Just Grounds Community

For Like minded people who like to see-

Fighting the NSW Standard LEP? What if we all joined forces!

If you think these new "Standard LEP's" are bad, just wait till they are all through, and then you will see the real reason for them. Our Shire (the Eurobodalla) looks like it is the State test area for a new version of "Biodiversity Certification". It relies on these standard LEP's to come in first, but in our area they are testing it out, so we worked out what its all about.

Biodiversity Certification is basically a forced version of Biobanking.

Few know about it, and fewer understand it. But it is essentially a Development Rights Credit Trading Scheme! Trading development “Credits” taken from land owners, without Just Compensation, or even a requirement to notify owners. Just like Carbon Trading, only this time designed with the cooperation of all three levels of Government (and environmental groups). It is to be run by councils, the DOP and a State Bureaucracy, called the OEH (Office of Environment and Heritage).

We are aware of three other areas where a type of Biodiversity Certification was done. Wagga Wagga , Albury Wadonga, and one in the Sydney basin. But we are now also aware that these were using an earlier and very different method. So it looks like Eurobodalla is the test shire, and the first to implement it.

It is extremely complicated, and there are 15 different ways it can work. But this is the main one.

First councils use the “Standard Template LEP” to cover undeveloped Urban and Rural land with numerous restrictive “Overlay” maps, and new Environmental zonings, which severely restrict or stop development.

As mentioned, in our Shire, these covered at least 80% (and probably more) of all the private land area of the Shire. (which is already approximately 90% state forest and national parks)

Councils can then earn 25% Development Credits for land they restrict in this way.

Then when owners on mainly Rural land want to build something, it triggers expensive studies, and funnels most owners into unavoidable “Perpetual Voluntary Agreements”.

The more council or the OEH restrict the land, the more Credits they can earn, for perpetual agreements its more like 90%.

These “agreements” must then be attached to the owners title deeds, and may now restrict the land forever.

In these agreements land owners may be required to donate large areas of their land, or fence some areas off and maintain it “for the public good”, or donate toward unrelated public infrastructure, or even “Social Services”, or give up ANY property rights the Council or OEH so choose, or even do ongoing physical works or maintenance, even on Public lands, forever!

Payment for these works is dependant on money available in a supposedly “perpetual” fund, and how much council or the OEH agree to reimburse in these so called “agreements”.

These agreements also run with the land (like a perpetual dept) and must be adhered to by any new owners.

Of course, if owners don’t sign the agreement, their applications will be refused, and failure to comply with work orders include severe penalties, including the seizure of properties.

Now this applies equally to urban areas, but with a twist.

The excuse being used by councils for the widespread removal of rural housing entitlements, and sterilizing of rural land, is to drive populations back into Urban Centre’s (for the environment) and to make these urban centre’s higher density.

But then this does not seem to make any sense, as they also planned to cover undeveloped urban land. (called urban expansion lands) with layers of these same environmental restrictions, which can be more restrictive than a national park!

Let me quote from our councils Settlement Strategy (which guides the direction of the LEP)

“Action NE18: seek biodiversity certification in the new LEP for greenfield existing urban zones, urban expansion zones and rural residential zones,”

Council here are admitting that they have covered all possible urban expansion land with overlay restrictions. Not for environmental reasons, but so they can Biocertify it!

Which is exactly what they did in this small shire. Drawing bizarre straight lines around urban centre’s, with nice circular curves on the corners (seemingly unrelated to vegetation)

Our council even covered the whole eastern section of one town’s commercial centre with ‘biodiversity sensitive lands’ overlays, and the developed industrial area with the same, plus ‘endangered ecological community’ overlays! These areas had little or no native vegetation at all, but the effects were to prohibit “ANY” environmental impacts, which is, in effect, a prohibition on all development.

So here is the real motive.

Council, with the DOP and OEH can now control and profit from virtually all future land releases and development.

As, for example, unlocking an area of undeveloped urban land, will now likely require a perpetual agreement, and/or that it to be “Biocertified” first.

This involves packaging an urban area with a nearby rural area. “Taking” credits from the rural owners (now called “offset” lands). Without Just Compensation, or even a requirement to personally notify owners. Then compelling Urban land owners and developers to bargain with council or the OEH for these Development “Credits”, which were ‘taken’ from others.

The deals councils and the OEH make will be in confidential contracts.

As developers have pointed out, this will make the cost of new urban land very expensive. But as most Rural blocks will loose their building entitlements, or be sterilized with environmental overlays and zonings, there will be little competition or alternatives for future potential buyers. Giving Councils and the OEH total control, and in effect, a massive monopoly control over urban land development, for their own benefit!

Another big plus for Councils and the OEH, is that any urban or rural land they sterilize will then plummet in value. As buyers wont buy useless or uncertain lands, and banks wont lend on it. So whenever they need more land supply. Whole areas of now devalued land can be snapped up by councils (or their big developer friends) for a fraction of the lands true value, and with no competing buyers.

The governments intent is obviously to roll this out across the State, once the LEP’s are in place.

After speaking to us, the Lismore community questioned the State Bureaucrats at a public protest meeting and asked, how does this fit in with “Biodiversity Certification”?

The Bureaucrats were quite stunned, and said, “we were not going to talk about that, yet!”

Now our area and apparently about 20 others around the state have been fighting hard to stop this, but the only way that will happen is if groups from all areas combine and act as one.

So please email me if your area is one these, or if a land rights group from your area would like to join a joint delegation to confront the Minister?

My email is rogersdamien@aapt.net.au

Thank you

Previous discussions about LEP's

PLEASE HELP US! October 6th 2011

Class action against councils October 3rd 2011

Attachments:

NRS Moruya.png, 782 KB
NRS map example.png, 553 KB

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Damien Rogers on May 12, 2012 at 7:47am

Thanks Ian

Ian Davies said:

The following link is to show groups how others are dealing with ongoing attack. A well run & very transparent site worth having a good look around. IMO

http://wufa.pushinteractive.com.au/Membership.php

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeannie Hughes on May 31, 2012 at 9:23am

Hi Damien

Have you seen the public notice by NSW Finance & Services calling for submission of issues regarding Just Terms Compensation Legislation?

I can't help but feel that this Govt is trying to tie up loose ends - they want to "define and clarify what real property rights or interests in real property are"

The word to me "real" is both an insult and a threat, even though I realise that it is also a realty or real estate term

The trouble at the moment is that we have too many clever people and too many legal people trying to stuff up our common law and common sense rights. - like the right of control of private freehold property -"within the laws, the owner controls the use of the property". How can this be so when they keep passing laws such as the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and are at present ramming thru our local councils the innocuous (not!) LEP s which our local councillors don't see any harm in!

Also found this article in the course of my research for the above Issues Submission which maybe does (?) provide us with some hope

http://www.easternbridge.com.au/onjustterms/

from the article "But if we are right and the Land and Environment Court was right then NSW local councils may be sitting on an almost unfathomable liability for wholsale acquisition of private rights in land".

and "Please call or email Simon Nunan if your client's rights have been suspended by a NSW local council."

Thanks for this discussion, it is very helpful.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Cox on September 3, 2012 at 9:02pm

I believe it is timely to bring this one back from the dead to remind all about the rapidly approaching Local Elections on September 9th in NSW.

Just as did so many of our Cousins in Queensland pass judgement on Labor,The Greens and give the others a wake up serve in general now it's Our Turn remember research your local candidates and make a wise choice,In some cases that may even entail UGH!! Voting labor if that is what it takes to remove the Greens.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Cox on September 4, 2012 at 3:16am

Yes saturday the 8th for Local Government Elections in NSW fight against the treachery while we can people,Is your Council on the ICLEI listing then give them a serve

http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=11454

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Peter Somers on May 30, 2013 at 10:30am

This is my first Post, hello to everyone and thank you for taking me on board.

My first thought from the Post above, is this: I beg all Bloggers, to please let us newbie dummies know somewhere in the text... WTF is an LEP...? It's only right to spell out the full name of a subject in the first time it's mentioned in each contribution. See next para also...

I have similar issues with other posts, one regarding (I assume) Peter Spencer, in which this "Peter" is referred to only as "Peter" throughout the Post- which post thus becomes meaningless to any joining the discussion.

I am also appalled at the spelling mistakes appearing in so many posts; true this does not detract from the intention of the post but it certainly interferes with the message as these mistakes are distracting to the flow of information to the reader.

Please be assured I am not targeting any one contributor here; here's two I've "picked" already in different forums, for the very same reason.

Happy Days, Peter

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr Caroline Wright on May 30, 2013 at 11:31am

Welcome to the forum Peter.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Geoff Hutchesson on Sunday

One of many items discussed at the recent National Party Conference in Bathurst 14th - 15th June 2013, was changes to the Native Vegetation Act in NSW.

Here it is covered by the Weekly Times, as a pre release.

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2013/06/14/573481_latest-n...

Note that this is for NSW, so the other States should get a move on.

Cheers,

Geoff

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bart Ristuccia on Sunday

Barry O fizza's phone number 92285239
Harcher 92285289

Bart

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Geoff Hutchesson on Monday

Bart,

I presume from your somewhat cryptic response, that you would prefer Kristina Keneally to still be in charge(?) of NSW ?

Or maybe John Robertson to be Premier of NSW along with the rest of the gaggle of Laborites and unionist backers.

Barry O'Farrell may not be the Knight in Shining armour, but his government did inherit a deficit from the previous Labor government, that will keep NSW in pain for some years.

Geoff

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bart Ristuccia on Monday

No, my choice would be Pauline Hanson, but that aint going to happen. Bazza is a fizza sorry I voted for him but not much choice.

Geoff Hutchesson said:

Bart,

I presume from your somewhat cryptic response, that you would prefer Kristina Keneally to still be in charge(?) of NSW ?

Or maybe John Robertson to be Premier of NSW along with the rest of the gaggle of Laborites and unionist backers.

Barry O'Farrell may not be the Knight in Shining armour, but his government did inherit a deficit from the previous Labor government, that will keep NSW in pain for some years.

Geoff

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Geoff Hutchesson on Tuesday

G'day Peter Somers,

Welcome aboard "Just Grounds".

Nobody as yet has answered your question - WTF is LEP?

LEP is Local Environmental Plan, possibly a local council or a State Government environmental plan.

Geoff

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Geoff Hutchesson on Tuesday

G'day Bart,

You may consider Barry O'Farrell a fizza, but have you seen the expenditure on infrastructure that has been announced on TV News tonight?

Roads, bridges, hospitals is just the start.

Pauline Hanson appeared to be the answer at the time, but besides representing a party that would in effect dilute voting to the major parties, a lot of her parties policies were radical. Once she attracted the support of the bikie gangs, racist groups including endorsement of the US Klu Klux Klan, (possibly a set up) left me cold about One Nation.

Pauline Hanson is now standing as a One Nation candidate for the Senate, and could possibly do well, and even support coalition legislation through the Senate, even though Tony Abbott did have the long knives out for her, in her previous political position.