- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 11 October 2005
North-Western And South-Western Sydney Land Rezoning
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 41 of 48
| Next Item »
Page: 18341
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (The Hills) [5.43 p.m.]: For the past three months residents of north-western and south-western Sydney have been under threat from a rapacious Government intent on destroying the equity they have built up in their homes. I refer to the Government's Metropolitan Growth Centres strategy and its associated Landscape and Rural Lifestyle Area zoning. North Kellyville in my electorate has been particularly badly affected by this draconian plan by bureaucrats in the Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Natural Resources [DIPNR] and the Department of Environment and Conservation to provide green space at zero cost to the Government. According to a Government document:
The landscape and rural lifestyle zone will protect the rich biodiversity, Aboriginal heritage and other landscape qualities that are characteristic of North West and South Western Sydney, for the community and future generations.
By the stroke of a pen the Labor Government has divided landowners in north-western Sydney into winners and losers. The winners are those in the white zone who are able to develop their land. The losers are those in the green zone, or the Land and Rural Lifestyle zone, many of whom have lived in their homes and worked the land for decades. The Growth Centres document claims:
Landowners within the zone will be able to continue to enjoy using their land as they have up to now. Existing opportunities to build a house will not be removed and current uses such as rural residential living, agriculture and tourism will be allowed to continue. The new zone will add an overlay of considerations but will not change the existing zoning.
How can the Government say the new zone will not change the existing zoning when all manner of restrictions are placed on the use of that land by the Land and Rural Lifestyle overlay? Landowners in the area chipped in, at DIPNR's insistence, to prepare a master plan for the area. At no time did the Government mention anything about the Land and Rural Lifestyle area. If the Government's chief planning agency asked you to prepare a master plan for the area you lived in, supervised your work and specified the number of homes you had to include, would you not believe your land was going to be developed? I know people whose property values have fallen from $3 million to $800,000. They are understandably angry. I am not talking about speculators who bought land to make a fast buck. I am talking about people who have lived in the area for more than 30 years, have raised their families there and have farmed or worked the land.
It is not as though the Government's proposal will deliver good environmental outcomes. Incredibly, the draft maps the Government released were based on outdated aerial photographs. In most cases they did not even send in anyone on the ground. Wooded areas of high conservation value were included in the white zone—that is, land that can be developed—while the green zone included farms, chook sheds and homes. One property owner who barely has a tree on his two hectares of land was entirely in the green zone. Down the road, Frank and Mary Bonello's hydroponics lettuce farm, which I visited last week, had the boundary going right through the middle of a shade cloth. I went to a rally at Rouse Hill on 7 August, which was organised by the STOP group—Stop Taking Our Property—and attended by 3,000 angry people. The group is spearheaded by landowners such as Councillor Ray Williams, John Kozor and Bernie Moriarty. The Speaker of the House, whose electorate adjoins mine and is also affected by these proposals, was present. He told the crowd that areas in his electorate that were twelve feet underwater during heavy rain had been zoned for medium-density housing.
Two weeks before that rally I wrote to the then Minister for Planning, Infrastructure and Natural Resources, Craig Knowles, on behalf of Mrs Sharyn Kirchner of Withers Road, Kellyville, in which I posed a number of questions, including: What criteria were used to assess land for inclusion in the Landscape and Rural Lifestyle area? What restrictions will be placed on the use of land in this zone? Will market gardeners and flower growers have to lodge a development approval to change crops? What will happen to existing use rights if a block changes hands? Is it true that all property owners in the Landscape and Rural Lifestyle area will be encouraged to revegetate their properties? Will it be possible to build a new house on a block of land in the Landscape and Rural Lifestyle area? I add to those questions: How will chicken farmers and market gardeners be able to continue with their businesses next to townhouses and flats? Does any member of this Government have a clue as to what is involved in primary production?
So far the silence from the Government to my letter, which I sent on 25 July, has been deafening. Perhaps the Government does not know the answers. It certainly had no idea what was on the ground in the area. Shortly after his elevation, the new Premier indicated he would scrap the overlays. However, affected landowners were asked to make submissions to the Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Natural Resources about the Growth Centre strategy, with a deadline of last Friday. Why would they be asked to do so if the overlays are being scrapped? The new Minister for Planning, Infrastructure and Natural Resources promised residents that changes would be made to the overlays. Affected property owners are concerned that he is just going through the motions rather than making substantive changes. The bottom line is if there are areas that require protection we should all pay for them. We should not expect individual landowners to bear the cost. This process should be stopped now. The Liberal-Nationals Coalition, when in Government, will scrap the green overlay and bring equity to the development of north-western and south-western Sydney.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:31:10 : Update this page