Crown Land Assessments

About this Item
Speakers - Machin Ms Wendy
Business - Grievance Debate

CROWN LAND ASSESSMENTS

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [11.45]: I grieve on behalf of many individual and constituent groups within the Port Macquarie electorate. I wish to focus on land assessments which are now a requirement for certain changes of Crown land use under the new Crown Lands Act. For the record and the benefit of Independent members of both Houses of this Parliament, I should like to refer to the last Parliament to discuss how that came about. We developed a new Crown Land Act under the former Minister responsible, the Hon. Ian Causley, Minister for Natural Resources. That involved some sweeping changes to the Act and major improvements to what had, at times, become a fairly outdated and unwieldy Act. Because of the situation at that time in the upper House, a number of amendments were moved. The Government accepted some of these amendments in order to have the major part of the Act passed. One was the inclusion of a provision to undertake a land assessment of any piece of Crown land once its use was proposed to be changed, no matter how minor or major that use may be. In fact there is no differentiation between using a one metre square piece of Crown land for a small purpose and selling off or leasing a major portion of Crown land for some development or significant use.

The moving of that amendment showed that those moving it did not possess wide knowledge of Crown land, in country New South Wales in particular. This may or may not be a problem in the city but it is a problem for country members of Parliament, given that there are more parcels of Crown land and their use tends to be somewhat fluid. This is particularly so on the North Coast where the population is growing and pressure is mounting for change, and often a very good case for a change, in the use of land. I shall give the House a few examples relating to the Port Macquarie area. It demonstrates how unwieldy this provision is. Concern has been expressed about Crown land being sold off. The old lie of a dollar an acre always springs to mind. Using the same criteria, I recall that the former environment Minister responsible for planning sold similar land for 17c an acre. But that is by the by. It is possible to have a system in which the need for Crown land and its maintenance is observed. However, a practical approach must be taken on adjustments to Crown land estates in New South Wales.

In the past 18 months matters have come to my attention. One relates to a residential property near my home in Port Macquarie. The home accidentally encroached on a Crown land reserve. The owners sought rectification by doing a simple land swap. They traded a portion of their private land back to the reserve in order to retain that part of Crown land that had been incorporated into their property and on which they had built a swimming pool. So far it has taken approximately a year to deal with that simple trade because of administrative procedures and the delays in carrying out the land assessment. Because it was not a major issue it did not have priority. In the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Oxley is the Rocks Ferry boat ramp. It requires a three foot or six foot extension on the side of the ramp. Because it is on Crown land it must go through the whole land assessment process merely to add a few feet to the side of the ramp to make it more practical for the users. The river-beds are classified as Crown land and if any works are required to be done, a land assessment process must take place. Subsequently an environmental impact study must be carried out, so in that case there are two bites of the cherry.

For about three years a constituent of mine has been seeking to lease or purchase a parcel of Crown land which is of a fairly unusual shape and would not be required for other purposes. He is in the transport industry and wants to establish a business with a depot on this area of land. He lodged his application before the amendment to the Act
Page 5737
was dealt with by the previous Parliament but is still waiting to have it brought to finality. Earlier I referred to an example involving a small block of land. In the electorate of one of my colleagues a one metre square portion of land was required on which to erect a small tower. Even for that small parcel of land it was necessary to go through the land assessment process. In Laurieton it is proposed to build a home and community care centre which will cost about $300,000. The proposal is somewhat complicated and involves a number of departments. That project also requires land assessment. The fishermen's co-operative at Laurieton wants to extend and develop its premises. That would be a wonderful asset for the community and a boost to tourism. The co-operative is now caught up in the land assessment process. The maritime museum at Port Macquarie wants to obtain land adjacent to its present premises but has to make application for land assessment also. The Port Macquarie ocean pool committee is in a similar position.

In a number of the instances to which I have referred a fair amount of duplication is involved because once the land assessment has been done it will be necessary to carry out an environmental impact study. The few projects around Port Macquarie that I have mentioned have a value totalling about $3 million. They are community-based projects except for one or two of them which have private involvement. They are being delayed because of the amendment, which was probably moved in good faith in the other place during the term of the previous Parliament. The Act is having a negative impact on many legitimate activities in the electorate and throughout New South Wales. It has caused a problem for applicants and for the Department of Lands. My colleague the Minister for Conservation and Land Management has told me that at present about 29 man years of work is involved in the backlog of land assessments. It is not possible to process them speedily. Some alternative must be found, whether it be prioritising applications, trying to knock out a few or deleting the requirement for land assessments. Councils are caught in a vicious circle. An applicant such as the ocean pool committee cannot lodge a development application until the land assessment is completed. That assessment must be done to enable the Department of Lands to grant its consent to owners of land. The department must first consent to a development application being lodged, but will not do so until the land assessment has been carried out. That means that councils are unable to consider such an application. In many cases the projects involve public consultation. That is often delayed or is not possible because the application gets tied up in this circuitous process.

A number of solutions have been suggested and at some stage I hope they will be put before the House for consideration. They will simplify procedures and enable some of these excellent community projects to be undertaken without the need to go through this convoluted process. Under the Act the Minister has authority to waive the need for a land assessment if he is satisfied that the application pays due regard to the principles of Crown land management. The former Minister in good faith gave an undertaking to do that. His successor may have done it once, in regard to the one square metre portion of land about which I spoke. Another suggestion was that councils and the Land Titles Office could put the proposals on display at the same time so that the development application could be considered and the public input process commenced at the same time as the land assessment was being done. When the development application went before council the environmental impact study could be commenced at the same time as the land assessment was displayed. That would mean that three stages would be continuing at the one time. It might be possible to draw a distinction between the sizes of the various parcels of land. It seems absurd to have to go through this process which takes up lots of time and money while decisions are made about a small parcel of land. Another suggestion related to regional plans. I know the Minister is considering this
Page 5738
proposal and I commend him for his actions in attempting to find ways around the problem. If we must have the provision, and I doubt that we must, at least an attempt should be made to weed out the smaller projects that can be done immediately and to streamline the remainder of the procedures by running them in conjunction with the consideration of council applications so that they can be completed as quickly as possible.

Last modified 05/12/2007 16:28:27 : Update this page