Be alert and alarmed by new LEP proposals
1 Oct 11
A response to the Shoalhaven Local Environment Plan 2009 (SLEP2009) by Keith Learn of the KVCA
Purpose:
1. To formulate informed responses to the SLEP to assist in writing your personal letters to Shoalhaven City Council and the Department of Planning. We have detailed some problems that affect Shoalhaven generally and Kangaroo Valley specifically.
History:
An LEP – Local Environment Plan- is Council’s top planning document and will determine future development in Shoalhaven for up to the next 20 years
The current LEP 1985 has been in operation for 25 years, with some rural amendments in 1999.
The State Department of Planning (DoP) decided that all Councils within NSW should have a standard template for updating their existing LEPs. This meant many changes as 48 zones had to be crammed into 25 new zones proposed by DoP.
Our Council further reduced the number of new zones to 23.
A horrendous task to achieve and hence the many concerns and objections from residents.
Shoalhaven with one of the most out-dated and complicated LEPs in the state, decided to approach the task by seeking to follow an “administrative changeover” or “best fit” method. The alternate would have been to open up the 1985 LEP and involve and negotiate with the community for a mutually agreed document, as both Kiama and Wingecarribbee (to name just 2) did.
Prior to 2008 Council adopted a set of ground rules on how the document was to be formulated.
The rules approved by Council meeting 28 November 2006 were titled Endorsed Ground Rules – and they include among others -
The LEP review will largely be based around an administrative change-over from the current LEP concentrating on “best fit”
As part of the review we (Council) will consider which zones, optional clauses etc are relevant and Council wishes to utilise.
There will be no major additional residential/commercial/business zoned land unless it is already identified in Structure Plans (eg Nowra-Bomaderry) or similar.
Minor rezoning matters and anomalies will be considered where appropriate – a schedule of one-off matters will be compiled for consideration.
(It) will aim to retain as much of the spirit of the current LEP instrument as possible (eg flexibility).
(It) will not revisit rural residential rezoning other than deferred zones – this is a position of the DoP and is reinforced in the Draft Regional Strategy.
The opportunity to broaden the list of permissible uses to overcome the recent removal of non conforming uses will be investigated – as many conforming uses as possible in each zone will be investigated.
·The use of building height controls and floor space ratio and whether or not they are mandatory will be investigated in detail.
Unfortunately, this is where “best fit” stopped, a fact that General Manager Russ Pigg has admitted in writing 22 July 2008, “due to directions received from Councillors during SLEP briefings. “
Councillors became involved imparting their personal requests, breaking the Endorsed Ground Rules and inserting many changes often against Planning advice.
These meetings were “behind closed doors” and there were no minutes or even attendance records kept. Who benefits and why?
Without any public consultation the document was developed and presented to DoP for exhibition September 2008 – immediately prior to Council elections that month.
The DoP requested many changes. After 2 years of negotiation DoP finally approved exhibition of an amended document from mid July 2011. It took Council 5 years to get it shaped “their way” and the community gets 13 weeks to read, understand and respond.
Objections:
There are too many unsuitable modifications to respond to them all!
However, we recommend you look at your own property and your neighbour’s (see previous flier detailing this process).
Our concerns: the basis for your letters to Council & DoP.
1. State strongly that this document is not a “best fit” change over. The process has been flawed and should restart with full community input.
2. It is not acceptable to have a new maximum height of 11 metres over the whole Shoalhaven. For a “best fit” application the entire city should be mapped with Height of Buildings maps, based on current Development Control Plans (DCPs) or the 1985 LEP height of 2 storey (or metre equivalent.) The current position of Council would destroy KV’s DCP 66.
3. In direct opposition to the Ground Rules that no agricultural land was to be changed to residential, the new document is changing the 1C zone (rural , small farming) to the new R5 - large lot residential. The 1c Zone was meant to be the buffer between the primary agricultural zone and the residential (village) zone. This change will affect a large number of KV residents and wide areas of Shoalhaven generally. There was a category that 1C could have logically transferred to – RU4, but Council chose not to use that zone. There is evidence also that Council will seek subdivision of all R5 land in the future. This too breaches DCP66
4. All zones have greatly expanded Land Use Tables. This was to be expected with the reduction in number of zones, however many of the new uses should have been put to the community prior to their inclusion – for example RU1 land – the primary agricultural zone now allows air transport facilities; offensive industries; etc.
For example - a) the 1b Arterial & Main Road Protection Zone is now absorbed into the RU1 (Primary Production) zone and is therefore encumbered with many additional “allowable developments”. This breaks DCP66.
b) the 1g (Flood )zone is also absorbed into RU1 zone with similar problems with 47 allowable development types on agricultural land. Surely development in flood prone land is not the best idea after this year of Queensland & NSW floods?
Again – breaks DCP66.
c) the 2e (Village) zone will now allow helipads – is this wise or desirable in small rural villages. Also breaches DCP66
d) the “environmental zones “– previously 10 now crammed into 3- have resulted in less protection for the previous Scenic, Special Scenic, Water Catchment and Escarpment zones, and remember allows 11 metre high developments!
e) One-off zone changes are used all over Shoalhaven at Council’s discretion with the justification of the Ground Rule relating to “Minor rezoning matters and anomalies”. There is one in KV Village on land with current zoning same as that Colys tried to have rezoned – surely the same conditions should apply.Any private zone changes allowing rural land to become residential should come before the public after the LEP is finalised and not slipped into this complicated document.
There are many more abuses of the “best fit” model. We would request that –
1. You support all the research that has been done on this document and write to Council and the government bodies listed below. Write today
We have endeavoured to highlight some of the inappropriate conditions applied to the new LEP2009. We take no responsibility for errors or omissions. Please take time and do some research of your own.
Replies must be in to Council by Friday 14 October 2011.
Addresses:
Council: Draft SLEP2009 Submission, SCC, PO Box 42, Nowra NSW 2541 or email: SLEP2009@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au
Dept of Planning: The Regional Director, NSW Planning & Infrastructure, PO Box 5475, Wollongong NSW 2520 or email: Wollongong@planning.nsw.gov.au
Head office Planning Dept, Sydney: NSW Planning & Infrastructure, GPO Box 39, Sydney NSW 2001 or email: information@planning.nsw.gov.au
Minister for Planning & Infrastructure, Bradley Hazzard: email: office@hazzard.minister.nsw.gov.au