The QPR Blog

There has been a flurry of activity in the lead up to the September elections. Unfortunately, this has not been related to election activities as such, but rather the hasty revision of provisions governing subdivision in the current Rural 1(a) zone before the end of the term of the present Council, which just happens to be dominated by individuals with large rural land holdings.

The issue of lot size averaging has been a sticking point for most councillors with rural property interests. The former state Labor government had advised that it would not allow the use of lot size averaging in new Local Environmental Plans (LEPs), but the current Council majority had refused to remove the averaging provisions from the draft PLEP. In the wake of the state government elections, there was more intense lobbying from rural Councils with the result that the new Minister for Planning and Infrastructure relented and advised that he would consider proposals for lot size averaging.

So what’s all the fuss about? Fundamentally, it’s about the controls that apply to rural subdivision, and rural landholders are not shy about admitting that this has a direct impact on the value of their land. Planning legislation (our LEP) specifies a minimum sized parcel of land on which a dwelling can be constructed. The size of this parcel of land varies, depending on its location. In rural areas, the lot must generally be large enough to support a level of agricultural activity—that’s currently 80 ha in the former Yarrowlumla area and 40 ha in the former Talleganda area. In residential areas, the size varies depending on the character of the location—larger lots in rural residential areas, and smaller lots in villages. These lot size restrictions are in place to avoid inappropriate development, excessive profiteering at the expense of the intended land use, or to simply preserve the amenity of an area.

Without averaging provisions, a rural property in the former Yarrowlumla could not be subdivided to create a lot smaller than 80 ha (200 acres) with a dwelling entitlement. A smaller lot could be created, but it could not be built on, limiting its use to agricultural or recreational activities, and thus limiting its value. The averaging provision allows the creation of lots as small as 8 ha (20 acres) in rural areas, with dwelling entitlements, provided the average size of all lots in a subdivision is still 80 ha. The result is that there must be at least one substantially larger lot in the subdivision that can thereafter never be subdivided, thus being preserved for agricultural activities or environmental conservation. The number of dwelling entitlements in a holding remains the same, but the idea is that these can be ‘attached’ to more attractive (smaller, and hence cheaper, although not necessarily proportionally so) parcels of land.

To limit the fragmentation of productive land, and to avoid the creation of unplanned rural residential settlements, the averaging provisions that currently exist in the rural areas of the former Yarrowlumla part of Palerang also limit the number of small lots (i.e. lots less than 80 ha) that can be created within any holding to five.

Averaging is also currently used extensively (with smaller lot size limitations) in planned rural residential subdivisions, where the intent is to provide a specific density of residential development with a range of lot sizes. The principle of lot size averaging is thus generally sound, provided it is used in the right place and the associated controls are not abused—i.e. provided its application is appropriately planned.

Averaging provisions are not currently applicable in the former Talleganda area of Palerang, where the minimum lot size in rural areas is already half that in the former Yarrowlumla area.

The motion brought before the July 26 meeting of Council sought to:

1. Extend averaging into the former Talleganda area of Palerang, without increasing the minimum lot size;
2. Eliminate any restrictions imposed by previous subdivision covenants by resetting the holding date;
3. Remove any restriction on the number of small lots that could be created in a subdivision.

The wording of the original motion was also such that it would have removed existing subdivision covenants on all rural residential areas of the shire, opening these areas up to further subdivision of any lot larger than 12 ha. This could have had a devastating impact on the amenity of the extensive rural residential areas of Palerang, and was an indication of how poorly considered this motion was. Indeed, this part of the motion was retracted as soon as the implications were explained to the proponents.

In the event, after several hours of debate the impact of the motion was restricted to just the rural areas of the shire, and the limit on the number of small lots that can be created was preserved. Averaging was, however, extended to the former Talleganda area of the shire without any consideration or adjustment of the lower minimum lot size, and the holding date for all rural areas was adjusted to the date of Palerang’s proclamation, conveniently removing covenants placed on earlier rural subdivisions.

The absurd hypocrisy of this last point should not be overlooked. One of the key reasons presented in support of averaging is that it preserves a large lot generally suitable for agricultural activities, forever. The last point above, however, that which resets the holding date, conveniently redefines ‘forever’ for any subdivision undertaken prior to 2004—any large lot created in a subdivision prior to 2004 is now free to be subdivided again, completely ignoring one of the key reasons for allowing averaging in the first place.

We are asked to believe that the justification for the change in holding date was to simplify council’s record keeping. This leads one to ask whether our planning legislation is about simplifying council’s record keeping, or maximising the agricultural potential of rural land. It surely wouldn’t have anything to do with improving the subdivision potential of rural land…

It is important to understand that all of the LEP provisions that apply to rural land are intended to preserve the viability of agricultural land for agricultural uses. Nowhere is there any objective relating to optimising residential subdivision in the Rural (RU1 & RU2) zones—that’s what the Residential (R1–R5 & RU5) and Environmental Living (E4) zones are for. The most significant problem associated with the proposed changes to the averaging provisions is that it takes residential planning out of the hands of council planners and puts it into the hands of a small number of individual landholders.

Obviously, if this provides you with a bit of a windfall, you probably wouldn’t be inclined to complain. If you’re one of the vast majority of residents in Palerang who moved here for the amenity of the area and the lifestyle that afforded, in the belief that Palerang’s planning controls would ensure that this amenity and lifestyle would not be compromised, you might be a little more concerned.