THE MIRROR
Wednesday 16 December 2015
Folio 3/ Issue 2/ Page One
Council ignores community, again John Mitchell Palerang Council has again sidelined Bungendore residents from early involvement in the assessment of a rezoning for a major new greenfields subdivision. The proposal involves the rezoning of a 137 ha holding, immediately east of the Bungendore village, from RU1 Primary Production to R2 Low Density Residential, R1 General Residential, SP2 Infrastructure and RE1 Public Recreation. If approved a development application for a 760 lot subdivision (for a population of almost 2,000) with a high school and recreation areas can be pursued. A staff report to Palerang Council’s December meeting noted that the Council had three options in the management of the planning proposal. •Determine that it does not support the planning proposal. •Prepare its own planning proposal and submit it to the Planning Minister for a gateway determination. •Forward the developer’s planning proposal, together with an appraisal by Palerang’s plannners, to the Planning Minister for a gateway proposal. The report also noted that the proposal area is not included in the Bungendore Land Use and Structure Plan, recently adopted as part of Palerang’s Local Environmental Plan. It recommended that Council adopt the third option. The staff report did not mention that they had been sitting on the rezoning application for three months and that the Council were now out of time. The second option was therefore off the table. The councillors had been told that, if they don’t approve the reference to the Minister or they decline to support the proposal, the applicants can now take it to the Minister themselves. Twelve months before, planning staff had sat on a rezoning proposal that would allow the expansion of Elmslea Estate to the north to allow the creation of 309 residential lots. Again the councillors were told that it was out of time and that preparing their own proposal, in conjunction with their community, was no an longer option. Responding to residents’ anger at being sidelined from the process Cr Schweikert told the December 2014 ordinary meeting, “I was fair dinkum when I said I had sympathy for the lateness of the documentation. It’s too easy to mistake [the planners’] incompetence for a conspiracy. There was no conspiracy here.” Two of the three members of the gallery who spoke at the December 2015 meeting were similarly angry. Bungendore Residents Group representative Greg Roberts said he was there to request that the councillors do the right thing and defer putting the proposal straight through to the Minister for a
gateway determination. “This three minutes is the first opportunity I have had to talk to Council about this development. Three minutes to put a community organisation’s view on a development that will fundamentally change our village.. “We’ve had just five days to read and understand the 370 pages of the consultant’s report. I don’t know how many others have read it [but] I would give it a ‘can do better.’ T “This development virtually doubles Bungendore, both in its physical size and population.. “The Council’s Bungendore Land Use Study needs to be updated so we can evaluate this development against where we want to see Bungendore in the future. I look forward to a proper consultation and the community’s thoughts on the future.” [Clapping from the gallery.] Bungendore resident Hugh Brown said he was also speaking against the development. “It’s not so much what’s in the development but the sheer size of it. As the previous speaker said, it’s doubling the size of Bungendore. I ask the councillors, what are you here for? Are you committed to the Council’s slogan “The best in rural and village living”? The actions of the Council today show you may not be and that your interests are otherwise.. As councillors, you should be making decisions in the community’s interest and respect its views.” [Clapping from the gallery.] P lanning consultant for the proposal, Peter Evans, said he had been hearing some pretty crazy accusations and wanted to balance them with some positive outcomes.. “The development will be over 15 years. Not 760 homes all at once and we’ve presented the whole development, not just 50 or 100 lots at a time, so people can see the full picture.. Contributions to the Council will be $23 million and the rate base will be increased by $1.5 million every year.. “If you want an ambulance station or high school for Bungendore, they won’t happen with the current population. Space for ovals and sporting facilities will be donated free in the proposal and there will be increased trade for local businesses.. We’ve already had a small public consultation and made changes to our proposal to address some of the issues raised.. “This planning proposal is only the first stage of the process [and] there will be ample opportunity for the Council and the community to have input. It’s not a dead end thing..” Cr Cockram. “I’m surprised that you’re surprised that there is a lot of community angst, about a proposal that is so detailed, which is going to the NSW Planning Department to see if they like it or not. Can’t you
see that the community don’t see that they have a place in this? It’s a huge change and the change will be forever.” Mr Evans. “No, I’m not at all surprised. We’ve done it so accurately because we want to flesh out the issues.” Cr France. “On the project time line, you say you expect the [assessment] to be completed by November 2016. Isn’t that a bit optimistic?” Mr Evans. “It probably is, but that timeline is from the [Planning Department]. We must include a timeline with the submission.” Cr Morrison opened the Council debate, moving that consideration of the proposal be deferred until the next ordinary meeting. There was no seconder and the motion lapsed. Cr Schweikert then moved the staff recommendation that Council refer the planning proposal for the rezoning of [seven specified lots] at Kings Hwy, Bungendore from RU1 Primary Production (except the lots which are already RE1 Public Open Space) to R2 Low Density Residential, R1 General Residential, SP2 Infrastructure and RE1 Public Recreation to the Minister for Planning for a gateway determination.. Cr Hicks. “Can the motion be amended to say that it goes to State Planning for a general approval and not for the [particular scheme] showing lot numbers and sizes?’ Mayor Harrison. “It’s a gateway decision. Perhaps Ms Robb [strategic planner] would like to explain. It’s not a rezoning at this stage.” Ms Robb. “The proposal is seeking rezoning of the land for residential and associated purposes. If the rezoning took place there would be an amendment to the LEP and there would need to be a development application for the subdivision..” Cr Schweikert. “..I look forward to the debate. [The rezoning] will not be considered by this Council, but by people who are prepared to put their name on the ballot paper [for the next Council election].” Cr Morrison. “I proposed a deferral of the motion because Council has not had enough time to consider it.. We need to consult with our community. By referring it to the Minister we’re giving a tacit approval for it to go ahead. We’re referring it to a layer of government that doesn’t understand our community.” [Clapping from the gallery.] Cr Graham. “I wasn’t here 15 years ago for the approval of Elmslea [but that has] created a lot of lovely places and a rural lifestyle for families that would not have been possible in Canberra..” [Voice from the gallery]. “What rural lifestyle?” Cr Graham [continuing]. “This is a 20 or so year development.. There is no DA as [Contined page 2)
THE MIRROR
Wednesday 16 Decemberr 2015
Folio 3/ Issue 2/ Page Two
Council ignores communtity, again [From page 1] such to consider [but] should the gateway turn into a DA which is accepted by the community, it will bring a school and an ambulance and employment and infrastructure.. “This is a gateway decision and it does not require that Council send it in. The advantage of the Council initiating the proposal is that the Council remains in control of the process as opposed to the State taking over.. “For those who have been vocal, should be more concerned with the State taking over, as with the wind farms.. ”This is not a time to panic or get narky on social media about how terrible Council will be if they get involved. This is a straightforward administrative process so Council can remain in control..” Cr Hogarth-Boyd. “We’ve been presented with a mighty tome, that many haven’t had time to read. We’re also being reminded that this is only a rezoning. “What we need to do is revise the Bungendore Structure Plan which says that major growth should be focussed in the regional centres of Queanbeyan and Goulburn, that prime agricultural land be retained and that the community interest be the defining factor. [“This type] of development is putting pressure on the prices of agricultural land to the point that agriculture is becoming unviable.. “This doesn’t fit in with our plan [and] I encourage councillors not to support it.” Mayor Harrison. “I’m speaking for it. I
this proposal. It will have a large impact on Bungendore and the Palerang area. But it needs to be dealt with equitably. Exactly 12 months ago, give or take a few days, Council sent the proposal for an extension of Elmslea for a gateway determination. Council did not then see fit to scrutinise that proposal as closely as we are scrutinising this one. “The Council is also conflicted because it made a submission to IPART on Palerang’s Fitness for the Future, based on further population growth for Palerang to survive. “The community has had very little time to review this proposal and so has Council. It’s been with the staff for months, but I first saw it last Friday. The community had even less time for the Elmslea proposal because it wasn’t posted on Council’s website. I don’t know that I can vote for this motion..” Cr Schweikert. [in reply]. “There was a consultation with the community in April and we [councillors] had a consultation long before that.. We’ve been across this proposal for quite some time.. “ If we take this proposal out of the mix there is no consultation. If we reject this tonight it goes into the legal mix and then we lose control altogether. As Cr Graham noted this process gives us control and I think that’s what the community wants.. I urge you to support the motion. This is consultation at its best.” Cr Schweikert’s motion was put and carried. For: Crs France, Graham, Harrison, Hicks and Schweikert. Against: Cr Cockram, Hogarth-Boyd, Marshall and Morrison.
spent most of my first term [on Council] opposing infill development. I did that on the basis that more land would become available through greenfield development [and] that would maintain the current feel of Bungendore. “This is a gateway determination and nothing more..” Cr Cockram. “I agree with a lot of what the Mayor said, particularly with infill development. We can’t stop people moving here. That’s determined by the market.. This [process] brings into question the function of Council. We’re trying to develop the view that Council is worth saving. If we just follow what developers put in front of us, we’re not worth saving. “ I’m nervous about putting it up the line with such detail.. The community deserve to have a say before we get to this sort of detail. I propose an alternative motion, that Council prepare its own planning proposal and present it for gateway determination. There’s no hurry. We don’t have to do it today or tomorrow.” Cr France. “I’m glad that councillors have got some passion about this, and so have the community, but a lot of people have dragged in red herrings. I’m really disappointed with some of the comments made in the Council paper. The introduction says the rezoning will allow the subdivision of the land into about 760 lots.. That’s absolute rubbish. It’s bullshit. We are only talking about land and whether we are going to allow this to be rezoned now or in the future. Someone’s putting the cart before the horse here.” Cr Marshall. “I’m somewhat conflicted on