CONFUSION and mistrust over ‘restrictive’ environmental zones - and exactly how councils are allowed to use them - is stoking fresh farmer demands for local government to be stripped of the ability to ‘sterilise’ prime ag land.
With E-zones making headlines in metro media this week, the Department of Planning told The Land it would step in and break up the rolling brawl between producers and councils - particularly in coastal areas - because of confusion over E-Zones and how they are used.
Government would not say, however, whether it would abolish E-Zones altogether, something the state’s peak farm group has been crying out for.
“It is fair to say that understanding and interpretation of E-zones varies between councils and stakeholders,” a department spokesman said.
“(We’re) reviewing the complaints we’ve received in recent weeks and will be consulting with landholders who’ve raised issues. (We’re) taking a good look right now at how we can make the system easier to understand.”
Bega Valley forester Wayne Doyle was one of a number of South Coast farmers in the Daily Telegraph this week who said the value of their land had plummeted as a result of E-Zones placed by their local council four years ago.
They said E-zones had prevented them from building certain dwellings or subdividing their land, and last month met at the Merimbula RSL club to demand government step in to remove E-zones from all private land.
Final recommendations from last year’s Northern Councils E-Zone review, which applied initially to five councils but can be adopted by others, say councils can apply E-Zones to private land if they can show the primary use of the land was environmental conservation (E2) or management (E3) over two years.
It is fair to say that understanding and interpretation of E-zones varies between councils and stakeholders
- Department of Planning spokesman
The Department said it had not received any specific requests from any councils to emulate the North Coast E-Zone framework.
For land to remain zoned for agriculture, farmers need to show farming has been the primary use (including leaving the land fallow for management reasons) over two years.
Extensive agriculture is permitted with development consent in the E2 zone, though the report expected this to be limited to activities such as understorey grazing. New extensive agriculture is permitted without consent in an E3 zone, but does not permit intensive activities such as restricted dairies, feedlots, pig farms, or poultry farms.
“Impacts on current use, future use, and property value”
TWO of the five northern councils involved in last year’s E-Zone review - Lismore and Kyogle - responded by deciding not to convert private farming or rural land to E-Zone, unless the landowner requests it.
It’s a move NSW Farmers wants government to enshrine in legislation.
In February Lismore councilors voted 7-4 against their own staff’s recommendations to place E-zones across 170 properties.
Kyogle voted the same way in 2016 with restrictions lifted from agricultural land.
NSW Farmers president Derek Scheon said the restrictive impact of E-Zones were a lingering concern for members and he wanted it abolished.
“E-Zones have and continue to be a serious concern for many of our farmers,” association president Derek Schoen said.“E-Zones and overlays have impacts on current use, future use, and property value, and are not appropriate for managed rural land.
“They were supposed to be for public conservation areas such as nature reserves or National Parks. Instead we have seen Councils, mostly Coastal Councils, using E-Zones within an LEP as an opportunity to restrict private farm land, above and beyond that of the State and Federal environmental legislation.”
Mr Schoen said vegetation and biodiversity was already highly regulated for rural land, including through the recent biodiversity and land clearing reforms.
He said farmers are well placed to provide a rural landscape management service to the community, particularly in Coastal areas “where everybody wants the rural aesthetic”.
“There needs to be fair and reasonable laws that incentivise environmental stewardship rather than penalising it.”