Sign In
or Create a new account
Undersized Allotments
WARNING WARNING In clause 54 in the proposed Draft LEP2007 land that is in zones RU1,RU2, and E3 must be 40ha (100 acres) minimun in size or you will not be able to erect a dewelling on it even though it was allowed under the current WLEP 1998. As a result any small acreages under 100 acres that you thought you might be able to sell off at a later date will just be grazing land sales. All land holders should immediatly seek qualified advice on this subject.
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Comment 1 1 Feb 2008, 4:03 PM
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?
Comment 1.1 1 Feb 2008, 4:23 PM
I agree, this is ludicrous...
I feel very sorry for the land owners that were relying on selling land to pay for their future. Want I want to know is will the Wingecarribee Council or State Government compensate the land owners for this?
I feel we are moving into the dark ages...not the 21st century
Comment 2 3 Feb 2008, 11:05 PM
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??
Mark Pepping Comment 2.1 Manager Strategic Planning 5 Feb 2008, 9:38 AM
For an explanation of why there is so much E3 zone, please refer to the Rural Lands Thematic Paper on Council's webpage
Comment 3 7 Feb 2008, 11:21 PM
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 more…
Comment 4 12 Feb 2008, 8:32 AM
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
Comment 5 12 Feb 2008, 10:26 AM
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.
Comment 5.1 13 Feb 2008, 7:58 PM
NICK - If you take time ro read what I said, I stated at the outset that I was playing "Devil's Advocate".
I concluded with "Living where I do - it was once farmland, so I am part of the problem!"
Had you absorbed what I stated, you would not have asked the question.
Of course it's an outrage in so many ways.
Remember that our environment we enjoy is different to what our forefathers enjoyed - for better and for worse.
Our very presence in the region is enough to cause a degree of change - which is why I said I am more…
Comment 6 15 Feb 2008, 1:01 PM
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.
Comment 7 16 Feb 2008, 11:11 AM
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 more…