LAND USE IN RURAL ZONES: TWEED AND CABONNE SHIRES
Final report
Hedda Haugen Askland Michael Askew Jessica O’Neil Paul Stolk
October 2019
Land use in rural zones: Tweed and Cabonne Shires Full Report October 2019
This research project is funded by the NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI). The project has been conducted by researchers from the Centre for Social Research and Regional Futures (CSRRF), which form part of The University of Newcastle’s International Centre for Balanced Land Use (ICBLU).
UON Research team Dr Michael Askew (UON Project Director) Dr Hedda Haugen Askland (Chief Investigator) Dr Paul Stolk Ms Jessica O’Neil
DPI Project team Liz Rogers Selina Stillman Mary Kovac
Project Steering Committee Dr Michael Askew, CSRRF Dr Hedda Haugen Askland, CSRRF Mary Kovac, DPI Kate Lorimer-Ward, DPI Liz Rogers, DPI Selina Stillman, DPI
Citation details Askland HH, Askew M, O’Neil J, Stolk P. 2019. Land Use in Rural Zones: Tweed and Cabonne Shires. October 2019. Newcastle, NSW: The University of Newcastle, NSW Department of Primary Industries.
Corresponding author Dr Hedda Haugen Askland, Project Director CSRRF, Senior Lecturer School of Humanities and Social Science, Faculty of Education and Arts, The University of Newcastle. E [email protected] / T +61 2 4921 7067
Design – Hedda Haugen Askland Images – Paul Stolk, Selina Stilman, Andy Scott and Hedda Haugen Askland
This project has been approved by the University of Newcastle’s Human Research Ethics Committee, Approval No. H-2016-0104. All data contained in this report have been through a process of de- identification and no real names are used
LAND USE IN RURAL ZONES: TWEED AND CABONNE SHIRES
Final report
October 2019
Hedda Haugen Askland Michael Askew Jessica O’Neil Paul Stolk
A collaborative research project between The University of Newcastle and the NSW Department of Primary Industries
As the Chief Investigator of this project, I wish to thank all the Tweed and Cabonne residents, as well as key stakeholders, policy makers and planners, who contributed to the research.
I also wish to express my sincere gratitude to Liz Rogers, Selina Stillman and Mary Kovac for their support throughout the research process and for their contributions towards a productive collaborative research environment.
Hedda Haugen Askland Newcastle, October 2019
Executive summary diversity. The research employed a mixed methods approach, using both a quantitative survey with local landholders and qualitative Land Use in Rural Zones: Tweed and Cabonne interviews with landholders and key Shires is a collaborative research endeavour stakeholders from government, industry and the between the Centre for Social Research and community. Regional Futures (CSRRF) at The University of
Newcastle (UON) and the NSW Department of Key themes from those interviewed include: Primary Industries (DPI). The project seeks to
better understand how rural land is used and • People seek to settle in the country and managed, and, specifically, the implications of wish to live within rural areas because of small holdings for individuals, local communities, the distinct lifestyle that it offers. For some, councils and the State Government. The this is also related to a sense of continuity research is founded on the notion that, in order with past family farming practices and the to develop policy and planning frameworks that notion of legacy, in which productive can ensure the future viability of agriculture, as practices are seen as intertwined with the well as the resilience of rural communities, it is area and people’s sense of place. important to understand the dynamics of the • Perceived inflexibility in the planning system changing economic and social landscapes of is a concern and obstacle for those seeking the NSW countryside. to change their land use practices,
particularly when related to subdivision and The key objectives of the project are to: secondary rural industry or agritourism.
• Changes to agricultural practice and • develop an evidence-based understanding technological innovation have made some of how small and other holdings (with previously productive and profitable farms dwelling entitlement) are managed, and the non-competitive and non-profitable (e.g. relative productivity and uses for small and avocado and banana farms in Tweed). For other lots across the case study areas; most of those interviewed, technology was, • provide an understanding of how the however, regarded as a necessity or as a dwelling entitlement is exercised by positive that has bought opportunities for individual landholders and the implications other farming enterprises. in terms of agricultural practice, • Profits vary from year to year and there is a management and infrastructure; constant risk and uncertainty related to on- • identify issues faced by Governments (local farm income for most landholders, which and state) associated with managing small means most landholders will supplement holdings (with dwelling entitlement); and, income with off-farm work to smooth • identify best practice approaches for policy, variations. which supports planning decision making • The ability to generate adequate on-farm for land holdings with dwelling entitlement, income is related to people’s biographies, with a particular focus on small holdings. and off-farm income is not limited to small-
scale farmers. To address these objectives, the project • Biosecurity is a source of conflict between adopted a case study approach to enable neighbours and individuals believe their comparison and triangulation of results, biosecurity practices are superior to others. ultimately selecting the Tweed and Cabonne Conflict often arises due to perceived Shires as the research fields given their negligence, inexperience and absenteeism. agricultural productivity and diversity, proximity • Key stakeholders in both shires contend to growth centres (the Gold Coast and Orange that it is important to reduce the pressure respectively), and their climatic and topographic on agricultural land and limit fragmentation.
It was, however, a general consensus the opportunity to showcase and sell their amongst policy makers and planners that it products and by building up a sense of is not the size of holdings that is the key community. issue related to productive land use but • Key stakeholders and landholders in both dwelling entitlements. shires emphasised the need for a stronger • All of the interviewees used their dwelling right to farm policy, and potentially entitlement/s and argued that the dwelling regulation to help farmers overcome was essential for the management of the common land use conflicts. farm. • Cabonne and Tweed are both experiencing • All participants agreed that the overarching increasing populations. Ageing of the rural objective of all levels of government should population was noted as an issue by be to protect rural lands and agricultural participants in both shires. This issue will interests, whilst exploring ways to ensure need to be addressed by planners and the planning system remains nimble enough decision makers. Essentially, the to accommodate new developments and landholders called for a planning system contexts. that allows retiring farmers to generate an • Many of the interviewees, both key income, such as from extra dwellings either stakeholders and landholders, identified the on or off the farm, and younger farmers to role of intergenerational learning, and how take up the farming enterprise. much about working the land and managing • General agreement that there is a need for a farm comes from observation and a strong, yet flexible and transparent policy practice. and planning framework that enables • Whilst the landholders interviewed for the various land uses and holding sizes whilst project acknowledge that increasing protecting agricultural interests. property prices are a positive in terms of the value of their own property, they This document provides an overview of key expressed concern about the findings and implications and provides a starting consequences that this may have for the point for further discussion and analysis of future. Landholders said that they are emergent issues for landholders in rural zones worried that the only way young people can across NSW. get into the market would be through intergenerational farming, which is limited and also made difficult due to the rules of subdivision and dwelling entitlements. • Technology and climate change significantly influence farming practices and profitability. • Intensive agriculture gets pushed out as the boundaries of the rural-residential/urban area expands. This presents issues related to coexistence. If residential properties are placed next to an intensive agricultural holding, it may become a cause of tension and conflict. • Networks and collectives are particularly important for small holders and micro- producers. Local markets were mentioned in both areas as a very positive initiative that supports individual farmers, both through
Table of contents
Chapter 1 - Introduction ...... 12 1.1 Background to the study ...... 13 1.2 Research objectives ...... 14 1.3 Methodology ...... 15 1.3.1 Case study areas ...... 15 1.3.2 Research protocol ...... 20 1.3.3 Data collection ...... 21 1.3.4 Analysis ...... 22 1.4 Research outputs ...... 23 1.4.1 This report ...... 23 Chapter 2 - Land use in rural zones ...... 25 2.1 Minimum lot size ...... 25 2.1.1 What is a small holding? ...... 26 2.2 Cabonne: land use zones ...... 26 2.2.1 Cabonne – rural subdivision and MLS ...... 27 2.3 Tweed: land use zones ...... 28 2.4 Conclusion: objectives of rural zones – key differences between case study areas ...... 30 Chapter 3 - Connections to the land ...... 31 3.1 Connection to landholding ...... 32 3.1.1 Why do people want to live in the area? ...... 32 3.1.2 Rural lifestyle ...... 34 3.2 Conclusion: key issues ...... 34 Chapter 4 - Land use practices and productivity ...... 36 4.1 What do people do on their land? ...... 36 4.2 Productivity and profitability ...... 38 4.3 Management and investment ...... 40 4.4 Income ...... 42 4.5 Key challenges and risks ...... 45 4.6 Biosecurity ...... 46 4.6.1 New class of landholders ...... 47 4.6.2 Biosecurity as source of conflict ...... 49 4.6.3 Addressing land use conflict underpinned by biosecurity concerns ...... 49 4.7 Conclusion: key issues ...... 49 Chapter 5 - Lot size, dwelling entitlements and planning ...... 51 5.1 Small holdings: what and why ...... 52 5.2 Intentions to subdivide ...... 53 5.3 Motivations to subdivide ...... 54 5.4 Opposition to subdivision ...... 55 5.5 The role of the dwelling entitlement ...... 55 5.6 Role of governments ...... 57 5.7 Conclusion: key issues ...... 58 Chapter 6 - Changing contexts and land use practices ...... 60 6.1 Quality of land: agricultural lands ...... 61 6.2 Knowledge ...... 61 6.3 Property prices ...... 62 6.4 Technology ...... 63 6.5 Climate change ...... 65
6.6 Conclusion: key issues ...... 66 Chapter 7 - Rural neighbours ...... 68 7.1 Changing social landscapes ...... 68 7.2 Collaboration and networks ...... 69 7.3 Land use conflict ...... 70 7.4 Conclusion: key issues ...... 72 Chapter 8 - Future ...... 74 8.1 Ageing communities ...... 74 8.2 Succession ...... 74 8.3 Concerns regarding policy and planning ...... 75 8.4 Conclusion: key issues ...... 76 Chapter 9 - Conclusion: implications and recommendations ...... 78 Changing nature of rural areas ...... 78 Small holdings and productivity ...... 78 Dwellings and productivity ...... 79 Conserving agricultural lands ...... 79 The role of off-farm income ...... 80 The attractiveness of the rural lifestyle ...... 80 Challenges for the future ...... 80 Future resilience and planning considerations ...... 81 Recommendations for governments ...... 81 Bibliography ...... 83
List of figures
Figure 1.1 Map of NSW……………..………………………………………………………………....12 Figure 1.2 Map of Tweed Shire………………………………………………………………………..14 Figure 1.3 Map of Cabonne Shire………..……………………………………………………………17 Figure 2.1 Example Lot Size Map, Cabonne LEP: Lot Size Map – Sheet LSZ_001……….……….26 Figure 2.2 Example Lot Size Map, Tweed LEP: Lot Size Map – Sheet LSZ_001………….……….27 Figure 3.1 Length of time owning or managing land holding…………..……………………………..29 Figure 3.2 Top five motives for owning or leasing rural land………………………………………….30 Figure 4.1 Rural land holding ownership and management arrangements…………………………34 Figure 4.2 Primary purpose of land holding…….…………………………………………………….35 Figure 4.3 Top seven land use activities…..…………………………………………………………..35 Figure 4.4 Land holding profitability (a) ………………………………………………………………36 Figure 4.5 Land holding profitability (b) ……………….……………………………………………...37 Figure 4.6 Improvements made to land holding in last 5 years………………………….……………38 Figure 4.7 Financial role of off-farm income……………...…………………………………………...40 Figure 4.8 Off-farm income and land use……………….………………………………………….....42 Figure 4.9 Key challenges…....………………………………………………………………………...43 Figure 4.10 Opinions about biosecure practices…………………..…………………………………..45 Figure 5.1 Size of rural land holding…………………………………………………………………...49 Figure 5.2 Intention to sub-divide in the next five years………………………………………………52 Figure 5.3 Interest level in sub-division of land holding………………...………………………….…52 Figure 6.1 Self-assessed quality of land……………………………………….……………………...58 Figure 6.2 Self-assessed quality of land x LGA………………………………...…………………..…59 Figure 7.1 Experience of problems with neighbours in past three years….………………..……….67 Figure 7.2 Primary purpose of neighbouring land………………..………………………………..….68 Figure 7.3 Current status of neighbouring land use conflict…………………………………………69
List of images
Front page Cows in Tweed Page 3 Cherry blossoms in Cabonne Page 5 Bamboo in Tweed Page 15 Fields in Tweed with Mount Warning in the background Page 18 Sheep grazing in Cabonne Page 31 Welcome to Cabonne, Australia’s food basket Page 32 Cows grazing at a creek in Tweed Page 46 Vegies in the Tweed Page 55 Canola fields in Cabonne Page 56 Tweed River, Murwillumbah Page 64 Tweed landscape and mill Page 66 Rural-urban interface in Tweed Page 69 Apple orchard, Cabonne Page 70 Vineyard and Towac Valley, Cabonne
10 List of tables
Table 2.1 Land use zones under the Cabonne LEP 2012…………………………………………..24 Table 2.2 Objectives of rural zones in Cabonne………………………………………….…..….24-25 Table 2.3 Land use zones under the Tweed LEP 2014………………………………….……...... 26 Table 2.4 Objectives of rural zones in Tweed…………………………………………….……...27-28 Table 3.1 Interviewed landholders – length of time owning or managing land holding……...... ….30 Table 3.2 Key motives for moving to the shires……………………………………………………...32 Table 3.3 Key issues identified in the data related to place attachment………………………...….33 Table 3.4 Key themes related to place attachment, showing variation between shires and landholder groups……………………………………………………………………….…33 Table 4.1 Schematic breakdown of key responses in terms of productivity and profitability….….39 Table 4.2 Off farm income by shires………………………………………………………………….41 Table 4.3 Key challenges in managing property, emphasised in interview data…………………...44 Table 4.4 Key issues identified in the data related to land use practice and productivity……...…48 Table 4.5 Key themes related to land use practice and productivity, showing variation between shires and landholder groups………………………………………………………….…48 Table 5.1 Benefits and costs with small holdings……………………………………………….50-51 Table 5.2 Intentions to subdivide by shires……………………………………………………….…51 Table 5.3 Key issues identified in the data related to lot size, dwelling entitlements and planning ……………………………………………………………………………………57 Table 5.4 Key themes related to lot size, dwelling entitlements and planning, showing variation between shires and landholder groups………………………………………………..…57 Table 6.1 Key issues identified in the data related to changing contexts and land use practices……………………………………………………………………………………65 Table 6.2 Key themes related changing contexts and land use practice, showing variation between shires and landholder groups………………………………………..…………65 Table 7.1 Key issues identified in the data related to rural neighbours…………...…………………70 Table 7.2 Key themes related to rural neighbours, showing variation between shires and landholder groups……………………………………………………….…………………71 Table 8.1 Key issues identified in the data related to the future…………………...... …………74-75 Table 8.2 Key themes related to the future, showing variation between shires and landholder groups………………………………………………………………………………..……..75
11 Chapter 1 Concurrently, for some, the changing value of agricultural land presents opportunities that can Introduction be challenging under existing planning rules and regulations, particularly as this relates to The landscape of rural New South Wales subdivision, dwelling entitlements and multi- (NSW) has changed significantly over the years, generational occupancy on farms. Regulations particularly in coastal areas or areas close to of subdivision and dwelling entitlement hold the major rural and regional towns. Rural potential to protect agricultural land and landscapes have become increasingly establish long-term community benefits. They fragmented as urban-based individuals seeking do, however, also present limitations to a rural lifestyle, often supported by high incomes individuals seeking a change in land use or and financial flexibility, have driven increases in lifestyle outcomes. At the centre of this is, thus, the numbers of small holdings in rural zones. a vexed problem in which individual interests These holdings have expanded in number as a and well-being may be at odds with local, state result of past and ongoing planning decisions and national priorities and strategies. often focussed on rural settlement and lifestyle. Determining whether future rural landscapes Accordingly, new types of land use dynamics should be subject to more settlement and, have transpired. subsequently restricting productive opportunities and capabilities, or retained for NSW is facing significant demographic change agriculture, is fundamental to future planning as regional cities and larger towns increase in choices. size and the smaller villages, towns and farmland populations decline. At the same time, In order to develop policy and planning Australia is producing more agricultural output frameworks that can ensure the long-term with fewer farmers and bigger farm sizes. These sustainability of agriculture, as well as the changes are driven by economies of scale, as resilience of rural communities, it is important to well as technological and generational change understand the dynamics of the changing (Salt 2018). There is increased pressure placed economic and social landscapes of the NSW on agricultural communities due to metropolitan countryside. Central to this are questions interests and a new type of resident, so-called related to rural land use planning and small ‘tree changers’, who seek a distinct lifestyle holdings. What role do small holdings play in associated with rural milieus. In many rural agricultural productivity? Can initiatives related contexts, the archetypal small-scale farmer has to small holdings address current and future been replaced by urban dwellers who often do challenges? not come from a farming background. With the increased metropolitan interest and the new These are some of the questions that underpin class of rural resident, prices of quality farmland the research project Land use in rural zones: have increased, and a new economic landscape Tweed and Cabonne Shires. The project, which has, subsequently, emerged across the NSW is a collaborative research endeavour between countryside. the Centre for Social Research and Regional Futures (CSRRF) at The University of The changes that have unfolded place Newcastle (UON) and the NSW Department of agricultural land under increased pressures, Primary Industries (DPI), seeks to better accentuating the imperative to retain agricultural understand how rural land is used and land for agriculture and ensure it is not lost to managed, and, specifically, the implications of non-agricultural uses. As the rural countryside small holdings for individuals, local communities, has gained a new investment potential, farmers councils and the State Government. Rural land seeking to expand or purchase properties in has a myriad of uses, with distinct categories certain areas are, however, often priced out. related to the business of agricultural
12 production. Definitions of rural land utilisation based research is required to provide guidance offered by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and clarification on the usage and management include those of: primary production of small holdings in rural areas. (operational primary production business) and hobby farming (not operational business in The potential increase of rural settlement, and relation to productive activities) (ATO 2015). the subsequent need for infrastructure, services The two definitions reflect different scales of and amenities, makes the question of dwelling farming, with the former generally referring to entitlements on small holdings a particularly larger farms and the latter to smaller holdings. important one. As identified in a report on small Small holdings are, however, not necessarily rural lots in Victoria, when ‘not properly unproductive, nor are they unviable for managed or located, the introduction of agricultural business. For both Cabonne and dwellings can bring land use conflicts and Tweed areas, small holdings also support viable detrimentally impact both the nearby agricultural agricultural businesses related to horticultural activity and the dwelling itself’. Equally, operations, which have a high capital investment ‘[d]ispersed rural dwellings can also be an on smaller holdings. This observation is at the unnecessary burden on Council resources due core of this project, which, ultimately, seeks to to the increased cost of servicing them’ (Spiire identify how local landholders and key 2012: 5). The management of small holdings stakeholders (planners and policy makers) with or without dwelling entitlements can inflate perceive small holdings as part of the the value of rural land and Council rates, which, agricultural landscape, as well as challenges subsequently, may compromise the associated with, and opportunities presented maintenance and resilience of existing by, small holdings within rural zones. agricultural practice or agricultural expansion in the future. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence 1.1 Background to the study points to an increase in small holdings with dwelling entitlement across NSW, thus CSRRF was initially requested by DPI to necessitating further exploration of the reported establish and conduct a research project growth, holding usage, relative productivity, and focusing specifically on small holdings with a variation in related planning instruments across dwelling entitlement in NSW. Policies the regions. concerning small holdings with dwelling entitlements present a particular predicament Whilst the initial focus of the project was for the NSW State Government and Local entirely on small holdings, further project Councils: on the one hand, in areas with limited development activities between CSRRF and opportunities for residence, small holdings with DPI revealed the need for broader investigation dwelling entitlements present an opportunity to of land use in rural zones. The widening build the economic and social resilience of rural research scope included a particular emphasis communities; on the other hand, such holdings on exploring participant perspectives on can potentially lead to a concentration of agricultural productivity in modern rural dwellings in agricultural areas and, environments and the role of planning in subsequently, compromise agricultural facilitating increased productivity. The production and practice. The policies interaction between various landholding types concerning small holdings and the management and sizes, the diversity of activities, the financial of small holdings with dwelling entitlements position of rural landholdings, and biosecurity have implications that span the levels of state and management practices were further points and local governments, as well as local of interest for the research. community resilience and individual futures. Accordingly, planning for small holdings represents a significant issue where evidence-
13 1.2 Research objectives productivity and uses for small and other lots across the case study areas; Through a comparative analysis of two distinct • provide an understanding of how the dwelling case study areas (Tweed and Cabonne Shires), entitlement is exercised by individual the study aims to understand how land holdings landholders and the implications in terms of with dwelling entitlements are used and how agricultural practice, management and they form part of agricultural practice, and to infrastructure; explore the implications of these functions for • identify issues faced by Governments (local the agriculture sector and communities. and state) associated with managing small holdings (with dwelling entitlement); and, The objectives of the project are to: • identify best practice approaches for policy, • develop an evidence-based understanding of which supports planning decision making for how small and other holdings (with dwelling land holdings with dwelling entitlement, with a entitlement) are managed, and the relative particular focus on small holdings.
Figure 1.1 – Map of NSW (By Astrokey44 – © Astrokey44, this version cropped, CC BY-SA 3.0, (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2931168)
14 1.3 Methodology depth of analysis through qualitative interviews and, as such, insight into underlying reasons, Seeking to capture the complexity of a single motivations, opinions and perceptions. This issue whilst enabling comparison and approach was deemed ideal for the project as it: triangulation of results, the project adopted a facilitates the combination of exploratory and case study approach, using mixed methods. measurable research; enables investigation of Case study research is a pragmatic, flexible the research topic at different theoretical levels; research approach, which is ‘capable of and, supports a research design that enables providing comprehensive in-depth exploration and interpretation. understanding of a diverse range of issues’ (Harrison et al. 2017: 1). Based on the DPI’s 1.3.1 Case study areas rich on-the ground knowledge of primary The two case study areas for the project are production within the State, six possible case Tweed and Cabonne Shires; the former being a study areas (Tweed, Cabonne, Yass, Tamworth, coastal, northern shire and, the latter, a shire in Dungog and Coffs Harbour) were identified as the Central Tablelands (see Figure 1.1). Both potential research sites. A basic baseline study shires are known for their agricultural was conducted to narrow down the case productivity, natural beauty and alternative studies, with Tweed and Cabonne Shires lifestyle. They are both close to growing regional identified as two regions that would provide rich centres (Gold Coast and Orange) and within opportunities for comparison because of their relative proximity to urban centres (Brisbane and geographical spread, variation in the subdivision Sydney), making them attractive destinations for standard known as the minimum lot size (MLS) people seeking an ‘escape to the country’. They designed to protect land in holdings for present unique case studies due to their commercial agriculture, diversity of agricultural geographical spread, diversity of agricultural industries, difference in climatic and industries and their diverse climatic and topographic variables, and emergent agricultural topographic characteristics. industries and populations. Tweed Shire The CSRRF research team developed the The Tweed Shire is located in the north-east research protocol in collaboration with the DPI, corner of NSW. It is bounded by the NSW which has provided support throughout the shires of Byron, Lismore and Kyogle. The research process and provided valuable NSW/Queensland border forms the northern regional insights. The project was established perimeter of the Shire and separates the twin as an in-depth study, using a mixed methods towns of Tweed Heads (NSW) and Coolangatta approach to identify responsive patterns to (QLD). As a region, Tweed prides itself on the policies on the management of rural land within network of local communities that extend across the two case study areas. A mixed method the bowl of the Wollumbin Mt Warning Caldera, approach refers to a methodology that involves its quirky charm, ‘quiet country hamlets, historic collecting, analysing and integrating both river ports and seaside villages’ (Destination quantitative and qualitative data for the purpose Tweed 2017: np). The region offers a dramatic of investigating a particular phenomenon (Leech natural landscape that combines World and Onwuegbuzie 2010). The premise of the Heritage rainforest, mountain ranges, fertile approach is that combining qualitative and green fields, beaches and surf breaks. The quantitative methodologies provide a better Tweed Valley is also known for its artistic understanding of the research problem at hand character, boasting the highest number of than either one would do alone (Cresswell and artists per capita of any Australian shire Plano Clark 2007); it provides the breadth of (Destination Tweed 2017). In 2016, the quantitative research and opportunity to estimated residential population of Tweed Shire generalise from the findings, whilst enabling was 93,458 (ABS 2016), up from 88,427 in
15 2011 (ABS 2011). The age categories of 50- impact of local plant disease (Banana Panama 59, 60-69, 70-84 and 85+ show strong growth disease). Many of these banana farms now grow from 2011 to 2016, above NSW averages and a number of other crops hence not just relying across all sub-regions of the Shire. The on bananas alone as a single crop. Nonetheless, dominant 5-year age category in the Tweed is agriculture continues to contribute significantly 55-59 years, with the 2026 dominant age to the local, regional and NSW economy. category predicted to be 60-64 years (ABS Agricultural industries support and are 2016). The administrative centre of Tweed is supported by the Shire’s Condong Sugar Mill, Murwillumbah, a regional town with 7,032 Murwillumbah livestock saleyard, local transport residents (ABS 2016); down from 8,523 companies and a number of vegetable and fruit residents in 2011 (ABS 2011). wholesalers. The high quality of products from the region is, in part, related to the rich volcanic Tweed Shire has a rich history of agricultural soils of the Cudgen Plateau, which is an area of production. Up until the 1970s, small family-run State significance. The region is marked by its dairies and piggeries covered the rural subtropical climate and relatively reliable rainfall, landscape along with sugarcane, vegetable which suit a variety of crops. crops and banana plantations. Sugarcane continues to dominate the floodplains in the Given Tweed Shire’s proximity to the Gold lower part of the Valley, whilst most of the Coast and Brisbane, the area is heavily dairies and associated piggeries have been influenced by the South-East Queensland replaced with beef cattle or alternative land residential market, one of Australia’s fastest uses. growing metropolitan regions (Urban Enterprise and EnPlan 2013). As such, competition for The banana industry remains a contributor to the rural land from amenity purchases and local economy but has reduced in size in recent residential development is considered a key years as farmers struggle to compete with large issue facing agricultural expansion opportunities scale farms in Northern Queensland and the and productivity in the Shire. The proximity of
Figure 1.2 – Map of Tweed Shire © 2017 Google (https://goo.gl/CCQrY1)
16 the Shire, however, to the Gold Coast airport been a high turnover of rural land and and Brisbane city markets also present substantial increases in land values and opportunities for agriculture that are anecdotally property ownership involving a considerable considered as underutilised potential. number of new owners into the Shire (Sinclair and Curtis 2017). The North Coast Regional Plan 2036, released in 2017, indicates that ‘the coastal settlements As will be explained in Section 2.2, the NSW of the Tweed Shire have experienced some of planning system typically uses ‘minimum lot the strongest growth on the (NSW) North sizes’ (MLS) for rural land subdivision and for Coast (NSW DPE 2017a). The popularity of the determination of dwelling permissibility. A 40 Tweed Coast is expected to continue into the hectare (ha) MLS for subdivision of rural land, future, particularly as opportunities for which was introduced by the State Government Greenfield housing on the Gold Coast become to protect the productive potential for rural lots more limited’. The balance between population and to reduce fragmentation of the rural growth and preservation of the multi-functional landscape, is today common throughout NSW. landscape that agriculture presents will continue Local councils do, however, have the ability to to be a challenging issue for the Shire. alter the MLS for their LGA in accordance with State legislative criteria (Urban Enterprise and Planning context EnPlan 2013). Tweed Council applied a MLS of Substantial subdivision of productive agricultural 40ha to the majority of rural land in the Shire land has occurred in the Tweed Shire to date, under the gazettal of the Tweed Local creating a highly fragmented rural landscape. Environmental Plan 1987. During the past decade in particular, there has
17 As will be detailed further in Section 2.4, Tweed consequence of past planning decisions and to Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP) maintains consider the vision for the area’s rural zones and a 40ha MLS for most land in zone RU1 Primary the planning policies to support this. The Production and zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Council has developed a range of background which covers most private rural land. In addition, documents that will assist in developing the a 10ha MLS is applied in Zone RU1 Primary strategy, which will link to a number of the Production within the Cudgen/Duranbah red Council’s other corporate plans, including the soil farming area as well as a small area in Community Strategic Plan 2013 to 2023, Rural Upper Burringbar and two small areas west of Villages Strategy and Sustainable Agriculture Chillingham (Urban Enterprise and EnPlan Strategy. 2013). Rural subdivision in the Tweed Shire has occurred in accordance with past and present Cabonne Shire MLS and through other historical provisions that The Cabonne Council area is located in the have since been restricted. As the Urban Central Tablelands of NSW, about 290 Enterprise and Environment Plan (2013) kilometres west of Sydney. The Cabonne explains, these include: Council area is bounded by Dubbo City, the Wellington Council area and the Mid-Western ● subdivision of lots less than the prevailing Regional Council area in the north, the Bathurst MLS through the use of SEPP 1 Regional Council area in the east, Orange City (Development Standards) that initially and Blayney and Cowra Shires in the south, and permitted variations to MLS with Council Forbes and Parkes Shires in the west. The Shire consent; has an estimated population of 13,625 (ABS ● concessional lot subdivision provisions, 2016), up from 12,821 in 2011 (ABS 2011). established with the introduction of MLS, From 2011 to 2016, the largest changes in the which allowed for the subdivision of Shire’s age structure were in the age groups of undersized lots with a dwelling permitted; 55+ years (ABS 2016), where reasonably past rural residential provisions, which were strong growth were recorded. The linked to specific roads and have allowed administrative centre of Cabonne is Molong, a significant small lot subdivision (with dwellings small town of 2,577 people (ABS 2016), permitted) along those roads; and, growing from 1,629 people in 2011 (ABS ● rural land sharing communities (multiple 2011). Cabonne is known for its agricultural occupancy) previously created under the products, its natural environment and its rich provisions of SEPP 15. history and heritage. Referred to as ‘Australia’s
food basket’, the Shire prides itself on its fresh A lot size analysis of the Tweed Shire in 2014 food, including dairy products, beef, lamb and indicates that there are 657 lots exceeding venison, and wine (Cabonne Council 2017). 40ha that are zoned RU1 or RU2. This equates to 10% of the total number of lots in these Planning Context zones whilst accounting for 52% of the RU1 Cabonne Council recognises, identifies and and RU2 land area. With regard to promotes itself as a food basket but past ‘landholdings’, 1590 landholdings—equating to planning priorities has seen the default priority 34% of all properties zoned RU1 and RU2 and to residential settlement and ongoing 77% of the rural land area—exceed 40ha. In subdivision. With Orange—a burgeoning terms of the smaller lots, 649 lots (123 regional centre—at its doorstep, Cabonne landholdings) are less than 0.1ha and 2684 Council has identified an opportunity to take landholdings are between 1ha and 10ha (GHD advantage of regional population growth. Land 2015). Tweed Shire Council are currently use strategies in Cabonne are characterised by developing a Rural Land Strategy to explore the the relatively late introduction of concessional issues being faced in the rural environment as a
18 Figure 1.3 – Map of Cabonne Shire © 2017 Google (https://goo.gl/KkEJ8g)
allotments to the Council’s planning scheme the larger holdings in the Shire having multiple (1991), as well as the use of a 100ha dwelling entitlements. They were originally subdivision standard. Council did offer a intended to support family succession planning delayed commitment to review the impact of the or to provide for worker housing on the farm. 100ha subdivision standard, though this Contrary to intensions, however, in many cases commitment has not been implemented and, as lots were broken off and sold with the additional will be outlined in Chapter 2, 100ha continues dwelling entitlement, subsequently enhancing to be the subdivision standard of the Shire. In the number of lots used for residential purposes 1991, The Cabonne Rural Strategy 1991 was within the rural zone. In Cabonne’s case, these developed. The Strategy has a strong focus on lots were often transformed to self-contained planning for residential land uses in rural zones, hobby farms or used by young intending farmers with less attention paid to protecting important to be able to acquire more land for agriculture agricultural land. (preliminary draft DCP notes for the general rural zone, July 1991). The lots were often The emphasis on concessional allotments, approved with the potential for another dwelling small lots that are legally generated off a larger entitlement on application. A number of lots farm in the rural zone (introduced in the 1991 retained this consent and a level of preliminary rural strategy), is particularly important to the development—typically a driveway, access planning context in Cabonne. Concessional lots road—eventuated. were introduced as an interim state-wide concession, aimed at supporting farmers to Concessional lots were removed as part of the retire and remain on the main site at the time State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural subdivision controls were introduced in the Lands) 2008, which was implemented across 1960s and 70s. Essentially, what this meant the State. This policy recognises how such lots was that an additional dwelling would be have been misused and led to unplanned allowed on the holding, which—in contrast to residential development in areas of commercial Tweed, where concessional allotments have not farming, subsequently leading to land been widely applied—has resulted in many of fragmentation, land use conflict and increased
19
demand for infrastructure and services in remote • defining and describing land holding; areas. Even with this action, concessional lots • demographics; continue to mark land use dynamics in areas • location and neighbourhood; such as Cabonne. • connection to land holding; • motivations for living and working in rural 1.3.2 Research protocol zones; The project utilised two key strategies for data • dwelling entitlements; collection: a quantitative online survey and semi- • future plans for land holding, including structured interviews with landholders and key subdivision and management actions; • stakeholders. land holding purpose and activities; • production and income;
• investment and infrastructure; Online survey • An online quantitative questionnaire with fixed biosecurity; and, • challenges. responses was used to gather data on the use
and management of land holdings in the two Semi-structured interviews research areas. The Land Use in Rural Zones Qualitative data was gathered through semi- Survey: Tweed and Cabonne Shires was set up structured interviews with landholders and key and disseminated through Survey Monkey. The stakeholders. The interviews were conducted in survey was open from September 2016 – the period April – December 2016. Most of the January 2017. The survey consisted of 36 interviews were conducted face-to-face as part questions, which covered the following themes: of six fieldtrips—four to Cabonne and two to
20 Tweed—with a few interviews conducted over 2016. Potential participants self-nominated for the phone. The interviews lasted between 1-2 participation in the research and were hours and were conducted at a place selected on the basis of their participation in convenient to the interviewee. and knowledge of rural agricultural land use practices in Tweed and Cabonne. The local landholder interviews covered the • Key stakeholders – Key stakeholders were following themes: recruited through DPI’s existing network or through publicly available information. The key • lifestory; decision makers all had a public profile and • ownership, use and management of rural could, therefore, be contacted directly by the holdings; research team without compromising the • planning systems, regulations and National Standards for Ethical Conduct in opportunities; Human Research (2007). A strategic • infrastructure and investment; approach was utilised, by which individuals in • assistance and needs; and, key policy and planning positions within the • expectations and future objectives. two shires were recruited. Key stakeholders included: local and state government representatives, policy makers and planners in Key stakeholder interviews covered the the area with expertise, responsibility and/or following themes: knowledge of small holdings and associated
issues. • land use within the Shire; • planning decisions and policy development; Ethics • use and management of small holdings; and, Participation in this research has been voluntary. • key issues and concerns. The survey was anonymous and only people Recruitment who desired to participate in an interview The target populations for the study were provided their contact details. To ensure landholders and key stakeholders in the two complete anonymity of the survey, survey shires. The two participant groups were responses were not linked to the indication of recruited using two different approaches: interest for further participation. All the qualitative material have been de-identified and • Landholders – Landholders were identified no real names are used in this report or any through their association with peak bodies other publications resulting from this research. and key stakeholders, or through self- nomination. Key stakeholders and peak bodies 1.3.3 Data collection were asked to act as a third party to distribute The data collection took place in the period information about the study to their associates April 2016 – January 2017. During this period, and members in the form of: an email invitation the survey was open for four months to participate; flyers and/or posters; and, (September 2016 – January 2017). A total of social media. Information was distributed 208 individuals participated in the study, of through the Council newsletters, as well as which 198 were landholders and 20 were key DPI’s regional network. In addition, local stakeholders. Landholders participated either media (newspapers and radio) were through the survey (n=142) or interviews approached and asked to run a story about (n=56). Comparatively, there were more the study to ensure that information was participants from Tweed (n=121) than Cabonne spread to as wide an audience as possible. A (n=97). The lower number of participants from story and interview with Dr Paul Stolk was Cabonne is anticipated to be a reflection of the subsequently conducted by local ABC radio in timing of the research, which coincided with the Cabonne, and the Tweed Daily News ran a story about the project on the 21st November contested council amalgamation of Cabonne and Orange Shires. The amalgamation
21 preoccupied many of the potential research Interview participants participants who stated they did not have time In total, 76 individuals were interviewed for the to meet with the research team due to their project: 33 in Cabonne (10 key stakeholders involvement in the debate. and 23 local landholders) and 43 in Tweed (10 key stakeholders and 33 local landholders). The Survey participants majority of participants were men (n=49), with A total of 142 participants completed the only 27 women interviewed for the project. The survey.1 Key sample demographics include: interview participants in both shires included a combination of treechangers, long-term farmers, • Older males: the survey was dominated by generational farmers, as well as individuals with older males, with approximately half the survey micro (less than 5 acres), small (Tweed: less respondents being between the age of 55-69 than 40ha/Cabonne: 100ha), larger holdings (n=61) and male respondents accounting for (Tweed: 40ha-100ha/Cabonne more than almost two-thirds of the sample. 100ha). All the participants were over the age of • Tweed majority: more respondents came 30. from the Tweed Shire (n=78) than Cabonne
(n=50), but both areas were well-represented. 1.3.4 Analysis • Families: Couples, either with dependent The analysis used established qualitative and children at home or non-dependent children quantitative data analytic techniques designed living away from home, made up 66% (n=77) to maximise sensitivity of emergent themes and of the respondent sample. common patterns within both data sets. • Single holdings: single-lot land owners were Standard analytical software packages were clearly the largest group of respondents (n=105, 76%) used for both the qualitative and quantitative • Wide range of holding sizes: almost the analysis. entire spectrum of land holding sizes was captured by the survey, with 40.1-100 Quantitative analysis hectares the largest response category The quantitative data have been analysed using (n=29).2 The next two largest response the in-built analysis software in Survey Monkey, categories were 101-400ha and 1.1-5ha as well as the standard statistical software (both n=20), which illustrates the diversity of package, SPSS. land holding sizes represented in the survey. • Primary Producers: Full-time and part-time Qualitative analysis (hobby) farming activity on the land-holding The qualitative data have been analysed using accounted for 79 of 122 responses (65%). established data analysis frameworks designed Residential was the next highest response to identify emergent themes and commonly held category, with 19 responses. In response to a narratives in exploratory qualitative research. more detailed follow-up question, beef cattle Interview recordings were transcribed by a farming received the most responses (60 of professional transcription service or members of 102 responses or 58%). Fruit growing (38%), the research team. Following standard sheep farming (30%) and cropping (25%) guidelines, the researchers developed a were also common activities. codebook, coded and compared transcripts. Common and contrasting themes have been analysed, related to the research questions and existing scholarly work on management
1 It should be noted that not all survey responses add up to 2 Note that the Minimum Lot Size (MLS) for Tweed is 40ha 142, as there are missing responses for certain questions. and Cabonne is 100ha. For example, on Shire, there are 128 responses despite 142 individuals completing the survey.
22 strategies of agricultural land, urbanisation and 4. Land use practices and productivity – this viability of agricultural economies, farmland section includes an overview of the themes: protection and agricultural land fragmentation, productivity and profitability; management and biosecurity, sustainability and resilience of rural investment; income; key challenges and risks; areas. Variables such as infrastructure, climate, biosecurity. produce and agricultural activity, local 5. Lot size, dwelling entitlements and environment, council management and planning – small holdings – what and why; economic considerations were employed in the intentions to subdivide; motivations to subdivide; opposition to subdivide; the role of analysis when looking for patterns and trends. the dwelling entitlement; key concerns; role of
governments. The research team used the qualitative research 6. Changing contexts and land use software, NVivo, for the analysis. This software practices – this section includes an overview facilitates analysis of unstructured data and of the themes: quality of land; knowledge; allows simultaneous exploration of conceptual property prices; technology; climate change. ideas (big picture) and investigation of the detail 7. Rural neighbours – this section includes an of the qualitative material. overview of the themes: changing social landscapes; collaboration and networks; land 1.4 Research outputs use conflict. 8. Future – this section includes an overview of The primary outputs of the study is this report, the themes: ageing communities; succession; Land use in rural zones: Tweed and Cabonne concerns regarding policy and planning. Shires – Full report (Askland, Askew, O’Neil, 9. Conclusion: implications and Stolk 2017). The report offers an overview and recommendations – this section presents a discussion of the main findings. In addition to brief overview and discussion of the key this report, the findings of the research may be findings and their implications in light of the overarching aims and objectives of the disseminated through academic journal papers research. and conference presentations. Potential
publications will be developed during 2019. Each of the analytical chapters (3-7) have a
summary table at the end, which highlight the 1.4.1 This report key findings within the chapter. It should be In this report, the main findings of the research noted that further study is required for inference are presented, with a short discussion of the key to be made from the findings of the two case implications. The report has nine chapters, of study areas to other LGAs; both councils have a which Chapters 3-7 are structured in line with unique subdivision policy and, as such, the the main themes emerging through the analysis: findings must be seen in relation to their specific
policy context. It is, however, anticipated that 1. Introduction – this section provides the background to the study and outlines research the overarching issues identified through these objectives, methodology and research two case study areas will bring forward key outputs. concerns and issues that the State Government, 2. Land use in rural zones – this section as well as local councils, should take into briefly outlines the key issues related to MLS consideration when planning and developing and small holdings, as established in policy policy related to small holdings, dwelling and literature. entitlements, coexistence and agricultural 3. Connections to the land – this section productivity. These will be addressed in Chapter includes an overview of the themes: 9. connection to land holding; agriculture as lifestyle.
23 1.4.2 Limitations of research This project is an exploratory study that aims to gain a better understanding of land use in rural zones, specifically as it relates to questions of holding size and dwelling entitlements. The project methodology is characteristic of such a study, adopting semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions and a survey design seeks data that will allow us to draw a picture of land use rather than prove a hypothesis or seek truth. The material presented in this report should, thus, not be read for statistical significance or inference. Rather, as an exploratory study, the main value of this report is that it highlights some of the key issues, themes and concerns related to land use, small holdings and dwelling entitlements in rural zones. This can be used as a starting point for more quantitative work on land use as it manifests within different areas of NSW.
It should be noted that the views expressed and issues identified in this report represent the perspectives of participants and may not reflect the experience of all residents or accurately reflect the planning environment. Due to the small sample size for the survey, generalisation of results across both shires may not provide an accurate representation of views on all issues.
Moreover, the relatively small sample size and variation in responses have made it problematic to accurately contribute to the realisation of objective four of the project, which was to identify best practice approaches for policy and to support planning decision making for land holdings with dwelling entitlement, with a particular focus on small holdings. The research has, however, identified how contextual factors, including geography and land use planning history, shape opportunities for and attitudes to distinct land use practices, and approaches to policy and planning decisions must, accordingly, seek to establish local and/or regional solutions.
24 Chapter 2 combination of soil, climate, topography and water’ (NSW DPI 2011: 1)—for agricultural Land use in rural zones production. Such land is a limited resource in NSW and a central role of planning is to ensure In Australia, the responsibility for classifying and that it is maintained for future generations and regulating land for its various uses is overseen existing agricultural industries—which represent by the various states and territories. In NSW a fundamental asset to NSW as a long-term specifically, this responsibility falls within the provider of employment, raw material and food Department of Planning and Environment (DPE). security. A key element is, thus, to protect In 2006, DPE endeavoured to simplify zoning agricultural land from non-agricultural land uses laws by developing the Standard Instrument and incompatible developments on adjacent (Local Environment Plans - LEPs) Order 2006. land that may restrict routine agricultural This instrument outlines the standard provisions practices. This is the starting point for this for a local environmental plan to support local research project, which investigates how environmental planning provisions (NSW policies and planning instruments are seen to Government 2016). Put otherwise, these LEPs support or deter agricultural viability and rural are utilised to ‘guide planning decisions for local resilience. government areas. They do this through zoning and development controls which provide a 2.1 Minimum lot size framework for the way land can be used’ (NSW DPE 2017b: np). The term ‘minimum lot size’ refers to the minimum area necessary for a building LEPs have been developed and implemented entitlement; a common tool that informs 3 These for both Cabonne and Tweed Shires. residential land use in rural zones. MLS is plans, outlined in brief in Section 2.2 and 2.3, enacted at the level of local government, though represent the key point of reference for planners it is guided by policies and planning instruments and policy makers in relation to zoning and established at State level. The DPI (2011: 2) development control, as well as landholders argues that the ‘[c]riteria in environmental seeking information about their holding and planning instruments to determine the minimum opportunities for development. The Maintaining size of holdings necessary for a dwelling Land for Agricultural Industries Policy (NSW entitlement in rural areas needs to be based on DPI 2011) also ‘provides direction to NSW sustainable productive agriculture’. As is stated Government staff and guidance to planning in the Maintaining Land for Agricultural authorities and communities when developing Industries Policy (NSW DPI 2011: 2): and implementing environmental planning instruments relevant to agriculture or rural the minimum area for a dwelling entitlement communities’ (NSW DPI 2017c: np). The and other provisions in Environmental Planning purpose of the policy is to ‘guide the planning Instruments to regulate subdivisions should system in providing certainty and security for take into account: agricultural enterprises over the long term and to enable those enterprises to respond to future a. the agricultural productivity and suitability market, policy, technology and environmental of the land in question; changes’ (NSW DPI 2011: 1). The policy b. the nature and requirements of agricultural emphasises the need to protect quality industries in the area being considered; agricultural land—that is, ‘land with the best c. the risk of creating land use conflict;
3 See Cabonne Local Environmental Plan 2012 – Under and Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2014 – Under the the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
25 d. the current distribution of property sizes Land use zones – Cabonne and the agricultural industry they support; R5 Large lot residential e. the trends in the size of properties Business zones B2 Local centre engaged in agriculture; and B5 Business development f. cumulative impacts eg [sic] gradual Industrial zones IN1 General industrial subdivision of agriculture becomes rural IN2 Light industrial residential zone. Special purpose SP2 Infrastructure zones Recreation zones RE1 Public recreation In reality, the MLS is a number that is a RE2 Private recreation negotiated planning standard, which deters Environment E1 National parks and nature fragmentation of land for lifestyle purposes and protection zones reserves encourages land to remain prioritised for E2 Environmental conservation agriculture. It is a tool that defines the Waterway zones W1 Natural waterways appropriate lot size for subdivision with a Table 2.1 – Land use zones under the Cabonne LEP dwelling entitlement in rural zoned land. 2012 (amended from Cabonne LEP 2012: 8)
2.1.1 What is a small holding? The purpose of these zones are detailed within There is not one accepted definition for a ‘small the Cabonne Shire LEP (2012, Section 2.1), holding’ in the literature or in policy circles. with further information provided on what is and Hernández-Jover et al. (2014: 8) contend that is not considered acceptable with or without categorisations of small holdings are ‘fraught permission also being listed under the following with conjecture’ and ‘the demographic headings: ‘Objectives of Zone’, ‘Permitted with characteristics, on-farm practices and Consent’, ‘Permitted without Consent’ and stakeholder networks of smallholders are not ‘Prohibited’ (for further information, see: fully understood.’ Categorisations of Cabonne Local Environmental Plan 2012). smallholdings tend to refer to existing MLS conditions, as qualified within the corresponding In relation to the rural zones, the following LEP of a Local Government Area (LGA). objectives apply:
For the purpose of this study, a land holding is Objectives of rural zones – Cabonne defined as a single lot, or several adjacent RU1 Primary • To encourage sustainable primary lots, located in a rural area. Basically, then, production industry production by maintaining a land holding is a property in a rural area. and enhancing the natural
Landholders may have a single holding (i.e. one resource base. • To encourage diversity in primary property in one location in the shire) or multiple industry enterprises and systems land holdings in the area (i.e. several properties appropriate for the area. located in different locations across the shire). • To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands. 2.2 Cabonne: land use zones • To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land Within Cabonne’s LEP, the following land use uses within adjoining zones. zones are accounted for: • To enable function centres, restaurants or cafes and
appropriate forms of tourist and Land use zones – Cabonne visitor accommodation to be Rural zones RU1 Primary production developed in conjunction with RU2 Rural landscape agricultural uses. RU3 Forestry RU2 Rural • To encourage sustainable primary RU5 Village landscape industry production by maintaining Residential zones R1 General residential
26 Objectives of rural zones – Cabonne quality and quantity in the catchment and and enhancing the natural drinking water systems, resource base. d. to ensure that subdivision patterns and lot • To maintain the rural landscape sizes result in a practical and efficient layout character of the land. (Cabonne LEP 2012: 28). • To provide for a range of compatible land uses, including The principle development standards in the
extensive agriculture. Cabonne LEP (2012) include: 4.1AA Minimum • To encourage diversity in primary subdivision lot size for community title schemes; industry enterprises and systems appropriate for the area. 4.1A Minimum subdivision lot size for strata plan • To provide for a range of tourism- schemes in certain rural zones; 4.1B Minimum related uses that support the subdivision lot size for certain spill zones; 4.2 agricultural industry or are Rural subdivision; and, 4.2A Erection of dual compatible with agricultural uses. occupancies and dwelling houses on land in • To protect drinking water certain rural zones. The key objectives of these catchments from the impacts of various clauses are: development by minimising impacts on the quality and • to ensure that rural land does not become quantity of water entering drinking fragmented subdivisions, which will incite water storages. further dwelling entitlements (4.1AA, 4.1A); RU3 Forestry • To enable development for • to provide flexibility in the application of rural forestry purposes. zone subdivision standards to facilitate • To enable other development that opportunities for land owners to achieve is compatible with forestry land uses. objectives for development within the relevant RU5 Village • To provide for a range of land zones (4.2); and, uses, services and facilities that • to minimise unplanned rural residential are associated with a rural village. development and enable replacement of • To encourage and provide lawfully erected houses and dual occupancies opportunities for development and in rural and residential zones (4.2A). local employment growth. • To ensure that development is In Clause 4.2 (Cabonne LEP 2012: 29), compatible with surrounding land flexibility in application of standards are uses. emphasised, with acknowledgement of the need Table 2.2 – Objectives of rural zones in Cabonne to allow land owners the ability to achieve (Section 2, Cabonne LEP 2012: 12-14) objectives for development within relevant zones. This clause also includes Zone RU4 2.2.1 Cabonne – rural subdivision and MLS Primary Production Small Lots, which was a Section 4 of the Cabonne LEP (2012: 28-33) zone that was not included in the initial plan. outlines the principal development standards as The LEP states that: they relate to MLS. The principal objectives of this clause are: [l]and in a zone to which this clause applies {RU1, RU2, RU4, RU6] may, with development a. to prevent the fragmentation and isolation of consent, be subdivided for the purpose of rural land, primary production to create a lot of size that is b. to ensure development is undertaken on less than the minimums size shown on the Lot appropriately sized parcels of land and Size Map in relation to that land (Cabonne LEP responds to any topographic, physical or 2012: 29). environmental constraints, c. to protect drinking water catchments from over-development that may impact on water
27 Figure 2.1 – Example Lot Size Map, Cabonne LEP: Lot Size Map – Sheet LSZ_001 (http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maps/e2e6b4ef-5054-4443-b4bb- acfc57808c00/1400_COM_LSZ_001_160_20120903.pdf)
Land use zones – Tweed Importantly, the policy states that a so-called B3 Commercial core small holding cannot be created if an existing B4 Mixed use dwelling entitlement will be situated on the lot B5 Business development and a new dwelling cannot be erected on such B7 Business park Industrial zones IN1 General industrial a lot (Cabonne LEP 2012: 30). IN4 Working waterfront
Special purpose SP1 Special activities 2.3 Tweed: land use zones zones SP2 Infrastructure SP3 Tourist Within Tweed’s LEP, the following land use Recreation zones RE1 Public recreation zones are accounted for: RE2 Private recreation Environment E1 National parks and nature protection zones reserves Land use zones – Tweed Waterway zones Rural zones RU1 Primary production W1 Natural waterways RU2 Rural landscape W2 Recreational waterways RU5 Village W3 Working waterways Table 2.3 Residential zones R1 General residential – Land use zones under the Tweed LEP R2 Low density residential 2014 (Tweed LEP 2014: 7) R3 Medium density residential R5 Large lot residential The objectives of these zones are detailed Business zones B1 Neighbourhood centre within the Tweed Shire LEP 2014 Land Use B2 Local centre Tables, with further information provided on
28 Figure 2.2 – Example Lot Size Map, Tweed LEP: Lot Size Map – Sheet LSZ_001 (http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maps/74878b6c-994b-4da4-b29b- 9c8f2741ab04/7550_COM_LSZ_001_080_20140320.pdf)
what is and is not considered acceptable with Objectives of rural zones – Tweed or without permission, listed under the headings • To protect prime agricultural land ‘Permitted without consent’, ‘Permitted with from the economic pressure of consent’ or ‘Prohibited’ (for further information, competing land uses. see Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2014). RU2 Rural • To encourage sustainable primary landscape industry production by
maintaining and enhancing the In relation to the rural zones, the following natural resource base. objectives apply: • To maintain the rural landscape character of the land. Objectives of rural zones – Tweed • To provide for a range of RU1 Primary • To encourage sustainable primary compatible land uses, including production industry production by extensive agriculture. maintaining and enhancing the • To provide for a range of tourist natural resource base. and visitor accommodation-based • To encourage diversity in primary land uses, including agri-tourism, industry enterprises and systems eco-tourism and any other like appropriate for the area. tourism that is linked to an • To minimise the fragmentation environmental, agricultural or rural and alienation of resource lands. industry use of the land. • To minimise conflict between land RU5 Village • To provide for a range of land uses within this zone and land uses, services and facilities that
uses within adjoining zones. are associated with a rural village.
29 Objectives of rural zones – Tweed • to ensure provision of adequate workers • To ensure that new development accommodation to support existing responds to and respects the agricultural or rural industries (4.2.C). character of a rural village. Table 2.4 – Objectives of rural zones in Tweed (Land These clauses imply a more intricate planning Use Table, Tweed LEP 2014: 9-11) context in Tweed than what is evident in the Cabonne LEP. As will be discussed in Chapter There are a number of principal development 4, landholders in Tweed expressed much more standards related to minimum subdivision lot frustration around the planning framework than size (Tweed LEP 2014: 28-34). The emphasis landholders in Cabonne. Whilst the Tweed LEP in these clauses is on the objective to ensure appears to provide more flexibility and variation that MLS are appropriate for the particular in terms of what can be done within rural zones, zones to which they apply and for the land uses the landholders interviewed for this project that are permitted within these zones. It is also regularly complained about what they saw as a emphasised that unplanned rural residential highly rigid and complex system to navigate and development should be minimised. understand. This will be explored further in the subsequent chapters. The Tweed LEP includes a number of clauses that have direct implications for landholders 2.4 Conclusion: objectives of rural interested in subdividing their land, including: zones – key differences between case 4.1AA Minimum subdivision lot size for study areas community title schemes; 4.1A Minimum subdivision lot size for strata plan schemes in The objectives of rural zones in Tweed and certain rural zones; 4.1B Minimum subdivision Cabonne are largely similar with a number of lot size for certain spill zones; 4.2 Rural variations to reflect the differing environment, subdivision; 4.2 A Subdivision of land in Zone economic drivers and character of the shires. R5; 4.2B Erection of dwelling houses and dual occupancies on land in certain rural and The objectives of the RU1 zones in both shires residential zones; and 4.2C Erection of rural reflect the desire to encourage and protect workers’ dwellings in Zones RU1 and RU2. The primary production and to minimise land use key objectives of these various clauses are: conflict risk.
• to ensure that rural land does not become fragmented subdivisions, which will incite The RU2 Rural Landscape zones in both shires further dwelling entitlements (4.1AA, 4.1A); allow more flexibility through permitting • to ensure that subdivisions promote additional ancillary or compatible development, sustainable land use and development (4.1B); with consent, within the zone, in recognition of • to provide flexibility in the application of rural the multi-functional landscape that this rural zone subdivision standards to facilitate land provides. The RU2 objectives for both opportunities for land owners to achieve shires indicate the need for any such objectives for development within the relevant development to maintain the rural landscape zones (4.2); character of the land. • to facilitate smaller lot size than the MLS on the Lot Size Map (40ha) for land in Zone R5 Large Lot Residential (4.2A); • to minimise unplanned rural residential development and enable replacement of lawfully erected houses and dual occupancies in rural and residential zones (4.2B); and,
30 Chapter 3 and working the land; • rural sociality, characterised by small-scale Connections to the land and integrated communities; • connectivity to agricultural and natural The study set out to investigate land use in rural environments; zones, adopting a relatively clinical approach to • quality primary products; and, thinking about land use, land use change and • sense of space and quietness. productivity. This approach was amended early in the research process as the central themes of Connection to land and sense of belonging to a place attachment and connection to land rural community emerged as a central theme in emerged within both case studies. During the relation to people’s experiences and interviews with both long term and new perceptions of land use change in the regions. residents, large- and small-scale farmers, Analysis of the qualitative data suggests that notions of place and place attachment appeared participants’ response to change depends on a as a filter for much of the conversation regarding number of biographical factors, such as: farming practice and farm management, land use and land use change. • where the rural landholder comes from; • inter-generational ties to the area; and, When speaking about Tweed and Cabonne, the • ties to land and landscapes as shaped participants in both areas emphasised: through agriculture and conservation.
• the rural character and natural beauty of the It should, however, be noted that whilst inter- shires; generational or long-term connections to the • the sense of being connected to something regions was linked with place attachment, that is not-urban, with a particular emphasis longevity was not necessarily a condition on rural lifestyle and the sense of connectivity underpinning connection to land. A number of that comes through living on the ‘treechangers’ interviewed for the project
Figure 3.1 – Length of time owning or managing land holding
31 Figure 3.2 – Top five motives for owning or leasing rural land
expressed a deep sense of connection to place. Cabonne Tweed The property has been in my family This sense of connection translates in a desire 33% 23% for generations to protect what is seen as special about the I purchased, leased, or started place: its ‘rural feel’, ‘atmosphere’ and ‘beauty’. managing the property many years 30% 52% These aesthetic traits and their association with ago I purchased, leased, or started a distinct lifestyle are fundamental to why the 37% 25% ‘treechangers’ sought to live in the area in the managing the property only recently Table 3.1 – Interviewed landholders – length of time first place and points to a resonance between owning or managing land holding sense of self and sense of place. 3.1.1 Why do people want to live in the area? 3.1 Connection to landholding For most of the survey and interview participants, the four main motives for managing Most of the survey participants were long-term or owning rural land were: residents of the two shires, having purchased, leased or managed the land many years ago • lifestyle (survey: 57.7%); (44%) or having a generational connection to • agricultural working life (survey: 35%); the farm (27%) (Figure 3.1). • rural community membership (survey: 34%); and, As illustrated in Table 3.1, these land tenure • physical and mental wellbeing associated with dynamics showed some variability across the rural life (survey: 32.5%). case study areas, with the majority of Tweed participants having relatively long tenure, and As illustrated in Figure 3.2, the notion of a rural Cabonne participants showing a higher lifestyle was the only motivation to be selected percentage of new owner/managers/lessees. by more than half the respondent sample. The
32 next three highest responses were also related The choice of living within a rural area was most to rural lifestyle, including work, social and clearly articulated by those who had personal benefits. Around one quarter of survey purposefully chosen to relocate to Cabonne or respondents cited revenue and profit-making as Tweed. The very notion of ‘treechangers’ motive. emerged from the desire to connect to the distinct lifestyle associated with a rural area. As These results were mirrored in the breakdown of Alan, a lifestyler in Tweed who relocated to the data by case study area, with only slight Shire 10 years ago stated: difference shown in responses to: I think, the Shire, it’s, it’s a beautiful, easy place • ‘generate income and profit’, for which the to live in. It’s just the location, with respect to a response rate in Cabonne was higher than in major development centre. We are mid-way Tweed; and, between Gold Coast airport and Byron Bay • ‘personal health and wellbeing’, for which and we like that. But we also like, when we are Tweed had a higher number of responses than there, we like coming back. It’s like retreating to Cabonne. the hills. We just slip out of all that, you know. That’s the main thing. It’s very beautiful, Participants in both shires who have owned the peaceful living here. It’s a nice lifestyle. These landholding for generations were less likely to are real, what you call, lifestyle blocks (Alan, select ‘lifestyle’ motivations and more likely to landholder Tweed). select ‘to maintain a legacy’.
33 The key motives for moving to the shires agriculture as a distinct feature of the rural mentioned in the qualitative interviews include: lifestyle and a motivator for living and working the land. The notion of productivity was a Cabonne Tweed central theme in many of the interviews, with Rural lifestyle Rural lifestyle participants emphasising the desire to make Agricultural potential Ecotourism potential their land productive and be engaged in Rural community Village life productive activities. Proximity to regional centre Proximity to regional centre Amenity Amenity 3.2 Conclusion: key issues Infrastructure and services Infrastructure and services Landscape Understanding why people wish to remain Climate within an area or move to an area can support Table 3.2 – Key motives for moving to the shires governments in planning for adequate and well- placed rural lifestyle and residential 3.1.2 Rural lifestyle opportunities if required. The interviews and Whereas survey data indicated rural lifestyle as survey data illustrate that people seek to settle a key motivator for people to live in rural in the country and wish to live within rural areas districts, the interviews identified a deeper because of the distinct lifestyle that it offers. For meaning of rural lifestyle, which ties it closely to some, this is also related to a sense of the idea of being involved in primary industries, continuity with past family practices and the in particular agriculture. Interviewees notion of legacy, in which productive practices emphasised the challenge embedded in
34 are seen as intertwined with the area and Theme Shires Participant group people’s sense of place. Motives for • More people in • Intergenerational living in the Cabonne than in farmers in both
area Tweed were shires All participants, including ‘treechangers’ in both motivated by emphasised shires, emphasised agriculture and productive potential income maintaining a activities as part of what ‘rurality’ means. As generation and legacy over such, land use conflicts that emerge through profit. lifestyle when • When talking discussing why changing social landscapes—discussed later in about the they live in the this report—could be seen in relation to a decision to live in area. misconception of what farming constitutes. the Shire, more Better education and access to information people in Tweed were concerned about farming and farming practices that breaks about health and down romantic visions of rural idyll might wellbeing than in address some of these concerns and prepare Cabonne. new residents for living in the country. Moreover, Table 3.4 – Key themes related to place attachment, easily accessible information about biosecurity showing variation between shires and landholder groups and maintenance, which emphasise the risks that failure to adhere to such practices will place on both natural, cultural and social landscapes, could further clarify the responsibility that comes with choosing to live in a rural area and aspiring to a rural lifestyle.
Key issue Cabonne Tweed People’s connection to the area and their sense of place shape their idea of what Yes Yes farming should look like and how productive agricultural practices can be ensured. Residents want to protect the rural character and natural Yes Yes beauty of the Shire. Concerns amongst long-term residents that the urban sprawl and increased presence of people who do Yes Yes not have an immediate farming connection may change the rural character and sense of community. New landholders seen as positive contributors to the Unclear Yes social fabric and rural life. Rural lifestyle is the main Yes Yes motive for living in the area. Productive activities identified as a key element of rurality Yes Yes and rural lifestyle. Table 3.3 – Key issues identified in the data related to place attachment
35 Chapter 4 In relation to the purpose of the landholding, Land use practices and primary production of some kind accounted for productivity 79 of 122 responses, with residential being the next highest response category (n=19) (see
Figure 4.2). Other responses included: A starting point for this project was the question
of how to maintain agricultural productivity • combination of residential, environmental and within an environment where landholders face small-scale primary production; increased pressures. In both the case study • hobby farming with house used for short-term areas, variable land capacities, technological furnished accommodation; and innovation and structural adjustments in the • holiday home with future retirement plans, agricultural economy have introduced new including eco-tourism cabins or glamping. challenges for farmers who, throughout the interviews, articulated a need to rethink their These results for purpose were relatively practice to maintain productivity. consistent across the two case study areas,
with only small variation in Cabonne having 4.1 What do people do on their land? slightly higher percentages of small-scale and residential uses. The majority of the survey respondents and interview participants were single-lot rural The survey responses illustrated a diversity of landholders (see Figure 4.1), with Tweed Shire farming activities, including: beef cattle (58%), having a larger representation of single lot fruit growing (38%), sheep farming (30%), and holders than multiple lot holders (88% and 8% cropping (25%) (see Figure 4.3). A similar respectively) when compared with Cabonne diversity is reflected in the interview cohort, with (72% and 14% respectively); that is, participants engaging in a range of different participants from Cabonne were more likely to activities, including: own multiple lots.
Figure 4.1 – Rural land holding ownership and management arrangements
36
Figure 4.2 – Primary purpose of land holding
Figure 4.3 – Top seven land use activities
37 • cattle; [o]ne, it is what I’m interested in, and it’s [my • sheep; wife’s] main interest. We agist cattle on our • chickens; place. It used to be a good income stream per • wine making; month, it was not just one good every year but • cropping; regularly all across the year. Then we also do • fruit farming; cropping but this is just a supplement • flowers; winterfeed to provide a bit more income (Gavin, • tree planting; landholder Cabonne). • complementary medicine; • cane; and, 4.2 Productivity and profitability • conservation. A majority of survey respondents agreed that Land holdings ranged from small holdings (large profits from their land vary from year to year, and lot residential) of 0.4ha (1ac) to large-scale disagreed with the suggestion that activities on farms of over 2000ha, with the smaller holdings their land had always been profitable. Figure 4.4 primarily being used for products such as shows the highest level of agreement with the nurseries and artisan products, and the larger idea that profits are variable from year to year. holdings being used for mixed farming More respondents agreed than disagreed with purposes. the statement that activities on the land were currently profitable (45 to 36). A majority of In general, the interviewees rationalised their respondents disagreed with the suggestion that farming activities through ‘what I am interested activities on the land had always been profitable, in’ more so than ‘what is profitable’. Gavin, for confirming the results around variability in example, is a generational, large-scale mixed productivity. farmer in Cabonne who, when asked ‘why are you doing what you are doing on the property’, answered:
Figure 4.4 – Land holding profitability (a)
38
Figure 4.5 – Land holding profitability (b)
Figure 4.5 illustrates the general disagreement • Of the interviewees, long term farmers in with statements that land holding activities Tweed experienced the greatest distress and generate substantial profits or provide a good concern regarding profitability. living wage. There was a high level of agreement • Changes to agricultural practice and with the statement that income from land technological innovation have made some holding activities needed to be supplemented previously productive and profitable farms with income from other sources. There was a non-competitive and non-profitable (e.g. mixed response to the notion that land holding avocado and banana farms in Tweed). • activities generated enough revenue for Profits vary from year to year and there is a constant risk and uncertainty related to on- owners/managers to ‘get by’, but also remain farm income for most landholders, which financially constrained. There were more means most landholders will supplement disagreeing responses here, perhaps because income with off-farm work to smooth other income sources ease the financial variations. pressures. • Those landholders interviewed will often not use their land to maximum capacity, despite In terms of productivity and profitability, themes quality land. For most, this was due to climatic from those interviewed were: variables, a lack of resources (time and manpower) to maximise production and/or a • With the exception of ‘treechangers’, lack of desire to engage in sustainable and profitability is the key challenge associated regenerative agriculture. with rural land holdings in the shires. • In Cabonne, smaller holding size was often • Perceived inflexibility in the planning system is seen as an infringement on productivity and a concern and obstacle for farmers seeking to profitability, with general consensus that the innovate their practice. larger the farm, the more viable it will be.
39
Figure 4.6 – Improvements made to land holding in last 5 years
• In Tweed, there was a general sense that as part of improvement and management of the ‘size does not matter’ and that productivity property, they have invested in: and profitability is about land management and product versus size of holdings. • new or renovated dwelling; • Value adding was emphasised in both shires • sheds; as a potential for profitability but was generally • gates and fencing; seen as underutilised. • cattle grids; • pasture improvement; These findings have been schematically • stock yards; presented in Table 4.1, in which an ‘x’ indicates • water reticulation systems; that a minimum of one respondent to the distinct • dams and bores; participant group answered confirming to the • biosecurity management; statement listed in the left-hand column. The • equipment for value adding (e.g. distillery); small sample size may not provide an accurate • plantations; and, representation of all the landholders in the • energy provision (solar). shires. Cabonne landholder, Peter, explained that one 4.3 Management and investment of the predicaments with investment and management of landholdings is that, regardless The results of the survey indicate that the most of the size of the holding, ‘the infrastructure will prevalent capital investment in the last five years be essentially the same’. As a small landholder, was in fencing (74.3%), followed by he explained, he needs the same infrastructure water/irrigation management systems (62%) as a big farm. Reflecting on the broader and sheds/yards/stables (54.3%). Technology agricultural supply chain, he stated that: ‘small (automation) recorded only 7.6%. farms can be good for the agricultural suppliers because we need the same as the big guys’ Similar types of investments were reflected in (Peter, landholder Cabonne). the interview data, with landholders stating that,
40
Table 4.1 – Schematic breakdown of key responses in terms of productivity and profitability. Key: LT = Long term farmers; TC = Treechangers
41 Only a few of the interviewees mentioned land, Isaac, who owns and manages a 600ha technology or automation as investment on their property, had to invest significantly in land property. Having visited a number of the rehabilitation for it to become viable. He properties during interviews it is, however, explained: obvious that most of the participants have spent funds on some form of technology that are [the property] was mismanaged; that is the central to day-to-day farm management, such as best way to put it. It had rabbits, it had farming tractors and excavators. The fact that this was that continually overused the soil … it wasn’t not mentioned by participants may be because what I call very ‘loved’ (Isaac, Cabonne of the sense that a minimum level of technology landholder). (such as machinery) is not considered investment but rather a necessity in order to After reviving his holding, Isaac has invested work the land. This assumption was implied by significant effort in developing a sustainable Meg, for example, who explained that rather farm management approach. Isaac explained than buying a header she would ‘rather spend that his farming philosophy is ‘very much geared the money on my land’ (Meg, Cabonne to [a way of] grazing that retains the quality of landholder). A header is not necessary for the pastures’ (Isaac, Cabonne landholder). This is a day-to-day management of her land and, as common pattern amongst all the interviewees: such, buying one becomes a question about subsequent to an initial capital investment, investment priorities. She did, however, not considerable effort is made to consider how mention any other type of machinery in relation best to manage and maintain the land. Pasture to farm-related investments. improvements will then be a continuous activity for many, though most of the other infrastructure Many of the interviewees spoke about having becomes simple maintenance. made a relatively large capital investment when first moving on to the land. For some, such as 4.4 Income Cabonne landholder Isaac, this was because the land holdings had been poorly managed by Both the quantitative and qualitative data previous owners. When he first acquired the illustrate that the farmers within the two case
Figure 4.7 – Financial role of off-farm income
42 study areas need supplementary income. In the negatively impacting opportunities to have an survey, there was general disagreement with on-farm income, with a number of the statements suggesting that land holding participants from the older cohort articulating activities generate substantial profits, or provide the need to consider alternative income a good living wage, and a high level of streams to help them continue to live on and agreement with the notion that income from land work the land. holding activities needs to be supplemented • For some hobby farmers who have with income from other sources. Of the 101 retired from formal off-farm employment, the need for off-farm survey respondents that answered this question, income directly related to their lifestyle. 88% said that they or their partner earned off- That means, some have farms that support farm income. More than two-thirds of 89 themselves but they rely on off-farm income respondents to a follow-up question said that (generally investments or super) to support off-farm income was ‘essential for the financial lifestyle choices, including travel. It is viability of the land holding’. For those important to note that in these instances, the participants who indicated ‘primary production’ farm in itself is a viable enterprise. Typical as the purpose of the landholding, off-farm farms of this kind were in the range 40-60ha income was more likely to be associated with and most commonly they would be cattle ‘smoothing out income variability’ when farms, with between 20-200 animals on the compared with small-scale production lots, who property. It should be noted that some of logically demonstrated a greater reliance on off- these landholders only farmed on parts of their farm income (Figure 4.7). land, with some land being used for subsistence farming, conservation or left as Off farm income Cabonne Tweed forest. Yes 92% 86% • The need for off-farm income is not No 8% 14% limited to small-scale farmers. Many of Table 4.2 – Off farm income by shires the larger- and large-scale farmers interviewed supplement their income with off-farm work, The interviews confirmed the reliance on off- though in these circumstances the off-farm farm income, with the majority of the landholders income was considered a minor addition to interviewed stating that they rely on some sort of farm-generated income. off-farm income (employment, superannuation • All of the interviewees stated they could or investments). Only a few of the large-scale make more money out of their land if farmers involved in wine, complementary they worked it harder, though there was a medicine and mixed farming, and who value- general consensus that managing the land add through business initiatives, were not well, in a sustainable manner by which the dependent on off-farm income. These larger land is not only maintained but improved, is landholders nonetheless had additional income important. through investments and business enterprises. In contrast to this minority within the sample, The question about income illustrated some key most of the landholders relied on off-farm differences between the two shires: income, with their land generating approximately 80% of their financial income. • In Tweed, there was a particular group of landholders categorised as having no Key findings from the interviews related to productive income from their land. These income include: were small landholders who spoke about their land as valuable; not so much in terms of its • The ability to generate adequate on-farm productive, agricultural potential but rather as income is related to people’s biographies. Health and age were the two main variables that were mentioned as
43 Off-Farm Income and Land Use The off-farm income adds to the income earned from the land holding, but I don’t rely on it
The off-farm income smooths out any variations in the income earned from the land holding
The off-farm income is essential for the financial viability of the land holding
0 20 40 60 80 100
Small-scale production Primary production
Figure 4.8 – Off-farm income and land use
a place of distinct value due to its aesthetic • Many landholders in Cabonne have a quality and regenerative potential. All of these second dwelling on their property, which landholders grew fruit and vegetable for generates additional income. The second personal use and many generated in-direct dwelling is the result of the concessional lot non-productive income from their landholding policy discussed in Chapter 1. These by, for example, offering workshops and landholders will either lease the second seminars. For many of these landholders, a dwelling—and, subsequently, generate a commitment and passion to the land make steady on-farm income stream—or use it as them want to work the land and transform it part of their farm management by offering it as into healthy, beautiful landscapes that serve a workers-accommodation. In contrast, second purpose. dwellings were rare amongst the interviewees • Landholders in Tweed emphasised the in Tweed, though many landholders claimed a aesthetic value of the landholding and second dwelling would be beneficial for their the desire to enhance and utilise the long-term farm management, succession and beauty of the land as potential for income. This will be discussed further in income. This was a distinct theme emerging Chapter 5. from the interviews in Tweed, with none of the landholders in Cabonne emphasising this as a According to the above, the research quality of their holdings with profitable participants can be split into four main groups in capacity. These landholders often mentioned terms of income: the need to better integrate farming and tourism as two key industries of the Shire. • Lifestylers – subsistence farming but no They argued that current planning regulations income from productive activity on the in Tweed would often make it difficult to take landholding; off-farm income in the form of advantage of the potential offered by the proximity of tourism and farming in the district.
44 Key Challenges
Lack of dwelling entitlement for the holding
Supplier delays
Access to water
Poor quality of my land
Land conflict with neighbours
Pest, weed and/or disease control
Day-to-day management (keeping on top of jobs, mowing lawns) Environmental changes (e.g. erosion, acid sulphate soils, droughts)
Government regulation
Financial pressures
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
Figure 4.9 – Key challenges
investments, superannuation or off-farm of 117 responses, 57.3%). Day-to-day employment as the only income stream. management of their land was the second- • Hobby farmers – off-farm income as primary highest (n=58, 50%), with financial pressures mode of income with taxable on-farm income; coming in third (n=47, 40%). Respondents generally double off-farm income or one family viewed the most likely management action in the member working in a caring role (e.g. next three years to be the retention of current parenting). approach/minimal change. The average score • Farmers – farm production as primary mode for this response category was 3.9 (where 4 = of income, with some off-farm work (generally Likely). The only other action to receive an only one, part-time off-farm income but may average score above the neutral position (3) also be investments or superannuation) to was construction of non-residential buildings, supplement on-farm income. which recorded a 3.3. Similar responses were • Large-scale farmers – larger farm enterprises that are sustainable businesses in evident in the interview material. Responses to their own right, often directly involved in export the question about the key challenges in and value-adding. managing their property are summarised in Table 4.3. 4.5 Key challenges and risks The key challenges that people spoke about can
be separated into four broad, interrelated According to the quantitative sample, themes: biosecurity concerns (pests, weeds, disease) are the primary challenge for land managers (67
45
Table 4.3 – Key challenges in managing property, emphasised in interview data
• managing nature; view of the programs that are in place to ensure • ensuring financial viability; the health of animals and land (see: NSW DPI • dealing with and navigating the planning 2017a). Weeds were the biggest issue system; and, mentioned by all the participants, with willow • responding to a changing social and and blackberry, woody weeds, and camphor economic environment. laurel being mentioned most frequently. A number of participants across both shires also An example of how these themes are connected spoke about feral animals as a threat, was evident in people’s concerns about mentioning wild dogs, cats, dingoes and biosecurity in the shire, as discussed below. kangaroos as the major problem.
4.6 Biosecurity When asked about biosecurity concerns, there was a general agreement that humans represent There was a clear difference in how the survey the biggest threat, with general inference that it respondents viewed their own biosecurity is, in the end, up to the individual landholder to knowledge and practice, and how they viewed ensure that pests and threats to land and water the practices of their neighbours and the wider are kept at a minimum. The notion of ‘human shire. Approximately 87% of the 119 biosecurity threat’ did, however, refer to two respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they distinct issues: had adequate knowledge of pest, weed and disease control practices for their property. The a. humans bringing weeds and diseases into the average rating (from 1-5, where 1 is strongly area; and, disagree and 5 is strongly agree) was 4.19. The b. landholders not adopting adequate pest and pest, weed and disease control practices of disease control programs. neighbours and of the shire more broadly were, however, viewed with much less confidence. The former (a) was mentioned by interviewees in The average rating for neighbours was 2.86 and Cabonne but was more prominent in interviews shire 2.73 – a position of neither overall with Tweed participants. This should be seen in agreement nor disagreement. relation to the cross-border movements of trucks and people who are unaware of the More detail about biosecurity threats and specific biosecurity threats in Queensland and practices were sought through the interviews. NSW. It was not only farmers speaking about Similar to the survey respondents, interviewees this as a risk, but also small landholders who were generally happy with their own biosecurity were not engaged in productive activities, practices and, in general, articulated a positive
46
Figure 4.10 – Opinions about biosecure practices
particularly those involved in bush regeneration practices, key stakeholders in Tweed Shire were and land care. The sense of acting as guardians more likely to emphasise biosecurity concerns of a unique and vulnerable environment came between neighbouring properties. Key across in many of the interviews, with small and stakeholders in Tweed argued that the issue of large landholders engaged in productive and non-resident landholders (estimated by a key non-productive activities articulating a desire to stakeholder to be at 50%) is compounded by ensure the protection of not just farmland but the unique climate and terrain, which makes the natural environment more broadly (cf. the area attractive for people of non-farming Sherval et al. 2017). background and, subsequently, poses distinct biosecurity risks due to restrictions in The latter (b), on the other hand, was a knowledge and experience. significant concern for the landholders in Cabonne, where most of the interviewees 4.6.1 New class of landholders mentioned neighbouring farm practices as a The established farmers in Cabonne concern. This issue is closely linked to the emphasised how the human biosecurity threat changing social landscapes of the Shire (see requires them to adopt more diligent Chapter 6), with new landholders, absentee management and observation of their own landholders, small holdings and urbanisation practice. This is, they explained, a consequence mentioned by both key stakeholders and of the influx of a new class of landholders, who landholders. Issues with absentee landholders have exposed increased biosecurity, and is a and urbanisation was also mentioned by reflection of: interviewees in Tweed, though with a lesser frequency and urgency than Cabonne. In • negligence and limited understanding – contrast to Cabonne, where landholders new small landholders are often new to expressed concern about neighbouring farm
47 farming and have limited knowledge of few landholders. The NSW Government, via the agriculture and the area. They will often lack DPI, places significant emphasis on biosecurity adequate understanding of biosecurity threats as a responsibility shared by government, and management; industry and the community (DPI NSW 2017b). • absentee landholders – people buying Biosecurity is emphasised as vital not only for properties as investments or as weekenders industry but also to protect and maintain the will live elsewhere. They will not attend to their unique natural landscapes and environment property regularly and lack a systematic across the state. When participants spoke approach for observing the land and managing about inaction it was generally with reference to biosecurity threats on an ongoing basis; particular ‘biosecurity events’, such as the • hobby farmers on small holdings –people spread of myrtle rust in 2010 (see: Australian relying on off-farm income may not have Network of Plant Conservation 2015), or when adequate time and energy to put into farm management. the landholding backs onto a national park or • government inaction – various levels of public land where different interests dictate the government not giving priority to weed control urgency and direction of biosecurity measures. within or on non-commercial land—such as For example, Marvin, a Cabonne landholder, national parks, council roads and other public whose property is next door to a national park, land. explained that they have problems with grassy woodlands with an ‘understory like hawthorn It should be noted that the latter point about and blackberry and briar’. They have spent a lot government inaction was only mentioned by a of time and energy on getting these weeds
48 under control, and the situation has improved a. knowledge sharing; and, dramatically. Now, however, they are working to b. resource sharing. improve the pastures so that they will out- compete the woody weeds. In relation to this, Essentially, this points to how: being next to a national park is problematic. As he explained, this is because the authorities ‘are a. knowledge sharing: there is extensive local not using it for commercial [purposes] and knowledge of biosecurity management within therefore they do not put as high a priority as a the community, often held by older farmers landholder on controlling weeds.’ who are moving away from the physical labour on the farm;
4.6.2 Biosecurity as source of conflict b. resource sharing: treechangers may have access to resources, for example finances and As will be discussed in Chapter 7, biosecurity networks, that they are willing to use to may be a source of conflict. As two key improve community initiatives for biosecurity. stakeholders from Cabonne explained:
Whereas long-term residents were often critical Natalie: So people are just not doing it of the biosecurity management of new [biosecurity intervention]. Abby: Yeah, they don't. And then when your landholders, the treechangers that were neighbour doesn't spray his blackberries, or do interviewed for this project all expressed a whatever, and you have all this water, all you're desire to learn better practices and become going to have is that coming down the ‘good rural citizens’. For many treechangers, catchment, and then you have to do it again. particularly in the Tweed, a key challenge has It's quite… been sourcing adequate information about Natalie: It's hard. It puts a burden on the biosecurity. Participants argued that getting existing landholders (Natalie and Abby, access to this information was cumbersome and Cabonne key stakeholders). at times very difficult. As Tweed landholder, Liz, explained: knowing where to find the right Part of the frustration held by many of the information and who to talk to can be ‘like landholders is that they believe poor biosecurity walking in a labyrinth’ (Liz, Tweed landholder). due to negligence and absentee landholders They recognise that there is extensive expertise can be addressed if the landholders seek help, within the local community—both on biosecurity connect with local community and neighbours, practices and on how to trawl the internet and and take advantage of the existing programs other sources for useful information—which they and services that address biosecurity issues would like to tap into. (see, for example: NSW DPI 2017a). These services may, however, be expensive and 4.7 Conclusion: key issues require the landholders to be proactive in their biosecurity management approaches. The lack Landholdings owned or managed by the of adequate biosecurity management by new participants of this project ranged from 0.4 Ha landholders, it was stated, is a burden for to 2000 Ha. The majority of the survey and existing landholders. interview participants use their holding for primary production, with residential being the 4.6.3 Addressing land use conflict underpinned next highest response. The land use practices by biosecurity concerns and farming activities in both the Cabonne and Landholders, particularly in Tweed, spoke about Tweed Shires were diverse with participants in how there are resources available within the both shires indicating that profitability varies community that can help address issues related from year to year. Most participants advise that to biosecurity, as well other challenges facing off-farm income is necessary to support the rural zones. Two suggestions were: viability of the landholding with farm
49 infrastructure, particularly fencing, being the Biosecurity practices are a dominant investment. Interviewed landholders in source of conflict between Yes Yes neighbouring properties both Cabonne and Tweed indicated that they Table 4.4 – Key issues identified in the data related to believed there is an inflexibility in the planning land use practice and productivity system that serves as an obstacle to innovation. Many interviewees also admitting they do not Theme Shires Participant group use their land to maximum capacity. Profitability • In the Tweed, • Highly variable smaller holding annual profits size was not from landholding The difference between how landholders generally seen as activities often perceived their own biosecurity practices as an impediment to requires opposed to neighbours and other landholders in profitability, but supplementation their respective shires could indicate an the profitability of by off-farm overestimation of personal knowledge and some key sectors income (e.g. bananas) has • Value-adding capacities or an overly negative appraisal of been impacted by seen as under- adjacent landholders. Where the latter is true, technological utilised conflict and contestation may arise, suggesting advances and a need for greater attention to be afforded to changing agricultural standardisation of biosecurity knowledge and practices capabilities. Open communication channels and • In Cabonne, greater interaction between landholders through smaller holding networks may further assist governments to size was often reduce tensions over biosecurity practices in seen as infringing upon land use rural areas. profitability Income • Landholders in • The need for off- Tweed farm income is Key issue Cabonne Tweed emphasised the not limited to Diverse land use practices aesthetic value of small-scale Yes Yes and farming activities. their land as a farming and Variability of profits related to potential source lifestyle and Yes Yes on-farm activities. of income biographies Changes to agricultural • In Cabonne, shape need for practice and technological second dwellings off-farm sources No Yes innovation have negatively generated of income impacted some landholders. additional income Fencing, water/ irrigation, and for participants sheds/ yards/ stables remain Biosecurity • In Tweed, weed • Personal Yes Yes the dominant investments management due biosecurity made by landholders. to climatic practices were Off-farm income necessary to conditions was deemed better support the viability of the seen as a key than those of landholding for most Yes Yes challenge neighbours and participants and land use • In Cabonne, other shire types. participants were residents Some participants had no particularly productive income from their No Yes concerned by the land. pest and disease Second dwelling provides control of Yes No additional income. neighbours Table 4.5 Personal biosecurity practices – Key themes related to land use practice and were deemed better than productivity, showing variation between shires and Yes Yes landholder groups those of neighbours and other shire residents.
50 Chapter 5 MLS is ‘about making it easy for farming to occur’. He continued: Lot size, dwelling entitlements and planning [f]arming is the backbone of Cabonne's economy. You get into this whole debate about
whether it's, what's the largest minimum lot size The survey dataset represents a range of land that provides an agricultural benefit, and that's holding sizes, albeit with very few respondents going to depend […] upon what is being grown owning or managing land of 1ha or less. The (Andrew, key stakeholder Cabonne). highest category was 40-100ha (n=29), which—in relation to the MLS policies in the two Whilst productivity is not necessarily a question shires—represents small holdings in Cabonne about size but rather about what the land is and larger holdings in Tweed. In Tweed, 58% being used for, one thing that does impede (n= 45) of respondents owned small holdings agriculture is, according to Andrew and other (less than 40ha) and 42% (n=32) owned key stakeholders in both shires, dwelling holdings over 40ha. In Cabonne, 48% (n=22) entitlements. That is, if smaller holdings have had small holdings (less than 100ha), compared dwelling entitlements, this can negatively affect to 52% (n=24) who had larger holdings. productivity and sustainability as it may change the social landscape and cause land use As outlined in Sections 1.3.1, both shires have conflicts. The role of the dwelling entitlement established a MLS policy with the objective of will be explored further in Section 5.5. minimising land fragmentation and ensuring agricultural productivity and sustainability. Key Questions regarding what the minimum lot size stakeholders in both shires emphasised that the should be and if agricultural productivity is MLS policy is important in the face of depleted with smaller land parcels were at the significant, and increasing, development centre of the research project. The interviews pressures on agricultural lands. Cabonne key conveyed diverse opinions, with some arguing stakeholder, Andrew, explained that for him the that smaller sized blocks can be conducive to
Figure 5.1 – Size of rural land holding
51 and horticultural production, whilst the Tweed Key stakeholders in both shires contend that it is landholders were involved in beef, sugarcane important to reduce the pressure on agricultural and horticultural production, which at times was land and limit fragmentation. It was, however, a quite specialised. general consensus amongst policy makers and
planners that it is not the size of holdings in itself that is the key issue but rather how landholders Cabonne key stakeholder, Sandy, explained invest in and commit to agriculture and primary how in Cabonne, small holdings are divided into production as part of smaller holdings. four different types:
• Lifestylers – individuals who buy primary production whilst others arguing that landholdings with the desire of a rural lifestyle; there is a real limitation in smaller blocks and, often interested in land care and looking after perhaps more importantly, that smaller blocks the environment. Easy group to communicate can have a negative impact on the broader with who in general will be engaged with agricultural milieu within the shire due to conservation and who are keen to expand their increased land use conflict, biosecurity threats knowledge and experience; • and fragmentation of the rural fabric. Traditional landholders – individuals who come from a generational farm, which has Unsurprisingly, those who self-identify as small been broken into smaller lots for the family. holders and who are either engaged in Generally continuing practicing farming in a productive activities or aspire to be were the manner that is consistent with past practices. main group emphasising the positive • Niche product farmers – individuals contribution that small holders can make to rural growing niche products, such as organic communities and productive land use. What vegetables and finger limes etc. was identified as a small holding was, however, • Absentee landholders – individuals who not uniform, and there was a significant own land but live in urban centres (e.g. difference in the categorisation of small holdings Sydney). between the two shires. The benefits and costs associated with small 5.1 Small holdings: what and why holdings mentioned by the interviewees are summarised in Table 5.1: Interviewees from the two shires interpreted the notion of ‘small holding’ differently. As outlined Benefits Costs in Section 2.1, the two shires have different Microproduction Increased biosecurity risks classifications of MLS, with Cabonne setting the Niche agriculture Absentee landholders MLS at 100ha and Tweed at 40ha. When Succession Urban pressure speaking to landholders, the notion of small Innovation Increased property prices holdings was, however, even more diverse. For Entrepreneurialism Land use conflict Prevents decline in rural example: Non-competitive farms population Can sustain farms as • in Cabonne, 180ha was considered by some Agricultural land becoming productive units and diverse rural/residential landholders to be a small holding; rural communities • in Tweed, 2ha was described by some small Can support collaborative Accentuates part-time holders as a ‘big property’. farming initiatives farming Reinvigoration and Agricultural land may be A key difference between these categorisations revitalisation: brings new transformed into poor people, new initiative and landscapes, presenting related to how the interviewees saw the new thinking into regions issues with water and soil landholdings in relation to primary production, Can support biodiversity Can contribute to less with the Cabonne landholders in general preservation choice in terms of speaking about broadacre farming, livestock
52 Benefits Costs counteracted by good planning and enterprise and income entrepreneurial initiatives: schemes Table 5.1 – Benefits and costs with small holdings that it is all small crop, and the size of the lots
may be too small to compete. But, we are now It was emphasised by both landholders and key starting to see young, innovative farmers with stakeholders within both shires that for small fresh thinking getting into niche markets. More holdings to be a positive influence in a rural and more people getting into niche markets on zone, there must be: small holdings … This kind of thing is happening and with more momentum (Eric, • alertness and careful management of how Sean and Miles, Tweed key stakeholders). small holdings interact with traditional agriculture; and, In contrast, some interviewees in Cabonne • critical incorporation of MLS policies into argued that, within this Shire, landholders are strategic plans for rural zones, including buying up smaller holdings to amalgamate with issues related to freight networks, their existing properties ‘so that they can be transportation and infrastructure provision. bigger and more viable for crops’ (Victor and Susan, Cabonne landholders). The research did, For key stakeholders in Tweed, the size of the however, not collect data to make any holding was less important than how the land is conclusive statements about the commonality of managed and what is being done on the land. this and how these distinct patterns manifest Similar views were found among landholders. within the shires. As Emanuel stated: ‘[y]ou don’t need the larger holdings around here to make them economic’ 5.2 Intentions to subdivide (Emanuel, Tweed landholder). Small holdings
require new thinking and innovative farming Sub-division of land in the next five years was practice to feed positively into the rural fabric not a popular course of action amongst the and agricultural economy. They can, as survey respondents. Almost three-quarters articulated by stakeholders in both shires, (72%) said they did not intend to do so, with a revitalise and reinvigorate rural villages. In further 14% unsure or yet to consider it. Cabonne, Millthorpe was mentioned by a
number of participants as an example of a Intention to subdivide Cabonne Tweed successful subdivision. Yes 2% 21% No 80% 68% The disadvantages with small holdings can, as Unsure 17% 12% illustrated in the quote below by Tweed key Table 5.2 – Intentions to subdivide by shires stakeholders Eric, Sean and Miles, be Following on from the initial question, 17 survey- respondents answered a follow-up question
regarding their interest level in sub-division. Key stakeholders in Tweed emphasised that rather Seven respondents were very interested in sub- than being about the size of the holding, productive division but subject to restrictions from local land use is about how landholders manage their council. land and what is being done. Small holdings require a particular approach, which emphasises new In contrast to the survey respondents, thinking and innovation. If done right and supported interviewees from Tweed often expressed a by good planning initiatives, small holdings can desire to subdivide. In Cabonne, none of the revitalise and reinvigorate rural areas. interviewees indicated a desire to subdivide,
53
Figure 5.2 – Intention to sub-divide in the next five years
Figure 5.3 – Interest level in sub-division of land holding with some seeking opportunities to expand their 5.3 Motivations to subdivide landholding by either leasing or purchasing more land. A number of long-term landholders in Tweed expressed a desire to subdivide. These
54 out of the rural property market only to be replaced by urban dwellers without adequate Intentions and aspirations to subdivide were knowledge and the ‘right motivation’; stronger in the Tweed interview sample than in the • compromises the agricultural supply chain; Cabonne interview sample. Older interviewees who and, either were retired or getting close to retirement • if subdivision results in absentee or negligent were the main group who expressed a desire to landholders, it increases biosecurity and subdivide in the immediate future. Most of them did, disaster risks. however, wish to stay on the property and would prefer a second dwelling over subdivision. They would like to remain on their land and contribute to Similar to key stakeholders, some of the the maintenance of the farm by sharing their interviewees emphasised that it is not knowledge and experience. subdivision in its own right that is the problem but subdivision with dwelling entitlements. As Alexander (Cabonne landholder) explained, it is residential subdivision that is problematic: landholders were either in early retirement or moving towards retirement. It should be noted, [r]esidential subdivision in that unique area however, that the interviewees who expressed should have been halted a long, long time ago. this desire would prefer to get a second That’s the thing people are looking for, the dwelling on their property so that they could money for a dwelling entitlement. Subdivision hand over the main responsibility and was not a problem, it was the dwelling management of the farm whilst still living on entitlements (Alexander, Cabonne landholder). their property and being involved in some of the day-to-day farming activities. It should be noted that a key difference between the two shires is that many of the Cabonne Motivation to subdivide was driven by three key farmers interviewed already have two or more factors: dwelling entitlements. In Tweed, on the other hand, only one of the landholders had a second • concerns about succession and desire to dwelling entitlement. Whilst this will be continue living on the land; discussed further below, it is important to note • economic hardship; and, here that Tweed farmers were generally more • land no longer deemed viable or competitive receptive to—indeed, often calling for—a for agriculture. second dwelling entitlement. The Cabonne farmers argued for the benefits of the second 5.4 Opposition to subdivision dwelling in terms of managing their farm and having another source of income from their land Key arguments against subdivision included: but saw problems embedded in subdividing the land and giving new dwelling entitlements. • agricultural land is limited and ‘it’s like Humpty Dumpty … you can’t put it back together 5.5 The role of the dwelling entitlement again’ (Richard, Tweed key stakeholder); • compromises the commerciality of farming; Approximately three-quarters of respondents • fragments rural land and good agricultural land (72%) indicated that there was a dwelling gets lost to residential, non-productive land already present when they assumed land uses; ownership/management, while a further 24% • changes the characteristic of rural life; had constructed a dwelling after taking control • ruins the ambience of the area; of the land. Almost all of the respondents (107 • increases rates; of 116) said that either they or someone else • increases property prices, which forces lived in the dwelling on the land holding. Only 1 farmers wanting to expand or young farmers
55 of 123 respondents said that their land holding In contrast, only one landholder on a large had neither an existing house nor council property from Tweed had a second dwelling approval for a residential dwelling. entitlement. The lack of a second dwelling was the cause of significant frustration across the A few of the interviewees emphasised the interviewees from the Shire. As Jimmy, for commercial value of the dwelling entitlement, example, stated: however all agreed that when selling or buying a property it was, ultimately, quality of the land [the council must] allow us development. We that would make a difference. As Pat, a can’t have our children, we can’t have our landholder from Tweed on a large property said: elderly – we must be allowed to build on our properties! A farm needs more than one house; you’ve always got to look at having to sell the need to be able to keep the old ones on the place and whoever is going to buy it, the first farm to help on the farm (Jimmy, Tweed question they’ll ask is regarding dwelling landholder). entitlements. They are worth money but they don’t outweigh, in terms of perceived value, In Tweed, the desire to have a second dwelling they don’t outweigh the use to which you could was connected to succession and financial put the land (Pat, Tweed landholder). stability. Older landholders in particular expressed a desire to have a second dwelling All of the interviewees used their dwelling so that they can remain on the land and entitlement/s and argued that the dwelling was connected to the farm, whilst gradually reducing essential for the management of the farm. their involvement in the hard, physical labour. As Some of the farmers interviewed did not Jules explained: themselves live on the farm but leased out the farmhouse to a farm manager. The interviewees if we get a second dwelling entitlement on in both shires explained that being able to live here, it allows our daughter and her husband- on the farm is important for: to-be to move out here, it gives them a better lifestyle, but also it would allow us to stay on • day-to-day farm management; the property in older age, whereas if we didn’t • husbandry; and have someone living here, we may have to • security. move into suburbia, or nursing homes, or who knows where we will end up (Jules, Tweed landholder). As mentioned earlier in the report, many of the
interviewees from Cabonne had multiple (two or Younger landholders expressed a desire to have three) dwellings. Most commonly, the second a second dwelling to enable a steady income dwelling was rented out long-term to a tenant or stream, by: used for semi-permanent or permanent farm accommodation. Cabonne landholder, Peter, • leasing it out semi-permanent or permanent; stated that: • hosting farm hands; or,
• tapping into the Tweed tourism market by the second land holding is handy; it means we offering short-term accommodation (bed and will have someone on the property if we go breakfast; eco-tourism; art and nature retreats away. Of course, it depends on the tenant, but etc.) we have a good tenant. The houses are close
by, so it is important to have the right tenant. This group of participants emphasised how a The person who lives there now wanted to live in a rural setting so he is comfortable with the steady income stream through a second farming activities on the property and helps if dwelling would free up their time (as they would we need it (Peter, Cabonne landholder). not have to do as much off-farm work), enable
56 investment in the farm and expand productive • state and local government should ensure land use. Essentially, they argued, by having a transparent rules in regard to subdivision and second dwelling and a more steady income, dwelling entitlements; they would take more risks in terms of innovative • all possible land uses, including those that are farming—both in terms of products and specific to small holdings, should be taken methods. From the perspective of the DPI, into account; second dwellings are a risk to agricultural • there should be flexibility in the planning productivity as it may increase land use system to enable a range of land sizes without losing too much agricultural land; conflicts, lead to future fragmentation of rural • if smaller blocks are allowed and/or landscapes, and create an inflated property encouraged, local government must ensure market that can be detrimental to productive that this goes hand in hand with service futures. delivery and infrastructure provision;
• the right to farm should be protected; 5.6 Role of governments • information about what farming involves in terms of ‘pollution’ (noise, light, smell, visual), When asked what the role of governments land management and available support for is/should be in terms of managing issues related farmers should be made easily accessible to to small holdings, key stakeholders and minimise potential land use conflict; and, landowners in both shires agreed that: • development interests should be kept at bay to ensure that agricultural land does not come under strain or is compromised by residential projects.
57
Participants, particularly in Tweed, expressed appears as if people’s perception of local frustration over the planning system and politics in general is having ripple effects in government bureaucracy, which is experienced terms of how land use planning and strategies as inaccessible and difficult to navigate. In are interpreted. Tweed, a number of participants expressed significant concern about past Council Essentially, all participants agreed that the practices, and the Council was criticised for a overarching objective of all levels of degree of rigidity in terms of what was government should be to protect rural lands permissible under the LEP for new and agricultural interests. Landholders developments. It should be noted, however, that expressed concerns about the future of agriculture in the shires, with the urbanisation the Tweed Shire council has developed a draft and interests that are counter-productive to Rural Land Use Strategy aimed to improve agriculture having capital and power to get planning for rural land use. There seems to be a their agenda up. The need to protect gap in local residents’ awareness of the agricultural production through policies such as Council’s strategies and plans in terms of land ‘right to farm’ was emphasised by numerous use, with many expressing frustrations about landholders and key stakeholders in both shires. political agendas. These attitudes were primarily articulated by long-term residents or people 5.7 Conclusion: key issues who had interests in either subdividing or building a second dwelling. It is beyond the Perceptions of small holdings and the degree to scope of the research to investigate these which they are conducive to primary production assumptions, though it is worth noting that it generated variable results across the participant
58 cohort, with Tweed participants more likely to approach to development support the idea that small holdings can sustain applications. Table 5.3 – Key issues identified in the data related to lot productive and profitable agricultural land uses. size, dwelling entitlements and planning This most likely reflects the smaller lot size of the Tweed and the specialised agricultural Theme Shires Participant group activities of Tweed participants in this study. Small • In Tweed, the size • Particular holdings of the holding was attention must be It was expected that participants would deemed less afforded to the important than interaction demonstrate a strong desire to subdivide their land management between small holding; however, this was not reflected in the and activity type holdings and findings. Most participants noted the dangers of • In Cabonne, small traditional subdivision in rural areas. Where subdivision holdings were agriculture was sought it largely reflected issues of viewed more critically as a succession planning, remaining on the land, potential source economic hardship or that the land was no of disruption for longer deemed fit for purpose. agricultural productivity Subdivision • Interview • Subdivision Dwelling entitlements were generally perceived participants from generally not as a risk factor for agricultural activity, but Tweed more likely being sought by dwellings themselves were seen as critical to to desire survey cohort the management of the farm. In Tweed, the subdivision desire to have a second dwelling was largely • Cabonne participants connected to succession and financial stability. demonstrated It was on this issue that participants, particularly strong opposition from the Tweed, emphasised the imperative to to subdivision protect agricultural productivity from the strains Dwelling • In Tweed, the • Seen as a risk of urbanisation whilst ensuring that planning entitlement desire to have a factor for second dwelling agricultural frameworks were flexible enough to was connected to activity but accommodate appropriate proposals for second succession and dwelling seen as dwellings or other buildings. financial stability essential for farm • In Cabonne, many management participants had second dwellings Key issue Cabonne Tweed and these were a Planners must be aware of source of and alert to the way small Yes Yes additional income holdings interact with Table 5.4 – Key themes related to lot size, dwelling traditional agriculture. entitlements and planning, showing variation between Subdivision is not being shires and landholder groups sought by the majority of Yes Yes landholders and opposition to subdivision is strong. Dwelling entitlements are seen as a commercial asset Yes Yes that can supplement on-farm income. A second dwelling is used to support the day-to-day farm Yes No management or generate supplementary income Governments must protect agricultural lands whilst Yes Yes maintaining a flexible
59 Chapter 6 what rural land use looks like within a setting where the rural economy is diversified. As Changing contexts and implied in the above discussion, both case land use practices study areas have experienced significant change over the past couple of decades, with
Some rural communities in Australia, as well as technological advancement changing the rest of the post-industrial world, are agricultural practice and, subsequently, currently going through a significant transition. redefining what can be seen as quality land, increased pressure from urban centres, and an This transition, sometimes referred to as ‘rural influx of new residents seeking to be in the restructuring’ (Gosnell and Abrams 2011), country. refers to the move from traditional land uses, economic activities, and social arrangements to Both case study areas face the predicament of ‘those associated with “post-productivist” or “multifunctional” landscapes’ (Gosnell and an ageing population and a precarious situation Abrams 2011: 1; Holmes 2006). Agricultural due to depopulation of ‘traditional rural industries are, however, experiencing record residents’. In this setting, tourism, amenity migration, and alternative land use and farming growth, as well as significant national interest in represents an opportunity for economic and the economic opportunities these industries will social security and growth. At the same time, deliver globally (Abares 2017, KPMG NSW these alternative industries present in Farmers Association 2018, Deloitte 2014). The themselves a threat to rurality and agriculture; alternative view is that, agriculture is no longer ‘the backbone of the rural economy, and farming with an increase of treechangers—both landscapes are instead commodified as lifestylers and hobby farmers—tourists and “scenery” for tourism, or for real estate alternative land use practices, the integrity of the rural areas—characterised by small populations developments’ (Gibson 2014: 188). This notion and expansive space—can be compromised. of a post-productivist landscape informs this Many of the concerns related to the changing project, which ultimately, strives to understand
Figure 6.1 – Self-assessed quality of land
60 contexts have been outlined above, including: have a relatively negative perspective of the subdivision and small holdings; dwelling quality of their land. entitlements; and, biosecurity. These three concerns relate to five cross-cutting themes, 6.2 Knowledge namely: quality of land; knowledge; property prices; technology; and, climate change. As discussed in Section 4.6 on biosecurity, new rural residents, treechangers and lifestylers, 6.1 Quality of land: agricultural lands negligent and absentee landholders, present distinct challenges to long-term, permanent Approximately 50% of the survey respondents residents. New residents interviewed for the (60 of 119 respondents) believed their land to study acknowledged that they have significant be ideal for the activities they are pursuing. A gaps in their knowledge and often spoke about further 27 (23%) classified their land quality as how difficult the first few years of owning a rural being average for agriculture and having some landholding had been. How to get access to constraints; for example, restricted access to information and build knowledge was a key water or poor soil quality. issue raised by most of these participants. Gaps in knowledge at the onset of their new rural lives When cross tabulated by LGA, the data included knowledge about: indicates that Cabonne participants had a higher opinion of the quality of their land, where • biosecurity; a significant majority believed their land was • husbandry; ideal for the particular land use. In contrast, • water; participants from Tweed were more likely to • weather; • seasonal variations; and • correlations between crops and soil.
Self-Assessed Quality of Land x LGA
Other (please specify)
Productive agricultural land is not required for the kind of activities undertaken (e.g. the land holding supports a tourism business, value-adding industry or an intensive agricultural… My property sits on land more suited to non-agricultural uses due to topography, soil quality, drainage, vegetation or some other reason
My property sits on land only suitable for unimproved or native pastures due to the quality of the land
My property sits on average agricultural land and/or has limited access to water, and this constrains the efficiency of the activities undertaken
My property sits on productive agricultural land that is ideal for the kind of activities undertaken, and has access to water
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Cabonne Tweed
Figure 6.2 – Self-assessed quality of land x LGA
61 succession and retirement, as well as support new farmers interested in expanding their The small holder people, they don’t have those knowledge and optimise the opportunities on holdings for such a diverse range of reasons, and their property. they generally don’t belong to any group. It’s really hard then to get messaging and targeted stuff to Many of the participants emphasised that being those people, because you’ve got to find the a farmer today is not simply about working the community group that they belong to, that then allows you to access and educate them. land. In addition to agricultural knowledge there is a distinct need for farmers to have business Sandy, Cabonne key stakeholder literacy. Farming is a business and there is a need for farmers to understand how to successfully manage their farms as businesses. As Meg explained, ‘some have only seen Similarly, key stakeholders in both shires were farming as farming.’ This was an issue concerned about how landholders—particularly emphasised by the younger intergenerational those who are new to farming but also long- farmers in particular, who spoke about issues in term farmers—can get to know what the best trying to introduce new ways of doing things, management practice is. Many of the new technology and new thinking. interviewees, both key stakeholders and landholders, identified the role of It should be noted that whilst it was relatively intergenerational learning, and how so much common for long-term farmers to speak with about working the land and managing a farm discontent about treechangers and lifestylers in comes from observation and practice. terms of their knowledge, the treechangers and lifestylers interviewed for this project all The participants mentioned three main modes of articulated an awareness of their gap in learning: knowledge and a willingness to learn.
• intergenerational learning (generational 6.3 Property prices farmers); • formal training (farmers and hobby farmers); A key concern articulated by many of the • learning by doing (farmers, hobby farmers and farmers interviewed for the project was how lifestylers). land has increased significantly in value due to
urbanisation and development. A key Acknowledging the presence of two distinctly stakeholder from Cabonne explained how there different landholder groups—(a) long-term has been extraordinary sales of rural property farmers with much knowledge and experience, recently, where, for example, a holding of and (b) new farmers with other resources, such approximately 1450ha sold for AU$4 million. As as money, energy, initiative and business an agriculturalist, he is concerned about land savviness—a number of participants spoke being sold for such prices; as he said, ‘you can about how there could be a much more never make it back’ and, as such, you will not be integrated system of knowledge and resource able to attract the type of landholder that would sharing, that could be to the benefit of all local be ideal for these types of properties. This residents. With a generation of farmers about to resonated with a number of other landholders, retire, many landholders, particularly in Tweed, including Peter who stated that: spoke about how they have distinct, detailed and deep, knowledge about farming within the [a] key challenge for the area in general is that region. It was suggested by a number of the land value does not match what a farm can participants in Tweed that this resource could make. This is not a challenge for me but it be tapped into and create a positive bridge for would be a challenge if I wanted to be farming
62 full-time. One challenge for the Shire is that the makes ‘it harder for those who want to farm to world has changed in terms of farming. It is get started in farming. hard to make money out of farming yet the expenses with farming have increased (Peter, [w]e’re a prime example, and we have to work Cabonne landholder). our backside off to pay this farm off because land values are so over-valued. The only way Whilst the landholders interviewed for the for young people to get a start in farming is to project acknowledge the increase in property have a family who already own the farm. These prices as a positive in terms of the value of their days most people who get into farming have own property, they expressed concern about the already had a career that has generated the consequences that this may have for the future. profit needed to buy the farm and, so, by The inflation of the rural property market in rural starting later in life you are disadvantaged as areas is pushing many young, keen farmers out farming is physical work. We want young, of the game, creating an inequitable scenario bright, smart, people to be involved in farming. where the urban class can get access to rural Young people needed to bring in innovative land yet those who have a deep commitment to technology (Rick, Cabonne landholder). and interest in productive land use will not be able to gain access. Landholders said that they 6.4 Technology are concerned that the only way young people can get into the market would be through It is not just movement of people that has intergenerational farming, which is limited and changed the nature of rural living and agriculture also made difficult due to the rules of within the two shires; technology has also subdivision and dwelling entitlements. played a significant role in changing how agriculture is practiced—both in terms of Increased property prices may be an incentive methods and products. Participants spoke for people to subdivide their property; as Gavin, about advancement in everyday farming a large landholder from Cabonne, said: technology, as well as use of innovative technologies, such as drones. The [m]any don’t like what I have to say because interconnection between technological land prices have sky rocketed and they see it advancement and farming at all scales was as an opportunity to make money by splitting mentioned by many of the landholders and key up their land; they can make ten times more stakeholders in both shires. Key stakeholders (Gavin, Cabonne landholder). emphasised new technologies as opening opportunities for value adding (Ronald, It should be noted that further research and Cabonne key stakeholder), local processing analysis is required in relation to the link that participants make between subdivision and Technological advances in processing of meats and property prices. The causality suggested by that sort of thing has really improved, so it’s going to participants is potentially problematic, but be easier to process in our region. That’s the story beyond the scope of this work to verify. we want be pushing and promoting, and hopefully our policy framework will accept and adopt that way Urban sprawl has seen people seeking to move forward, in that we’re going to be trying to evaluate to the country for its aesthetic value. Slowly, this in our region. Agriculture’s a really big, positive has changed the rural property market from industry, it’s employing a heck of people and being about its agricultural value to also being retaining population in our region. And that’s what about aesthetic value, as mentioned at the we’re really hoping for with our regional strategic beginning of this Chapter. A subsequent plan. concern articulated by a number of participants, Natalie and Abby, Cabonne key stakeholders including Cabonne landholder Rick, is that this
63 (Natalie and Abby, Cabonne key stakeholders), and innovative farming practises and biosecurity Natalie: …we don’t even know what they [the measures (Tara, Cabonne key stakeholder). An climate risks] are yet. [But land] is actually very finite. example of how technology has helped was So understanding where the resource is and then emphasised by landholders Aaina and Eric. protecting it appropriately so it can be there when They have a small holding in Tweed and we decide to be the [agricultural] capital, or whatever, we can say, ‘Hey, we’ve got that land. produce mangoes for local markets. With We’ve protected it.’ And because we don’t know advancement in solar technology, they are now what [the future] will look like, we just need to make able to have multiple freezers and are value sure that it’s there for that range of… adding to their products by creating pre-cut Abby: It’s a bit like the old precautionary principle. mango for restaurants in the region. Natalie and Abby, Cabonne key stakeholders Whereas most participants spoke about technological advancement as something positive that leads to positive change and optimisation of land, for some participants it has the pruning and spraying more difficult. Pablo’s had the opposite effect. This was particularly the original idea to seek land with good drainage for case in Tweed, where banana and avocado avocados has subsequently become obsolete; farmers explained how their land has become as there has been technological advancement, non-competitive against larger farms on the the biosecurity issues related to drainage can Queensland flats. When these farmers be managed on flatter land. This has allowed for established their farms in the 1970s, the sloping bigger farms on flat land, which facilitates a hills in the Tweed Valley were considered ideal streamlining of pruning and spraying, and it because of the need for drainage. Since then, makes harvesting and general maintenance however, farming of products such as bananas easier. In this environment, what used to be a and avocados has changed, with technological profitable business is no longer so. ‘It has advances in fruit picking making the Tweed less become too hard’, Pablo stated, ‘my land has competitive than their Queensland counterparts. become unproductive’.
This was distinctly articulated by Pablo, one of Pablo is one of the landholders in Tweed who the former avocado farmers interviewed for the expressed frustration and anguish about the project. Pablo came to the area in the early inability to embrace alternative land uses for his 1970s and settled on the property where he still property. He would like to subdivide his property lives together with his wife. The area where he so that his son can come and live and work the lives was one of the first areas in the region to land. Part of his frustration is that he believes grow avocados, a new crop in Australia at that there is a lack of recognition within the council time. Pablo and his wife established a of how his land is no longer viable for profitable successful avocado business, raising a lot of rural production, as it used to be. These their own trees. The land, he explained, was sentiments featured in interviews with other considered ideal for avocado growing because Tweed participants, with a strong sense that of the drainage, which enabled a natural interviewees wanted greater flexibility in rural protection against pests and diseases, although zoning to account for changes in productivity. the sloping hills close to the rainforest presented distinct biosecurity challenges. It is here important to reiterate that there was a Whilst the sloping hills created an ideal general consensus amongst key stakeholders environment for the avocado, he explained, and local residents in both shires that being close to the rainforest makes the trees technological innovation is a positive for particularly vulnerable to one of the main productive land use. Pablo’s story has been avocado pests, fruit-spotting bugs, and it makes
64 recounted in detail here as it tells a different planning and alternative business structures that story about technological innovation that we do can ensure productive land remains used for not often hear; namely how technology—in this primary production. This information could assist instance related to how, where and at what ageing landholders to age in place or get a scale crops can be produced—can support value for their property that reflects its productive activity but also, when the particular productive potential. productive activity relates to distinct qualities of land and landscape, this can result in a Note that the flexibility relating to rural zones is a devaluation of the former uniquely productive result of the NSW Government statutory land. framework and, although some decision-making sits with local councils, the NSW Government Whilst Pablo’s story is not unique it must be also plays a significant role. seen in context of other variables, including age. Pablo and the other participants who share this 6.5 Climate change sentiment are all in the older age bracket of the study. They have stopped producing at the rate Whilst not asked directly about climate change, that they did and have regenerated parts of their a number of interview participants (n16) holdings to bushland. Their views of the land mentioned changing weather patterns and more being unproductive is not necessarily the case; extreme weather as one of the key challenges conversely, the land may still be productive but associated with current and future land use in the issue is that it is no longer possible for these the shire. The comments on climate change residents to take advantage of a new farming were spread across the landholder and key era where healthy avocado and banana crops stakeholder groups in both shires: can be produced on flatter and more easily manageable land. The land may, thus, still be Key stakeholders in Cabonne emphasised: the productive; the issue is around competitiveness finite nature of land as a resource and the in a market where the ‘get big or get out’ subsequent need to protect land appropriately; dynamic has become prominent. Moreover, it and, the need for climate modelling and the may be that Pablo’s land and that of the other imperative to look at biological infrastructure landholders could be used for other products, and potential impacts of changes in rainfall and further suggesting that it is not the quality of the temperatures on specific crops. Tweed key soil or land in its own right but what is being stakeholders, on the other hand, emphasised done and how the holding is imagined as a increased risks and vulnerabilities due to productive holding. flooding, and spoke in general about climate change as a key issue that needs to be As three of the key stakeholders in Tweed addressed in future planning of land use. emphasised, productivity is not about the size of the holding but about how the land is imagined Overall, the key issues mentioned in relation to and how new land use practices can be climate change as a challenge for future land introduced to respond to a dynamic primary use in the two shires were: production context. For some of the older participants of the study, to reimagine their • land use will become more hotly contested as holding and transform this into productive the impacts of climate change become more practice is beyond their capacity at this stage in evident; life. This emphasises the importance of • viable agricultural land will be reduced and it is supporting transitioning and succession. Local paramount to protect productive agricultural and State Governments should consider land for the future; whether they have a role in increasing awareness of resources available for succession
65
• rising temperatures may compromise existing • global warming is already having an impact on land use practices, such as horticulture in productivity in both shires due to wet years Cabonne, which is dependent on a certain and flooding in particular. amount of days with below four degrees and frost; 6.6 Conclusion: key issues • land is a finite resource and strategic agricultural land must be protected; it is a land The changing contexts and land use practices in resource that can cater for a range of different Cabonne and Tweed Shires present distinct uses—some which are not yet known—but it is and profound challenges for landholders. The finite and must not be compromised; triple effect of ageing populations, depopulation • precautionary principle should be applied; of ‘traditional rural residents’ and the influx of • all levels of government and individual new rural residents featured significantly in the landholders must have a plan for how to findings across this research cohort and was a respond to climate change; key concern of participants for future viability of • biosecurity concerns related to small holdings (see Section 4.6) and negligent or absentee rural areas. Participants were particularly landholders further enhance climate change concerned about the potential ‘traditional related risks of disasters, agricultural knowledge drain’ from these such as flooding and bush fires; demographic shifts but support consistent • there is a need for climate modelling to better approaches to dealing with this knowledge understand how crops respond to climate issue, including: intergenerational learning, change; formal training and learning on-the-job.
66 Increasing property values across both shires Theme Shires Participant group were, logically, seen as personally positive, but change has developments as dramatically improving strong sentiment existed that these values impacted the agricultural greatly impact succession and financial viability. banana and outcomes and Combined with the threats posed by climate avocado reducing land change, these contextual and land use practice industries management developments were key issues for governments issues Climate • In Cabonne, • Viable agricultural in seeking to preserve and enhance rural areas. change concern existed land will reduce for crops requiring and activities will cooler conditions need to change Key issue Cabonne Tweed into the future Quality of land was a concern Table 6.2 – Key themes related changing contexts and across the survey Yes Yes land use practice, showing variation between shires and respondents. landholder groups Retention of traditional knowledge is critical to future Yes Yes rural landholding viability. Property values are escalating and present a distinct threat Yes Yes to succession planning. Technology can be a threat to competitiveness of No Yes landholdings. Climate change may compromise productivity of Yes Yes landholdings. Table 6.1 – Key issues identified in the data related to changing contexts and land use practices
Theme Shires Participant group Quality of • Cabonne • Questions over land participants had a whether land was higher opinion of fit-for-purpose the quality of their existed across the land cohort Knowledge • Tweed • Knowledge of participants talked biosecurity, in detail about the husbandry, water, potential to draw weather, seasons, on experienced, and soil was seen retired farmers to as being under act as a bridge in threat from succession of demographic and landholdings and population shifts to educate new in rural areas residents Property • In Cabonne, the • Escalating prices prices issue of land seen as good for values was individuals but particularly negative for the emphasised by future viability of participants as landholdings impacting succession Technology • In Tweed, • Many participants technological and view land use practice technological
67 Chapter 7 7.1 Changing social landscapes
Rural neighbours Key issues mentioned by interviewees in relation to the changing social landscapes include: Both shires have experienced demographic changes over the past couple of decades. • The shires have become tourist attractions. People have sought to move to the shires, This presents new business opportunities for looking for work in the mining industry landholders but it also presents challenges, (Cabonne) or looking for life beyond the urban particularly related to biosecurity. boundaries where they can get more for their • The urban sprawl manifests as an incremental money and a higher quality of life. For Cabonne creep. It is important for all levels of and Tweed, the proximity to Orange and the government to be proactive in relation to this Gold Coast is a double-edged sword; on the as it can be slow yet devastating on future one hand, it is a source of optimism as new agricultural productivity. people move into the rural areas, which are • Intensive agriculture gets pushed out as the vulnerable to population decline and ageing, yet, boundaries of the rural-residential/urban on the other, this movement of people may expands. This presents issues related to compromise the long-term viability of agriculture coexistence. If residential properties are and be a source of land-use conflict. In these placed next to an intensive agricultural instances, the various levels of government no holding, it may become a cause of tension and longer have to simply facilitate agriculture conflict. • New neighbours are not always aware of what within rural zones, but they must protect rural life is about and become surprised and agriculture. confronted by the ‘harshness’ of agriculture—it
68 smells, it is noisy and it is not always pretty. To communities. In contrast, in Cabonne, small minimise land use conflict within the new rural landholders were often seen as disruptive of neighbourhoods, there is a need for new the rural dynamic as they would spend little residents to accept the non-idyllic sides of time in the area due to work or commitments rural life and agriculture. elsewhere. • Networks and collectives are particularly 7.2 Collaboration and networks important for small holders and micro- producers. Local markets were mentioned in All participants agreed that collaboration and both areas as a very positive initiative that networks are essential for productivity and a supports the individual farmers, both through vital part of healthy rural economies and the opportunity to showcase and sell their communities (see also: Pritchard et al. 2012). products, and by building up a sense of Issues mentioned in relation to collaboration and community. • networks included: There is a sense of interdependency within rural areas, where people help one another
out. Some larger landholders (particularly in • It can be challenging for landholders to keep Cabonne) expressed concern that small up with changes in the sector. Organisations holdings and absentee landholders disrupt the and networks—both formal and informal—play rural ecosystem. a key role in informing landholders about • Through networks and organisations, important changes within agriculture. landholders can share expenses and • Informal networks, such as those that may resources. Through a generalised reciprocity, emerge within rural neighbourhoods, are landholders can share equipment and lend a important in terms of creating a sense of hand when it is needed. The cost of community and belonging, and foster equipment makes these informal networks an volunteerism and support. Small landholders essential part of the rural economy in both were mentioned as both negative and positive Tweed and Cabonne. forces in this regard. In Tweed, many • Community groups play a role in providing a mentioned how small, new landholders could sense of togetherness, support and, where bring energy and resources into rural applicable, businesses.
Figure 7.1 – Experience of problems with neighbours in past three years
69
Figure 7.2 – Primary purpose of neighbouring land
• Networks can also be important in terms of When asked further questions about the nature giving farmers and people living ‘on the of their problem, 45% (24 of 53 respondents) margins’ (away from the political centres) a identified the neighbours involved in the conflict stronger voice. There is a need for as using their land for residential purposes – organisations and networks to lobby and be implying compatibility problems being much vocal about the need for market access and more likely between rural residences and other rights. rural land uses. Almost two-thirds (65%, 34 of • There has been an erosion of traditional 52) of respondents identified the status of the support networks because of the loss of problem or issue as being unresolved. traditional farmers and landholders who are regularly away from the property. Absentee Some of the issues mentioned during the landholders, thus, have wider social and interviews included: economic implications. • fencing disputes; 7.3 Land use conflict • spray drift; • everyday farming practice (e.g. noise from ‘It’s our right to farm!’ was a phrase articulated tractors); by many landholders interviewed for the project. • seasonal farming practice (e.g. noise related As there has been a change in the social to calves being weaned); landscape of rural areas, a new type of land use • illegal hunting; conflict has emerged. This conflict emerges • biosecurity; from the presence of two different ‘types’ of • smells; rural residents, farmers and lifestylers, who • light pollution from greenhouses; cohabit within the rural zones for different • visual pollution (e.g. use of nets or plastic to reasons—production versus amenity. cover fruit trees).
Almost half (46%, n=55) of 119 survey Both key stakeholders and landholders in both respondents reported that they had experienced shires, though particularly in Cabonne, a problem with a neighbour in the last 3 years.
70 Figure 7.3 – Current status of neighbouring land use conflict
emphasised the need for a stronger right to between treechangers and established farmers, farm policy. and different agricultural interests, that was the focus in all interviews. As Cabonne key Whereas there are other land use conflicts stakeholder, Avery, stated: ‘land use conflict is present in both shires, such as conflicts related always going to be where you’ve got to mining and gas exploration, when speaking urbanisation’. Similarly, Cabonne landholder, about land use conflict, it was the conflict Alexander, stated:
71
There are so many offensive practices, With land use conflict being largely driven by particularly in horticulture, that you’re just on a the divergence in knowledge, expectations and collision course and I’m broad-minded enough activities of rural neighbours, particularly to see there is no right to farm, no right to put between new residents and traditional rural pesticides over somebody’s fence. There’s lots landholders, collaboration and networking of things about horticulture that aren’t great becomes critically important to addressing (Alexander, Cabonne landholder). changing social landscapes. Participants of this study emphasised the imperative to develop 7.4 Conclusion: key issues formal and informal networks of landholders to encourage knowledge-exchange, resource It is beyond doubt that the traditional structure sharing and efficiency, market opportunities, of rural communities of the Cabonne and Tweed community development and mutual shires has shifted over the past decades and appreciation between neighbours. These relationships between rural neighbours now networks are particularly important for small present distinct challenges for residents and holders and micro-producers in lifting governments. The social landscape of Tweed productivity, supplier and market access and and Cabonne Shires have been transformed by cohesion. population and demographic changes, coupled with increasing tourism, urban sprawl and the influx of new residents. These dynamics have Key issue Cabonne Tweed heightened concern around biosecurity, land Tourism presents business management practices, agricultural productivity opportunities and biosecurity Yes Yes challenges. and land use conflict. The key task for policy Intensive agriculture gets makers thus becomes one of better pushed out as the boundaries Yes Yes understanding these shifting landscapes so that of the rural-residential/ urban they can respond to the new context, ensure expands. optimal outcomes for the community and, most New neighbours are not always prepared for the Yes Yes importantly, protect agricultural productivity. realities of rural life.
72 Collaboration and networks are critical to productivity, Yes Yes change management and community cohesion. Small holders and new residents disrupt the Yes No interdependent nature of rural communities Conflict between ‘treechangers’ and Yes Unclear established farmers Table 7.1 – Key issues identified in the data related to rural neighbours
Theme Shires Participant group Changing • Strong concern • Population, social existed for co- demographic, landscapes location of lifestyle tourism and lots and farming urbanisation are operations, with forces impacting expectations of the social new residents landscape of rural causing conflict communities Collaboration • In Tweed, small lot • Through and networks holders seen as networks, contributing to landholders can rural community share (resources, time) experiences, • In Cabonne, small resources, landholders seen expenses and as disruptive of knowledge rural dynamics Land use • In Cabonne, Land • Participants conflict use conflict often emphasised the linked to disputes need for a robust between small right to farm holdings and policy/ regulation larger, conventional agricultural holdings Table 7.2 – Key themes related to rural neighbours, showing variation between shires and landholder groups
73 Chapter 8 • increased risk in everyday farming activities.
Future In Tweed, a number of landholders explained that they believe a second dwelling would allow When asked about the future, the interviewees them to address some of these challenges. This were generally positive. This was also the case would allow them to continue living on the land for the farmers interviewed, despite a general and provide advice on farm management, whilst consensus that life as a farmer can be arduous. the farm would not become under- or un- When speaking about the future, the productive. A second dwelling forms part of interviewees often focused on their farming the succession plan for the majority of these practices, emphasising how they wish to not landholders, who have a deep connection to only work the land but nurture the land for the their farms and still believe they can future. As Dustin, a landholder in Cabonne said, contribute in terms of management. Emanuel, he wants to ‘pass on the land to new for example, said that: generations better than it was when I purchased it’. [i]f we could have an extra house or dwelling, we could move into that I would like to stay There was a general consensus amongst the here, but someone would have to come in and landholders, as well as policy and decision do some of the maintenance. It would be makers, that they must take a longitudinal cheaper to have someone come in and do perspective on the future. Problems, including some of the maintenance than it is to sell up those related to small holdings, emerge when and buy somewhere else … the extra dwellings people focus on short-term profits; ‘you need to would help, in a lot of different aspects see what will happen with the land down the (Emanuel, Tweed landholder). track’ (Tara, Cabonne landholder). There is need for forward planning at all levels, and investment For many of those who are not yet at retirement in education and sustainable land use practices. age, the future prospect of ageing forms part of their farm management decision to ensure that 8.1 Ageing communities the properties are easier to manage so they can stay longer. A key issue related to the future mentioned by a number of participants—both in terms of their 8.2 Succession personal circumstances and the future of the shires—was the ageing population. The ageing Succession planning was a major concern for nature of the rural population is an issue the majority of landholders interviewed. As identified by the survey participants. It is a suggested in Section 8.1, the long-term concern that is considered to be important for landholders expressed a desire to stay on their planners and decision makers to deal with. farms. They feel a deep connection to the land and wish to stay and work the land as long as Age, the participants explained, matters on a possible. number of accounts: The majority of participants believe that • limitations in what activities the landholder can succession planning is intimately linked to the engage in; question of subdivision and second dwelling. • land not being adequately cared for because That being said, this was very much a sentiment of illness or health issues; articulated in relation to concerns about their • outdated farm management practices; individual future. There was a general • difficulties keeping up with fast changing consensus that splitting up the country side for technology and market needs; and, residential purposes could have a negative
74 impact on primary production in the shires. In Jimmy (Tweed landholder) argued, ‘they Cabonne, the increase in property prices makes [Council] need to consider each situation landholders concerned about how they will be separately instead of just throwing the blanket able to facilitate succession. Essentially, the over every proposal; we just want the chance to landholders called for a system where retiring show them why we want to change what we farmers can generate an income—either on or do.’ Importantly, whilst these sentiments were off the farm—and younger farmers can come in clearly articulated, they were very much related and go on with the farming enterprise. The to the individual landholders’ aspirations rather majority of the older landholders expressed a than considerations of land use planning as a desire to subdivide to give a share of the holistic and future-oriented activity. Two property to their children, though explained that exceptions to this were two landholders in they knew this could potentially jeopardize the Cabonne who have extensive experience from farm in the future. working within planning circles. According to them, a flexible system that responds to 8.3 Concerns regarding policy and changes in the market and context is needed planning but this should not be done in a way that compromises good agricultural land. Indeed, The interviews raised a number of concerns soil quality, water and potential for primary regarding policy and planning. These addressed production should, according to them, be a two key questions: major consideration when making future planning decisions regarding zoning. • How do decisions makers best accommodate rural lifestyle opportunities without Some of the more detailed responses included: compromising future agricultural development opportunities? • The emphasis for all levels of government • How might the region grow without should be to ensure the productive future of compromising its key assets, which includes rural lands. both bushland and farmland? • There is a need for right to farm legislation. There are limitations in the right to farm policy There were various responses to these as it stands now. questions but there was general agreement that • Planning strategies should be forward looking; there is a need for sensible, serious work with there is a need for a strong, yet flexible and transparent policy and planning framework future planning in terms of water, that enables various land uses and holding infrastructure, networks, land and soil types. sizes whilst protecting agricultural interests. • More careful attention should be paid to soil Protecting agriculture was emphasised as the types and the quality of the land to ensure that key for all planning and policy by all good agricultural land does not become participants—key stakeholders and land subject to development. None of the holders alike—across both shires. This did not interviewees are anti-development but there mean that people are against rural residential, was a general consensus emphasising that it but there was general consensus across the has to be in the ‘right’ place, which are places sample that it must be controlled and managed that do not compromise agricultural strategically within a future looking plan that production now and in the future. ensures the protection of agricultural lands. All • Agriculture should have priority; there is a the landholders interviewed in Tweed and the need to protect what is a limited resource for majority of interviewees in Cabonne stressed future food security. • Government must think not just about today; the need for more flexible zoning conditions to strategic planning for the future is essential. better account for new productive activities, • Land use plans should take into account land quality, and changing market demands. As regional variation in terms of climate and soil.
75 • Regional development should be aimed at 8.4 Conclusion: key issues advancing innovation and entrepreneurialism. Silo-thinking must be avoided. The positive outlook expressed by most participants about the future is indicative of the Some interviewees, both landholders and key resilience of rural communities to change, stakeholders, spoke about problems within the whether it be climatic, demographic or policy and planning system: economic. For interviewees from both shires, the desire to not only continue farming
• In Cabonne, it was stated that there is a gap operations but to take on a stewardship role for between local and state government that is sustainable land use demonstrates an causing tension. Policy must be more direct opportunity for governments and industry to and strong to ensure that the different levels of work with landholders to improve soil, water and government work towards the same biodiversity outcomes from rural activities. overarching goals.
• There is a need for a stronger, clearer planning framework at state level, which The ageing of the population, and its associated councils can easily apply. There should be impacts, represents one of the most complex more clarity in what the rules are and it must challenges for rural communities and be ensured that these are not conflicting. policymakers. Discussion of this theme brings with it concern about dwelling entitlements and Landholders want to see from government: succession planning. Whilst all participants • support for smaller businesses and reduction recognised the dangers of rampant residential of red tape (Cabonne); dwellings across their respective shires, • succession support (Cabonne and Tweed); concern was raised as to how to combat the • right to farm policy: need to find ways to impacts of an ageing population through facilitate coexistence, reduce (and resolve) dwelling entitlements. This was particularly the conflict without compromising agricultural land case in the Tweed given that second dwellings use (Cabonne and Tweed); are rarely permissible under planning • zoning used to protect agricultural land regulations. • alignment of policies between different councils (Tweed); The participants of this study outlined a range of • support of new thinking, innovation and policy and planning changes that they believe entrepreneurialism, as well as mixed farm would address many of the looming concerns enterprises that draw on the multiple about the future, including: support for opportunities within the region (farming and productive enterprises, bureaucratic tourism) (Cabonne and Tweed) efficiencies, succession support and the • minimisation of urban sprawl and protection of agricultural land (Cabonne and Tweed); development of innovation clusters. The • protecting quality land from residential emphasis was always placed on the protection development (Cabonne and Tweed); and, of valuable agricultural lands whilst ensuring that • a system that enables farmers at all scales to the planning system is flexible enough to adapt be competitive agents in the new rural to shifting economic and social landscapes and economy (Cabonne and Tweed). the ever-evolving needs of landholders across the shires. Landholders, particularly in Tweed, expressed some concern about the clarity of planning processes and decisions. Participants’ conveyed a Key issue Cabonne Tweed sense of confusion around the operation of the Positive view of the future. Yes Yes planning system, particularly as it relates to small Ageing rural communities as having a negative impact on Yes Yes holdings, subdivision and dwelling entitlements. the future.
76 Succession planning linked to staying on the land whilst younger family/ farmers Yes Yes gradually assume management of the land. Second dwelling would assist No Yes with succession. New policies and frameworks must be established to assist farmers to become Yes Yes competitive in the new rural economy. Agriculture should always be the priority in rural planning, but agricultural productivity Yes Yes should be viewed in a multi- faceted way. Table 8.1 – Key issues identified in the data related to the future
Theme Shires Participant group Ageing • In Tweed, • Ageing population perception that a as a negative second dwelling force for the would reduce future impacts of ageing population on land management and succession Succession • In Cabonne, • Farmers increasing expressed a property prices desire to stay on seen as impacting their land and succession, gradually hand limiting market management over entry to the next generation Policy and • In Tweed, more • A strong, yet planning flexible zoning flexible and regulations and transparent policy confidence issues and planning over the approach that transparency of enables various local government land uses and processes holding sizes • In Cabonne, whilst protecting perceived gap agricultural between local and interests state government directions, which causes tension Table 8.2 – Key themes related to the future, showing variation between shires and landholder groups
77 Chapter 9 Increasing property values across both shires were, logically, seen as personally positive. Conclusion: implications Strong sentiments were, however, expressed and recommendations and the majority of landholders interviewed raised concern about how the changes in the
The key objectives of this project were to: rural property market impact succession and financial viability. Impact of technology was • develop an evidence-based understanding of largely seen as beneficial although some how small and other holdings (with dwelling participants explained that technological change entitlement) are managed, and the relative has rendered them relatively uncompetitive. productivity and uses for small and other lots Combined with the threats posed by climate across the case study areas; change, these contextual and land use practice • provide an understanding of how the dwelling developments are key issues for governments in entitlement is exercised by individual seeking to preserve and enhance rural areas. landholders and the implications in terms of agricultural practice, management and Small holdings and productivity infrastructure; The Tweed and Cabonne cohorts demonstrated • identify issues faced by Governments (local some divergent views on the small holdings and and state) associated with managing small their contribution to agricultural productivity. holdings (with dwelling entitlement); and, Whilst participants from Cabonne commonly • identify best practice approaches for policy, advocated for larger-scale agricultural which supports planning decision making for production, all the participants from Tweed land holdings with dwelling entitlement, with a expressed a view that small holdings can be particular focus on small holdings. used for smaller, specialised farming practices and therefore contributed to productivity. It Whilst the data from the survey and interviews should be noted, however, that the argument have provided some insight into current about the potential productivity of small holdings landholder views, the main value of the research were not forwarded as an argument for small is that it establishes baseline information to holdings to replace large-scale production. further investigate issues that impact on land Conversely, the Tweed participants use policy and planning related to settlement acknowledged the continued value of and need and agricultural land use outcomes. It cannot for large-scale production whilst emphasising definitively provide evidence to change policy. how the unique characteristics of Tweed offer distinct opportunities for a diversification of the The information from the project point to several rural economy. The argument, here, was not for key implications, including: small holdings to replace large-scale production but to establish a system that would encourage Changing nature of rural areas existing small holdings to take advantage of their The changing contexts and land use practices in productive potential. Cabonne and Tweed Shires present distinct and profound challenges for current The divergence in the responses from the two landholders. The triple effect of ageing cohorts demonstrates the importance of context populations, depopulation of ‘traditional rural (including history) in shaping attitudes and residents’ and the influx of new rural residents actions to land use and land use planning. It is, who often have limited experience of agriculture for example, important to consider the lot featured significantly in the findings and was a analysis for the Tweed in this context: small key concern of participants in relation to future holdings make up much of the landscape of the viability of rural areas. Tweed due to historical planning decisions, hence landholders are having to work with the
78 property size they have. As a result, the fragmented nature of the Tweed area and the agricultural enterprise undertaken reflect the specialised agricultural activities that have been results of the survey. adopted as part of this.
In areas with new rural entrants on small Generally, participants from both shires agreed holdings, more effort needs to be made to assist dwelling entitlement impedes agricultural landholders in the development of innovative activities when sited inappropriately, changing practices and agricultural products. The the social landscape and increasing land use emphasis placed on the role of small holdings in conflict. Dwellings were, however, seen as both areas also indicates a need for greater critical to the management of the farm in both attention by state and local government towards shires. establishing networking and knowledge-sharing frameworks between all rural landholders, and The ageing of the population, and its associated many of the perceived negatives associated impacts and concerns about providing with small holdings (e.g. biosecurity, dwellings as part of succession planning, is an competitiveness) require further attention. ongoing issue for the government. Whilst all participants recognised the risks of increasing Participants emphasised that for small holdings dwelling density in the rural areas of their to have a positive impact on agriculture, they respective shires, concern was raised as to how must be managed carefully to prevent land use to combat the impacts of an ageing population conflict with larger traditional agricultural without additional dwelling entitlements. This neighbours, and appropriate planning and was particularly the case in the Tweed, given minimum lot size policies should be applied by that second dwellings are rarely permissible authorities. under current planning regulations. This raises the issue of the role of the planning system and Dwellings and productivity whether it is acceptable for land-use planning to In the Tweed, where participants usually had be used as a solution for succession planning at entitlement to a single dwelling, the issue of the the expense of future land use outcomes. planning system allowing a second dwelling was perhaps the most vehement of all issues Given the NSW Government is concerned that discussed. Second dwellings were generally there are negative consequences from allowing seen as synonymous with succession and additional dwellings—such as increased financial stability. Many saw the viability of their property prices, increasing housing holding as dependent on a second dwelling, development on rural lands and fragmentation of whether as accommodation, housing for the agricultural fabric of rural communities— relatives or as educational/ recreational dwelling permissibility will require further buildings. For these participants, dwellings were consideration to ensure sustainable agricultural perceived to add to, rather than detract from, production and adjacent land uses can future agricultural productivity, not least continue. because a potential income from a second dwelling would reduce time spent off-farm and Conserving agricultural lands generate capital to invest in infrastructure on the Whilst there was strong consensus amongst all property. It was also argued by some of the participants about protecting agricultural lands older participants that in cases of succession, if from over-development, the concept of what it a second dwelling was allowed, means to ‘protect agricultural lands’ differed. intergenerational farming could be supported Two broad camps were evident where and specialised knowledge as it relates to the participants either emphasised the need to holding retained. These findings from Tweed retain agricultural lands for productive purposes can, in part, be explained by the already and focus on innovating within the existing
79 production schemes or preserve the viability of shires. Attitudes and knowledge-sharing are the landholding through new activities and shaped by the degree to which one feels part of innovative agricultural approaches. The former a greater whole, and, accordingly, framing what position was more evident in Cabonne, whereas encompasses a rural lifestyle and how this the Tweed participants demonstrated a much lifestyle is maintained may create opportunities stronger inclination to the second approach. for collaboration and mutual appreciation. Much of this can be put down to historical developments and the current level of Conflict, co-existence and collaboration subdivision and agricultural industries in the Land use conflicts were common across the area. research sample and were generally unresolved. This points to the need for a rural The role of off-farm income communication platform to allow matters to be The majority of respondents in this study addressed systematically. Rural neighbour emphasised the role off-farm income plays in relations is related to the matter of collaboration supporting the viability of their landholding. and a common understanding of what rurality Participants were less inclined to see off-farm means. Participants expressed a concern that income as ‘smoothing out variability in innovation in rural and regional settings is at risk profitability’ and most commonly viewed this because of a lack of collaboration or an erosion income stream as critical to overall viability. It of collaboration being brought about by land also suggests that new business models for fragmentation (Cabonne), absentee landowners rural agricultural practice might be developed, (Cabonne), growth of lifestylers and rural including greater service-sharing and diffusion residences (Cabonne and Tweed), and lack of of cooperative activities. This could enable the knowledge sharing mechanisms (Tweed). skills of landholders to be utilised in other parts of the community, and aid personal choice in The difference between how landholders employment. Landholders in both shires also perceived their own biosecurity practices as pointed to the potential value of sharing opposed to neighbours and other landholders in equipment and, with the exception of the large their respective shires could also indicate an landholders interviewed who would be overestimation of personal knowledge and operating at a scale where they have greater capacities or an overly negative appraisal of need for specialised and large machinery, adjacent landholders. Where the latter is true, participants pointed to the potential value of conflict and contestation may arise, suggesting establishing mechanisms for resource sharing to a need for greater attention to be afforded to reduce costs on the individual landholder. standardisation of biosecurity knowledge and capabilities. The lack of collaboration or the The attractiveness of the rural lifestyle erosion of collaboration presents challenges to The interviews and survey data illustrate that their day-to-day work and changes the nature of people seek to settle in the country and wish to rural living. live within rural areas because of the distinct lifestyle that it offers. For the majority, this desire Challenges for the future to experience a rural lifestyle was tied closely to Productivity, profitability, land management and wanting to be involved with primary industries. biosecurity were articulated as significant challenges by all survey participants. Dealing The overwhelming importance attached to a with climate change and technology were also ‘rural lifestyle’ as motivation for living in rural concerns. It should be noted that since the areas provides an opportunity to educate new completion of the research, the matter of climate rural landowners on what to expect when living change has gained increased momentum in a rural area. This may create a foundation for across rural NSW, with the current 2018 improved relationships across rural and regional drought highlighting the vulnerability of farmers
80 across the state. Further research into impacts about the future, including: support for of climate change on biosecurity is required. productive enterprises; bureaucratic efficiencies; succession support; and, the The participants report that the major capital development of innovation clusters. They investment over the last five years has been emphasise the importance of protecting infrastructure—mainly fencing, followed by valuable agricultural lands whilst ensuring that water/irrigation systems. Small landholders the planning system is flexible enough to adapt noted that they had to invest in infrastructure to shifting economic and social landscapes and just as much as large landholders. The majority the ever-evolving needs of landholders across acknowledged that variation in profitability was a the shires. key challenge to be able to do this, pointing to the potential value of a greater shared resource The survey and interviews responses serve as a base as identified above to be a way to reminder that the planning system is not well overcome this. understood by landholders, both at an operational level and in dealing with the future With land use conflict being largely driven by needs of the community. There is an ongoing the divergence in knowledge, expectations and need to review the needs of agriculture in the activities of rural neighbours, particularly rural zones to help avoid land use conflict and, between new residents and traditional rural likewise, not create conflict through providing landholders, collaboration and networking residential land uses close by. becomes critically important to addressing changing social landscapes. Participants of this The dichotomy between keeping agricultural study emphasised the imperative to develop land for agriculture in suitable holding sizes, formal and informal networks of landholders to limiting fragmentation through controlling encourage knowledge-exchange, resource subdivision and associated housing whilst sharing and efficiency, market opportunities, dealing with the demand for lifestyle choices community development and mutual (and housing) by residential requests in the rural appreciation between neighbours. These areas is identified. The survey indicated this networks are particularly important for small ongoing debate, especially where housing and holders and micro-producers in lifting subdivision has increased land prices whilst at productivity, supplier and market access and the same time converting areas into permanent cohesion. lifestyle options to the detriment of agricultural industry. Future resilience and planning considerations The positive outlook expressed by most Recommendations for governments participants about the future is indicative of the • Plan for adequate and well-placed rural resilience of rural communities to change, lifestyle and residential opportunities through whether it be climatic, demographic or gaining a better understanding of why people economic. For interviewees from both shires, wish to remain within or move to a rural area. the desire to not only continue farming • Improve understanding of the dynamics of operations but to take on a stewardship role for demographic change, increasing land values, sustainable land use demonstrates an changing land uses, and climate change to opportunity for governments and industry to address the heightened risk of reduced biosecurity, poor land management practices, work with landholders to improve soil, water and reduced agricultural productivity and biodiversity outcomes from rural activities. increased land use conflict. This will assist
policy makers to respond to the new context, The participants in this study outlined a range of ensure optimal outcomes for the community policy and planning changes that they believe would address many of the looming concerns
81 and, most importantly, protect agricultural productivity. • Support communities to establish networks that improve communication and enhance interaction between landholders and, subsequently, advance knowledge on how to address challenges associated with communication and interaction as experienced by local landholders. • Develop better strategies to support existing landholders in agricultural production on small landholdings, particularly in areas where fragmentation of rural landscapes has occurred. • Develop resources to support new entrants to gain local knowledge about rural living and local expectations and maximise opportunities in sustainable agricultural production. • Increase awareness of existing resources that support succession planning and alternative business structures that can allow ageing in place without subdivision or second dwellings. • Holistically consider the need for small holdings and their function within the landscape and continue to plan for the location of small holdings through development of strategic plans, MLS policies and regulatory tools.
82 https://www.ato.gov.au/business/primary- Bibliography producers/primary-production-activities/ Bock K, Bruckhorst D. nd. Socio-economic ABS – see Australian Bureau of Statistics change analysis. Coping with Sea ANZ. 2016. Australian Agriculture. Funding Our Change. Understanding Alternative . Melbourne: ANZ Future Futures for Designing more Sustainable ATO – see Australian Taxation Office Regions (LWA UNE 54). Accessed 4 2011 Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2011. December 2017. Census of Population and Housing. https://www.une.edu.au/__data/assets/pd Canberra: ABS f_file/0004/19525/Socio-Economic- Australia Bureau of Statistics. 2012. Article – Change-Analysis.pdf Land management practices in the Great Cabonne Council. 1992. Development Control Barrier Reef Catchment Area. Plan No. 5. General Rural Zones. Molong: Environment. Accessed 4 December Cabonne Council, Environmental Services 2017. Department http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected] Cabonne Council. 2017. Cabonne Council. /Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~ Accessed 4 December 2017. Main%20Features~Article%20%E2%80 https://www.cabonne.nsw.gov.au/ %93%20Land%20management%20prac CAN. 2017. CommBank Agri Insights tices%20in%20the%20Great%20Barrier Innovation Report. Sydney: CAN %20Reef%20Catchment%20Area~283 Chartered Accountants Australia and New Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2016. 2016 Zealand. 2015. Food, Farming and Our . Census of Population and Housing Future. Accessed 4 December 2015. Canberra: ABS https://www.charteredaccountantsanz.co Australian Government. National Health and m/news-and-analysis/insights/future- Medical Research Council. 2007. inc/food-farming-and-our-future National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Creswell J, Plano Clark V. 2007. Designing and Human Research (2007) – Updated May Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2015. Accessed 4 December 2017. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines- Deloitte. 2014. Building the lucky country #3 publications/e72 Positioning for prosperity? Catching the Australian Government. Department of next wave. Agriculture and Water Resources. About Department of Agriculture and Water my Region – Richmond-Tweed New Resources ABARES. 2017. Australia's South Wales. Accessed 4 December Agricultural Industries Map 2017 2017. Destination Tweed. 2017. Welcome to the http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/rese Tweed. Accessed 4 December 2017. arch-topics/aboutmyregion/nsw- https://destinationtweed.com.au/welcome richmond-tweed / Australian Network of Plant Conservation. 2015. GHD. 2008. Councils of Blayney, Cabonne and Myrtle Rust Arrival in Australia – Archival Orange City. Sub/Regional Rural and Material (September 2010). Accessed 4 Industrial Land Use Strtegy. Final December 2017. Strategy. GHD, for NSW Government http://www.anpc.asn.au/myrtle-rust- Departmnet of Planning, Blayney Shire archive council, Cabonne Council and Orange Australian Taxation Office. 2015. Primary Council Production Activities. Accessed 4 GHD. 2015. Tweed Shire Council. Tweed Rural December 2017. Land Strategy Options Paper. Coffs Harbour: GHD
83 Gibson C. 2014. Rural place marketing, tourism for-your-area/Regional-Plans/North- and creativity: Entering the post- Coast/Plan productivist countryside. In R Dufty-Jones NSW Department of Planning and Environment. and J Connell (Eds.) Rural Change in 2017b. Local Planning and Zoning. Australia: Population, Economy, Accessed 4 December 2017. Environment, pp. 187-209. Farnham, http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Plans- United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing for-your-area/Local-Planning-and-Zoning Gosnell H, Abrams J. 2011. Amenity migration: NSW Department of Primary Industries. 2009. diverse conceptualizations of drivers, Minimum Lot Sizes. Accessed 4 socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging Deceember 2017. challenges. GeoJournal 76(4): 303-322 https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/asset Harrison H, Birks M, Franklin R, Mills J. 2017. s/pdf_file/0004/189733/minimum-lot- Case study research: foundations and size-methodology.pdf methodological orientations. Forum: NSW Department of Primary Industries. 2011. Wualitative Social Research 18(1): Art. Maintaining Land for Agricultural 19 Industries. Policy. Accessed 4 December Hernández-Jover M, Hayes L, Toribio J-ALML. 2017. 2014. Smallholder Production in https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/lu Australia: Final Report. Prepared by p/legislation-and-policy/maintaining-land- Charles Sturt University and The for-agricultural-industries University of Sydney for Department of NSW Department of Primary Industries. 2017a. Agriculture. Wagga Wagga: Charles Sturt Biosecurity and Food Safety. Accessed University 31 October 2017. Holmes J. 2006. Impulses towards a https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/biosecurity multifunctional transition in rural Australia: NSW Department of Primary Industries. 2017b. gaps in the research agenda. Journal of Biosecurity, a Shared Responsibility. Rural Studies 22(2): 142-160 Accessed 31 October 2017. Klepeis P, Gill N, Chirsholm. 2009. Emerging https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/biosecurity/bi amenity landscapes: invasive weeds and osecurity-a-shared-responsibility land subdivision in rural Australia. Land NSW Department of Primary Industries. 2017c. Use Policy 26: 380-392 Maintaining Land for Agricultural KPMG National Farmers Federation. 2018. Industries. Accessed 4 December 2017. Talking 2030. Growing Agriculture into a https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/lu $100 Business Industry. p/legislation-and-policy/maintaining-land- Leech NL, Onwuegbuzie AJ. 2010. Guidelines for-agricultural-industries for conducting and reporting mixed NSW DPE – see NSW Department of Planning research in the field of counseling and and Environment beyond. Journal of Counseling and NSW DPI – see NSW Department of Primary Development, Winter 2010, 88: 61-70 Industries McManus P, Walmsley J, Argent N, Baum S, NSW Government. 1991. Cabonne Local Bourke L, Martin J, Pritchard B, Sorensen Environmental Plan 1991. Accessed 4 T. 2012. Rural Community and Rural December 2017. Resilience: what is important to farmers in https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/vie keeping their country towns alive? Journal w/EPI/1991/432/part3/cl16 of Rural Studies 28(1): 20+29 NSW Government. 2006. Standard Instrument NSW Department of Planning and Environment. (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006. 2017a. North Coast Regional Plan 2036. Accessed 4 December 2017. Accessed 4 December 2017. https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/EPIs/2 http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Plans- 006-155.pdf
84 NSW Government. 2008. State Environmental International Journal of Justice and Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008. Sustainability 23(1). Accessed 4 December 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017. https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/vie 1389868 w/EPI/2008/128 Sinclair K, Curtis A. 2017. Understanding Rural NSW Government. 2012. Cabonne Local Landholders’ Perspectives on the NSW Environment Plan 2012. Accessed 4 Cattle Tick Program. NSW Department of December 2017. Primary Industries, Graham Centre, https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/EPIs/2 Charles Sturt University 013-2.pdf Spiire. 2012. Final Report. Small Rural Lots NSW Government. 2014. Tweed Local Project. Rural Councils Victoria / Environment Plan 2014. Accessed 4 Municipal Association of Victoria. December 2017. Melbourne: Spiire https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/EPIs/2 Tweed Shire Council. nd. Tweed Shire. 014-177.pdf Employment Locations – Agriculture, NSW Government. 2016. Standard Forestry and Fishing. Accessed 4 Instrument—Principal Local Environmental December 2017. Plan. Accessed 4 December 2017. http://economy.id.com.au/tweed/employm https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/EPI/ ent-locations?Indkey=23001 2006/155a/historical2016-01- Tweed Shire Council. Nd. Tweed Shire. 27/part1/cl1.2 Agriculture. Accessed 4 December 2017. Pritchard B, Argent N, Baum S, Bourke L, http://economy.id.com.au/tweed/value-of- Martin J, McManus P, Sorensen A, agriculture Walmsley J. 2012. Local – if possible: Tweed Shire Council. 1987. Tweed Local how the spatial networking of economic Environmental Plan, 1987. Murwillumbah: relations amongst farm enterprises aids Tweed Shire Council small town survival in rural Australia. Tweed Shire Council. 2004. Tweed 4/24. Regional Studies 46(4): 539-559 Strategic Plan. 2004-2024. Pritchard B, Neave M, Hickey D, Troy. L. 2017. Murwillumbah: Tweed Shire Council Rural Land in Australia: A Framework for Tweed Shire Council. 2013. Community the Measurement and Analysis of Strategic Plan 2013/2023. Murwillumbah: Nationwide Patterns of Ownership Tweed Shire Council Change, Aggregation and Fragmentation. Tweed Shire Council. 2016. Rural Villages November 2012. RIRDC Publication No. Strategy. Murwillumbah: Tweed Shire 12/038. RIRDC Project No. PRJ-000171. Council Barton, ACT: Rural Industries Research Tweed Shire Council. 2016. Tweed Sustainable and Development Corporation Agriculture Strategy. Murwillumbah: Rural Council Victoria. nd. Small Rural Lots Tweed Shire Council Review. Accessed 4 December 2017. Tweed Valley Weekly. 2017. Land Values Rise http://www.ruralcouncilsvictoria.org.au/wp Across Tweed Shire. Tweed Valley -content/uploads/Small-Rural-Lots- Weekly, 3 February 2017. Review-of-Planning-Schemes.pdf Urban Enterprise and EnPlan. 2013.Tweed Salt B. 2018. Shifting heartlands – the Shire Rural Land Strategy. Resource changing demographics of rural Australia. Inventory and Land Capability Sherval M, Askland HH, Askew M, Hanley J, Assessment. Prepared for Tweed Shire Farrugia D, Threadgold S, Coffey J. 2017. Council by Urban Enterprise Pty Ltd and Farmers as modern-day stewards and the EnPlan Partners rise of new rural citizenship in the battle Urban Enterprise and EnPlan. 2014.Tweed over land use. Local Environment. The Shire Council Rural Land Strategy.
85 Tender #EQ2012-197. Stage 2 – Issues Analysis. Final Report: Stage 2. Prepared for Tweed Shire Council by Urban Enterprise Pty Ltd and EnPlan Partners Wilson. GA. The spatiality of multifunctional agriculture: a human geography perspective. Geoforum 40(2): 269-280
86