STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS June-July 2014 OVERVIEW OF … · Rural Lands Strategy Project Prepared by Dr...

1

Eurobodalla Shire Council

Policy directions phase of the Rural Lands Strategy Project

Prepared by Dr Danny Wiggins

(Planning, Facilitation and Education Services)

STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS June-July 2014

OVERVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS

2

Table of Contents Page No. 1. Introduction 3 2. The Local Environmental Plan and Constraints Mapping 5 3. From Principles to Policy Directions 6 4. Round 1 Workshops 9 5. Round 2 Workshops: Suggested Policy Directions 10

and Where to from here?

6. Round 3: Submissions on Workshop proceedings and draft Overview 20

7. Towards a Vision Statement for Eurobodalla’s 22

Rural Lands

8. Where to from here? 23

9. Attachments

1. Workshop Programs and Instructions 2. Separate submissions on the LEP and O&C

Report mapping 3. List of Principles (from the O&C Report) 4. Alternative list of Principles for the Rural

Lands Study 5. Excerpt: Federal Senate Report 6. Facilitator’s power point presentation 7. Policy Directions from Round 1 8. Detailed Policy Direction Statements

3

1. Introduction

The Brief for this project required the facilitator to prepare for, facilitate and report on two rounds of stakeholder workshops, as a key element of the Policy Directions Phase of Council’s Rural Lands Strategy Project. The output is to inform the Rural Lands Policy Directions Paper and Strategy, and the Council’s planning guidelines, (including the five-year LEP review). The broad methodology was in accordance with Council’s existing Community Engagement Strategy (CES), of which this project is the third phase. The CES recommended that Workshops should be held, separately, with the following stakeholder groups:

Group 1 Large property owners Group 2 Medium-sized property owners Group 3 Persons with an interest in environmental matters Group 4 Small property owners Group 5 Tourism and rural business.

The participant lists were by invitation, with nomination and allocation by the council, and were generated from three sources:

Nominees from the Rural Lands Steering Committee (RLSC). Those involved in previous stages of the process In response to an expression of interest on Council’s website.

Sixty-four (64) landowners attended the Round 1 workshops, and fifty-four (54) attended the Round 2 workshops. In addition, Councillors and members of the RLSC were invited and given the option of participating or attending as observers. Most chose to participate. It was noted by participants that there were no representatives of the Shire’s youth or the local indigenous population present at the workshops. The council decided that the Planning staff should not attend, and briefed the facilitator (also a town planner) on the process and the basic planning controls. The General Manager attended 8/10 workshops as an observer. The consultant’s brief required two rounds of workshops per group, as follows, and a follow-up consultation (ie. Round 3) Round 1. Information Sessions The objectives of the first round of workshops were to:

be clear on the purpose of the workshops

4

outline the Rural Lands Strategy Process and where the workshops fit into the process (and the work already undertaken)

To outline the Principles for Policy Directions recommended in the Rural Opportunities and Constraints (O&C) Report, and the role of “Policy Directions”

set the scene for workshop 2 – detailed consultation (and tasks for that workshop).

Round 2. Detailed Consultation The purpose of the second round was to:

explore possible policy directions for the principles/ key issue areas nominated in the O&C Report’s Principles document (eg.agricultural industries/ farm types, rural living, rural tourism, etc).

make participants aware of what will happen with the workshop outcomes contribute to a more detailed vision for the rural lands.

Round 3. Comments on Workshop proceedings and draft Overview

The draft Overview was circulated to participants to identify any inaccuracies and/ or oversights. The responses are covered in section 6 of this Overview

The facilitator also delivered a presentation on the final Overview of Proceedings to the RLSC and the Council on Tuesday August 5 2014.

The workshops proceeded generally in accordance with pre-circulated generic Programs (for Rounds 1 and 2). A copy of the programs and instruction sheets is provided at Attachment 1 to this Overview. The facilitation was a difficult task, especially in Round 1, as the facilitator had to deal with the following:

Emotional and hostile participants, who were most concerned with the LEP and mapping and about how the rural lands strategy has been handled to date.

Antagonism towards Council, the Planning staff and this project Criticism of specific outcomes, to date (especially the constraints mapping in

the O & C Report) These issues will be covered in Sections 2 and 3 (below).

5

2. The Local Environment Plan and Constraints Mapping The future of the ‘deferred matters’ in the LEP and the role and accuracy of the mapping (from the O & C Report) dominated proceedings from the outset. Most participants were critical of how the Council has handled these matters. There was a groundswell of opposition to the use of ‘Environmental zones’ in the LEP. The following specific comments were noted:

The constraints imposed by E zones and environmental overlays should be removed from the LEP, and the application of ‘like-for like’ zonings implemented

‘The rule change is the problem’; ‘ball game has changed’ ‘Ironically, the facilitator failed to grasp that the participants were trying to

convey that their policy direction proposal was to reduce over-regulation which was unjustified and unsubstantiated…ie. to remove E zones and overlays, which would immediately achieve most of the desired directions and be consistent with the principles’

Zoning should ‘go back to what it was’ – ‘like for like’ Seventy two percent of the Shire is National Park and State Forest! (Clarified

in response to a submission on the draft Overview). That the motive behind the E3 zone was bio-certification, which equals dollars

for council (credits); Eurobodalla as a test area Current legislation already exists to sufficiently protect land with

environmental constraints

Reference was made (a number of times) to a Report prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff (on the NSW north coast), as evidence of the shared concerns raised here. This continued into the second round of workshops where all groups emphasised their concerns at possible ‘environmental’ zones and the O&C Report’s constraints mapping, culminating in a request for a show of hands by some groups. Four of the five groups opposed the use of ‘Environmental zones’:

Group 1 – unanimous Group 2 – all except one Group 4 – all except two Group 5 – all except one (plus one who was ‘unsure of the detail’).

Similarly, two groups had the same response in relation to the accuracy and use of constraints mapping (in the O&C Report). A number of specific comments on the mapping were noted:

That any groundtruthing or mapping must be accurate, recent, independently verified and obtained at the cost of the ESC and not the landowner

The available mapping is unsatisfactory and inaccurate and cannot be used for determining whether land is environmentally sensitive.

6

The need for clear and consistent definitions of agricultural pursuits, including ‘sub-commercial’, seen as ‘not a correct definition for intergenerational farms struggling to remain productive’

Over-analysis in the O&C Report. Despite the provision of links to explanatory material (and the mapping) with the initial Instructions for the workshops (see Attachment 1), a number of participants were uncertain about the detail (eg. comparison of permissible uses by zone types). Some also had trouble adequately accessing the detailed maps. As Round 2 progressed, the facilitator was careful to ask the participants whether they felt that they had enough information to respond.

While these views predominated, a small number of participants believed that there was a role for (limited) regulation and that the E3 zone ‘does have some positives’. In response to the circulated draft Overview it was re-emphasised that ‘in reality the overwhelming majority do not agree with E3’. Attachment 2 includes separate submissions tabled on the LEP and the map overlays. Under these circumstances it was most difficult for the facilitator to encourage the groups to focus on ‘policy directions’. 3. From Principles to Policy Directions The ‘platform’ or foundations for the development of specific policy directions was the list of ‘principles’ recommended in the O & C Report (included at Attachment 3). In concept, the process is shown in Figure 1.

from the O & C Report listed by issue/use type

‘’you are here’’!

Council’s LEP provisions Council’s works program Other?

Figure 1: The Policy Development Process

Principles

Policy Directions

Specific Actions

7

There was some concern that the ‘principles’ (from the O&C Report) provided were a combination of actions, policy directions, as well as ‘principles’ (see Attachment 3). This was acknowledged by the facilitator (in his capacity as representing the planning staff), who suggested the following:

that specific ‘policy directions’ within the list of principles should be noted for Round 2 discussions

that participants could suggest alternative principles. Participants responded to both of these suggestions, drawing on the policy directions and providing other principles. A list of alternative principles (with an ‘entitlements perspective’) was provided and presented at Round 2 at Workshop 4 and is included at Attachment 4. There was support for this list at that workshop. In response to the circulated draft Overview one participant reiterated that the hybrid nature of the O&C Report ‘principles’ led to confusion – ‘ when written information does not correspond with verbal information, and the destruction of the definition of a principle occurs, things make no sense and it is no wonder the participants were confused and the facilitator became frustrated’ A number of other matters of principle were themes throughout proceedings, at both rounds of Workshops:

a) Private property rights and freedom from government intervention There was a strong reaction from participants that landowner’s reduction of rights on the use of their land was the ‘root cause of our concerns’, and ‘should be superior to all legislation’ – ‘all about power and control of your land’. One group through a show of hands accepted this unanimously (if there was to be no compensation). As the ‘basis of a free society’, such rights ‘have been whittled away’ by governments incrementally. It was suggested by some that this was indicative of a ‘global conspiracy’, prompted by government initiatives such as Local Agenda 21, The International Convention on Climate Change and the United Nations Agenda. The constitutionality of legislative control was also questioned. ‘Such central planning had failed’. As a result, minimising government intervention on the private land was a recurring theme. Freedom of use was seen as the way to promote diversity of land-use, economic development and (landowner driven) environmental protection. It was suggested that Council had ‘no trust in landowners to protect the environment’ (in the public interest) and have failed to acknowledge the future potential of small-scale, niche industries (eg. essential oils production). Governments should not restrict such landowner initiatives.

8

There was a strong reaction by one participant to the emphasis placed by other group members on this matter: “too much ‘I’; ‘not what I want to do, but what I tell you to do’. In addition, some felt that ‘there was a place for some restrictions’ on use, to protect the natural environment and high quality agricultural lands and to reduce impacts on adjoining properties (eg. from pollution, noise). In response to the circulated draft the following concluding comment was made – ‘It appears that, yet again, the opinions of those with no financial interest in the private property concerned, are given the right to have their opinions about its use in opposition to those who do own it. This is wrong in principle, and destroys the whole concept of, and point to the ownership of anything’.

Other comments were made in relation to this section in response to the circulated draft Overview (see section 6)

b) Trust and transparency in government decision making

From the outset there was considerable anger, cynicism and hostility in relation to the project and the role of the council and staff. This was one of the dominant themes of the workshops. Some spoke of the significance of history in relation to the handling of the rural lands policy: previous community involvement and inputs (council and public meetings, petitions), especially in relation to the Local Environmental Plan (see section 2). The council’s planning staff were the focus of most comment. They had:

‘trampled on our concerns’ ‘acted contrary to community demands’ in relation to possible planning

controls ‘showed a lack of respect for local views’ ignored views of the rural community – ‘the bureaucracy won’t listen’ been ‘justifying their jobs’ pursued a ‘socialist green platform’: ‘need to change that thinking’.

As a result, there had been ‘no progress at all’. ‘Council should represent us’. One group requested a show of hands expressing ‘no confidence in the Planning Department to finalise the Rural Lands Strategy, in accordance with the will of the community (as outlined in previous submissions and petitions)’. This was agreed by those at that group except one, with one abstaining. Councillors present did not support the motion.

9

Many were concerned that their input to this phase of the process would be ignored or glossed over or that the views would be ‘outnumbered by non-rural locals’. Some saw the establishment of the Steering Committee and these workshops as ‘a way to dissipate our concerns’. One submission on the draft felt that this was not stressed enough in the Overview (see section 6).

c) Public – private rights As a matter of principle, it was suggested that it was unfair for private lands to serve a public purpose (eg. as ‘scenic quality’) without support and/ or compensation from the government. An excerpt from a Federal Senate Inquiry Report supporting the payment of compensation was raised and quoted at one group, and is included at Attachment 5. At one group, this was extended to a concern about Council’s entrepreneurial activities, seen by some as inappropriate competition with the (local) private sector.

d) Sustainability There was concern at the interpretation of this principle and a suggestion that it needs to be carefully defined – economic, environmental? If well-defined policy directions could be enhanced, ‘values that unify us’ could be generated and government intervention minimised (ie. less services required, self-sufficiency). A submission on the circulated draft clarified that ‘policy directions need to be based upon correct principles that protect freedoms, and that sustainability of the human being, their successful enterprises, the tenure of their land and family succession need to be enabled – not just environmental sustainability’.

4. Round 1 Workshops As indicated in the Introduction to this Overview, the principal objective of the first round of workshops was to ‘inform’ the participants of the RLS methodology and process, to outline the ‘Principles for Policy Direction’ (from the O&C Report) and, most significantly, to lay the foundations for the Round 2 ‘consultation’ stage at which (after a two week break and preparatory instructions) participants would raise and discuss preferred Policy Directions for each of the principles/ issue areas recommended in the O & C Report. The preparatory instructions sheet for Round 2 is included at Attachment 1.

10

Generating a list of preferred Policy Directions was the overall aim of the Workshops. Information on, and links to, the O & C Report, mapping and to State Government circulars on the LEP process was provided in advance to participants. The information session was principally through a series of visual displays and a power point presentation, a copy of which is provided at Attachment 6. Unfortunately, at Workshop 2 the power point system failed. Despite this, the facilitator covered the information required. More significantly, at each session, the sequence was interrupted by the participants’ insistence that the LEP ‘E zones’ and O & C Report constraints mapping be discussed (see section 2 above). There were three implications of this:

The ‘information’ was covered in a different sequence than proposed, sometimes interspersed within the discussion.

It was most difficult to convince participants of the legitimacy of the exercise, with considerable time spent in criticising the past actions of the Council.

In order to overcome the hostility and convince participants of the role of policy directions (and the use of action words), a number of directions were raised by participants and noted by the facilitator. This was not the intent of Round 1, but overall helped in explaining ‘our brief’ and the (relative) success of the second round. Round 1 lists were displayed (upon request) at the Round 2 workshops and have been included at Attachment 7 to this Overview.

5. Round 2 Workshops: Suggested policy directions and where

to from here? As indicated in sections 1, 2 and 3 (above), Round 2 was also initially dominated by participants’ concerns about the LEP ‘E zones’, the O & C Report’s constraints mapping and matters of principle. Time did permit a lengthy and positive discussion (and listing) of preferred policy directions, in relation to the nominated issue areas recommended in the O & C Report. The lists generated in Round 1 assisted in this (see Attachment 7). The order of issues discussed was prioritised by the participants (sometimes prompted by the facilitator). Similarly, the specific directions have been presented (below) in the order in which they arose. A number of additions and amendments have been included in response to submissions on the draft Overview. The comments in section 2 about the LEP and constraints mapping have not been duplicated below as ‘Legislation and Policy’ directions (but should be read as such).

11

A number of participants provided separate lists of Policy Directions, in writing to the facilitator. These have been provided at Attachment 8. This includes one list inadvertently not given to the facilitator at the workshop. During the discussion three reservations, raised by participants, were noted:

The significance of the ‘key words’. Care was taken by the facilitator, with the wording (eg. ‘promote’, ‘lobby’), with the words clearly visible to all on butchers paper and amended where necessary

That care would need to be taken with possible misinterpretation of such ‘one-line’ policy directions.

That care be taken that lobbying/ advocacy actions did not create more bureaucracy – ‘Government action to complement, not negate’ suggestions.

Group 1. POLICY DIRECTIONS Agricultural industries and farm types

Council should not hinder but promote rural development Recognise the need to maintain existing farming skills Recognise the contribution of farmers to the food security of the nation Promote and lobby for unique agricultural ideas Promote longevity for future farm viability and ‘succession planning’ Facilitate the extension of building entitlements Promote flexibility in farm types/ sizes to meet changing markets and

technological advances, including accommodating infrastructure and dwelling entitlements. Lobby Local Land Services accordingly

Encourage landowners in their chosen farm activity Support local, innovative, robust and diverse farming operations Facilitate farms of all sizes

Legislation and Policy

Promote and lobby firstly for the ratepayer and secondly, the State Government

Acknowledge and recognise that private property rights are the primary consideration in any planning matters

Acknowledge that production on rural lands should override conservation actions

Reduce the regulatory burden across all tiers of government Prioritise sustainable rural agricultural production Ensure land use planning does not duplicate existing regulation

12

Include ‘forestry’ in the definition of ‘agriculture’. (Planning circular advice on RU1 zone)

Lobby DPI to change agricultural land classifications Lobby for additional ‘local changes’ to address rural ratepayer concerns Review (in full) current policy on subdivision on all rural lands, recognising

and acknowledging the self-sufficiency and self-service of rural landowners Provide clear ‘centralised’ controls: not ‘all over the shop’ Acknowledge the South Coast Regional Conservation Plan requirement to

‘take into account existing land-use rights’ Improve communication with council and strengthen cooperation by

developing working groups and improving staff relations. Rural Tourism

Facilitate rural tourism by removing constraints, promoting difference and diversity. Learn from other experiences (eg. Central Otago Rail Trail)

Work with landowners to allow/ enable diversification of tourism; including provision of infrastructure, if required eg. a food destination, farm stay, eco-tourism.

Rural Living

Develop a waste management strategy Provide good road infrastructure Promote (not hinder) rural development for agricultural living on land not

suitable for agriculture Lobby for reliable and effective communication Work with relevant authorities to provide reliable and state of the art

telecommunications. Natural hazards

Lobby the State Government for flexibility in bushfire requirements – ‘a disaster waiting to happen’ – and kangaroo policy. Enable direct action by rural landowners

Recognise fire as a legitimate and sustainable land management tool Lobby Local Land Services to review constraints on use of steep land, which

could be (and are) used for profitable farm activities. Environmental values

Remove the ‘scenic value’ restrictions (as they are too subjective). Alternatively, lobby for compensation. No additional costs should fall on landowners for costly studies

13

Eliminate bio-banking and bio-certification (72 percent of the Shire is National Park and State Forest! – figure clarified in response to a submission on the draft Overview)

Group 2. POLICY DIRECTIONS Rural Economy/ Agricultural Industries and farm types

Provide flexibility of land use and a long-term approach; adaptable for new enterprise, without DA after DA!

Encourage and support rural land holders in sustainable enterprises; broad definition of ‘land use’

Encourage and support building/ dwelling entitlements, where appropriate; including dirt road access. Review and remove constraints

Review the claim that there is a ‘decline’ in agriculture’; only certain industries Provide for the ‘strategic placement of dwellings, workshops and sheds’ to

encourage people back onto the land. Discourage urban sprawl and encourage local food production and small rural industry

Review the boundary alignments policy Pursue an agricultural university, TAFE college, or school; to provide

assistance through education Encourage and support local food production and markets; ‘growing your own

healthy food’ Lobby all levels of government to restore ‘food freedom’ and create a

balanced market place Facilitate and support the development of local food production and marketing

shire-wide groups; no middle man; for local and Canberra markets Lobby for a review of the Native Vegetation Act Provide good quality, well maintained rural roads, enabling transport

infrastructure. Legislation and Policy

Have the constraints imposed by E zones and environmental overlays removed from the LEP, and the application of ‘like-for like’ zonings implemented

Employ, as an overriding principle, private property rights as a primary consideration in any matter; especially if there is no compensation!

Minimise regulation and maximise encouragement; ‘agriculture’ as permissible without consent – broad and open-ended

Reduce over-definition and promote positive language Recognise the overriding principle of private property rights.

14

Note: An excerpt from the Senate Inquiry on compensation is included at Attachment 5 to this Overview. Hazards

Allow burn-offs on private land (to reduce fuel loads and promote land management techniques; with education)

Lobby public authorities to ensure public land adjacent to private land is well-managed.

Rural Living

Review rules for dwelling entitlements Provide more ‘sea change’ blocks (helping economy, retirement funding and

productiveness) Promote small productive farms (20-30 acres) – building permits on

appropriate land. Rural Tourism

Provide positive tourism information, facilities and activities to residents and business; including access and maintenance (eg. Bingi); historical information; South Coast Sea Planes

Promote walking track; locality maps Promote farm stay, rural B&Bs and riding schools Encourage and support food-based tourism (eg. Farmer’s market); reduce

corporate/ imports Encourage dual occupancy as an adjunct to tourism.

Environmental Values

Acknowledge that landowners are concerned for the protection of natural vegetation on private land

Review the RU 2 zone and the term ‘scenic values’ – whose view? Forestry

Investigate the potential for agricultural forestry Acknowledge that forest management is not abandonment – important to

private landowners.

15

Group 3. POLICY DIRECTIONS Rural economy

Address likely future conditions and challenges, including climate change and oil prices (and impact on local/ Australian food availability)

Ensure flexibility of opportunity to meet future markets; not constricted Recognise and address (reasons) the changing nature of the rural economy,

including decline of the ‘big three’ (farming commercial, fishing, forestry) over four census periods. It was reiterated by a participant, in response to the circulated draft, that statistics indicate that rural industries in the Eurobodalla had a low economic value.

Recognise the viability/ potential of small sale and niche market enterprises Encourage local food production and limit the legal restrictions Promote diversification and value adding: nature coast, clean green living,

community resilience. ‘People on the land as price setters rather than price takers’ and without dictation/ intervention

Promote profitability of farming in the Eurobodalla: ‘people on the land as price setters rather than price takers’

Enable the development of farm infrastructure (such as sheds) Allow the use of land for agricultural purposes, not currently used as such (not

legislation) Encourage flexibility in infrastructure and plant provision on agricultural

holdings.

Legislation and policy

Clarify permissibility provisions in the environmental zones Introduce flexible zoning: split zoning, broader permissible uses; benefits of

previous regulation Encourage positive attitudes to native vegetation on farmers’ properties;

viability may not be threatened by protection Acknowledge farmers’ management skills with native vegetation. This may not

apply to all farmers. Encourage (and not interfere with) farmers protecting remnant vegetation on

their properties; ‘restoration’ may be too onerous (eg. sheet erosion, including national parks and forestry?)

‘Do not legislate for a minority, such that it would affect the majority’ Support State and Federal policies which are consistent with Australia’s

international obligations and National agreements, that maintain or enhance the environmental values found in the Eurobodalla

Improve connections between local government and the community Local Government to lobby State authorities to free-up agricultural

opportunities by reducing type zoning laws.

16

Agricultural industries and farm types

Promote diversity and profitability (and beware bureaucracy) Support farms of varying size eg. ‘commercial’, ‘sub-commercial’, without

making limiting assumptions about the relationship between farm size, use intensity and profitability; meet needs of landowners, acknowledge farmers’ capacity and remove restrictions

Environmental values

Review scenic value zoning (RU2), so as not to discourage good farming, or provide compensation; positive impact of farming

Encourage farming that doesn’t impact on environmental values Acknowledge the percentage of land as National Parks (as providing

environmental values) Assist landowners with weed control, such as fireweed: more than the signs! Discourage the use of rural lands that have a negative impact on the

environmental values of the Eurobodalla by facilitating agricultural activities on the higher class productivity lands with lower environmental values

Natural Hazards

Acknowledge that all properties have different risks Permit landowners to take hazard risks, if they wish (eg. bushfire, rising

water); without increasing risk to others. Lobby State Government accordingly Allow hazard reduction.

Rural Living

Recognise the nexus between dwellings on rural land and increasing diversity and sustainability

Acknowledge that dwelling impacts on rural land can be offset by the concentrated sustainable management of land

Allow dwelling entitlements without the requirement for connectivity to existing townships; role of dirt roads

Promote flexibility in rural residential locations (satellite broadband, etc., sewerage innovation).

Facilitate the orderly development of small rural lands, which are currently zoned, to meet part of the predicted demand of 930 population increase by 2031, identified in the Rural Lands Issues Paper, p.5.

17

Group 4. POLICY DIRECTIONS Rural Economy

Acknowledge that determining the productive use of rural land should be the farmer’s decision

Ensure that the rural economy is given every opportunity to develop, unencumbered by environmental constraints (unless supported by independent scientific evidence). Council should have faith in independent reports (submitted by applicants) prepared in accordance with established criteria

Ensure that no policy or regulation should be applied where they conflict with common law rights of property owners

Promote growth of the rural economy Develop a Shire policy of ‘open for agriculture, by encouraging activities and

removing bureaucratic barriers to encourage external investment. Legislation and Policy

Provide plain English fact sheets on planning requirements and decisions Any overlays should be in a Development Control Plan not the LEP Reduce the constraint imposed by the use of the ‘precautionary principle’ in

planning; it is too restrictive for agricultural development. Agricultural industries and farm types

Support the development of rural industries and maintain existing uses (such as the abattoir, farmers’ market); including infrastructure provision

Encourage and provide a broad diversity of farm types (including ‘sub-commercial’)

Provide infrastructure that farmers need; lobby State and Federal governments

Give due weight to historical use/ history of farm use in assessing any environmental constraints to development ie. recognise the continuity of agricultural use and the natural environment over time

Acknowledge that the best managers of both the environment and economics are the landowners themselves

Allow the market to decide and provide a flexible framework that will allow farmers to adapt quickly to market movements; provide and lobby for adjustment assistance where necessary. (Note: assistance should not be necessary if such a framework exists)

Provide (and lobby for) adequate transport infrastructure to big markets (such as Sydney).

18

Rural Living

Encourage rural living regardless of lot size, including ‘lifestyle’; remove barriers (‘Rural Living’ should be defined)

Allow dwelling entitlements subject to realistic criteria (including historical rights, environmental considerations); consider ‘granny flats’

Develop a Subdivision Policy on land, with appropriate criteria (eg. unsuitable for agriculture; resource requirements – who pays?); acknowledge aspirations of landowners and the need for succession planning, and not regulatory constraints. (Note: the policy discussions on dwelling entitlements and subdivision should be held together)

Preserve very productive agricultural land Encourage and support young farmers by supporting building entitlements or

dual occupancy where warranted. Forestry

Encourage sustainable forestry industry/ farm forestry as an ‘agricultural farm activity’. (Note: Subject to nature of the land; link to rural/ E zones and role of the CMA).

In response to the circulated draft it was noted that ‘forestry/ tree harvesting has always been classed as primary production (agricultural activity). The government gives you primary production classification and that Council needs to recognise this’. Natural Hazards

Allow residents to voluntarily accept risk and provide appropriate clearing/ risk mitigation.

Equine Industries

Encourage equine industry Provide (?) appropriate infrastructure Consider impact of other uses (eg. mining) on the equine industry.

19

Group 5. POLICY DIRECTIONS Rural Tourism

Encourage rural tourism, local and international Facilitate cooperation between various tourist groups (web-sites, etc.) Promote Eurobodalla as a tourist destination; as the centre of south coast

horse racing Allow and foster a mix of diverse business, accommodation and employment

options and, secondary to that, create a balance between working agricultural uses, forestry, tourist, resident and visitor amenity

Provide adequate infrastructure to enable a diverse mix of uses Legislative and Policy

Remove barriers to a diverse mix of uses, supporting imaginative ideas with an open, transparent system

Provide a streamlined DA process for the landowners to accommodate market fees (including lower DA and modification fees)

Remove the E3 zone, with its negative implications for land value, security availability and funding for tourism infrastructure

Do not enter into any Planning (or other binding) Agreements which limit land uses, block access to property rights, or are the prerequisite to development consents

Provide protection against adverse impacts from neighbouring development/ land use

Promote the ‘Nature Coast’ experience of Eurobodalla – national/ state parks, eco-tourism, bush walking, beach activities, recreational fishing, bikes.


Remove the E zones Remove extreme fire hazards overlay Regard part-time farming as legitimate agriculture

Agricultural industries and farm types

Acknowledge the viability of class 5 agricultural land (small lots), with DA assessments for specific proposals on their merits (with clear reasons)

Remove up-front barriers to lodgement of DAs; merit-based assessment Lobby for the State Government to reconsider classification system for

agricultural land Require the council to provide evidence of environmental impacts (not the

landowner) ie. cost of consultants’ studies

20

Recognise and protect primacy of rural land uses on private land and maintain, accommodate and enhance existing forestry, agriculture, aquaculture, tourist and recreation uses and facilities

Ensure that council’s public lands are well-managed, with any profits returning to rate payers as a disincentive to council competing with private development, ie., no conflicts of interest

Preclude council from entrepreneurial activities and therefore, support ratepayers in their business activities.

Natural hazards

Lobby the State Government to reconsider ‘boundary buffer’ requirements; extend to rural lands (beyond ‘agriculture’)

Lobby NPWS to relax licence requirements on use – to allow kangaroo culling, harvest and sale.

Extractive Industry

Comply with the Mining SEPP (not to lock up ‘resource land’) Protect landowner’s rights against extractive industry; ensure landowner’s

rights are superior to extractive industries.

6. Round 3: Submissions on Workshop proceedings and draft

Overview A total of 16 responses were received. Six of these complimented the facilitator on capturing the key points raised (as well as providing suggested amendments). All bar two suggested specific inaccuracies and oversights. Amendments have been made to the text.

Three of the submissions were critical of the proceedings and sections of the draft, as follows:

‘When existing legislation and proposed planning destroys the fundamental principle of private property rights, any discussion of ‘policy directions is pointless. The facilitator experienced difficulty discussing ‘policy directions’ because participants recognized the futility of proceeding on any other basis’

‘The Report reflects to significant degree the incoherence of the workshop process exacerbated by time limitations’

‘The facilitator seemed unable to clarify and clearly convey the purpose of the workshop so that the participants understood how their concerns and comments could best be translated into desirable outcomes. Even if some participants were ill-prepared or uninformed, it would have been appropriate for the facilitator to clearly and simply clarify what was misunderstood – that is his role’.

21

‘The temperament of the facilitator was not suited to the job. He ‘arced up’ and became flustered when participants expressed strong criticism of the Council generally and the LEP process in particular. This is evident in the section’ (on private property rights)

‘A purportedly objective report’ ‘The success of this public consultation can only be recognised if it results in

real change to incorrect decisions and previous mistakes and respects more accurately the will of the landholder. Rural residents have given council a clear statement of their concerns and rights. The personal opinions and preferences of staff should not be reflected in the outcome of this public policy’.

‘The pre-reading was onerous and an executive summary should have been provided. If the facilitator had listened to the tenor of the concerns, he could have diffused the tension by pointing to the O&C Report Principles (which embodied much of what participants were saying’.

As a participant I feel that the process was designed to meet the Eurobodalla Shire Council’s criteria for the sake of their own internal processes, rather than constituting a genuine desire to understand with a view to implementing the suggestions of the rural sector’. ‘The facilitator appeared to tolerate people ‘getting things off their chest’, but became frustrated in a manner to make his task easier’

‘The facilitator confirmed that the suggestions made by participants would not form the basis of policy, thus confirming our doubts that the process would result in any meaningful outcome’. This is disputed – in the Introduction and ‘Where to from here?’ session at each workshop the facilitator stated that the Workshop outcomes would be an input to Council deliberations.

‘the facilitator reacted personally (inappropriately) to comments that were merely conveying information that on previous occasions has been rejected or ignored as ridiculous conspiracy theory’.

Insufficient time provided. ‘at every meeting there was a call of no confidence in the planning staff at

council. I find your minor comment (that staff could change) over the entire document does not reflect the participant’s opinion. There was a strong feeling that if planning staff have failed to do their job, they should not have the job. This should be reflected in the overview’.

This is disputed. One group requested a show of hands, another contemplated this but did not proceed. Section 3 provides coverage of this.

Comments, in those submissions, were also made on the facilitator’s coverage of private property right. In response to the circulated draft Overview, two participants made the following comments:

‘This section belittles accurate and valid concerns of informed citizens who understand the steps that all totalitarian states have implemented to gain power incrementally’

22

‘To seek outcomes by a principle alien to and destructive of the foundations of a free society has caused the level of opposition in this process’

‘This section is poorly expressed and belittles the real and valid concerns raised by participants. There is a derogatory inference contained in the passage about global conspiracies and Agendas. The facilitator’s response to comments showed a lack of understanding of what ensures freedom within a society, and the inherent threat to freedom that results from the introduction of legislation which legitimises the theft of private property through a process of gradual incursion on ownership rights’.

The section has been amended in response.

7. Towards a Vision Statement for Eurobodalla’s Rural Lands The final task at Round 2 was for participants to provide the facilitator with a short statement that could be incorporated in a draft Vision Statement. The specific suggestions were:

…encouraging farmers to operate their farms without bureaucratic interference, to facilitate innovation and profitability and lead to a better community

…recognising the abilities and intelligence of the farming community to work to ensure the preservation of their way of life (working and recreational) and that of future generations of their families.

… assists landowners to achieve their goals Council should be by the people, of the people and for the people Fishing, farming and forestry as our heritage and our future Keeping, sharing and caring for our heritage, our land, our agriculture and our

environment …with a transparent planning process and strategies that pragmatically

achieve an optimal balance between legislative and environmental requirements, and encouraging current and emerging agricultural pursuits

…with more highly productive small farms (as demonstrated by River Cottage), with building permits to make it work; with more sea change blocks, large blocks that would retain their waste, creating work for the building sector and helping landowners fund retirement for the future

Think local, act local …a Council that acts on local knowledge when undertaking works and policy … where all rural lands are adequately protected, to secure the continuation

of agricultural activities, allowing for the expansion of agricultural and niche market enterprises and with greater opportunities for sustainable rural living

A productive and sustainable economy that meets the needs of a changing society

…that promotes the well-being, prosperity and happiness of the Eurobodalla by promoting amongst its people generally, and stakeholders and decision-

23

makers in particular, values which recognise, nurture and enhance the productivity, resilience, beauty, intrinsic natural resources and derived social amenity of our rural lands and natural ecosystems

…where rural landowners have the right to operate with flexibility and without regulation

… which provides diverse opportunities in the rural sector, whilst protecting the environmental values across the landscape

A rural land-use policy which explicitly acknowledges the fundamental importance of landowners rights to farm, live on, develop and work on their own land

Eurobodalla Shire, open for rural agriculture, small business, tourism, investment and regional development

…changes as little as possible and keeps the current land classification To become renowned for showcasing the region’s natural environment, with

economically and environmentally sustainable agriculture, wholesome food production, health and wellness facilities; with opportunities for residents and visitors to ‘immerse themselves in nature’ and learn about the area’s environmental and cultural values

… that allows for a diverse and robust rural sector … aiming to provide an economic future for those who depend on rural land in

the Eurobodalla, and access for those who simply wish to enjoy it … where all planning and development policies within the Shire are

developed, conducted and reviewed transparently, according to independent, expert advice, in genuine consultation with the community.

A number of lengthy suggestions, received by the facilitator, were more relevant as policy directions and are included in the sections above (and at Attachment 8). One other suggestion referred to the drafting of a vision: should be written in Plain English.

7. Where to from here? The facilitator advised that the next step was for him to produce an ‘Overview of Proceedings’ – outlining what was recorded during the workshops, with no analysis or recommendations. A presentation would be made to the Council and the Rural Lands Steering Committee (RLSC). It was suggested that the presentation be videotaped. He then reminded the groups of the current and next stage (8 and 9) in the RLS process:

Development of a draft Rural Lands Policy Directions Discussion Paper, plus exhibition and adoption by Council

Development of the draft Rural Lands Strategy, plus exhibition/ community meetings and adoption by Council.

24

Some groups were concerned about what council would do with this Overview, and had questions about the role of the RLSC. The facilitator indicated that the outcomes would be an input to the next step – preparation of the Rural Lands Policy Directions Discussion Paper. Some suggested that it was unclear who would write the Policy Directions Paper – council staff, a consultant or the RLSC? More generally, uncertainty also surrounded the role of the RLSC, with two groups suggesting that, following circulation and discussion, the ‘Steering Committee should override the staff’ (ie. from staff to the RLSC, then to the Council). There was some concern at possible staff reaction to the workshop outcomes. A final comment, at the last workshop, was a suggestion that the ‘tremendous antagonism between council and the rural landowners needs to be resolved’. It was further suggested that working groups be formed or that there could be staff changes. In relation to the former, it was felt that this was the role of the RLSC, with a reservation noted that the Committee ‘acted secretly’, ‘with an Agenda already there’. The first workshop (Round 2) also asked ‘how to mend communication with council staff (now and into the future)’ and ‘how to create an atmosphere of confidence with council’

Attachment 1


Rural Lands Strategy - Policy Directions

Round 1 Workshops June 2014 ________________________________________________________________________

PRELIMINARY TASKS INSTRUCTIONS SHEET __________________________________________________________________________

In preparation for the first round of Workshops can you please do the following:

1. Carefully read through the attached list of Principles for Policy Directions (extracted from the Rural Opportunities and Constraints Report). Identify your top THREE principles for discussion at your workshop.

2. Visit council’s web-site (link below) and review the following:

Rural Opportunities and Constraints Report

Rural Opportunities and Constraints Mapping

http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/inside-council/project-and-exhibitions/rural-lands-strategy/rural-opportunities-and-constraints-report-and-maps

3. Visit the NSW Planning and Environment website (link below) and review the following:

Practice Note on LEP Zones

Practice Note on LEP Definitions

Standard Instrument for LEPs

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/en-au/planningyourlocalarea/standardinstrument.aspx






http://dannywiggins.com/

Eurobodalla Shire Council Rural Lands Strategy - Policy Direction Round 1 Workshops 18 June 2014 WORKSHOP 1 – PROGRAM 2.00pm Introductions

Objectives and Program

2.10pm Background Rural Lands Issues Paper Opportunities and Constraints Report and mapping Overview of Principles

3.15pm Future Policy Directions

What do we mean by policy directions? What are the options for policy direction?

3.45pm Briefing on Round 2 (Instructions) 4.00pm Close



Rural Lands Strategy - Policy Directions

Round 2 Workshops July 2014

WORKSHOP 2 PREPARATION: INSTRUCTIONS SHEET ______________________________________________________________

In preparation for the second workshop can you please do the following:

1. Review the Principles chosen by the group at

Workshop 1.

2. Review the background material (listed on the instructions to Workshop 1).

3. Draft your key policy directions for each of the chosen Principles.

4. Draft one short sentence that captures the key words you would like to see in a draft Vision Statement for Rural Lands.


Eurobodalla Shire Council Rural Lands Strategy – Policy Directions Round 2 Workshop – 2 July 2014 WORKSHOP PROGRAM: ROUND TWO 5.00pm Objectives and Program

Recap on Workshop 1 D.Wiggins 5.15pm Preferred policy directions Participants

By Principles from the Opportunities and Constraints Report D. Wiggins

Draft policy directions 6.45pm Towards a Vision Statement D. Wiggins

Posting of key points Participants

6.55pm Where to from here? D.Wiggins 7.00pm Close

Attachment 2

Attachment 3 Eurobodalla Shire Council Rural Lands Strategy - Policy Directions Round 2 Workshops July 2014

PRINCIPLES FOR POLICY DIRECTIONS (Extract from Rural Opportunities and Constraints Report) Rural Economy

• An agreed, expanded and more detailed vision for the future of rural lands in Eurobodalla should be developed.

Legislative and Policy Context

• Comply with relevant statutory requirements, be consistent with the relevant non-statutory plans and guidelines and apply in a manner that supports the vision for the future of rural lands in Eurobodalla.

• Where any statutory requirements are identified as a barrier to achieving the vision for the future of rural lands in Eurobodalla, Council and the community should advocate for appropriate changes to statutory instruments.

Agricultural Industries and Farm Types

• The fundamental principle should be the protection of agricultural land for both commercial and sub-commercial agriculture in Eurobodalla.

• For commercial agriculture policy directions should support the long-term commercial agricultural use of productive rural land in the Shire and be sufficiently flexible to facilitate diversification and changes in farm activities. In particular, land uses in rural areas should be managed to support commercial agricultural activities, avoid land use conflict and minimise speculative land pricing.

• For sub-commercial agriculture (lifestyle farms) policy directions should encourage a wide range of small scale low-impact agricultural activities in appropriate locations having regards to the potential impacts on the growth of commercial agricultural enterprises and the capacity of existing infrastructure and services.

Aquaculture • Clear intentions should be articulated for the long-term future of water

and land-based aquaculture to send a clear signal that Eurobodalla will support investors in commercial aquaculture enterprises.

• Ensure future development in the estuary catchments does not negatively impact the water quality in oyster production areas.

Rural Tourism

• The opportunities facilitated by the 2012 LEP should be promoted in appropriate locations where there is infrastructure capacity, in particular to support value-adding to the agriculture and aquaculture industries and to capitalise on the environmental values of the Shire.

Forestry

• Build upon existing industry skills with a view to facilitating the expansion of private native forestry in appropriate locations using best silvicultural practices.

Extractive Industry

• Acknowledge the existence of extractive materials in the Shire and the importance of maintaining a secure supply of extractive resources locally having regard to: • constraints relating to accessing the resource and the need for

supporting infrastructure; • protection of important productive agricultural land and significant

environmental assets; • minimising land use conflicts.

Equine Industry

• Explore the opportunities for growing the equine industry in Eurobodalla, identifying the competitive advantages of the local area compared to other regions and the infrastructure needs to support growth in the industry.

Rural Living • Acknowledge the existing short to medium term supply of rural

residential land and focus on opportunities to facilitate appropriate development of that land to accommodate population growth.

Environmental Values

• Recognise the mapped high conservation values consider the policy recommendations outlined in the South Coast Regional Conservation Plan.

Natural Hazards • Have regard to the mapped natural hazards.

Attachment 4

PRINCIPLES FOR POLICY DIRECTIONS Principle 1 – Secure and valuable property rights Secure ownership of well defined rights to rural land is the foundation of Eurobodalla’s rural industries’ prosperity. For these property rights to have value land owners must be able to farm, live on, develop and trade in their own land with a minimum of interference by governments. It is in the whole community’s interest that farmers are making efficient use of their land. Principle 2 – Land owner centrality Individual land owners are best placed to decide how to use all the natural resources of their own land in farming, development and conservation. Competitive markets for farm produce, services and farm land provide strong signals and incentives to farm efficiently and sustainably. Principle 3 – Flexibility of land use Because there is a wide range of potential agricultural activities, (including horticulture, on farm forestry, tourism and mining), flexibility in the permitted use of scarce land is essential. Agricultural technology and market opportunities change constantly, blurring traditional distinctions between industries and the intensity of farming activities. In particular, lifestyle farming is an increasingly important part of rural communities and economies, particularly in Eurobodalla and must be accommodated in planning. Principle 4 – Minimum, effective regulation Where governments impose regulations restricting rural land use or land markets the community must be satisfied that the regulation making process is sound. This requires that regulatory proposals are well researched, evidence based and fully assessed for their environmental, social and economic cost and benefits. And the onus is on government to demonstrate that the costs exceed the benefits. Community members must be consulted and greater weight given to local views. The precautionary principle, which has been interpreted by some governments to oblige them to protect land areas where environmental assets are not fully known and understood, is expressly rejected as unworkable. Similarly, governments systems for the administration of environmental regulations should be low cost, risk focused and non-discriminatory. Principle 5 - Land use planning not to duplicate existing regulation Land use planning should not be used to supplement, complement or override existing regulation. Farmers share the community’s concern for the protection of the remaining areas of natural vegetation on private land. Extensive government regulation exists to assist farmers in ensuring an appropriate quantity and quality of

this resource is used and conserved. Past attempts in Eurobodalla to use planning as a supplement have not succeeded. Principle 6 – Access to infrastructure The primary role of council in supporting agriculture is to provide good quality, well maintained rural roads. Council frequently points to the “infrastructure gap” between what’s needed and what’s supplied but does not appear to have a coherent, market responsive and widely understood long term plan to address this problem. Principle 7 – Efficient land markets To maximize efficiency in land use land owners must be able to buy and sell rural land in quantities and at locations demanded in the market to meet the needs of changing productive and lifestyle uses. In Eurobodalla this means that large land owners need to be able to meet new demand for small lot sizes through partial sub-division of their properties. Importantly, this ability to sub-divide provides a potential source of retirement income for older farmers. And removal of constraints to supply will put downward pressure on the prices of small holdings. Principle 8 – Building entitlements Land owners must be able to live and work on their rural properties. This ability has traditionally been, and continues to be, the foundation of rural community life. Current dwelling entitlement restrictions are not aligned with modern family structures and rural lifestyles. In particular, property owners have to be allowed to build separate residences for aging parents and adult children. Government concerns about increased pressure for road infrastructure are misplaced in a relatively small shire with agriculture dominated by small farm size. Principle 9 – Management of adjacent public land To reduce the costs associated with external threats to operations on rural lands (eg bush fires, trespassers and feral animals) governments must ensure that public lands adjacent to private lands are well managed.

Attachment 5

Attachment 6

Stakeholder Workshops Policy directions phase of the Rural Lands Strategy Project

Stages in Council’s Rural Lands Strategy

Stages 1 to 4 - Preliminaries

Stages 5 and 6 – Rural Land Issues Paper and Social Analysis

Stage 7 – Rural Opportunities and Constraints Report and Mapping

Stage 8 – Policy Directions, including workshops*

Stage 9 – Rural Lands Strategy

…in more detail: Stages 8 & 9 Completion of Policy Directions Phase

Develop Draft Policy Directions Paper

Exhibit Policy Directions Paper

Council to adopt Policy Directions Paper

Rural Lands Strategy Phase

Develop Draft Rural Lands Strategy

Exhibition Draft Strategy – including community meetings

Council to adopt Strategy

Ground Rules Stakeholder groups nominated

Workshop mode: 2 X 5 workshops, each with up to 20 participants

Two rounds of workshops Stage 1 – Information Sessions (2 hours) Stage 2 – Detailed Consultation (2 hours)

From Principles to “Policy Directions”

Workshop One ObjectivesInformation Session

To be clear on the purpose of the workshops

To outline the Rural Lands Strategy Process and where the workshops fit into the process (and the work already undertaken)

To outline the principles for policy directions recommended in the Rural Opportunities and Constraints Report, and the role of “Policy Directions”

To set the scene for workshop 2 detailed consultation (and tasks for that workshop)

Workshop Two ObjectivesDetailed Consultation

To explore possible policy directions for agriculture, aquaculture, rural tourism, etc.

To make participants aware of what will happen with the workshop outcomes

To contribute to a more detailed vision for the rural lands

Feedback on Overview

To distribute draft Overview of Proceedings to participants… any oversights or inaccuracies

Facilitator to consider comments and produce final Overview of Proceedings for council consideration.

Presentation to Steering Committee and Council

Workshop One ProgramThree things:

Outline of the Rural Lands Strategy Process

Discuss List of Principles: our starting point

Explain tasks for Workshop 2 consultation: preferred policy directions for key principles; feeding vision statement

Background1. Rural Lands Issues Papers: submissions summary

11054

4438

3735

3434

3129

2725

2017

1110

88

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Planning ControlsLocal Food Production

Ownership and ManagementAccommodating Growth

Existing LegislationDwelling Entitlement

TourismSubdivision

WaterFlexibility

Environmental ProtectionInfrastructure and Services

Climate ChangeAgricultural Land Capability

Ageing PopulationDiversification

ForestryDual Occupancy

Background (cont’d)

2. Opportunities and Constraints Report and mapping

• Discussion per key issue

• Principles: foundations to build upon

Strategic planning logic

Overview of Principles

Why I’ve suggested we prioritise principles

Place your dots please

Our top 3 (or more)

Workshop 2 Instructions

What are Policy Directions?

What they’re not:

– critique block x block

– specific actions

Direct Action• roads and other infrastructure• service provision• water supply• partnerships

Council controlled

Regulation• Legislation and State polices • LEPs and DCPs• Building regulation

State Government/ Councilcontrolled

Persuasion• Education • Advocacy/ lobbying

Council controlled

Scope of action

Examples• Provide sufficient transport links between Dubbo and

other major centres.

• Ensure that people living in rural areas and settlements have access to an appropriate level of community services and facilities (Port Stephens).

• Reduce sediment flows from rural roads and tracks (Bega Valley)

• Some within the list of Principles

Workshop 2 Instructions (cont’d)

Use of key words….

Working backwards from specific actions

– What do you want…..?

– Why do you want….?

– What’s the policy direction behind this?

Specific actions will be recorded

Another task

A one-line contribution to a more detailed vision for Eurobodalla’s Rural Lands

Final comments

Workshop Two ProgramDetailed Consultation agenda/ tasks

Discuss preferred policy directions for issue area

Note specific actions

To contribute to a more detailed vision for the rural lands

To make participants aware of what will happen with the workshop outcomes: “Round 3”.

Attachment 7

Group 1. Round 1. POLICY DIRECTIONS

Remove constraints on use of rural land Enable diversification of uses on farms Promote future potential of agricultural uses Promote agricultural positives Encourage younger folk into the area Encourage innovation Encourage rural housing Support ‘succession planning’ Remove penalties on owners for public ‘scenic value’ protection Review dwelling entitlements


Remove any unnecessary, onerous restrictions on land use. Rethink zoning and standards

Promote use of land for agricultural purposes/ economic productivity Allow private landowners to manage their land and realise potential Lobby for rural zoning rather than E3 (as per Northern Rivers Report) Encourage smaller farms Promote lifestyle living in appropriate circumstances Encourage local food production Encourage you people to come and to invest in the community Promote ‘succession planning’ Provide education on agricultural techniques Remove unnecessary financial impositions on rural land use


Provide for flexibility to allow for variety, change, emerging markets, technological change, environmental change

Provide better transportation to the area Promote growth of agriculture Encourage younger (and older) folk to sustainably live and work Enable agriculture on all rural lands; not on the basis of size Enable dwellings to be erected on existing parcels (those without

entitlements) Review Policy on rural roads and their connection with dwelling

entitlements

Encourage sustainable small farming – variety of practices Advocate improved telecommunication Lobby State to fix vegetation offsets Support local owners who wish to enhance the natural environment Protect natural resources


Encourage rural industry and a strong, diverse rural economy Promote Eurobodalla as a rural area Promote ‘succession planning’ Encourage extraction of value from individual land Encourage and facilitate the availability of development entitlements

(not a disentitlement perspective) Allow farmers to live on their land, run their farms and look after their

interests Encourage young folk to say in rural areas Acknowledge that farmers should determine how the natural

environment is managed on their property Minimise regulation (and ensure it is evidence-based) Promote investment in Eurobodalla Introduce appropriate zonings for small lots Encourage and support local food production


Acknowledge that property rights are superior to all legislation Require all environmental protection provisions to apply only to public

land Provide commercial compensation for impositions (and/or offsets) Support private investment in protecting the environmental values of

property Ensure private land owners can use their land in a commercial and

environmentally responsible manner (so long as other rights not affected)

Ensure that exercising rights don’t have a financial burden: consider economic impacts of studies etc.

Promote eco-tourism Prove accuracy of mapping Promote employment Protect the environment Ensure that council land development/ economic development actions

are not a conflict.

Attachment 8

[email protected]

44745765

BurraCreek, Moruya

WillDouglas

• Value the beauty, productivity and wealth of natural and rural ecosystems in the Shire• Grow soils in rural lands• Increase soil microbial activity and carbon capture• Enhance water holding capacity of soils and landscapes• Retain existing high quality, productive rural lands• Restore degraded rural lands• Provide for local and regional food security• Encourage community resilience through rural enterprise diversification and product value

adding• Promote profitability of farmers and graziers in the Shire and all those who rely on solar

capture processes for their livelihood• Limit the degradation of rural and natural lands through destructive extractive processes• Preserve the natural aspects of forests, coasts and waterways which border and buffer our

rural lands• Protect the clean air, pure water and biological services provided by natural ecosystems• Bequeath rural lands to subsequent generations that are more productive, have deeper and

more fertile soils, more complete plant cover and healthier waterways than currently exist• Test all decisions made concerning the interactions of people and landscapes against these

policydirections• Strive for negotiated, consensus-based decision-making processes and outcomes which

avoid the acrimony and destructiveness of a Winners/losers mentality

To this end, the Rural Land Strategy will create attitudes and practices which:

The Rural Land Strategy will promote the well-being, prosperity and happiness of the Eurobodallaby promoting amongst its people generally, and stake-holders and decision-makers in particular,values which recognise, nurture and enhance the productivity, resilience, beauty, intrinsic naturalresources and derived social amenity of our rural lands natural ecosystems.

/--C? /'(.e:---;>r: _ U'fr.5~ C--ke-;o rOA .;;<_ ~ 'Y~ 0 /V 77~

,.A../OA T7-:h---x../V /..30 (/./V""".ohi PZY.

p,/Zt);;~;r- H#-7'V//~~T/ o./ze.._ ). e: 0 A S ,r-/9L-

Vo.t-C-i' rv"J7J-.A.Y C:::-.t> ./1/ .s.e-r-.... v-4-r7 of\.[ 1'9-6-A~/f.-7~ r":

'C ~,a-t?,g<? D~'?-rl .8/(./ LJ/V~--.S/r-Y

)'9-6-fi..£2::'-r-7~.r ~r /00';>'" - /,?P,#fi-o?c-

-7/ ......./ ;?~/~. _;;z_ (/.-/ ae: rr/V 0 V OJ-..-wA./'~ Y ?pN S ~ V 4-n.!)•.,j /9.Ae)'1

orl 77~ LZ'""",ri1-:: ~ ~ /3c?tI~O/l-/-( y

/<. / fiJff'A/j/I_N ::Z-O /VE'" p~ c.e-z;; /f"-;n/.t::'.p r<..o ~-=?:7 0/11 77-/-.&r'

.sCPW 77~ S0(//1/ .o4-/-ZY

L;)/-/ /0..3 /,;;z_ 6S~/?-.rO c£.._ &.ss .3

.8 e7 /1/G- SC4'~ r=:/1-/ /V'"/'9-/,f3£-(? /0 ~/9-G=-;f0'7 B'T\/T 0/= .?/'1"'71/.0

/-J-7Y'o ;T7-/-'e- ~ v/ r-z- ~ /V ~ ~ T".

-_L

8/NG/P- AoA-o /.5 ~ 6-4--~~ /?-y -rz:>~,-< t:>/3o£J/1Z..I-/1~.I7-7-7'IPN/1-L- r>#7Z...k ~O 7)~ .{]//1/6--/e-' .L7/-ZL!:'~/.;ifC-

GA~ ;<'to c-k£-

"J3itV G- / 8/;1/&-/ _;L?0/ /\/r: /S

5/G;'II/ c.-rf7if.r- &~ L-G> G-./c/T2-

c:::::::__ (/ jV?M/::ff7V r-

M(:?~u y /7 A-A~ $-(..~/.o6F ~/;- j /?,!'::'Cr/DA//7-L M/9p7

:19 _r--"e,~ ~i/ tB L-/ c..4-77 D A./ /9- i/.4 /-<- r9-;gL-C' .//{/ M c>.s /":

A~/~ OG-//L-e=r-s. C::::;;.Lc--/,6 S /~~rz;::-zs l"/7Vo .A../ t3/l~/~..£'• J ~

rA-cn1.-'1 (../,z.L_rr<:Ju&:.....L-/'l TO /'J~OOMt4-

71&:-' Se-r-rz_~~r:. O.l~ ..&/NC-/~~ /O;dL/A./T-T70#

W (.9W A- JCJ C:-~ C-~ 77--h1-r 0 r- /8{/77-/' .6A:.TO{~:L.. / r7 /'7-7U:O

7ZF ;r1.. ,:._ / /I/",;T?<7 hi' , r~ (;> 4..0 /9-t::..c-e;s"$ $/-IoV\.f'4 TO 8/;1/C-/R7/fz:rr-e /..s /vo J ..-'

k3/ .rVG-/ /8/n/'G-/ /-)0/.v:r _/I/J ?/~..£- / IPJ -Gt./A/-( /? /-:?.!?/ .o:r: fiN .!2.)

:5 /-t-OA 'r:»; Y rz> /:3~ L,9-v/\/"G-/-j-e=-O ;O/<cJV.lcJ I NG- Sc.e::..Jv'"J C./-;A/(j-/+rS --<"' /~/(j-H..4./G-/-/-T7/(/6- CJc/fi_ TO!.A//vS DC/A

)

1;Z/V.t:::~..5'; OVA., A-/1-kcr-..s, 04' '" //'-f7-.e--r:5; c» {.o/.n. GOrl-$;-7-/ /Ve=)

OL.-/f"( /-O~b--:S-T..51 0 c-r)«; r/9Ar--) $ I OC/ r< /S;£-ffNOS hLNLJ

OL-/ ~ M /1-r:: r f'l/"e- A../ F-~ • A/\I ~C~ T7 d /II' ffL/9-.0 /0 / T7 0/1/ '/ZJ /-<'.c./ /-i!:,/9L /,Du/</S fr7

/9- /0.../ /9r~;"') ~ r-/ c» /II' /7) 77+sr: /0 k..r-n/:S C).r=-L~/ /Z- C) /30 0 /Tz--L- /-l ..5'i-r/ red'

C-rfSe- STV ()Y.5 oU 7'7--/ Co &.5 r: s:~-;O J--A--..v~s.

.,-=./"l--c ./L- / ~./ L:;----r' ;L...t!:-7.5u »«e- '~ , ./

C- cr:c: TZ--7X r1L /9..rv ~ _..d/-r Y S / C-/7'-L..

............'-... " . ",

,.;;.p): :.' ."~,:C-f ~ /] L_ -ro ¢~~ /0 /f-7-

: < ... :.:_:< .' h/~S/o/V" .:5 T7~~:r-... ," ... ' ~

~"I , • I

-..",..~'''-

M 0 RU Y A ARE A GU IDE 2 0 1 4 - 23

:-;:-,;!_ ...........:--:::"":::..-: ...,. ......::.:.,,:~'::~::,:"'!.:"C..:~-.. _:-.•. "' •.- •. "'••• -. ~-:"'~>."'.:.-.',"".c-.. ~-.-~.".--.-,...,., .. ,..... ~-.- .. "".~."",.,-,..,.-.,...,.,_--,...,---.----,.._,.'

.....

.....

I tJ c::::YrZ.-/- yo .s: / rz_=-7'.) ~ o..e:: p._ C/~ /;?Z... ./-.._/ r-:~ ..7-Yp:-/V/H~/ v~ _r7 J7-:S~ ~ e ?.l-.b-~.G?7;:J /9"7VO vv~ /::=:..~ ~ •

I6ur(3..0/ rr/G::'~ _ /14 /1-/,;r-~ri'71/c;.-e- .~ $;r-S - r:e7vc,./ldG;,s/'7'-//(Ji? A&~' _L,o.c,..4Z- .£-~o $e?<..\.//C-=-- A-4-~5'. / ~~ Y

'Wc~ L-D.r.J~oL..·

.Co C:-D/v t;~ff//vrS L:.d'NP.P!..c>OLt:C-T7Ue-- ~d-rV,.o •. ~«z:£- c» S ~ 5~B7'-1t}?:Y\1T t /-1/ r:;....~. IODOLr'L- //-77 0 /\/ C e=/ /VV /T;s/ v.e- .""//9-77 ve;- I'J-TI// IV] /1-Z:- .5' . ~ ~N .&..f,:,,-----yk/f:N~60S) . .}? <f) S i '17 \/1= 3: /'.L 0 C-O U",u c.. i L j AI r--A.r;-...{'T7:::?uc..7Z/ ;QE

C- 0 S /S . ltV C-I'( i:?:Yf::5e7J C--OLIIVc../ s: ~ ,9-~ ~ EViE7lJLIE"~

Fe-0 rt.I 0 .IVf i c:. /:J e\.J EZ-0 p,"'4ers>: ," ;fJaJL-6)./ .AI(;- //-TV L?

5.1 ~ LA/O/Z-K$O.(Z7Q / c-~ ..5t/,s' /'/1-/#/9-7BL-e- ~.#-7t/.() /0-if"7VdC-z?7../T~

riN/hVv/FrL - ~b-z_~~e- &F ~9cr/rY

S' u·p....,<. DCi/V' JO~ 0 /(I" 77ne&~s/L7er £)y A&.-//? #L

/2,.L:?7'/ Oe--N//r1L ~ Sb/9-:z-i?7.7 _Xo/9-L) /=Ao/V~b'- ~/.46-.I~/Z 04-0) ')~ G-.K-J,:? /-;JOIAJ~ O."J .sr-r»: - /C7/;I'o.l-v'E· S"C//ooLJ /

Gc/.5 ./ Off/£... Y /'PoS'77rZ- :5~ 'l....-f/C-$"" / V~.L 'r: (A/'/'jLf/~

3) /1..(//t\ rrL 1-1VJ ~ r;;_/vfl£510N S/17~Me7Vr.-;70 "p~o-..../.J.cJ'!::.'/l ..s 0C-/0 ft?'"Z- o".ifo~/,c:_ L3 &-L-. r9-~L:-G" g~/"VV'b~

c::::::::.. O/vp~E?7Z-C-/ ff£-~Y -5u~,T777/Vfr6'?&7 fiv..-<6'-.?-..L-d-"v/:jS~/l/\lJJ' ;OA 0L}tJc-r/v£ 3/0;9'?'-L-. .I9,d.&r'1 .#~C:/~.4 _)__.

/-/oL-o//V&5

... :.:-:-:::: :.. -._ ...._ .

....:::--:: _ ,--

Why do we need to change the structure of land zoning?Why can't we simply rename it?Why do we need to introduce environmental overlays?Why does there have to be so much control?Is there an ulterior motive?

Most, if not all rural land holders I know are better environmentalists than those who purport someknowledge and then exercise that as power. Unlesschange, if indeed it is needed, commences withthe kings in their castles then changewill have a difficult path. What is missing from the wholedebate is very simple. Why?

2. Sohere we are.Firstly everyone invo!ved hasto consider the king in his castle.

And then there is Agenda 21. If indeed Agenda 21 hasanything to do with the matter either in thepast or the future it flies in the face of the basison which the land is held. Feesimple real estatemeans absolute title or absolute interest. Noopinion consensuswill be reached without everybodyaccepting that fact.

When Council decided to 'put off' a decision and commence a processto develop a Rural LandsStrategy my initial thought was - we Jiveto fight another day.

It was and still is the biggest single anti Council agenda item in the history of the shire given thepublic uproar and vehement opposition. So far the issue hasclaimed the position of the Shiresfirstelected Mayor, four Councillors and a General Manager. We were bullied, lied to and generallyembarrassed by Council staff which led to a brick wall being erected by a majority of rural landholders. Generally and collectively Council did themselves no favours in the way the issuewashandled. I could go on.

It is impossible to frame any thoughts on a Rural LandStrategy without Council actions on the LEPchanges looming large in the background.

1. Background.Regardlessof anything else this whole Rural LandsStrategy isa creation of Council following a poorlyplanned and appallingly implemented ham fisted attempt to re zone rural land in the EurobodallaShire. To even consider that rural land owners would blithely accept any diminution of rights held infee simple land was extremely naive of those who proposed it.

My General ViewsPolicy Directions WorkshopsMichael Harris July 2014

My go at a vision statementThis strategy aims to provide an economic future to those who depend on rural land in theEurobodalla and accessfor those who simply wish to enjoy it.

My top three Policy Directions1. Rural economy.2. Agricultural industries and farm types.3. Rural living.

Rural Lands Strategy - Workshop Program Round two - 2 July 2014

3.11 Given the facts relating to the amount of rural land in the Shire any future strategy-including this one recognise the value to rural tourism in its many forms. Farm stayopportunities, rural B&Bestablishments along with riding schools, bushwalking, birdwatching, cycling, photography and many other interest groups could add so much more

3.10 Senior Council Planners that is, Lindsay Usher and Shannon Burt go out of their way tolisten to rural land holders and not necessarily blindly take direction from State plannersand ham fistedly apply their views to the whole exercise. Planners they are - rurallandholders they are not.

3.9 Council put on its lobbying hat, put its expertise where its mouth is and seriously pursuean Agricultural University, College or School for the Shire. Or, even two.

3.8 It is our view that the Native Vegetation Act and The Threatened SpeciesAct is enoughcontrol. Generally my peers agreed with the general thrust of those two acts but doesnot see an enforcement role for Council.

3.7 Get out of the nitty gritty and make the lEP in broad headingsand plain, or plainer stillEnglish.

3.6 Make the language of the LEPand indeed this Rural LandsStrategy positive rather thannegative.

3.5 Removeobstacles associated with dual occupancy. Let families enjoy their land andcreate situations where growth in rural communities is not restricted by over regulation.My children love our land. They should be allowed to enjoy it with us.

3.4 Instead of imposing restrictions remove them. Let the market decide whether honey,vegetables, nuts, livestock or virtually whatever, is an economical interest to pursue.Then provide support.

3.3 Nobody hasa more serious vested interest in their rural land than the owner. So, let theowner own and manage. We bet if any rural land owner was asked he would want toleave his land in a better state than he found it.

3.2 KeepCouncil and especially the beaurocrats out of it. Let them do their thing with roads,bridges, tourism and other services they traditionally provide. Remember that rurallandowners do not all enjoy all of Council services. We for instance collect all our ownwater and dispose of all of our rubbish. Our household does not depend on Council.

3.1 Any thinking has to be small, at the grass roots.

3. My two bobs worth - Policy Directions and thinking - my three issues.I think I agree with most of the serious points made at the first workshop. Once the weeds wereseparated from the lawn some pertinent points were raised. I have taken the opportunity to discusswhat I consider the relevant ones with my peers and the general consensusis support for a RuralLandsStrategy but formed from points raised by the rural community. In no particular order someof the points we discussedare -

The kings are in the dark. Either enlighten them or agree with them. The presentation to them sofar has led to great mistrust. This should not be a contest.

It's not a contest. Give the kingswhat they want and everyone will be happy and honestlywho will be the loser?

Listen to those with the highest vested interest and direct strategies toward the agricultural andrural roots.

Make the plan sensible, practical and after serious community of rural landholders consultation.

I, and indeed we, believe Eurobodalla Shire will not saveone bird, one frog or one insect byintroducing environmental overlays on to private land. I/we further believe no one can proveotherwise.

4. And finallyThere is no doubt in my mind that a Rural LandsStrategy should reflect more independence inthe use of rural land by land holders compared to metropolitan counterparts. The very natureof rural land is its expansiveness, its views, its freedom, its difference and its ability to add tothe economy. To regulate it in an attempt to maintain its current standing or return it to thecondition it was in 30 yearsago isa retrograde step placing no trust in the owner and outsidethe boundaries of land planning. It is what it is and to lock it up so no one enjoys it is close tostupidity.

3.12 While split zoning may be a possibility it is a last resort. If I want to run cattle on any partof my land I will. Remember, it is mine.

to the rural fabric of the Shire. The Strategy is therefore encouraged to allow foraccommodation and basic infrastructure asan attraction.

I

!~£SP£cT PRJ lI/tlE al?6l2/"'j&~~~(J~.

Please pass this email on to anyone you think would benefit from these ideas. Kind regards toyou all, Nick van Stekelenburg.

S.AlI decisions made by council are to represent the wishes of the broader community (thiswas certainly and obviously not the case during the LEP process) and work towards a visionstatement brainstormed and put together by the community. WENEED MORE TIME ANDMORE COMMUNITY INPUT!!

4.Counci~should.do all in it's power (whichis legally dubiousat best) to restore FOODFREEDOM inthe Eurobodalla. We should have the right to buy meat, chicken, bacon,cheese, eggs, raw milk or any other food from anyone else, it is a basic human right.Regulation supports big business and restricts or removes local competition for the marketshare..

3.Council should make it a high priority to improve roads and transport infrastructure inruralareas with a long term view to increasing the efficient movement of people, goods andservices from rural areas to the LOCAL and wider community with long term goals ofSUSTAINABILITY.

lRather than limiting dwelling entitlements, Council should encourage and support thestrategic placement of dwellings, workshops and sheds on rural land to encourage peopleback on to the land, discourage urban sprawl and to increase smaller scale, SUSTAINABLEfood production and forest management with an aim to' supply the LOCAL COMMUNITYand to contribute to the LOCAL ECONOMY (bigger is not better).

2.Council should encourage and support rural landholders inSUSTAINABLE enterprisesthat would contribute to the LOCAL ECONOMY and support the LOCAL COMMUNITY.Increased regulation stifles LOCAL BUSINESS and increases the market share of bigbusiness which drains the LOCAL ECONOMY.

Hi everyone, here are some of my thoughts on policy direction for rural land in theEurobodalla (and all rural land for that matter). I haven't come up with a vision statement yet,but I have come up with a slogan for the ESC ( the representatives of the Shire's residents)."TIllNK. LOCAL ACT LOCAL'. Inother words represent the people of the Eurobodalla, notthe interests of big business and the capitalist paradigm of expansion and growth. Some foodfor thought...

EMAil WITH IDEAS ON POLICY DIRECTION

Thank You

4. Enviromental Overlays not to be used as part of the planninginstrument, but only as a rough guide.

(c) Consideration be given to minimum lot size?

(b) Remove sunset clauses

(a) Sealed road access

3. Remove restrictions on dwelling entitlements including

2. Annexe E3 from local planning

1. Make all deferred land in the current LEPPlanning instrument RUl

Removal of all Constraints on Rural Land[1=u,,~). .

My three main items are:

I believe all E3 zones should be removed and replaced with RU1.Overlays should be used as a guide only. People should have the right tochoose what they produce on their land. I have no confidence in theplanning department of Eurobodalla Shire Council. I believe the agendathey have is not in this areas long term interests.

email: [email protected]

July 3nd 2014

Rural Lands Stategy Policy Directions

Moruya

PO Box 189

Diane Dever

Rural EconomyThe rural economy is to be given every opportunity to develop and is not to beencumbered by environmental constraints unless those constraints aresupported by independent scientific evidence (see Environmental Values,below)

By Principles from the Opportunities and Constraints Report(my 'top 3' are numbers 1, 2 & 3, above)

5. Plain EnglishFactSheetsare to be issuedasand when appropriate, in orderto facilitate the dissemination and understanding of planning anddevelopment requirements and summaries of any principles arising fromdeterminations which are considered to be of interest to the community.

4. All information relevant to planning and development decisions is to beproactively made available to applicants affected by those decisions, duringand at the completion of the process.

3. The fundamental importance and integrity of the maps associatedwith theRural LandsStrategyand the subsequent ELEPmust be assured.

2. All planning and development decisions must be objectively andconsistently applied.

1. To the extent that environmental considerations and the discretionavailable to staff allow, all planning and development decisions are to bemade in terms of an 'entitlement perspective'.

General

Preferred Policy Directions - PeterCormick

RURAL LANDS WORKSHOP (3 July 2014 2-4 pm)

Rural LivingWhere environmental considerations permit, every opportunity is to be given,and discretionary impediments removed, in enabling dwelling entitlements tobe provided, including those for {granny fiats'. [So that for example, Clause4.2A (2)(a) of the current ELEP2012, or its subsequent equivalent would beinterpreted for the benefit of the applicant, so that immediate access to agravel road which in turn provides access to a council-maintained sealed road,would satisfy the requirements of the Clause].

Equine IndustryEvery opportunity and encouragement is to be given to developing the fullpotential of the shire's enviable equine reputation.

Extractive IndustryThe importance of an ongoing and reliable supply of extractive materials forinfrastructure purposes is to be recognised and enabled to the extent madepossible by environmental constraints (seeEnvironmental Values, below)

ForestryEnvironmentally sustainable private forestry operations are to be encouragedand are not to be constrained by, for example, the imposition of discretionaryrestrictions on associatedaccommodation requirements.

Rural TourismRural tourism is to be encouraged.

Aquaculture (seeRural Economy, above)

Agricultural Industries and Farm Types (seeRural Economy, above)

Legislative and Policy ContextTo the extent available to Council, all relevant legislative instruments, policiesand guidelines, are to be interpreted and applied for the benefit of thecommunity.

VISION STATEMENTThat all planning and development policies within the shire are developed,conducted and reviewed transparently, according to independent, expertadvice, in genuine consultation with the community,

Natural HazardsResidentswho choose to live in hazardousenvironments, such as in bush-fireprone or flood-zoned areas, should not be encumbered by planning ordevelopment constraints beyond those that would apply otherwise, unlesssuchwould jeopardise the welfare of other residents. [Inother words, if peoplechoose a particular location and lifestyle, even if potentially dangerous tothem, that's their business!]


All environmental considerations relating to rural lands, including thoserelating to the determination of land use zones and individual developmentapplications, are to be undertaken according to scientifically establishedprinciples and methodologies, which are to be applied objectively andconsistently.

Australia is a Common Law Country, where Common Law is "TheLaw of the Land" and above all Parliamentary Acts or Statutes. It istherefore also above any mere council policies or bylaws. So just asany parliament must first check that any of its Acts or Statutes do notconflict with any rights under Common Law or Fee Simple; So mustcouncil check all its policies and bylaws against such rights, andwhere there is conflict these rights must always prevail. This must bewritten into Councils constitution and entrenched there as a CentralPrinciple.

From the beginning of community consultation the community haveinsisted that any zoning changes must be "Like for Like". Meaningno loss or diminishing of ANY rights, or ANY increase inrestrictions or regulation. Not only this, but rural land holders havelong called for (and now demand) the restoration of full access to all

.""their traditional rights (under Fee Simple, Common Law and the1'901'federal constitution)

These public workshops do the same thing. We have spoken already -many times. They just won't accept it.We have no confidence in councils planning department and particularlynot in its management. Nor do we wish them writing aRural LandsPolicy. Having no confidence they intend accurately reflecting our will.

...... '.

Council has failed to comply with the clear will of the community.Council management will not even allow the Rural Lands Committee(who are supposed to represent us) access to our LEP submissions. Ourwill is not being complied with. Management are taking control of theprocess and information, just as they did with the LEP.

Joint statement of community will on Rural lands Policy.

3.Like for Like. No downgrading of current zonings tolesser zonings. All zoning transfers must be to zoningswith equal or greater rights (not less) Any earlierdown-zonings must be restored.

4. A guarantee be put in councils constitution that noprivate property will have ANY traditional rights or usesremoved, eroded, or access to them restricted that were inprevious LEPrs.And that the current LEPbe amended torestore those missing rights and uses. And that no otherregulations or bylaws be created which have the effect ofremoving or eroding private property rights or uses, evenoutside the LEP itself. For example, in DCP's.

S.The immediate (and retrospective) removal and abolitionof all 'Voluntary' or non- voluntary binding agreements onprivate property, or any requirements for land owners to

1.No Environmental zonings on private property in thisShire.Should council feel that any land has greatsignificance, they already have powers to acquire it forthe common good, and render just compensation tothe owners.If council want to lock up land, let them use publicland.2. No Environmental or restrictive overlays on privateproperty in this Shire. Again, if Councilor theGovernment wish to create restrictions, let them againuse public land.

Here are some examples of earlier public demands.

7.No Staff superannuation should be in exclusive funds(which currently own businesses in direct competitionwith ratepayers) This is a conflict of interest. Allmanagement and staff super must be in general publicfunds, not exclusive private funds.8. Council should immediately withdraw from anyparticipation in the Biodiversity-Certification process,Which is completely unethical, and which has obviouslyperverted the whole local planning process, by creatinga massive conflict of interest.9. No down zonings. It is also unethical for council todown zone any private property, and criminal to usesuch down zonings to subvert the Compulsoryacquisitions,/Just compensation process. Those whohave been previously down zoned must have theirzonings restored in full.Council may only down zone public lands.

6.No council should be allowed to operate businesses, ordevelop land in competition with private enterprise,unless all profits are returned directly to all ratepayersequally as dividends (to remove any possible conflicts ofinterest)

make them. Or any requirement to have ground truthing,or enter into any other binding arrangements which blockaccess to property rights or uses, or made a requirementto have applications approved.

STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS June-July 2014 OVERVIEW OF … · Rural Lands Strategy Project Prepared by Dr...

Documents

Transcript of STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS June-July 2014 OVERVIEW OF … · Rural Lands Strategy Project Prepared by Dr...