weddin shire council rural settlement project

WEDDIN SHIRE COUNCIL

RURAL SETTLEMENT PROJECT

Constraints and Opportunities Analysis

for Large Lot Residential (R5) and Village (RU5) Lands

WEDDIN SHIRE COUNCIL

Constraints and Opportunities Analysis

for Large Lot Residential (R5) and Village (RU5) Lands

Submitted to: Weddin Shire Council PO Box 125 GRENFELL NSW 2810 Attention: Trevor Lobb General Manager

Ph: 0268 412 180

Submitted by: Booth Associates Pty Ltd Agribusiness & Environmental Consultants PO Box 1458 Level 1 61‐63 Yambil Street GRIFFITH NSW 2680

Ph: 02 6964 9911

Fx: 02 6964 5440 Em: [email protected] Web: www.boothassociates.com.au ABN: 79 095 414 065

October 2012 Privileged: The information herein is of a privileged and private nature and as such, all rights thereto are reserved.

This document shall not, in part or whole, be lent, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any shape or form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, verbal, left in an exposed and/or unattended position or otherwise used without the prior permission of Booth Associates or their duly qualified agents in writing.

i

Document History:

Date Issued Revision No. Author Reviewed By Approved Comments

4 May, 2012 Draft A Newland MG Ryan MG Ryan

10 August, 2012 Draft V2 A Newland MG Ryan MG Ryan

11 October, 2012 Final A Newland MG Ryan MG Ryan

Distribution of Copies:

Issue Date Revision No Issued To Quantity

4 May, 2012 Draft Shane Wilson – Weddin Shire Council 1 via email

10 August, 2012 Draft V2 Shane Wilson ‐ Weddin Shire Council 1 via email

7 September, 2012 Draft V2 Robert Bisley – Department of Planning & Infrastructure 1 via email

11 October, 2012 Final Trevor Lobb – Weddin Shire Council 1 via email

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Aims and Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Report Author ........................................................................................................................................... 2

2.3 Report Presentation.................................................................................................................................. 3

3.0 TYPICAL LAND USE CONSTRAINTS IN THE STUDY AREAS ........................................................................ 4

3.1 Flooding .................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Heritage Items .......................................................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Sewer and Water Supply .......................................................................................................................... 5

3.4 Natural Resource Sensitivity – Water ....................................................................................................... 5

3.5 Natural Resource Sensitivity – Groundwater ........................................................................................... 5

3.6 Natural Resource Sensitivity – Wetlands .................................................................................................. 5

3.7 Bush Fire Affectation ................................................................................................................................ 6

3.8 Biodiversity ............................................................................................................................................... 7

4.0 LAND USE CONSTRAINTS AND EFFECT ON DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ................................................. 10

4.1 Village of Bimbi ....................................................................................................................................... 10

4.2 Village of Caragabal ................................................................................................................................ 12

4.3 Village of Greenethorpe ......................................................................................................................... 15

4.4 Village of Quandialla ............................................................................................................................... 17

4.5 Grenfell 5ha Large Lot Residential Area ................................................................................................. 18

4.6 Grenfell 10 ha Large Lot Residential Area............................................................................................... 20

4.7 Grenfell 0.4ha Large Lot Residential Area .............................................................................................. 23

5.0 CONSULTATION WITH COUNCILLORS/AGENCIES AND STAKEHOLDERS ................................................ 26

5.1 Council and Government Agency Consultation ...................................................................................... 26

5.2 Public Consultation Session .................................................................................................................... 27

5.3 Written Submissions to the Exhibition of the Strategy (Rural Settlement Supply and Demand) .......... 27

5.4 Comments on the Issues Raised during Consultation ............................................................................ 28 5.4.1 Comments on the Supply Side: ...................................................................................................... 28 5.4.2 Comments on the Demand Side .................................................................................................... 29 5.4.3 Comments on Relation to Further Rezoning .................................................................................. 29

6.0 CONCLUSIONS ON LAND USE CONSTRAINTS AND FUTURE DWELLING YIELD ........................................ 30

6.1 Village (RU5) Land Supply with Constraint Analysis ............................................................................... 30

6.2 Large Lot Residential (R5) Land Supply with Constraint Analysis ........................................................... 31

6.3 Comments in Relation to Further Rezoning, Supply, Demand the Apparent Market Conditions ......... 32

7.0 RURAL LAND SEPARATING THE NORTH AND NORTH EASTERN R5 AREAS ............................................. 34

iii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Excerpt of Weddin LEP 2011 – Flood Planning Map for Grenfell township ......................................... 4 Figure 2: Example of land clearing to meet bush fire asset protection zone...................................................... 7 Figure 3: Threatened Species search Grenfell locality ........................................................................................ 8 Figure 4: Heritage Items .................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5: Biodiversity ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 6: Heritage Items ................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 7: Biodiversity ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 8: Bush Fire Prone Land ........................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 9: Heritage Items .................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 10: Biodiversity .................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 11: Biodiversity .................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 12: Bush Fire Prone Land ..................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 13: Flood Extent and Heritage Items ................................................................................................... 21 Figure 14: Bush Fire Prone Land and Biodiversity .......................................................................................... 22 Figure 15: Flood Extent and Heritage Items ................................................................................................... 23 Figure 16: Bush Fire Prone Land and Biodiversity .......................................................................................... 24

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Threatened Species listed under the TSC Act within Figure 3 grid ...................................................... 9 Table 2: Grenfell 5ha MLS property size and woodland component .............................................................. 19 Table 3: Grenfell 5ha MLS potential dwelling yield with woodland considered ............................................. 20 Table 4: Potential Village dwelling sites with constraint analysis .................................................................... 30 Table 5: Potential R5 large lot residential dwelling sites with constraint analysis .......................................... 31

LIST OF ACRONOMYNS AND ABBREVIATIONS

APZ Asset Protection Zones

CMA Catchment Management Authority

TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act

of 34

Weddin Shire Council – Constraints and Opportunities Analysis for Large Lot Residential (R5) and Village (RU5)

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report forms Part 3 of the Weddin Shire Council Rural Settlement Project. The aim of the report is to consider any existing environmental constraints in the Shire villages and the large lot residential areas around Grenfell, and their effect on potential future dwelling yield. The report concludes that there is likely to be a small impact on potential dwelling yield within the Village of Greenethorpe, due to local creek flooding, and there is likely to be a moderate impact on the supply potential of large lot residential properties within the 5ha large lot residential area North east of Grenfell, due to biodiversity and bush fire affectation. Notwithstanding those constraints, the overall potential supply of dwelling sites in the Village, and the overall potential supply of dwelling sites in the large lot residential areas are likely to be sufficient for the medium to long term demand within the Shire.

of 34


2.0 INTRODUCTION

In December 2011 Booth Associates were engaged by the Department of Planning & Infrastructure to undertake a “Constrains and Opportunities Analysis” for rural lifestyle land in the Weddin Shire.

2.1 Aims and Objectives

Part 2 of the Weddin Shire Council Rural Settlement Project (the Project) comprised a review of the new dwelling potential for all lands within the RU1 (Primary Production) zone, the R5 (Large Lot Residential) zone and the RU5 (Village) zone in the Shire. The review included: Demographic analysis;

Examination of dwelling approvals over the past 10 years;

Evaluation of lots potentially available through subdivision; and

Likely supply and demand for rural, village and large lot residential lots over the next 20 to 25 years.

This report follows directly from Part 2 and revises the dwelling potential of the study areas, by evaluating likely constraints to future development, including: Flooding;

Bushfire;

Heritage; and

Biodiversity.

Conclusions are then drawn on the revised potential 20 to 25 year land supply for village and large lot residential lots.

2.2 Report Author

This project was undertaken by Booth Associates, agribusiness and environmental consultants based in Griffith. The preparation of this report was led by Associate Consultant, Mr Anthony Newland of Newland Planning.

of 34


2.3 Report Presentation

Section 3.0 of this report discusses the type of land use constraints likely to be encountered in the Village and large lot residential study areas. Section 4.0 of this report also considers each of the study areas separately, being: Village of Bimbi;

Village of Caragabal;

Village of Greenethorpe;

Village of Quandialla; and

The R5 large lot residential areas around the town of Grenfell, being:

o Northern;

o North Eastern;

o Eastern;

o Southern; and

o Western areas.

For each locality the various constraints are identified and evaluated, and their effect on potential lot yield is quantified and compared to the dwelling yield identified in the “Supply and Demand Analysis” Report. Section 5.0 of this report provides conclusions drawn on the net likely lot/dwelling yield for the study area and the Shire.

of 34


3.0 TYPICAL LAND USE CONSTRAINTS IN THE STUDY AREAS

3.1 Flooding

Three of the four Villages in the Weddin Shire are located next to creeks subject to periodic flooding. The large lot residential areas surrounding Grenfell, particularly the Northern, Southern and Western areas feature established creek lines also subject to flooding. Of the creeks, only those affecting the Grenfell township have been quantified by the Council and shown on the current Weddin LEP 2011 maps. An excerpt of the LEP flood map is provided as Figure 1. Figure 1: Excerpt of Weddin LEP 2011 – Flood Planning Map for Grenfell township

For the Village areas certain assumptions on flooding will be made based on the proximity of the creek to the Village zoning and local topography. See Section 3.4.

of 34


3.2 Heritage Items

Within the urban and rural areas of the Shire there are Heritage Items (typically consisting of buildings) shown upon the LEP maps, with the whole of the relevant land parcel nominated on the map. Heritage Items may be a constraint to development, depending on the significance of the building or place and whether there is an accompanying curtilage which is integral to the interpretation of the item. The Heritage Item mapping is presented in this report.

3.3 Sewer and Water Supply

Not all of the Shire Villages and large lot residential areas are serviced with reticulated water and sewer. However, as the Grenfell Standard Instrument LEP has recently been gazetted, the capacity of the zoned and established settlement areas to accept on site effluent disposal, or provide reticulated sewer and water, has not been evaluated in this report (and has not been viewed as a constraint).

3.4 Natural Resource Sensitivity – Water

The LEP includes mapping of sensitive waterway areas, namely creeks and intermittent water courses. The town of Grenfell and Villages of Bimbi, Caragabal and Greenethorpe have creek lines running through or close to the Village zoned areas. The Grenfell creek lines generate the flood affected land shown in Figure 1. Evaluation of sensitive waterways in the Village areas with respect to flooding will be made based on the proximity of the creek to the Village zoning and local topography.

3.5 Natural Resource Sensitivity – Groundwater

The LEP includes mapping of Sensitive Land Areas where groundwater vulnerability to land use may be an issue. Groundwater vulnerable lands are mainly located in the lowlands in the west of the Shire, a strip of land along the Northern section of Gooloogong Road, and a strip land running north/south from Greenethorpe to Bumbaldry. The town of Grenfell and Shire Villages are not mapped in the LEP as being in groundwater vulnerable areas.

3.6 Natural Resource Sensitivity – Wetlands

The LEP includes mapping of Sensitive Natural Wetlands, which are located extensively in the west of the Shire – in many cases covering land which is also groundwater vulnerable. Sensitive Wetlands have not been identified in the LEP dataset near the town of Grenfell and Shire Villages.

of 34


3.7 Bush Fire Affectation

Each of the Shire’s settlement areas contains stands of mature native vegetation, of various extent and structure. These open woodlands and woodlands are usually classified as Bushfire Prone Land, and shown on mapping provided to the council by the NSW Rural Fire Service. The Bush Fire mapping does not form part of the LEP mapping, however the mapping is used in an official capacity for the purpose of Planning Certificates issued under Section 149 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. Most of the Villages have a component of Bush Fire Prone Land associated with nearby creek vegetation, although the housing area is generally free of significant vegetation. The large lot residential land to the North and North East of Grenfell features significant grassy woodland/open woodland areas and forest areas – which are shown as Bush Fire Prone on mapping within this report. In order to erect a dwelling within Bush Fire Prone land, the dwelling must meet the requirements of the NSW Government’s 2006 publication Planning for Bushfire Protection. This publication requires bush fire “asset protection zones” (APZ) to protect dwellings from bushfire. The protection zone buffer distances are based on the type of vegetation class, bushfire index, aspect and slope (upslope and downslope from the dwelling). Within the buffer the groundcover vegetation and tree vegetation is required to be substantially cleared. Therefore, the approval of a large lot residential subdivision and erection of a new dwelling within a Bush Fire Prone area would require land clearing, which may have a negative impact on the biodiversity of the area (Section 3.8). In the Grenfell locality, under Planning for Bushfire Protection, the minimum asset protection zone for a dwelling within grassy woodland on a neutral slope is 10m. This APZ increases to 20m on a neutral slope where the vegetation is of forest classification and 30m for forest where the vegetation slope below the dwelling is up to 18%. A simplified worked example and diagram (not to scale) of clearing required in the Grenfell 5ha large lot residential area is provided as Figure 2.

of 34


Figure 2: Example of land clearing to meet bush fire asset protection zone This worked example is conservative, as the type of dwelling construction (bush fire attack level) changes, with increased cost, the closer the dwelling is located to the fire source. More land is often proposed to be cleared to reduce the bush fire attack level and construction cost.

3.8 Biodiversity

The LEP includes mapping of areas of notable biodiversity within the Shire. Typically, native vegetation is used as a surrogate for biodiversity, as it provides habitat for flora and fauna, depending on the vegetation formation and extent of understory. Each of the Shire Villages has areas of LEP mapped biodiversity, typically associated with woody vegetation adjoining creek lines. In general these biodiversity areas in the Villages do not cover large parts of the urban area due to previous land clearing, and the understorey quality is poor as the land is managed. The large lot residential areas around Grenfell also have LEP mapped Biodiversity, associated with creek lines, drainage lines and woodland/forest areas – in both localised remnant form and more extensive stands. These Biodiversity areas are shown on the mapping in this report.

30m APZ radius

20m radius dwelling envelope

Proposal: new dwelling and shed

Proposed building envelope: a circle with a radius of 20m

Vegetation type: Forest

Gradient downslope of dwelling: between 9% and 18%

APZ required: 30m radius

Total cleared area required: 50m radius

Area required to be substantially cleared: : approximately 0.8 hectares

of 34


The LEP Biodiversity mapping around Grenfell covers a significantly lesser extent than the existing woodland/forest areas. In particular the current 5ha large lot residential areas to the North East of Grenfell contain extensive stands of woody vegetation which are likely habitat areas (and mapped as Bush Fire Prone land) but are not mapped for Biodiversity purposes in the LEP. In order to consider the issue of native flora/fauna habitat in more detail discussions were held with a Catchment Officer from the Lachlan Catchment Management Authority (CMA). The CMA advised that the Grenfell locality has a number of native vegetation types, including Box Gum woodland (the Box Gum Endangered Ecological Community of White Box, Yellow Box and Blakely’s Red Gum) on lower slopes and more fertile ground, Grey Box woodland, generally on the mid slopes and Iron Bark/Cypress Pine, typically on the upper slopes. These native vegetation communities are the habitat of a number of protected and threatened species under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act 1995). A search of the NSW Wildlife Atlas1 was carried out for a 10km x 10km grid (minimum grid search available) as shown on Figure 3. This grid covers the extensive stands of native vegetation in the Grenfell Northern and North Eastern large lot residential areas. Figure 3: Threatened Species search Grenfell locality

1 http://www.bionet.nsw.gov.au/. Accessed 29/4/2012

of 34


Figure 3 shows the Threatened species sited within the study area and their location. Due to the limitations of the Wildlife Atlas online mapping, only five species could be mapped at once. The full list of sitings within the grid is shown in Table 1. Each species is listed within the TSC Act 1995. Table 1: Threatened Species listed under the TSC Act within Figure 3 grid

Species and category Protected Vulnerable Critically endangered

Aves

Superb Parrot

Barking Owl

Brown Treecreeper

Regent Honeyeater

Hooded Robin

Flame Robin

Diamond Firetail

45 other bird species

Mammals

Koala

Short Beaked Echidna

Brush Tail Possum

Reptiles

Lace Monitor

Plants

5 plant species

Table 1 shows that the Northern and North Eastern large lot residential areas have the potential to provide habitat for a variety of protected and vulnerable species, which may be adversely affected through clearing of tree vegetation for bush fire protection zones for new dwellings. Therefore, these woodlands/forest areas have some biodiversity value which should be taken into account during any proposed subdivision and building envelope placement of the area, notwithstanding that area not appearing on the LEP biodiversity mapping. Proposed subdivisions would be evaluated on a case‐by‐case basis depending on the level of clearing involved for bush fire protection.

of 34


4.0 LAND USE CONSTRAINTS AND EFFECT ON DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

4.1 Village of Bimbi

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the Biodiversity and Heritage Item mapping within the LEP applicable to Bimbi. There are three Heritage Items within the Village cadastre and one within the Village zone. These items will have no effect on potential dwelling yield. Figure 4: Heritage Items

of 34


Figure 5: Biodiversity

The Biodiversity map shown as Figure 5, with aerial photograph underlay, shows that native vegetation within the Village is limited to remnant open woodland with sparse tree cover. The tree cover is also unlikely to have adverse implications on dwelling yield for bush fire protection Bimbi has a creek line bordering the Eastern edge of the Village. The creek line is incised and flooding may affect some Village properties – the extent of which is not known. The Council may impose minimum building heights for new dwellings based on historic flood levels. Bimbi does not have LEP mapping for wetlands or groundwater.

of 34


4.2 Village of Caragabal

Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the Biodiversity and Heritage Item mapping within the LEP applicable to Caragabal. The Council’s Bush Fire Prone Land mapping is also shown. Figure 6: Heritage Items

of 34



of 34


Figure 8: Bush Fire Prone Land

The Biodiversity and Bush Fire Prone Land figures indicate that most tree cover is in the Southern part of the Village and surrounds, associated with the creek line. The tree cover is scattered and notwithstanding the Biodiversity and the Bush Fire Prone Land affectations, it is unlikely that potential dwelling yield will be affected. The creek line to the South of the Village may have some flooding effect (unknown), with the ability of the Council to set appropriate levels for new dwellings. Caragabal does not have LEP mapping for wetlands or groundwater.

of 34


4.3 Village of Greenethorpe

Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the Heritage Item and Biodiversity mapping within the LEP applicable to Greenethorpe. The creek running along the Northern and Western edge of the Village has some tree cover along the banks, and open woodland is situated South West of the Village area. Figure 9: Heritage Items

of 34



Greenethorpe has a number of Heritage Items in the Village area, and a heritage conservation area covering the central square. The heritage designations are unlikely to affect the potential dwelling yield. The main development constraint in the Village is the low lying creek frontage land in the far Western corner of the Village. This land is relatively flat and contained in the one ownership, with approximately 42 land parcels vacant. Whilst flood mapping is not available it is suspected that this land would be inundated regularly and may not be suitable for residential development. Therefore, the potential Village dwelling yield would be reduced, potentially by 10 to 15 lots, depending on the existing lot size and whether a dwelling holding includes more than one lot. Greenethorpe does not have LEP mapping for wetlands or groundwater

of 34


4.4 Village of Quandialla

Figure 11 shows the Biodiversity mapping within the LEP applicable to Quandialla. Quandialla does not have a Council Bush Fire Prone Land map, or Wetlands, Groundwater or Heritage Items mapping under the LEP. The Biodiversity mapping picks up mature native vegetation along roadsides, but also includes the majority of the urban area – which is not heavily treed and has no woodland or significant vegetation. The Biodiversity affectation is unlikely to limit the dwelling yield within the Village. Figure 11: Biodiversity

of 34


4.5 Grenfell 5ha Large Lot Residential Area

Figure 12 shows the Biodiversity mapping within the LEP and the Council’s Bush Fire Prone Land mapping, applicable to the 5ha large lot residential areas to the North and North East of Grenfell. The LEP does not have mapping for Water, Wetlands and Groundwater for these areas, and there are no Heritage Items within these areas. Figure 12: Bush Fire Prone Land

However, the 5ha large lot residential area North East of Grenfell has the most significant woodland of all settlement areas in the Shire, with each woodland area also being bush fire prone. The potential significance of Box Gum woodland as habitat for Threatened Species, and the potential implications of clearing woodland for bush fire asset protection zones, is discussed in Section 3.7 and Section 3.8 of this report. Figure 12 includes numbering of several heavily wooded properties (1 – 7) within the R5 zone, and another area of land (No. 8, highlighted with a dashed line) presently zoned RU1 Primary Production which has woodland environmental characteristics. Area No. 8 is discussed further in Section 7.0 of this report.

of 34


Table 2 presents the approximate size of each property and the area and percentage of the land subject to woodland/forest vegetation types which have potential habitat value. Each woodland area is substantial and continuous (not fragmented). Table 2: Grenfell 5ha MLS property size and woodland component

Property No. (Figure 12) Approximate Property Size

(ha) Approximate Woodland

Area (ha) Woodland % of property

1 60 41 68%

2 30 12.5 42%

3 30 20 66%

4 40 40 100%

5 37 37 100%

6 81 54 66%

7 130 72 55%

8 280 280 100%

Section 3.7of this report provides an example of a dwelling within a woodland setting and a potential cleared area of 0.8ha (dependent on land slope and aspect). This example does not include access roads. It is possible to minimise clearing for subdivision and new dwellings by having a central road with dwellings either side sharing the road reserve as part of the bush fire asset protection zone. However, it is inevitable that some land will require clearing; given the 5ha minimum lot size and the contiguous nature and area of vegetation on each lot (woodland areas ranging from 12.5ha to 72ha each). In order to gain more knowledge of the subdivision potential of each property the Council could require of the applicant a “7 Part Test” under Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This would provide an insight into the significance of vegetation on a given property and areas (if any) which are more suited to clearing, and possible offset planting. The worst case scenario is that no clearing would be possible, therefore reducing the available dwelling potential, and the best case scenario is that lot yield is not affected.

of 34


Table 3 presents these scenarios, utilising the original dwelling yield estimate from Table 5, Part 2 of the Weddin Shire Rural Settlement Project. Table 3: Grenfell 5ha MLS potential dwelling yield with woodland considered

Existing

Landholdings Existing Dwellings

Potential dwelling sites with clearing and offsets (best case)

Potential dwelling sites with no clearing allowable (worst case)

Northern area 6 3 25 25

North eastern area 44 14 120 48

Total 50 17 145 73

Table 3 shows that the Northern R5 area is not significantly affected by woodland vegetation constraints. Those properties with significant vegetation, including mapped Biodiversity or existing woodland, are generally of sufficient size to allow a dwelling in existing cleared areas or large enough to design a subdivision to avoid existing woodland and mapped areas. Note: it has been assumed for the purposes of this study that the existing extractive industry site in the Northern area (Lot 575, DP 754578 and Lot 7003, DP 1023366) will operate within environmental parameters which would not preclude subdivision of adjoining land. Table 3 also shows the potential effect on the North Eastern R5 area if land is unable to be cleared for biodiversity and/or bush fire protection reasons. In the worst case scenario the potential dwelling yield in the North Eastern area drops from 120 to 48 (including existing vacant 5ha lots in the Simpson Drive estate). The total potential dwellings reduce from 145 to 73 (around half). These worst case numbers are estimates only. Each property will have different physical characteristics and landowner expectations which will affect the potential yield.

4.6 Grenfell 10 ha Large Lot Residential Area

Figure 13 shows Flood Extent and Heritage Items and Figure 14 shows Bush Fire Prone Land mapping and Biodiversity mapping within the LEP, applicable to the 10ha large lot residential area to the East of Grenfell. The mapping indicates that the land is not Bush Fire Prone or Flood liable, has no mapped Biodiversity and no Heritage Items. There is however, a stand of vegetation at the Southern end of Quondong Road which is large enough to be mapped as Bush Fire Prone land. The vegetation is located on land which has previously been subdivided and is unlikely to have any bearing on the dwelling potential of the land. Generally the large minimum lot size of 10ha means that constraints such as vegetation can be avoided during subdivision or dwelling placement stage, therefore not affecting the potential yield.

of 34


Figure 13: Flood Extent and Heritage Items

of 34


Figure 14: Bush Fire Prone Land and Biodiversity

of 34


4.7 Grenfell 0.4ha Large Lot Residential Area

Figure 15 shows Flood Extent and Heritage Items and Figure 16 shows Bush Fire Prone Land and Biodiversity mapping within the LEP and the Council’s Bush Fire Prone Land mapping, applicable to the 0.4ha large lot residential areas to the South and West of Grenfell. Figure 15: Flood Extent and Heritage Items

of 34


Figure 16: Bush Fire Prone Land and Biodiversity

of 34


The Flood Extent and Heritage Item mapping in Figure 15 indicates that small portions of the Southern and Western areas are affected by local creek flooding. In the case of the Western area and most of the relevant part of the Southern area, the flood affected lots have existing dwellings. The flood affectation may have an effect on future subdivision; however it is not likely to have a major effect on dwelling yield. With respect to Heritage Items there is a nominated Heritage Item on an approximate 4ha to 5ha parcel fronting Manganese Road. The effect on future subdivision/dwelling potential was taken into account within the earlier Part 2 Report: Supply and Demand Analysis. The mapping indicates that the Southern and Western large lot residential areas have no Biodiversity or Bush Fire Prone Land affectation. This may be due to the lack of larger continuous vegetated areas. However, it is acknowledged locally that some road corridors, for example Manganese Road, have significant box gum trees which are required to be retained, and may have an impact on trunk servicing mains. This could require a servicing solution which incorporates part of the road reserve as a linear corridor with a new roadway created adjoining. Based on the mapping alone, the Biodiversity and Bush Fire Prone Land affectation is unlikely to have a major impact on potential dwelling yield.

of 34


5.0 CONSULTATION WITH COUNCILLORS/AGENCIES AND STAKEHOLDERS

During the public exhibition period of the Part 1 (Primary Production Strategy) and Part 2 (Rural Settlement Supply and Demand Analysis) reports prepared by Booth Associates, a consultation session was held in Grenfell on 7 May, 2012 with a Shire Councillors, Council and Government Agency group, and later in the day an open publicsession. Following the exhibition period, Booth Associates were forwarded the written submissions received to the public exhibition of the two reports. These submissions are provided as Annexure 10 to the Primary Production Strategy Report. The results of the consultation sessions and public submissions are discussed below.

5.1 Council and Government Agency Consultation

The Council and Government Agency workshop was attended by: Most Shire Councillors;

Senior Council staff;

Two representatives from Bland Shire Council;

Two representatives from the Department of Planning & Infrastructure;

A representative from the Department of Primary Industries (Agriculture); and

A representative from the Lachlan Catchment Management Authority.

In relation to the Rural Settlement Supply and Demand Analysis report there were a number of comments made, including: The figures outlining the number of new houses in Grenfell over the past 10 years in the report are

incorrect and too low;

The vacant land assumptions were questioned, in particular the amount of vacant land available in the large lot residential areas to the south and west of Grenfell;

Many of the areas around Grenfell presently zoned for large lot residential use are too costly to develop (the cost of water and electricity connections, and road based subdivision);

of 34


Many of the areas around Grenfell presently zoned for large lot residential use are not desirable for that use due to the distance from the town, presence of trees, soil and rock (building conditions), slope, lack of views and other matters;

Demand for take up of these areas is low; and

More land should be rezoned for large lot residential purposes, particularly south of the current southern large lot residential area (below Murrays Lane).

These issues are discussed in Section 5.4.

5.2 Public Consultation Session

The public consultation session was attended by nine members of the public, along with some Councillors and senior staff. The comments made at this session mirrored some of the earlier comments about demand for large lots being low, and the location and building conditions of some areas being undesirable. Other suggestions included creating more lots of a larger size, for example 8ha to 16ha, on the eastern edge of Grenfell. These issues are discussed in Section 5.4.

5.3 Written Submissions to the Exhibition of the Strategy (Rural Settlement Supply and Demand)

A total of eight written submissions were received from Agencies and members of the Shire community in response to the exhibition (and following the sessions on 7 May, 2012). A copy of these submissions is included as Annexure 10 of the Primary Production Strategy. Public and Agency comments and issues relevant to the Supply and Demand analysis are provided below: Landholders (farmers) should be able to subdivide 2ha lots from their farm as part of their farm

adjustment or retirement, to assist in building the rate base and population base;

The R5 areas are in demand, and there is not an over‐supply;

Manganese Road ribbon development is all but depleted, and other land is prime agricultural land which will not come on to the market;

The southern R5 area is mostly taken up and should be extended south of Murrays Lane;

The eastern R5 area is being developed rapidly and some land around the old gold mining area is not suitable;

of 34


The north and north eastern R5 areas have unsuitable terrain, are bushfire prone, have vegetation constraints, have little water, the soils are light and acidic and there is no indication that landowners are contemplating subdivision;

If the Shire discounted the unsuitable areas for subdivision the number of available lots would be reduced by a large number;

The number of dwellings approved in the R5 area since 2000 is much higher, at around 38;

Many already subdivided small blocks close to Grenfell are too costly to develop;

New settlement areas should avoid high value vegetation and riparian areas (Lachlan CMA);

There appears to be sufficient supply of R5 land (Department of Planning);

The draft strategy may seek to identify demand for larger 20ha to 40ha large rural residential lots (Department of Planning); and

Overall the analysis has addressed the appropriate issues, pending further analysis in the Constraints and Opportunities report (Department of Planning).

5.4 Comments on the Issues Raised during Consultation

5.4.1 Comments on the Supply Side

All figures on dwelling approvals in the R5 large lot residential areas around Grenfell were based on Construction Certificates issued and all data was provided by the Council. There is no reason to suspect that the approvals data is incorrect;

Some of the lands referred to as having dwelling approvals in the last 10 years (which increased the total number of approvals) are understood to be zoned for Village or residential purposes, and are not part of the R5 areas and dwelling approvals count;

The old gold mining area has an environmental zone and does not form part of the R5 zoned area;

The assumptions made with regard to land supply were documented in the Supply and Demand analysis, and whilst not repeated here in full, included the current pattern of development and actual subdivided lot size – not the minimum lot size allowed in the zoned area in the case of the southern and western R5 areas. In the Constraints and Opportunities report the assumptions were again clearly stated, with regard to bushfire and vegetation constraints. The figures in both reports are considered to be reasonable to indicate supply, whereas the main issue arising from the consultation and submissions appeared to involve land demand or perceived demand and costs of development; and

Most rural Shire LEPs in the State used to allow 2ha concessional lots to be created from rural holdings. The NSW Government removed those provisions from LEPs via the Rural Lands SEPP in 2008.

of 34


5.4.2 Comments on the Demand Side

In relation to Department of Planning suggestion that the strategy could consider the demand for 20ha to 40ha large rural residential lots, this suggestion appears to run counter to usual Department policy for protection of agricultural land. Notwithstanding, the Primary Production Strategy did not uncover particular demand for these size lots. The eastern R5 area presently has a 10ha minimum, which caters for larger lots. The final chapter of this report notes some opportunity for larger lots of an environmental nature between the current north and northern R5 areas;

It has been noted that R5 areas around Grenfell are too costly to develop, namely the costs of water and electricity connection. Other costs may include vegetation clearing and higher construction costs associated with particular soil conditions. Some of the land development costs such as water connections and electricity supply are fixed at a certain level, and costs will vary according to the location of existing infrastructure. R5 areas removed from the town area may be at a disadvantage in this regard, and this may be reflected in the sale price of the land. Previous subdivisional development has occurred in the north eastern R5 area and there are approved lots which have not yet been developed; and

If the theoretical supply of land is good, but demand is low and sales and house construction is not occurring, it follows that market conditions are not attractive enough for that development. If demand for R5 land is high, as has been suggested, there should be enough interest to warrant increased land sales, unless a price point has been reached at which high demand will have no influence. It may be that demand is not as significant as believed or current englobo landowners are holding the land (and can afford to hold the land) for better market conditions.

5.4.3 Comments in Relation to Further Rezoning

Refer to the conclusions in Section 6.0.

of 34


6.0 CONCLUSIONS ON LAND USE CONSTRAINTS AND FUTURE DWELLING YIELD

6.1 Village (RU5) Land Supply with Constraint Analysis

The four Villages of the Shire, particularly Caragabal, Greenethorpe and Quandialla, still function as rural support centres in addition to their role as urban centres, however the strength of that support role has diminished over time. This is evidenced by the closure of local commercial, retail and service businesses, as the economy, rural production and the labour force has changed over time. This is a common theme in rural Australia and in many westernised countries. Demand for new housing in the four Villages is not strong. Over the past 10 years less than a dozen new houses have been approved in the Villages (and Village cadastre). Each Village has sufficient vacant or subdividable land – having regard to ownership holdings and the historic pattern of development, to provide sufficient supply for the medium to long term future. The number of potential dwelling sites in the Village areas, with and without constraints analysis is provided in Table 4. Table 4: Potential Village dwelling sites with constraint analysis

Village Potential dwelling sites through vacancy of subdivision (lots)

Potential dwelling sites after constraint analysis

Bimbi 8 8

Caragabal 40 40

Greenethorpe 98 83

Quandialla 78 78

Total 224 209

This review has concluded that within the Villages of Bimbi, Caragabal and Quandialla the various Bodiversity, Bush Fire Protection, Flooding and Heritage Item constraints evident are unlikely to have sufficient impact to lower the potential dwelling potential. For the Village of Greenethorpe the potential flood liable land in the West part of the Village may, subject to further investigation, reduce the available dwelling potential from 98 dwellings to around 83. This loss will not be significant to the Village given its low rate of dwelling approval.

Each Village has sufficient vacant or subdividable land – having regard to historic demand, ownership holdings and the historic pattern of development, to provide sufficient supply for the medium to long term future.

of 34


6.2 Large Lot Residential (R5) Land Supply with Constraint Analysis

The R5 zoned lands around Grenfell vary in their lot size and actual use, their pattern of development, their topography, level of development, and development constraints. The Northern R5 area is relatively undeveloped, with significant potential for subdivision to the 5ha minimum lot size, even with vegetation/bushfire constraints considered. The North Eastern R5 area has experienced recent substantial subdivision in the North West (down to the 5ha minimum) and has significant potential for subdivision to the 5ha minimum lot size, again with vegetation/bushfire and other constraints considered. The Eastern R5 area has a number of landholdings of sufficient size to enable re‐subdivision down to the 10ha minimum lot size. This area breaks the tradition of having larger lots further from town and smaller lots closer. The Southern R5 area has a significant number of potential dwelling sites, although the pattern of existing development provides lots of 5,000m2 to 7,000m2, well above the minimum lot size. The Southern area has not been subject to comprehensive land subdivisions – current development is based around the existing road pattern. The Western area is similar to the southern, but is less developed. The number of potential dwelling sites in the various R5 zones, with and without constraints analysis is provided in Table 5. Table 5: Potential R5 large lot residential dwelling sites with constraint analysis

R5 zoned area Potential dwelling sites through vacancy of subdivision (lots)

Poential dwelling sites after constraint analysis

Northern 25 25

North eastern 120 48

Eastern 15 15

Southern 30 30

Western 54 54

Total 244 172

This review has concluded that for the R5 areas described as Northern, Eastern, Southern and Western, the various Biodiversity, Bush Fire Protection, Flooding and Heritage Item constraints evident are unlikely to have sufficient impact to lower the potential dwelling potential.

of 34


For the North Eastern R5 area the potential worst case scenario of a prohibition on clearing due to biodiversity/habitat matters would see a reduction in potential of around 50% ‐ but still leaving 48 potential future dwellings

The respective R5 areas have sufficient vacant or subdividable land – having regard to historic demand, ownership holdings and the particular minimum lot size, to provide sufficient supply for the medium to long term future.

6.3 Comments in Relation to Further Rezoning, Supply, Demand and the Apparent Market Conditions

6.3.1 Northern and north eastern R5 areas

Land in the northern and northern R5 areas has good subdivision potential, notwithstanding vegetation and bushfire constraints in the north eastern area. The subdivision potential will mainly be realised through road based internal subdivision, and not strip based development. Back‐zoning of the land to a rural or environmental zone could be considered, however subdivision of the land can still occur under the current zone with appropriate environmental consideration, and back‐zoning introduces undesirable compensation issues. If market conditions are not suitable for road based subdivision the land is likely to remain undeveloped for some time, and limited strip based subdivision may occur.

6.3.2 Eastern R5 area

There is potential for approximately 15 new 10ha lots in the eastern R5 area, requiring consolidation of and re‐subdivision of some titles within the same ownership. Most owners appear to have aggregated sufficient land to provide at least one building entitlement. The 10ha lots provide some opportunity for livestock grazing to offset rates and other costs. There is no stand out reason to modify this zoning. The 10ha lot size also provides a land bank for future town expansion if required.

6.3.3 Southern and western R5 areas

Land in the south and west R5 areas has undergone mainly strip subdivision along existing roads. There is some potential for further strip subdivision along those roads; however most potential is through subdivision of existing lots, with or without new roads being constructed.

of 34


It is apparent that “new road” based subdivision, under present demand and market conditions, may not be viable. Little new road based subdivision has occurred in these areas over the past 10 to 15 years. It is apparent that public/Councillor opinion on demand and the need for additional rezoned R5 land relates to development in the southern area, below Murrays Lane. The view has been expressed; however the justification for more land appears to be that current strip based land is depleted, and that other land has unfavourable building or location conditions. If additional land were to be rezoned, it is likely that it would follow a similar development pattern to current development, that is, mainly strip based existing road development of a similar lot size. This is on the basis that little to no new internal road based subdivision is occurring. An additional rezoning of the square grid south of Murrays Lane may produce up to 20 or so lots based on existing formed and unformed (paper) roads. This report does not provide estimated costs of development or feasibility for development, however it is suspected that this would be the most efficient form of development in avoiding new internal road construction. Technically this type of strip based subdivision could occur incrementally until land or location constraints became paramount – for example, distance from town, cost of road upgrade, prime agricultural land. Strip based subdivision may be economically attractive but is not favoured by planning authorities due to the costs associated with extension of services, inefficient use of land and maintaining a sense of community the further out of town the subdivision proceeds. It is acknowledged that the southern area is not as far out of town as the northern and north eastern areas. The Department of Planning is unlikely to entertain new R5 zonings in Grenfell, as they believe that the current supply is sufficient. If the market conditions are such that the minimum lot size is not being taken up by new road based subdivision, the Department’s likely view will be that the land should remain within that zone until conditions are adequate for subdivision. It is unlikely that the Department will approve rezoning additional R5 land to be strip subdivided. It is apparent that the supply of R5 land around Grenfell, even with land use constraints, is sufficient to satisfy current demand; however the “demand” is influenced strongly by market conditions and costs of development. It may be that the market does not value R5 land strongly enough to warrant new road based subdivision, therefore the status quo should remain for the time being, with periodic monitoring of market conditions and apparent demand.

of 34


7.0 RURAL LAND SEPARATING THE NORTH AND NORTH EASTERN R5 AREAS

The land use zoning within the LEP has generally been structured so that publicly owned land with production, cultural or biodiversity values is zoned for Forestry or National Park purposes. Privately owned land with biodiversity values in the broadacre rural areas typically retains the surrounding production based zoning of “RU1 Primary Production”. There is one environmental based zoning within the Shire, which is located between the rail line and the R5 zone adjacent to the East of the Grenfell urban area. This land is zoned E3 Environmental Management, and permits dwelling houses on lots with a minimum lot size of 10ha. North of the Grenfell township there is an area of privately owned land of approximately 280ha, located between the Northern R5 area and the North Eastern R5 area. This land is zoned RU1 Primary Production. Forming part of the Brief for the Study is the provision of comment on the attributes of this area in relation to the present zoning. The land has environmental constraints including slope and almost 100% woodland coverage – refer to land area No 8 in Figure 12. The Southern portion of this area features dense woodland, with the centre portion thinned out through previous clearing. The Northern portion includes moderately dense woodland with a more undulating landform, leading to a high point above the Simpson Drive area. The nature of the land makes it generally unsuitable for broadacre agricultural activity, other than periodic grazing. Given the established vegetation and existing corridor links through to Gooloogong Road and the Adelargo Road, it may be appropriate that the land be managed for conservation. The extent of existing woodland provides the potential, particularly in the centre portion of approximately 100ha, for regeneration of native vegetation, provided stock is managed. The land could be managed to promote habitat for Threatened Species evident in the locality, and to enhance the Grenfell township area as a strategic link between the habitat rich Weddin Mounts National Park (South West) and the Conimbla National Park (East). An appropriate zone for conservation management may be the E3 zone within the existing LEP. A potential minimum lot size for that area may be 40ha, to minimise dwelling intrusion into the woodland, with appropriate attention paid to the placement of building envelopes, biodiversity, bush fire protection and the like in any future planning proposal.

weddin shire council rural settlement project

Documents