E-zone threat to coast farms

The NSW government recently moved to shorten the leash on the region’s councils by instituting a requirement that zoning decisions reflect existing land uses.

More robust verification techniques for environmental zones were also introduced.

However, farmers said by setting the primary land use by looking at the main function from the past two years would create loopholes for agricultural land to be rezoned.

The changes will be applied to the five North Coast councils of Ballina, Byron, Kyogle, Lismore and Tweed, and come after an independent review of environmental zonings, which attracted more than 400 public submissions.

Farmers also argued that placing multiple zones over small properties would render large amounts of farming land unproductive.

Planning Minister Rob Stokes said the reforms would help resolve “a long-standing challenge for the North Coast community in protecting the region’s pristine

environment while respecting and safeguarding its rich farmland”.

The review was called following uproar when councils put draft Local Environment Plans (LEPs) on display pushing for extensive environmental zones (E-zones).

LEPs throughout NSW were being updated and most were gazetted with little fanfare, but on the North Coast, councils appeared to see it as a chance to stamp a tough pro-environment footprint.

The draft LEP for Byron, for example, would have seen a doubling of land under E-zones.

Lismore branch president for property rights group Coo-ee, Kel Graham, was disappointed by the policy announcement.

Determining primary use based on just two years left properties that had scaled back agricultural production for a short period unprotected, he said.

This often occurred in drought and could impact properties that had operated as a farm for a hundred years, he said.

However, the state government said to reflect the nature of farming operations, primary use of the land was defined by the general or traditional use of the land, that is agricultural or rural use, not the specific use such as grazing.

“The primary use of the land won’t have changed simply because it hasn't been grazed for two years,” said a spokesman from the Planning and Environment Department.

“The two year period was considered an appropriate period to demonstrate an active change in the primary use of the land from one activity to another.”

Mr Graham said the reforms meant councils were still able to decide if they would introduce E-zones – based on loosely set criteria – and landowners had no form of recourse.

“There are massive areas of grazing land here that has scattered trees, a lot of them old trees, that farmers have left.

“They are classed as old growth forest, a criteria for the E-zone, in which agriculture can only happen with consent.

“That means if you want to repair fences, plant pasture, build stockyards, put up a shed or just a chook pen, or even just run cattle, you have to lodge a development application.

“Given the stated purpose of an E-zone is to protect, maintain and restore, it’s unlikely consent for any routine agriculture practice will be forthcoming.”

NSW Farmers executive councillor, Alstonville milk producer Kath Robb said while some of the reforms were a step forward, farmers still faced the prospect of multiple zonings on their land.

She said the significance of local food and fibre production needed to be recognised and red tape duplication did not benefit the environment.

“Planning policy must outline frameworks that promote, rather than restrict, local agricultural industries and recognise the environmental stewardship of farmers,” Mrs Robb said.