Manager
Department of Planning
Locked Bag 9022 Grafton NSW 2460
Email: northcoast@planning.nsw.gov.au
18 February 2008
Dear Sir,
Submission on Draft Growth Areas for the Regional Strategy
Further to our submission of 29 April 2007 regarding the Draft Mid North Coast Regional Strategy, we make the following comments regarding the proposed Future Growth Areas identified as part of the regional strategy. Our submission is in two parts firstly general comments regarding the proposed regional growth areas and secondly, specific comments relating to the Nambucca area.
General Comments
· We support the concept of identifying sufficient land for projected needs, but are astounded that the Department of Planning (DoP) has identified so much land for future urban and industrial development. The amount identified in the Draft Growth Areas is, by the NSW Governments own figures, 1,157% too high for residential land and 979% too high for industrial land! We strongly object to this proposed blatant securing of an oversupply of land. 
•	Residential land has been over supplied in all local government areas except Coffs Harbour in the Draft Growth Area Maps. 2,138ha of the areas identified for residential growth are vegetated, with 633ha consisting of Endangered Ecological Communities. 
· Kempsey, Great lakes and Nambucca suffer the most over allocation with 323%, 276% and 260% over allocation for residential land respectively. We consider this a land grab by the development industry.
· All local government areas except Bellingen are over allocated for employment (industrial) land, with Nambucca, Clarence and Taree being the worst off at 4,300%, 3,809% and 3,048% over allocation respectively.
· The proposal to review the Strategy every five years is supported. It should be this mechanism which responds to any changing demographics trends, if they occur, so that any requirement for further rezoning of land can be demonstrably evidence based.
· If such an oversupply was to be ‘locked’ into the final growth area maps, then property owners and investors will hold local and state govt to ransom if those rights were threatened with any proposal to back zone.
· By ‘locking in’ this gross over allocation of land, the State Government is denying itself and the community flexibility and options for future land use or protection in these areas. This prospect flies in the face of responsible planning, especially in view of climate change impacts, in particular sea level rise, which are under considered in this process. 
· In view of the above dot point, the Precautionary Principle should be applied and the final Growth Areas should be adjusted down to reflect the Government’s projected growth figures and when doing so, the primary principles should be 1) no loss of native vegetation or at the very least no loss of vegetation listed as rare, vulnerable or endangered under the TSC Act or identified as under reserved; 2) no filling or drainage of the floodplain; 3) avoidance of sites at risk from future inundations caused by worst case scenario sea level rise and 4) preference for sites adjacent to existing centres and services.
· We find it difficult to understand how ESD principles can be met through this strategy without firstly developing a Conservation Plan. Before adopting a final Strategy the NSW Government must develop a Conservation Plan for the Mid North Coast which provides protection for biodiversity in perpetuity.
· The NVCA does not support the following sites as new growth areas; West Yamba, James Creek, Lawrence, Corindi, Arrawarra Headland, Safety Beach Golf Course, Mastracolis Road, North Boambee Valley, Bonville, Boggy/Cow Creek, South West Rocks, Scotts Head, Lower Nambucca, the expansion of Thrumster, Dunbogan, Area 15, North Tuncurry and Balberook and North Arm Coves.
· Some sites identified in the Draft Growth Areas have significant conservation values and should not be included, however if the NSW Government does not reject these sites, it should establish a Sensitive Sites Panel akin to that used for the South Coast Regional Strategy, to allow a closer examination of the sites and related issues. 
· The NVCA strongly objects to the sustainability criteria, which enables development to occur outside areas identified in the Strategy. The glaring loophole defeats the purpose of developing a Regional Strategy in the first place. 
Proposed Future Growth Areas for the Nambucca Shire 
· This Association’s comments put to DoL in its 29 April MNC Regional Strategy submission regarding Nambucca Shire Council’s proposed future growth areas still stand. These areas were identified through Council’s 20 Year Shirewide Structure Plan process with considerable community consultation, however the NVCA lacks confidence in the Community Reference Group established to inform Council on community views regarding the plan, as it was established without clear criteria and lacked any conservation representative to balance the views of participants with obvious pro development objectives. 
· NSC’s Structure Plan was based on previously identified future growth areas which were established many years earlier without the benefit of contemporary knowledge of ecological values, planning standards or considerations such as climate change impacts. The NVCA was disappointed that areas clearly unsuitable for development continued to remain in NSC’s proposed growth areas despite considerable community feedback as to their ecological sensitivity and biodiversity values. As a result we now are faced with a new layer of planning being based on poor, ill informed and outdate planning decisions of the past.
· We hold little confidence in assurances that Future Growth Areas are over allocated to allow for ‘no go’ areas to be established within them at a later date. Neither the State Government nor NSC has yet even commenced preparation of promised conservation plans. Indeed there is no certainty as to whether a Conservation Plan will ever be prepared, let alone which areas might (if ever) be identified for ‘no go zones’. This is a most disappointing and worrying outcome.
· Without up front criteria for protection of biodiversity values, there is no certainty that those lands within identified Growth Areas will be subsequently unavailable for future rezoning for development, as such they may be more vulnerable to destruction following adoption of the Regional Strategy, than they are currently. 
•	There is an enormous oversupply of both urban and employment lands allocated for the Nambucca Area. Nambucca has one of the lowest growth rates on the mid north coast. Removing the most inappropriate areas ie South Scotts Head, Lower Nambucca and Boggy/Cow Ck would still leave sufficient land for the next 25 years. If growth rates increases during that time the 5 year review process could identify further lands if necessary.
•	Experience has shown that back zoning is unacceptable to landowners in terms of lost development opportunity and to government. Therefore, locking in a massive over allocation of land effectively restricts local and state government’s future options in terms of best land use management which reflects contemporary planning and conservation goals and community expectations.
•	NVCA supports the South Macksville Urban Release area. This area will yield sufficient lots for the shires growth needs for the next 25 years. Importantly this area is relatively unconstrained and close to services and facilities. 
•	The proposed growth area to the south of Scotts Head road is opposed outright on grounds of significant environmental constraints, its sensitive coastal location and it being superfluous to needs. This proposed area is in direct conflict with the small coastal village character which was identified through the Shirewide Structure plan consultation process as requiring preservation. NVCA is aware of incremental pre-emptive clearing of native vegetation occurring on this site over past years, however this fact and the consequent compromising of biodiversity values does not render it unworthy of exclusion from future development.
•	Although not included in the DoP future growth area mapping, the NVCA is aware that NSC intends to resubmit Lot 1046, DP 826440 at Warrell Ck to the DoP for inclusion as future employment land. We do not support this proposal. Lot 1046 is isolated from other industrial lands in the Macksville area. At least half of the lot is below the 1:100 year flood level, the site is identified and mapped as significant farmland and lies immediately adjacent to Warrell Creek which is a recognised high conservation value waterway, with enormous tourism and ecological values. It is therefore a most unsuitable site for industrial use. This lot was proposed to NSC by the owner after completion of the Shirewide Structure Plan and has therefore not been subject to local community consultation. Employment lands are already vastly over allocated for the Nambucca Shire in the DGAMs without the addition of this block. We understand the DoP have already rejected Lot 1046 once before and urge it to stand by this decision and not include it in the future growth areas for the Nambucca.
•	NVCA opposes the proposal for development of the Boggy/Cow Creek area. This new satellite area will virtually be a town in its own right. However, it will be remote from services in particular in the early stages and therefore unattractive especially to older buyers, requiring access to transport and medical facilities and services. The western section contains almost 5ha of Endangered Ecological Community. There simply is not the demand to justify such a large area. The Cow Ck/Boggy Ck area was touted as a future growth area many years ago by NSC, despite it never being zoned Future Urban in the 1995 NLEP. Local land holders claim they were given verbal assurance by elected representatives years ago and have invested and sat tight on land on the premise that their rural land would one day be subdividable for urban development. This is hardly a sound basis for planning such a major new development area. We are astounded that not only have local landholders now amalgamated and engaged consultants to develop a master plan for the area but NSC is actively involved in the process. We trust this pre-emptive activity will not undermine the integrity of the Regional Strategy process in terms of assessing submissions and finalising Future Growth Areas.
•	The NVCA does not support the South Nambucca (Lower Nambucca) employment land area because of its extremely environmentally sensitivity and flooding constraints. Development of this area would constitute unacceptable ribbon development.
•	The 2ha site at Nambucca 3 for urban growth is not supported due to the existence of swamp sclerophyll forest which is inadequately reserves in the region. 
In Summary
The NVCA is most alarmed at the enormous increase in area allocated for future development in the draft Growth Area Maps, compared to the figures in the draft MNC Regional Strategy and urges a major adjustment down to realistic and sustainable levels.
In fact we believe that allocating land for future development should only be undertaken following sustainability assessment of resources available within each catchment particularly in terms of water resources. 
Thankyou for the opportunity to participate in this important process.
Yours sincerely
Georgette Allen
Secretary