Mr Peter Bascomb Chief Executive Officer Snowy Monaro Regional Council 81 Commissioner Street Cooma, NSW, 2630

By email: [email protected]

31 January, 2021

Dear Mr Bascomb

RE: SNOWY MONARO REGIONAL COUNCIL – DRAFT RURAL LAND USE STRATEGY (DRLUS) and DRAFT SETTLEMENTS STRATEGY – SUBMISSION EXPRESSING SIGNFICANT CONCERNS

I write to you to express my concerns and objection to the Draft Rural Land Use Strategy, as published on 19 October, 2020.

My family and I have a long history with the Snowy Monaro region by way of the Monaro Pioneers. My Pop, Douglas Lesley Phillips, was born in Cooma and resided at Billilingra; his great Grandfather was Samuel Phillips, a Monaro Pioneer. I am also a descendant of the Cameron’s of Waterholes, Michelago and the Wallace’s of Adaminaby, Jindabyne and Kiandra. My husband is a descendant of the Williams’ of Nimmitabel, after whom Lake Williams is named.

In 2016, my brother and I purchased 587 acres (237.9 hectares) on the Calabash Firetrail, approximately 25km from Michelago. Our property was once owned by members of the Tozer family who are connected to the Phillips’ by marriage, and who are connected to George Sims, another of the initial Monaro Pioneer settlers.

The purchase of the property was made possible by bequest of my late grandfather. Ronald John Small was a veteran of the Second World War, where he was deployed as Military Police in New Guinea for 3 years. My grandfather was also a chicken and pig farmer for much of his life and he worked for the Department of Main Roads building much of the western Sydney road network, including the Old Putty Road and Parramatta Road.

It was part of his final wishes that my brother and I, through our father, were provided with part of the proceeds from the sale of his home to purchase our own land. He wanted us to have a property we could farm, enjoy, live, and play. He provided so that we could pursue our dreams and be able to have a profitable small farm with plenty of room as our families grew.

Even though we have personally only owned the property for 4 years, my father owned a property directly next door for some 20+ years. This property was previously part of a champion line Poll Hereford stud, owned by my brothers godfather for a number of years. My brother and I have been personally connected to the region for our entire lives.

As we have only owned our property for a short time, through which we have faced extended drought and bushfire at the beginning of last year, we have been fixing problems with

1 | Page existing infrastructure, dealing with some erosion, controlling weeds and improving the land, and planning for the future. We have drafted agricultural production business plans, but they are strategic, long term plans.

This proposal seriously limits our ability to implement any of our future plans. Not only does it increase our overheads with the requirements for additional Development Applications, due to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development) 2008, the chances of those DA’s being approved are reduced. For example, did you know that E zones are not mentioned in Subdivision 21 Fowl and poultry houses, making them a development requiring approval?

The implementation of vast areas of environmental protection zones also impacts on neighbouring properties allowable activities even if they retain an RU zone. Properties within 500 metres will now have restrictions imposed upon them. For example: temporary stock holding facilities following a natural disaster and poultry farms are not allowed within 500 metres of an environmental protection zone, and the keeping or breeding of horses, cattle or sheep for commercial purposes, as defined by intensive livestock agriculture, are not allowed in environmental protection zones or RU2 – Rural Landscape.

The Strategy explicitly prohibits some of our future plans which are currently allowable and were at the time of deciding to purchase our property.

We will have to submit a development application for our horticultural business as it is proposed to be listed as permitted with consent compared to permitted without consent currently under RU1 – Primary Production.

It removes our access to critical aspects of the State Environment Planning Policy (Primary Production and Rural Development) 2019.

It affects our ability to utilise newly legislated bushfire protections (Bushfires Legislation Amendment Bill 2020), and will likely exclude us from future bushfire protections resulting from the Bushfire Inquiry.

Our environmental protection and rehabilitation works will no longer be accessible with the exclusion of environmental protection zones from Part 5A Land Management (native vegetation) of the Local Land Services Act 2013. Something which might be of interest to you is the outcome of our recent Native Vegetation Regulatory Map review process through the Office of Environment and Heritage. A significant portion of our land was mapped as old- growth forest. Following discussions with South East Local Land Services (SELLS) and Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) they advised that we should initiate a map review due to proven issues with the mapping. It was a result of this review that more than 95% of our mapped Category 2 – sensitive regulated land was removed and has confirmed that there are substantial deficiencies with the mapping. Other properties neighbouring ours are currently undergoing the same review process. Conclusions could be drawn about other consequential flaws of the mapping used to justify the implementation of the environmental protection zones.

It was an outcome of the Northern Councils E Zone Review – Final Recommendations Report that matters of public health, safety, risk and hazard, biodiversity corridors and aesthetic values not be zoned as environmental. The safety, risk and hazard recommendation relates to bushfire risks, which forms an integral justification to the proposed re-zoning of properties to an environmental protection zone. The review makes

2 | Page specific mention of the need for biodiversity field inspections and ground surveys to be conducted by an appropriately qualified person prior to any proposal for an environmental protection zone. It also states that land which has been voluntarily revegetated by the current landowner, will not have an E-zone applied to it without the agreement of the current landowner. Even if land meets the criteria for an E-zone, if the primary use of the land is agricultural, the land is not to be rezoned as an E-zone. The Review states that aesthetic values should not be environmental protection zone’s because the definition of what constitutes an aesthetic value is subjective and often varies between areas; for example: farm cropping can be aesthetically pleasing, much like buildings can.

The Practice Note – Environment Protection Zones (PN09-002) states that councils must ensure that zoning is applied consistently to ensure that the zones value is not diminished by inappropriate application. The justification that Council have used to protect aesthetic values, endangered or threatened ecological communities, high biodiversity areas and for high bushfire prone areas introduce substantial inconsistency. The environmental protection zones do not cover all areas of mapped with endangered or threatened ecological communities. They do not cover the high bushfire prone grasslands or all woodlands of the Monaro; nor do they protect all of aesthetic values of the region. There is no consistency with the number mapped value layers that constitute the use of an environmental protection zone. There are areas of proposed environmental protection zone where only one mapped value is used as justification, while others, which aren’t proposed to be zoned environmental, have many.

It is this same Practice Note that points to the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 and requires councils to consider its’ potential impacts if councils are to significantly reduce the allowable uses when applying any environmental protection zone. Councils are also required to ensure that the range of proposed land uses assists in retaining the land in private ownership, unless an acquisition authority has been nominated. Council could be at consequential risk of enacting this Act should it constrain the ability of landowners and farmers land use rights.

The proposal seeks to devalue our asset.

It stops us from being able to access some disaster assistance if the current eligibility criteria remain for future incidents.

At their core, the Strategies, present a significant risk to our futures.

Not only is it our future, it risks the future of the Snowy Monaro Region. The significant increases in minimum lot size (MLS) reduces the potential settlement options for future expansion of the region. It limits development potential to provide for succession planning for our regions farms – the food and fibre producers. It means our aging farmers will be unable to stay on their own land with family because of the removal of the averaging provisions or dual occupancies. And it doesn’t allow for innovative, sustainable and emerging smaller scale farming which could make the Snowy Monaro a leader in the industry.

They do not meet or address all of the goals, strategies or recommendations of the State, Regional and Local plans or strategies. (Attachment A - Connection to State, Regional and Local Plans and Strategies)

It removes the ability of many existing landholders from being able to develop on their properties for the purposes of residing and investing in the region. It is proposed that there be no existing holding provision for the former Cooma-Monaro or Bombala Shires. The DRLUS strategy states that existing holdings were provided with a ‘sunset’ clause which

3 | Page expired in 2017, however this was not communicated effectively to those landholders affected by the end of this clause. Many have only just found out they have lost their entitlement to build a dwelling. The only existing lots which will retain building entitlements are 1985 holdings in the Snowy Rivers Shire (and only for 3 years with the addition of a ‘sunset’ clause) and those subdivisions which required a development application or were subdivided under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development) 2008. Those landholders who are not in a position to submit a Development Application with the required studies and, potentially, purchase the required offsets imposed by the legislation, will lose out on ever being able to develop their property. Providing this as a solution imposes unnecessary financial strain on landholders.

The study completed by Elton Consulting titled ‘Snowy Monaro Employment Lands and Rural Lands Analysis’ has substantial flaws. Key to these flaws is the analysis and discussion points of the minimum lot size. Table 33 comparing the lot size makes note that there are only 1,076 lots above 200 hectares but there is no data provided for the number of lots between 200 and 250 hectares. The lots above 200 hectares make up a grand total of 8% of the lots in the Snowy Monaro Region. However when Elton Consulting discuss the proposed minimum lot size, they justify a potential increase by saying there are 75% of holdings which are greater than 200 hectares. It is widely known that rural properties comprise multiple lots. Elton Consulting states ‘This demonstrates a clear disparity between the minimum lot size, particularly in the Bombala and Cooma-Monaro LEP’s that have a 40ha and 80ha MLS respectively.’ These lots are already titled, with many dating back to the Robertson Land Acts when people could purchase 130 hectares of land from the Crown. Increasing the MLS for these lots does nothing for protecting farming land from further subdivision. All it achieves is reducing potential dwelling development on these lots and decreases saleability, thus land values.

Not included in this study, or the DRLUS, is analysis of what the outlook for the LGA looks like retaining the status quo for minimum lot size and zoning. That is, can you, or anyone in Council, actually state (without doubt) that there is a significant and definite risk that agricultural land is under threat from subdivision? Can you, or Council, advise how many lots can currently be subdivided? That is, how many lots are greater than twice the size of the current minimum lot size? Can you, or Council, provide this same analysis for how many lots will retain their building rights with the proposed increase of minimum lot size, and how many lots can be subdivided? Hint: it is significantly less than 1,076.

Dual occupancy is proposed to be removed as a permitted activity from environmental protection zones, instead allowing continuing access to secondary dwellings. Secondary dwellings will not permitted to be any greater than 60m2 or 40% (or 30 % depending on which Strategy you read) of the primary dwelling, but only if a property is greater than the minimum lot size. How many properties will now be allowed to have two dwellings? Attachment B provides more detail on the proposed miscellaneous provisions.

The study, titled Snowy Monaro Biodiversity Study, from 15 December 2019, clearly mentions the need for additional work to be conducted to verify biodiversity values as there are gaps in the information provided and the analysis (due to the constrained scope of works requested by Council) completed by Molonglo Conservation Consulting. Extracts highlighting this are:

4 | Page

1. ‘Given the extensive spatial data gaps that remain unconfirmed, only the areas of interest to the SMRC for potential future growth have been investigated on-ground as part of this study in line with available resources’; and 2. ‘If the HEV (High Environmental Values) mapping identifies constraints, the nature of these is investigated in more detail to determine whether a site involves Matters of National Environment Significance (MNES), what are those values, and what are the potential threats to those values. If there are no environment constraints identified, then rezoning can potentially be undertaken with respect to the economic and social considerations ascertained by Council’; and 3. ‘We note that while maps are provided to help visualise values and constraints…, the appropriate spatial data layers provided as part of the supplied ‘data pack’ need to be viewed for specific local details’; and 4. ‘In general, we did not attempt to verify the accuracy of spatial data provided to us by regional authorities, aside from very targeted field surveys in a few investigation areas’; and 5. ‘Field surveys and data confirmation should form a key priority for any area proposed for land use or zoning changes’.

Key to extract number 5 was Molonglo Conservation Consulting’s reference to submissions Council received on the Snowy Monaro Region Planning and Land Use Discussion Paper 2019, where landholders and farmers had already raised with Council the need for on the ground validating of the mapping used. Why is Council continuously ignoring the communities concerns?

Molonglo Conservation Consulting make note of the need for consistent weed management to ensure the production and biodiversity values of the region remain high. When talking about property management it is widely accepted that absentee owners are less likely to spend significant time and financial resources to manage a property that they are not regularly at. Council’s own Strategy states, ‘absenteeism tends to result in inadequate efforts to manage weeds’. The MLS increase impacts this. Where owners have purchased a property with the future view to develop the MLS being increased removes this ability. Property owners are currently incentivised to maintain their undeveloped properties because of allowable future use. The increase will remove this incentive and will result in more vacant, unvisited, undeveloped land, left fallow. The Snowy Monaro is already under significant threat from weeds of national significance and this proposal risks that becoming more widespread and irreparable.

While the draft Rural Land Use Strategy professes to be centred around protecting agriculture it is heavily weighted towards relying on tourism and introducing tourist related activities to conventional farming. This comes with its own major issues. These range from risk to biosecurity, with weed and disease issues, through to issues with an increase of visitors on poor roads and the need for additional costly infrastructure to both landholders and Council. Not only is tourism proposed to be allowed in RU2 and RU4 zones, eco- tourism, agricultural produce industry and camp grounds are proposed to be allowed in environmental protection zones. Part of the justification Council is using for the introduction of the environmental protection zone is contradictory to these allowable development options. If Council is saying that people who own land regions are not allowed to reside on their own property or increase settlement with subdivisions due to risk and the reduction of Council services, then tourism shouldn’t be allowed either. It is not just these arguments that don’t make sense, the Strategies are full of contradictions. Attachment C – Comments on Proposed Land Use Tables provides more detail.

5 | Page

At a time where there are significant constraints in community gatherings, Council has released this strategy for community consultation. This consultation has been limited to few face-to-face sessions, many of which have been as a result of lobbying by landholders, community organisations or groups, Zoom sessions and drop-in sessions (one per Council office). It is widely known, and acknowledged by the Deputy Premier of New South Wales, that access to reliable internet across the region is limited. A proposal which impacts on the whole of the Snowy Monaro region should warrant wide and comprehensive community consultation. The information provided should detail all of the potential impacts to landholders and farmers without the requirement for these people to deep dive into pages and pages of Acts, Regulations, Policies and Guidelines. The information provided should be comprehensive but informative and provide sufficient detail, in plain language, for landholders to be able to establish impacts or benefits simply. The Strategies aren’t written independently of each other, meaning both Strategies need to be read to understand the impacts.

The Snowy Mountains Special Activation Precinct (Attachment D – Snowy Mountains Special Activation Precinct) is referenced in the Strategies but landholders in the area are not provided the information they require to determine what Council are proposing for the land. Council acknowledges that the SMSAP is changing but is still proceeding with “carving out” a significant land area of the LGA when it’s trying to consolidate the LGA.

Council is required by law to follow the Local Government Act which sets out the principles councils are to follow. These are detailed further in Attachment E - Statutory Local Government Decision Making and Social Justice Principles.

Council has admitted that letters were sent to approximately 2000 landholders, farmers and community groups. This represents approximately 7.1% of the 27,952 rateable properties within the LGA. The information provided merely advised landholders of the Strategies existence. The letters did not provide any detail about the impacts and changes landholders could expect if the Strategies are adopted. The number of letters and the information provided definitely does not pass the pub test. Refer Attachment F – Snowy Monaro Planning and Development Community Participation Plan for how Council have said they will consult with the community.

The adoption of these Strategies put at significant risk the livelihoods of the current and potential future residents of Snowy Monaro. It is not forward looking, nor is it a strategically thinking proposal. Any proposal which has a core outcome of “provid[ing] a framework to guide growth and development with the rural lands of the Snowy Monaro region to ensure the Snowy Monaro’s economy and environment are protected” should be based on validated spatial data, use critical thinking and look forward to ensure the future of innovative and high value-adding agricultural activities can be achieved in the Snowy Monaro region.

The Snowy Monaro Regional Council has an opportunity to change the community’s perception. There is an opportunity to be inclusive and cohesive. Council has an opportunity to learn from other LGA’s, use what they have done and improve on it, while ensuring and improving the future for our region.

How can Council, whose Vision Statement (Attachment G - Council’s Values, Vision and Mission) is “Through providing a transparent, honest and hardworking organisation, Council has fostered important links with the community to establish itself as a trusted partner” say that this proposal provides solutions to the communities concerns, follows ‘best practice’

6 | Page principles, fosters collaboration with its community, is making decisions based on evidence and is justifiable, harnesses innovative industries and shows kindness and compassion to a community who has endured so much over the last 18 months.

Yours Sincerely

Nicole Small

7 | Page

Attachments and Appendices:

Attachment A – Connection to State, Regional and Local Plans and Strategies

Appendix A1 – South East and Tablelands Regional Plan 2036

Appendix A2 – Snowy Monaro 2040 Community Strategic Plan

Appendix A3 – Snowy Monaro Local Strategic Planning Statement

Attachment B – Comments on Proposed Miscellaneous Provisions

Attachment C – Comments on Proposed Land Use Tables

Appendix C1 – Prescribed Terms for Land Use Tables

Attachment D – Snowy Mountains Special Activation Precinct

Attachment E – Statutory Local Government Decision Making and Social Justice Principles

Attachment F – Snowy Monaro Planning and Development Community Participation Plan

Attachment G – Council’s Values, Vision and Mission

CC: 1. The Hon. John Barilaro, Deputy Premier, Member for Monaro, Minister for Regional New South Wales 2. Mr Craig Mitchell, Cooma Branch Chair, NSW Farmers 3. Mr Dave Banham, Regional Services Manager, NSW Farmers 4. The Hon. Kristy McBain, Member for Eden-Monaro 5. The Hon. Robert Borsak, MLC, Leader of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party 6. The Hon. Mark Banasiak, MLC, Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party 7. Ms Michelle Hespe, The Farmer Magazine

8 | Page

9 | Page