Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review 7 August 2018 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review 7 August 2018 NAVIGATE PLANNING

Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review • State Agencies – 7 • Objections on environmental grounds: • Community Groups – 17 submissions • Pro-forma objections – 229 (5 types) • Individual objections (environment) – 157 • Objections regarding Oaks Ranch – 24 • Specific Requests for changes – 40 • Submissions on other matters – 4 • Supporting Submissions - 32 TOTAL 510

Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review – State Agencies – DPI Agriculture Submission Response Supports a more flexible approach to land Council intends to prepare a DCP to uses in rural zones providing provisions are provide guidance, particularly for developed in a DCP to minimise land use assessment of non-agricultural uses. conflicts. Concerned about some additional land uses A number of the uses identified as that are more appropriate in other zones inconsistent are permitted with consent and/or are inconsistent with zone objectives. in rural zones under the Infrastructure SEPP (e.g. electricity generating works). Concerned about rural residential outcomes Allowing lot averaging does not from proposed minimum lot size of 2ha as necessarily lead to rural residential part of lot averaging in RU4 zone. development outcomes.

Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review – State Agencies – DPI Agriculture Submission Response Some areas proposed to be zoned RU1 The areas are currently zoned for rural or RU4 are not suitable for agriculture. activities. Does not support smaller lot sizes for Subject lands are surrounded by existing areas 30a and 30b – class 3 ag land. rural residential development.

Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review – State Agencies – DPI Fisheries Submission Response Recommends Council clearly identify LEP must use definitions in State difference between commercial and Government’s Standard Instrument for private marine infrastructure. LEPs. Planning documents should state that LEPs identify when development marine infrastructure requires State consent is required, they do not identify approvals. where other approvals are required. Objects to grazing as exempt This will not apply to coastal wetlands. development in E2 zone. Does not support lot averaging where it Lot averaging does not increase lot yield, will impact on oyster growing areas. and allows for subdivision with better outcomes. Impacts assessed with DA.

Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review – State Agencies – DPI Fisheries Submission Response Objects to removal of sealed road clause. Fisheries have assumed that the clause requires all new lots to have access to a sealed road. This is not the case. Does not support zoning land RU1, RU4 Zoning land does not, of itself, have impacts. or E4 adjoining waterways with good Development or clearing can have impacts riparian habitat. and these are subject to assessment (BAM required). Setback requirements. Does not support increased subdivision Development consent is required. Potential unless located to minimise water quality impacts on water quality can be assessed. impacts. Does not support removal of Terrestrial Information on map will still be used in Biodiversity Map from LEP development assessment.

Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review – State Agencies – DPI Fisheries Submission Response Supports updating of wetlands, Noted watercourses and riparian lands and acid sulfate soils maps. Supports increase in MLS for certain land Noted at Narooma. Does not support removal of E3 zone. There is no E3 zone in Eurobodalla. Recommends Batemans Marine Park The map relates to fishing and other Map be included in LEP activities where a marine park permit is required. The LEP is not the appropriate document to contain this map.

Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review – State Agencies – Heritage Division Submission Response No objections Noted

Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review – State Agencies – Mineral Resources Submission Response No specific concerns with open land use Noted tables. Recommend making open cut mining Agreed – this use is permitted with permitted in RU4 and IN1 zones consent under the Mining SEPP in these zones. Proposal is consistent with Ministerial Noted Direction 1.3

Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review – Environmental Objections Submission Response Removal of environmental protections Environmental protections primarily delivered through NSW Government legislation and policies. Proposal will result in widespread Proposal provides for modest additional clearing of vegetation, loss of habitat, development in rural areas. No change fragmentation of corridors, etc. to existing clearing approval regime. Object to removal of E3 zone protection, E3 zone is not currently used in opening up large areas of land for Eurobodalla. When it was proposed, grazing, etc. grazing was to be permitted. Most deferred land currently zoned rural and agriculture is permitted now.

Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review – Environmental Objections Submission Response Removal of 1000ha MLS allows Most land is already fragmented to well significant and widespread subdivision. below 1000ha. The proposal provides up to 122 additional lots. An open land use table means anything Development consent is required and goes. assessment in accordance with relevant legislation and policies will be undertaken. Object to grazing in E2 zones and impact Grazing will not be exempt development on wetlands. in coastal wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas.

Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review – Environmental Objections Submission Response Council is ignoring expert advice, Advice is not being ignored. It is particularly from State Agencies. considered. Council disagrees with some of the advice provided. Council has failed to take into account Climate change was considered in the climate change impacts. development of the RLS, which this planning proposal is implementing. The proposal is too large and complex A plain English guide was prepared to for people to understand. assist in understanding. Staff were available during exhibition period to assist.

Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review – Environmental Objections Submission Response Proposal will negatively impact The proposal extends the identification Aboriginal cultural heritage sites, notably of conservation areas (Aboriginal Places Gulaga. of Heritage Significance) over the deferred lands, including for Gulaga. Proposal will threaten water quality and A very small number of additional lots impact the oyster industry. and dwellings are facilitated in oyster catchment areas. Protection of water quality will be a part of the assessment of development applications. Proposal will threaten tourism as we will The proposal increases rural tourism no longer be the Nature Coast. opportunities.

Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review – Environmental Objections Submission Response Concerned about increased fire risk. Small number of additional dwellings facilitated across the Shire, in areas where there are existing dwellings. Any proposed development must address Planning for Bushfire Protection. Object to removal of Terrestrial The information will continue to be Biodiversity Overlay. Known available to people and it will continue environmental values are being ignored. to be used for development assessment. Inconsistency with aims of Act, aims of Planning proposal acknowledges LEP and Ministerial Directions. inconsistencies where they exist and provides relevant justifications.

Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review – Environmental Objections Submission Response Critical of community consultation Extensive consultation undertaken processes. throughout development of RLS. Planning proposal consultation in excess of Minister’s requirements in the Gateway Determination Request proposal be withdrawn and The planning proposal is not a review of reviewed with a genuine community the Rural Land Strategy. It seeks to consultation panel. implement the Strategy as adopted by Council.

Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review – Specific areas of concern Submission Response Area 12 – Guerilla Bay Current zoning part - Land is not Coastal Protection 7(f1) agricultural and and part Rural 1(c). currently has an Extensive agriculture environmental permitted without zoning consent in 7(f1) and - Should be zoned E2, 1(c) zones. E3 or E4 Clearing currently requires consent. E4 zone would provide additional dwelling entitlements.

Rural Lands Planning Proposal Submission Review – Specific areas of concern Submission Response Area 12a – George Bass Whole site is not EEC. Drive, Mossy Point Site is currently zoned - whole site is EEC Rural 1(c) which allows - Adjoins important 2ha subdivision for wetland dwellings. - Whole site should be All of the EEC is proposed zoned E2 to be zoned E2. Impact of any development proposal on EEC and wetlands to be assessed with DA.