More questions than answers around planning policies and zones
Dear Beagle Editor,
DID THE MAYOR JUST MISLEAD HOME OWNERS?
I heard Mayor Innes on ABC radio stating that people ‘will not be kicked out of their homes’ in these new ‘vulnerable’ conservation zones (such as the Surfside suburb)
But the Mayor surely cannot say that?
The sea level rise policy is all about preventing home owners from defending their homes and land (e.g. it can be up to a One million dollar fine to use sand bags to protect your home!)
Under the policy council can also seize ownership of any eroded private property or homes, and kick people out of their homes if council feels the damage is significant enough, and prevent home owners from fixing the damage.
So how can the Mayor give a personal guarantee that what the policy approves will not be done?
Mr Hitchcock has put out a challenge to council to produce the brief council claim to have done, which will reveal if any self defence by home owners will be allowed at all? and if council will allow any mitigation measures at all?
Why have council not responded to this challenge?
Also here is an interesting article from Byron Shire about the LEP's.
It says "Environmental zones were excised from the Local Environment Plans of five Northern Rivers councils in 2012 by the former local government minister, then Ballina National Party MP Don Page.”
So why do we still have them? (other than E3)
Our community fought as hard as any against them? What more could our community have done to stop them?
Also, what appears to be concessions by the State such as allowing “extensive agriculture” are not what they appear to be.
The definition of ‘extensive agriculture’ in the LEP is actually restrictive.
Also the article states that...
"the resulting review of E2 (environment protection) zones and E3 (environment management) zones requires that they be applied by councils only if conservation has been the primary use of the land over the past two years.”
But what they don't explain is that this means that existing conservation overlays and council conservation policies will simply be used to justify these zones.
As we have seen here, council has used E2 on the Wharf road blocks (which have no environmental attributes to conserve?) for the stated purpose of sterilising valuable urban lands (not for environmental conservation)
Council were even congratulated by a State body (in writing) for misusing this E-zone! This is not the only example of council misusing E-zones for the sole purpose of sterilising private property (which is supposed to be illegal?)
Unfortunately, once governments are allowed to steal private property rights, it won't be long before we are all just tenants in our own homes (Unless they kick you out?) Damian Rogers Moruya