Rural Discussion Paper Contribution
In May 2008, the Council issued a paper seeking community consultation, discussion and comment on what the Council should consider with regards to Rural Development in the new Local Environment Plan.
This is one of the aspects of Local Government that, as a resident and Ratepayer, I like. Sure it takes time to do and puts your views out for all to see, but it's good being able to participate in such discussions. And, whether or not your views are accepted verbatim in the end, they will have contributed to what we all hope will be rigorous thinking to get an outstanding and livable outcome.
Recently one of the candidates, Catherine Moore, wrote (Braidwood Times 3 Sept.) in what could only be interpreted as a political way, to attribute a pro-development position to my submission that just isn't there. To the best of my knowledge, she did not make a submission and her specific views on the matters raised in the Paper are hard to find in print. Mostly one can only find rhetoric on the subject and little substance.
To clarify that slight, I publish this response, and happily make the submission available to you too for your consideration. I welcome your feedback and collaboration as well. I believe it not only exhibits my thoughts on this matter, which you may or may not agree with, but it also demonstrates my level of commitment to contribute to our shire.
Richard
Dear Editor,
I find Catherine Moore’s letter (Braidwood Times Sept 3 2008) somewhat curious given the implications she weaves into it. I’m proud of my submission on the Rural Discussion paper, and welcome others to read it at their pleasure. It is now posted on my website, www.RichardGraham.com.au. My contribution to the discussion supports the new NSW Rural SEPP and the Central West Land Enquiry from which it sprang. Both of those documents state it to be a favourable objective to have rural land development policies that result in viable agricultural enterprises, and take into account the changing face of agriculture, in particular horticulture. All of these principles I support and wrote accordingly.
Quite the contrary to Ms Moore’s overtones, I was not for converting agricultural land to rural residential, but was for having smaller working agriculture lots where young farmers and their families could live while growing market garden produce and the like. I provided both reason and statistics to substantiate that in this area, large lot size neither contributes to the viability of agriculture nor the enhancement of our rural landscapes. In fact the opposite is demonstrably the case.
Lastly, as for Ms Moore suggesting that I was one of the “large landholders who stand to gain most from a relaxation of the rules relating to subdivision”, she ignores the clearly visible points in my submission (page 5) where I said: a) I’ve amalgamated 13 individual properties to create a single farm enterprise, b) despite having 9 concessional entitlements, I chose to do nothing with them, and c) the high price of land makes continual amalgamation for my enterprise unviable.
What’s actually missing in this discussion, is what is Ms Moore’s own position about rural land development and how would she go about bringing viability into our agricultural community. How would she make it possible for young people to afford to come into farming and how to create more local food and reduce our environmental footprint and ‘food-miles’. Oh, but then again, she doesn’t claim to have a financial problem solving orientation, does she.
Richard Graham
Mulloon Creek, NSW
Submission on Rural Residential Rural
and Environmental Areas Discussion Paper
Click to Download PDF
