma Land Council Response

Land east of Princes Highway on the northern approach to Narooma zoned 10 Urban Expansion proposed RU1

Land has been zoned RU1 Primary Production. This zoning is consistent with Action SP23 Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy which states: Rezone Urban Expansion land to the west of Kianga and straddling the Princes Highway to a rural zone in the new LEP. This zoning is also consistent with Narooma Plan controls.

Large parcel of land north of Narooma High with frontages to both Princes Highway and Glasshouse Rocks Road zoned Urban Expansion proposed E4 with 20 hectare lot size

Land has been zoned E4 Environmental Living with a 10 hectare minimum lot size applied. This zoning is consistent with Action SP18 Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy which states: Apply appropriate land use zones to land zoned Urban Expansion in the new LEP in accordance with the findings of the independent panel’s review of sensitive urban lands (as endorsed within the South Coast Regional Strategy). This zoning is also consistent with Narooma Plan controls.

Property located on western side of Princes Highway with extensive frontage to Old South Coast Road zoned Urban Expansion proposed E4 with 2 hectare lot size

Land has been zoned E4 Environmental Living with a 2 hectare minimum lot size applied. This zoning is consistent with Action SP18 Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy which states: Apply appropriate land use zones to land zoned Urban Expansion in the new LEP in accordance with …the findings of the independent panel’s review of sensitive urban lands (as endorsed within the South Coast Regional Strategy). This zoning is also consistent with Narooma Plan controls.

Large area of land on the southern side of Forsters Bay and fronting Old Highway zoned Residential proposed E4 with 2 hectare lot size

Land is currently zoned Residential Environmental Constraints 2(ec). Land has been zoned E4 Environmental Living with some lots given a 1500m2 lot size and some a 2 hectare minimum lot size. This zone is consistent with Council’s zone transfer methodology. The minimum lot size proposed reflects the environmental constraints affecting the land and servicing capacity available to the land.

Council land at Mystery Bay Council land has retained as Low Density Residential zoning under LEP 2011. The Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy Action SP21 states: rezone vegetated land zoned urban residential on approach to Mystery Bay to open space or environment protection, and in exchange, rezone an equivalent area of rural land adjoining the settlement to the south to urban residential. Council has yet to negotiate an appropriate area of land that

can accommodate this zone swap, and as such the existing zoning is retained on Council land until such time as this occurs.

Industrial land at Dalmeny proposed to be zoned E2 Council is aware that existing industrial land supply in Dalmeny and Narooma is limited and environmentally constrained. The LEP has retained the zoned industrial land and added to the south of the precinct. Notwithstanding the above, consistent with the intent of Action ED11 Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy which states: expand the Dalmeny industrial area as indicated in the Narooma Plan for light industry and business services by rezoning urban expansion land to the east. Council is exploring options with State Forest land to the west of the precinct, which would provide a more appropriate location for this type of development.

Eurobodalla Shire Council - LEP Submission …...Council land Dalmeny Concerned about the revision...

Documents

Transcript of Eurobodalla Shire Council - LEP Submission …...Council land Dalmeny Concerned about the revision...