Undersized Allotments

This is THE most crazy idea I've ever heard. It's white collar crime! So many land owners in the area are relying in selling parcels for their retirement. Where do they stand now? Land under 100 acres is too small for agriculture and not big enough to put a house on...It's happening all over the state - it's been overturned in other areas and let's hope we can do the same here! The more noise we make, the more chance we have of throwing this stupidity out. Aren't you guys (council) trying to ATTRACT people to the area? I'm hoping to relocate my family to the area from Sydney but you lot are making it IMPOSSIBLE unless I purchase 100 acres. 100 acres is a LOT of land if you only intend on putting up a house. Come on council people, pull you head out of the sand - how can you possible expect your community to grow and prosper under this ridiculous law?

I agree with the posts on this topic. This is totally ridiculous. People with small allotments not yet built on (and there will be plenty of them) in the RU1, RU2 and E3 will find that they are these allotments will be worth zero dollars - that's right, zero dollars. And, the council will still want their rates!

This is theft by government. It is some bureaucrat gone mad. Why would any sane person suggest such an idea? What would the compensation be - nothing less than the full market value would be fair. What about people planning to retire to their country block and build a house on it? This would be no longer possible.

I can't understand the thinking of anyone who could suggest this. Is it labor party policy at a state level or is it simply some local council dunce? Whoever it is, this amendment must be removed.

What will the policy be for existing residences on small blocks. Can we knock one down and replace it? Or, will we be stopped or forced to go through some rigorous process?

By the way - why is there so much E3 zoned land??

This is outrageous at best and illegal at worst. How do coouncil propose to get away with stealing peoples hard earned investments and assets.

If any of our governments were to walk in and stipulate that every person who lived in a rural zoning in this country were going to have all of there superannuation funds taken from them and all the money they thought they had to retire on was no longer there, there would be absolute blood in the streets! and so there should be, people have made decisions in the past that were legal at the time and should be protected by grandfathering rules!

Sinvce super annuation was established there have been in excess of 2000 changes to the legislation, however all of these decisions have been "grandfathered" meaning yes the provision no longer exists however you can not disadvantage people who made decisions in good faith which were totally legal and applicable at time of making the decision.

Council would want to be very carefull with this one and definatley check with there legal team as I already hear talk of a class action. I would certainly be supporting such an action as it is one thing to change a zoning for the future but quite another to steal retirement funds from hardworking Australians!!

I'll be devils advocate.

Consider Council's stance. By reclassifying such parcels of land, they seek to preserve the ambiance of the shire by stopping sub developments.

It is a different matter for those who have already taken prudent steps and already invested in their future.

It is a different matter to apply the rezoning to land that in the future is likely to be sub divided. In such cases rezoning would be a fair thing to do IF it is to maintain the character of the region.

Sadly, I mistrust any 'authority' and with very good reasons. Is growth at all costs really necessary?

TO Council and Governments, more people equates to more taxes, which in turn means more infrastructure to service them, so in the washup it's a no gain situation.

YES - I can see my place in it too. Living where I do - it was once farmland, so I am part of the problem!

Peter Cunnningham

Its all very well to maintain this beautiful shire, and we do that with clever planning and strategic growth. YES we must grow if we are to continiue to enjoy the lifestyle we all actually want. This can be done in a sympathetic way to maintain the charm of the Highlands.

However, to take some ones property without fair compensation is an outrage! Surely you wouldn’t condone “shifting the gold posts”, these lots were created a long time ago, and were done so under the legislation at the time and with the blessing of local authorities. How then can we accept a council who wishes to remove any value associated with these lots. If as a community we want to maintain the Rural charm then we as a community must pay for it, and not expect others to forfeit there own hard earned assets.

I ask you Peter, are you happy to forfeit your property for the good of a rural vista?

My hard earned super should not be deemed worthless because some council officers believe they have the right to deem it as such.

I have been told by a local real estate agent that my home -on aprox 6ha, should it burn down, will not be able to be re-built under the new LEP. This is because my property will be zoned RU2 and my dwelling will become an existing use. Permission will not be granted to build on less than 40ha, and the EP&A act says that an existing use cannot be re-established. I can not believe that this can happen and I hope that this is incorrect as a lot of people will be in big trouble if this is the case. I am waiting for clarification from Council. I have found the LEP with its addendum, new template etc very complex.

Call me cynical, but the present controversy over the Leisure Centre and sale of public land is diverting attention from the real deal here, which is the content of this LEP - the devil is in the detail. The so called Leisure Centre, funded by sale of public land (despite the "public" overwhelming opposing the sales), investments ( oh yes, forget the $2.5 Mill WSC lost) and future Sect 94 contributions (haven't they read the latest round of Sartor's "planning reforms") is nothing more than a giant edifice to all that is wrong with this "pro-development at all costs" Council.

As to this Draft LEP, the lot size controversy is just one of the nasties.

As to Jev's comment, if you have an existing use ( dwellling house) that is temporarily halted ( burnt down) then you have 12 months before you lose your right to continue that "existing use". Just start to rebuild within that time.

Overall though, I have to say that I can see some logic in this. Under the current LEP the minimum Lot size in "rural" areas has always been 40Ha. But there have been various rules about concessional allotments etc, that have resulted in lots of "under sized" blocks. If your block was a Council approved subdivision, and you acted to commence that consent, by say, fencing the block, registering the titles, putting in driveways, or otherwise "commencing" then I would think you have a valid and and continuing approval no matter when it was done.