There remains some confusion in parts of the community relating to the role that land use zones play in the application of environmental controls over land use practices under the new PLEP.
There has been a perception that the PLEP E4 (Environmental Living) zone, proposed to replace the current YLEP Rural Residential 1(d) zone, would bring with it a raft of new environmental restrictions. The root of the problem appears to be the change in language and structure of the new Standard Instrument LEP. With the change in the way many land uses are described, there is a perception that existing land use practices will be restricted, and that onerous new conditions would be imposed on landholders as a result of the proposed ‘environmental’ zoning. Neither of these concerns, however, is warranted.
The basic problem appears to have been a misunderstanding of the intent of land use zoning, and the manner in which specific environmental controls are applied under a Standard Instrument LEP. Unlike the current Yarrowlumla LEP Rural Residential 1(d) zone, which includes very specific environmental protection objectives at the land use zone level, the new SI LEP land use zones are very much more focused on the primary objective of the particular zone, which in the present case is the control of residential development. In spite of the different descriptive names applied to the new land use zones, the SI LEP and its supporting legislation apply environmental controls equally to all zones, via an entirely independent mechanism.
Quite simply, the proposed E4 (Environmental Living) zone is fundamentally a residential zone that is used where it is important to protect the existing character of, and land use practices in an area from inappropriate residential development. The alternative R5 (Large Lot Residential) zoning is used where the management of urban expansion and its associated residential development are more important than the protection of any existing land use practices. Given only this choice, the most appropriate zoning for the existing Rural Residential 1(d) areas was quite clearly E4—there has been no argument against wanting to protect the existing character of our rural residential areas. In spite of its name, the E4 zone does not carry with it any additional environmental constraints.
As an example of the way in which environmental controls are applied under a Standard Instrument LEP, consider the issue of development on or near riparian land and watercourses. The relevant controls are specified under Clause 6.12 of the current draft PLEP, and make reference to the Riparian Lands and Watercourses map, one of several shire-wide map overlays that are an integral part of the PLEP. These map overlays are completely independent of any land use zone—i.e. the associated environmental controls are not applied at the individual zone level, they apply to areas identified in the relevant map, regardless of the zoning of the land.
Specifically then, if a watercourse runs through a property, activity on the land in the proximity of the watercourse will be subject to a uniform set of controls under the new PLEP, regardless of whether the land is zoned RU1, E4, R5 or whatever—the controls are related to the existence of a watercourse, not the zoning of the land. Furthermore, there are no additional controls applied in this context whether the land is zoned one way or another.
This provides a much more consistent way of dealing with controls on environmental features that have no regard for planning boundaries. While it might be perfectly logical to impose controls on residential development within a village zone, it would clearly be less logical to use land use zones to impose environmental controls on features, like a watercourse, that do not exist by virtue of a zone boundary. Environmental controls are currently also applied to flood prone areas, terrestrial biodiversity, steeply sloped land and areas with highly erodible soils in a similar way.
Thus, the E4 zoning in itself imposes no more ‘environmental controls’ than any other residential zone—it simply controls the impact of residential development on the character and local land use pattern of an area.