I I I I I I I I RURAL LAND USE IN EAST GIPPSLAND I I I" . I I I EAST GIPPSLAND REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE I FEBRUARY , 1978. I I I 711 . 3099 456 I GIP:E I I 1· I I .I I °*" I I. I• I I I I I I I I I I MPE LIBRARY I TOWN AND COUNTRY . 1 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 .. ! PLANN f\IG srARD M0004023 3868 I LIBRARY I I I. I I I· RURAL LAND USE. IN EAST GIPPSLAND I I . I . !I j I I :1 ·1 EAST GIPPSLAND REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE .FEB RUA.RY , 1978. I. I I~ 711,30.99 5576831· 456 Glp:E. Rura.l larld use in ,Eastt qippsland, · · · · '11 "I f. ! I. ) I I I I RURAL LAND USE SUB-COMMITTEE. I I Cr. L. Hamlyn, Shire of Avon. I Mr. J'. Hopkins, Engineer, Shire of B~irnsdale I Mr. M. Lee,, Department of Agriculture Mr. D. Vernon, Rural Landholders Association I . ' I Mr . F. Garden, Soil Conservation Authority . I Mr. I. Stewart, Regional Planning Officer, Town and I Country Planning Board. I I I I III i . I 1- I 'I I~ L'. I I CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION PAGE 1. CURRENT SITUATION Gene.ral ·1 I As the Sub-Corrunittee Sees it. 2 Existing Planning Controls 2 I Surrunary 12 I 2. COMMUNITY ATTITUDES ·introduction 13 I Comments Received 13 3. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO PLANNING FOR RURAL LAND USE I Introduction 17 ·Density Pol icy 17 I Zoning 18 Minimal or No. Subdivision Controls 20 I Locality or Area Planning 21 . Cluster Subdivision 22 I .combination of Density Pol icy and Zoning.· 23 Rural Land Use .Mapping 26 Land Holdings 28 I Zones . 29 Staging of Subdivisions 29 I Realignment of Boundaries 32 Excisions 32 I Compensation or Betterment 33 Development Rights. 36 I 4. OTHER ISSUES I Rating 37 Changing ·Rural Climate 37 Hardship 38 11 Landscape 38 '.I 5: RURAL. PLANNING GUIDELINES 40 I I __ -------- : ~ I -PAGE I 6. RECOMMENDATIONS 41 I APPENDICES I A. Statement of Objectives B. Su1_1U11ary of Rural Land Use Controls Currently Admini·stered II by Municipalities in the Region. i C. List of Organisations who made comments or presented a 11I submission to the Rural Land Use Sub-Conmittee. I D.. Proposed Zones. E.. Extr~ct from the E.G.R.P.C. submission to the Rural I Rating Enquiry. I FIGURES I 1. Municipalities in the Region . 2. Dens i_ty Policy and Zon i n9 Policy I TABLES I 1. Subdi~ision 6f Land 1972 - 1976 2. Number of Allotments Created I 3. Percentage of _Total Number of Allotments. I I I .I I I I I . c I I I . ,................ ~-·--·~-·--.,,,,..r ................. \ ......... J ......... ·) ---~ .) . I' I ·; ~ ~ ( ~ j I /l "'> ,--. I "' / ,,.,. .J· ! I ~ 4--._.;..""'11 . ,,/ I I m ·--._r.... _ ./ ,· ~ --._.,.., I .,.... I ~..... i :::m < ! '- .., \ - . 0 "P'·--.J"'·\. · I · .. m f" \..\ . --"Y' \ (/ /-·"'-·-...... .,.... ._ ',. "'· < r- CID / '\ r .1 ', C I ./ > ".,_.- , l I ....... \..,) /- "' .... ____ ., . -1 (J ' - I . Z --~ ' ', ~., 1' ~ ;"·'\_..· / \ '"\ .,\,\ ~ > \ I· \'\"· ~ ,.... -·"' 0 \ r·C\. ir ,,~ ......./ ~ ., '\ \{\.,t f '\.i...v-....... .... b \'', .. y.l... \ .I \ I .. , l\,_ ) \ "-·--·--·--·--·--·--·--\ / I• . / \ ...... -4 ' ( -/ . ......~/ -·- '\ ' ~ " \ ...... > . ·- i \. "' '\ ~ \.. \ \ GO I I I v ........ ..._ 0 / i '·c,..,. __ r·-,.r-·,..., . / Ii ."" ..... , ~, ·-7i I .. I . I I f I I I. / . I .I •c::: ~ I z ~ \ I c: \ I z - I ./ I ,I 0"' ..I . ', CID I . 0 I . 0 -· I (/) r c: I I -4 I .z ·~· I c - '\ )lo . I . I I "'~ I I I I - \ / I l\ / i \ / .I '\ I I ..... / ......... / '·\ / I [ I I - 1,v. / I I I INTRODUCTION I In November 1976, the East Gippsland Regional Planning Committee established a sub committee to prepare a report on rural subdivision I in East Gippsland, and participate in a study being undertaken by the Town and Country Planning Board as part of its regional I studies pr()gramme. The chang~s in Rural land use in the Region are ~f great concern I to the Planning Committee. At the inception of the sub-committee, a statement of goals was fonnulated and circulated to groups in the I Region seeking comment. This statement is attached as Appendix A. I During the course of its work the committee has sought comments and data froin all municipalities in the region, relevant Government I Departments and local organisations. The committee also widely publicised the project in local newspapers seeking comments from· I interested individuals. This paper is a summary of the Sub-Committee's work and in its present I form is very much a working document.In its final form it is hoped • that it will .aid municipalities in formulating policies relating to I rural land use and provide the basis for a greater degree of uniform . approach to planning policies in ·I the region . The complexities and the number of factors involved in the rural land I use issue are such that the suh-committee deemed it advisable at this stage to prepare a document which examines the many factors and options I involved and which presents a general picture of its opinions. In view of the fundamental importance of this issue it is considered I I desirable to delay the preparation of a final reprirt until the Regional Committee and the general public have been able to study this draft I report and feed back their comments for further consideration in the final report. I This report iS being circulated as an information document for anyone interested in rural land use and rural land use problems in East Gipps­ I larid. It is intended to serve as a source of ideas and as a basis for discussion - it is not a definitive document and is not a final state­ I ment of the Committee's views. I --------------------- - 1. I I 1. CURRENT SITUATION 1.1 General I 1~1.1 Recent years have seen an increasing demand for smaller ·.rural allotments in previously entirely rural broadacres. I ·A depressed rural economy and increasing speculation in land have led to the subdivision of land into small I all6tm~nts in localised areas. Ho~ever, at present, the prime agricultural areas of the region have not been· I subdivided. It is in those areas where the genuine farmer is prepared to pay prices comparable to those I paid by the hobby farmer. 1.1.2 It is apparent that there is a general trend for rural I ·.holding sizes to become smaller when all economic indications for efficiency and minimisation of cost I are that they should be increasing in size. At present in many areas, there is a minimum subdivision size of I 40 acres. This has led to ~reqter · alienation of farming land than may be necessary. There has been a general i . acceptance by landowners of the 40 acre minimum which has resulted.in subdivision of holdings to the ~esignated ~ . I minimum · irrespective of land su·itabi l ity. I 1.1. 3 Two types of demand for small rural allotments are ·.identified in the Region. The majority of hobby farmers II in fast Gippsland are full time residents who earn their living from other activities in nearby areas and towns I (for example, school teachers, docto~s, dentists etc.). These allotments tend to be well man~ged and well ·maintained and do not bring about many of the problems I normally attributed to hobby farming. Other hobby farms .are used for recreational purposes by absentee owners, I li~ing in other areas of the State, or region. I I I 2. I CURRENT SITUATION (contd) I 1. 2 As the Sub-Committee sees it I 1.2.l ·.Whilst the Sub-Committee believes that the overall effect of small lot rural subdivision has not been I of ~ignificant disbenefit to the region it has caused a number. of problems in localised areas. These problems I include: (i) the removal of pockets of land from economic agricultural production by subdivision. I (ii) The pressure for the provision of services (e.g. water, roads and electricity) which are costly ii to provide and an expense borne by the whole 11 community. (iii) Random and ad hoc approval of rural subdivision I on the basis of wh6 applies rath~r than which ,, are the most suitable areas. This leads to scattered and unplanned development and spot ,I ·demands for services. (iv) The increasing value of adjoining genuine farm­ ' land with consequent rate increases for genuine I farmers . .. (v) The lack of appropriate management of land ~esulting I in problems of maintenance and upkeep. For example; fire hazard, vermin,noxious weeds, dogs, etc. I 1.2.2 ·Many municipalities have experienced instances of the ·. above problems but the situation is not yet of significant I detriment to the region as a whole. It is critical, however, that as the problem has not yet reached major proportions I in East Gippsland adequate controls should be exercised now I to make sure that it does not do so in the future. 1.3 Existing Planning Controls I 1.3.l Many municipalities in East Gippsland have attempted to restrict or even prevent small lot rural subdivision I believing it to be generally detrimental to the area, I I 3. CURRENT SITUATION (contd). but the imposition of particular planning controls, especially minimum subdivision sizes, have created their own problems for rural area. The specifying of a minimum subdivision size is merely a tool to· prevent the cutting up of rural holdings - it is not an optimum standard to be aimed for and it is not the minimum viable farm size. Possibly as a result of these or similar misconceptions some municipalities have exercised general tight rest~ictions on rural subdivision which have effectively prevented any small lot rur~l subdivisions being created.· These controls have prevented many would be hobby farmers from getting land in these areas as it is either not avail­ able or cannot be developed.