The QPR Blog

Generally considered one of Shakespeare’s best comedies, the title of this post seemed quite appropriate given both the matter at hand and The Bard’s use of pun in the title of his play. In Elizabethan times, the words “nothing” and “noting” were homonyms (they were pronounced the same way), and while “nothing” retains its same meaning today, “noting” was a reference to gossip, rumour and overhearing. As with many Shakespearian works, the play loses little relevance with the passage of time.

The matter at hand is the fuss, in some quarters, over the use of the E4 Environmental Living land use zone in the draft PLEP.

There has been all manner of rumour circulating about the dire consequences of such an action, from no longer being able to keep a horse to overwhelming red tape any time residents want to do anything on their property. The claim, in the same quarters, is that the use of the R5 Large Lot Residential zone would remove all of these constraints.

Without wanting to go over old ground, it’s worth reiterating some of the details.

Land Uses

In the context of the PLEP, land uses that are allowed in any area are determined by the list of permissible land uses within the relevant land use zone definition. In the present case, neither the E4 nor R5 zone, as presented in the Standard Instrument, permits any form of agricultural land use, with or without consent. Any agricultural land use that is to be permitted in either the E4 or R5 zone must be added to the local implementation of the Standard Instrument. The E4 and R5 zones are thus identical in this respect.

Further, consent to the use of land for a named purpose implies permission to use the land for ancillary or incidental purposes. In the present case, the primary use of the land is residential, in a rural environment. As such, the approval of a dwelling house implicitly authorises the use of the land for a range of uses normally associated with a dwelling on rural residential land. This could include the grazing of animals to manage grass growth or as a hobby, for recreation, or simply as pets. Once again, the E4 and R5 zones are identical in this respect.

Given that it is also possible to create identical lists of permitted land uses within either the E4 or R5 zone, the difference between the two comes down to their respective zone objectives, and given that these too can be augmented by local provisions, the difference lies primarily with the mandatory provisions.

Zone Objectives

The mandatory objectives of the E4 zone are:

• To provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values.
• To ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect on those values.

The mandatory objectives of the R5 zone are:

• To provide residential housing in a rural setting while preserving, and minimising impacts on, environmentally sensitive locations and scenic quality.
• To ensure that large residential lots do not hinder the proper and orderly development of urban areas in the future.
• To ensure that development in the area does not unreasonably increase the demand for public services or public facilities.
• To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

Most of the criticism of the use of the E4 zone seems to be focused on the first objective of that zone, and in particular that this would reinforce an environmental agenda that would constrain agricultural activities. This conclusion, however, could only be drawn from the narrowest of interpretations of the objective. There are in fact three values listed, only one of which need apply for the objective to be relevant. All the criticism centres on the identification of special ecological or scientific values. The third possibility, that the area is zoned this way simply because it has special aesthetic values seems not to rate much discussion at all.

Of course, aesthetic values are very subjective, but in the present case embrace the range of values displayed in the the rural residential landscape from Urila, through Burra, Royalla, Carwoola, Wamboin, Bywong and Sutton, whether they be associated with a lifestyle choice, hobby farming, or low intensity agriculture. As such, the E4 zoning in Palerang seeks to preserve and enhance the existing aesthetic value of the landscape through the continuation of the present range of rural activities.

One significant aspect of the R5 zone objectives that has been consistently overlooked is that they are intended to ensure that “large residential lots do not hinder the proper and orderly development of urban areas”. Lest there be any doubt over the intention of this particular objective, the Department of Planning [Department of Planning PN 07-001] advises that:

Note the direct contrast with the E4 zone objectives, which seek to preserve and enhance the existing rural aesthetic values, ensuring that residential development does not have an adverse effect on these values. The R5 zone objectives seek to promote a primarily residential environment and ensure that other activities do not inhibit residential development.

The draft PLEP uses the E4 zone in rural areas, where the preservation of rural aesthetic values is a primary objective, and the R5 zone adjacent to existing village areas, where it is considered more important to accommodate urban expansion.

Consistency

Given that there has also been mention of the need to maintain consistency with neighbouring LGAs, it should be noted that the parts of the former Yarrowlumla 1(d) Rural Residential zone that were transferred to Queanbeyan in 2004 have been zoned either E3 or E4. They have been zoned as such since the Queanbeyan LEP was gazetted, and there have been no reports of excessive bureaucratic red tape in the intervening period.

Furthermore, neither the Goulburn nor Queanbeyan LEPs allow agricultural activities in the R5 zone without development approval. Queanbeyan, however, does allow them in the E4 zone, which predominantly covers the former YLEP 1(d) zone areas. If anyone was worried about the future, they should be worried that being zoned R5 will ultimately be more restrictive and lead to a requirement for a DA for any agricultural pursuit, if they are allowed at all, given the present situation in neighbouring shires and the Department’s position that “the land will be principally for residential purposes”.

This whole matter seems to have arisen as a result of a misunderstanding over the permissibility of grazing in the new E4 zone, complicated by the failure of the Standard Instrument to define at what point an activity would be deemed to be commercial in nature. The lack of appreciation for what constitutes an ancillary land use, and is thus permissible regardless, has allowed the situation to escalate. It has since taken on a life of its own and, were it not for the venom that seems to have come in measure with the level of misunderstanding, would present a worthy adaptation of one of the The Bard’s plays.

We can only hope that our tale will nonetheless end with the resolution of misunderstandings and joyous reconciliation.

Epilogue

The simple fact is that the Standard Instrument is as defined by the NSW state government, and that’s what we have to work with. For rural residential areas there were effectively two choices, one that provided a means to ensure that rural residential areas would not constrain urban growth, recognised as a serious problem in the outer metropolitan regions, and one that provided a means to protect and enhance something that was special about an area.

There are few people who would not support the proposition that our rural residential areas are quite unique, and have a quality worthy of recognition. This quality is not singular in nature, supporting a broad range of rural lifestyles.

Nothing in the Standard Instrument is a perfect fit for our rural residential areas. It would have been great if the Standard Instrument included a good old Rural Residential zone, but it doesn’t. It would have been much more convenient if the Standard Instrument included a list of land uses that were a precise match for what currently exists, but it doesn’t. It would have helped a great deal if we could have defined our own land use zones or land uses, but this was not the intent of the Standard Instrument and that’s what we must work with.

Council chose a zoning that allowed us to protect and enhance something with special qualities, rather than one that was more focused on the accommodation of urban expansion. The fact that some people have chosen to interpret this goal as an ‘opportunistic greenie land grab’ is truly unfortunate—there are no Reds (or Greens) under anyone’s bed, just a desire to recognise and support something that the vast majority of the local population recognise as unique.