A majority of Lismore City councillors have rejected an attempt to overturn a decision made at last month’s meeting to make E-Zones voluntary.
The decision to reject Environmental zones, or ‘E zones’, which are designed to protect land that is of important environmental value, was made despite an appeal from the NSW Department of Planning.
In a letter to the council, the Department said the council’s proposal to rezone land zoned for environmental protection under Lismore’s LEP 2000 to rural land use rezoning without investigation and justification appears ‘inconsistent’ with the minister’s planning directive .
‘It is important that Council ensures that any planning proposals for the deferred lands it submits for Gateway determination demonstrate consistency with the relevant planning directions,’ the letter warned.
Staff had also recommended that the council accept $40,000 from the Department of Planning to review proposed E zones in the 2012 Local Environment Plan.
The proposed e-zones cover less than 1.5 per cent of the local government area and are backed by conservationists who want those areas protected and, where needed, rehabilitated.
At last night’s meeting however, a rescission motion lodged by Greens councillor Vanessa Ekins was defeated when Labor’s Isaac Smith and Darlene Cook voted with their more conservative counterparts.
Cr Greg Bennett was ecstatic with the result.
‘The reason I ran for council originally was to get rid of forced E-Zones and Biodiversity overlays, both have now been achieved,’ he posted shortly after the result.
‘This is a fantastic result for our farmers and all those who fought hard to rid us of this disgraceful policy.’
Greens Cr Adam Guise said however that it was ‘a sad day for environmental protection and rational land use zoning.’
‘With the current motion proposing voluntary E-Zones we won’t be eligible for $40,000 so in my opinion E-Zones are effectively dead in Lismore LGA,’ he said.
Cr Isaac Smith has maintained however that it made more sense to have farmers voluntarily sign up to undertake conservation work on their properties.
To Greg Bennett: This may be a fantastic result for you but this is not a fantastic result for farmers or future generations. It may well have been the reason you stood for council but please don’t claim to speak for farmers. You don’t speak for us or any of the farmers know. Some land owners may be determined to clear native vegetation & wildlife habitat as they wish but sustainable farming needs a balance. Good farmers understand we need to work with the environment. Future food growers will enjoy the benefits of our efforts for many generations to come.
Well said Meg! As for Bennett one would expect not much more from him. I am even surprised that he managed to be coherent this time around, must be all the dollars that he thinks will flow on from that decision, but councillor Smith? My god I thought the Greens and Labor ran a combined ticket! Fooled again!!
I am confused! The jargon used in this article made it difficult to understand the issues.
I am concerned that the E Zones are being sidelined out of fear, instead of embraced, as an opportunity to protect our precious catchment.
My partner and I are about to move from Byron Shire to Lismore LGA – Nimbin hills. We are moving because we have loved the shire and her wonderful flora and fauna, loved living by a quiet beach, seeing and getting to know other long term residents, those who’s wonderful wings fly them to their family trees, and who peep at us from their long term homes. The voiceless ones who cannot vote, deserve our protection. For surely there is no beauty without the wild world, and preservation of the rarer species. We are hoping that Lismore Council is one of people who like the above farmers, want what is best for the future of ‘Lismore’ the generational future, those above imposing a ridiculous word like ‘disgraceful ‘ on others who really care about more than their own little patch.
This article is most certainly confused! The so called ‘appeal’ from the Department of planning is a reminder to Councils that after a lengthy investigation it was found that land was being classified as an E zone based on poor or non-existent mapping and, contrary to the actual definitions of the various E zones. The Minister’s Directive makes it very clear to Councils how they must go about identifying E zones. A key aspect of the Directive is that existing land use rights must be recognized. Like it or not, the Directive is as good as Law. The motion to make it voluntary for farmers is an attempt to fast track retention of some of the previously declared E zones. It gives those farmers who want to protect remnant vegetation, as well as their own planting initiatives, a chance to do so quickly. The attempt to reverse this initiative is really an attempt to go back to the days before the Ministerial Directive where farmers were told that their land was unilaterally going to be declared an E zone. It is a few Councillors preferring to dictate rather than cooperate.
The article does not mention that there are already several pieces of legislation in place which prohibit the clearing of land with high conservation value. This is not the end of E zones. Land that genuinely holds high conservation value and is not being actively farmed is protected, and my be declared an E zone through the proper processes.
E zones are not being sidelined, rejected, thrown out or rigged. Rather, they are to be voluntary. In other words rather than mandatory complaince, Council’s code will now reflect farming realities. Rather than impose layers and layers of red tape the policy now recognises that most farmers really do care and will do the right thing.
And whilst Councillor Bennett might seek to claim ownership of this, it is in fact the inspiring leadership of Mayor Smith that has seen this sensible policy now in place. For whilst Councillor Bennett was busy doing his usual Dr No act, opposing and rejecting every motion before Council, it was Mayor Smith who got on with the job of governing and passing sensible and compliance abled policy.
“In other words rather than mandatory complaince, Council’s code will now reflect farming realities.”?? And what are farming realities? Clear more land to extract the last breath of a dying earth! Any day one can take a drive across the Northern Rivers or anywhere else for that matter, and see the devastation that we have wreaked on this land. Creeks completely denuded of vegetation, hills crumbling from old quarries, weed infestation, muddy creeks and rivers. In less than a hundred and fifty years we have pillaged and raped with no concern for anything but hard cash. Only the very few will try and make the effort to protect and rehabilitate the few pockets of land as it was before now. I am really disappointed in mayor Smith, it looks like once you don the robe any kind of kind of courage seems to evaporate!!
Folks, this is not the end of the world as we know it. First, our Mayor has shown wisdom and leadership on this issue. We may not all agree, but in this case, he is right. The condition of the landscape within the Lismore local government area is an expression of the actions of its inhabitants over millennia, most notably, the last 150 years.
It is clear that much of the native vegetation that existed at the time of European settlement has been cleared, and in many cases, only isolated patches of the original forests remain. Forests were not the only landscapes that have been altered significantly. Much of our region was native grassland and many areas would be better described as open woodland. The e-zones focused on protection of areas og woody vegetation. In many cases, these areas are already very different in florist structure from what they previously were, and often they are invaded by weeds such as camphor and privet.
The e-zones were a blunt instrument designed to fix a poorly described problem. In this case, the proponents failed to bring the community along and get them to understand exactly what the problem is. The e-zones failed in almost every case to address the principles of good governance, namely:
1. The law needs to make sense, be easily understood and have a high level of voluntary buy-in.
2. The law needs to be simple to administer and easily enforceable.
In both cases, this exercise has failed. The problem that Council was trying to fix was poorly defined and poorly articulated. It did not garner sufficient community buy-in.
As I said, it’s not the end of the world, and the best way forward is to continue to build a sense of awareness and understanding of the real issues confronting our landscape
I applaud all those responsible landowners who are taking positive initiatives to not just protect our natural heritage, but prevent it from being over-run by the army of weeds that are seeking to call our land their home.