Accommodating the life styler’s – the planning implications associated with the increasing number of rural small holdings. To subdivide or not to subdivide that is the question?
(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)
Loading ...The John Williamson song ‘Give me a home among the gum trees’ is my opening for this weblog dedicated to discussing the implications of the popular rural smallholding set or created amidst the Australian rural landscape.
Bucolical and natural ideals of the countryside are revealed in historical planning theory moreover these views remain influential on contemporary rural Australia. This notion was evident in Walpolean England and is best illustrated by Walpole’s reaction to the village which offended his view (Schama, 2001), ergo it was removed. Returning to the rural idyll or nature based setting was prevalent before the industrial revolution (Glesson and Low, 2000:153); a reaction to the horrors of industrial capitalism. The Garden City movement attempted to capture the essence of rurality in combining elements of city and country in planning models. The countryside ideal is, as Bunce (1994) in Tonts and Grieve (2002:59) suggests; a romanticised construction of the rural landscape as a means for escaping the grim reality of urban.
The subdivision of rural land into what is termed rural small holdings presents complex arguments both for and against this type of development. Broadly, Australia is experiencing an increasing number of out migrations from urban areas in retreat from the chaos of cities to reside in the peace and tranquillity of rural areas. This certainly gives rise to the demand for rural small holdings needed to accommodate this trend, including the subdivision of large portions of rural land into lifestyle and hobby farm sized allotments and the influx of life styler’s into existing rural small holdings.
The lure for rural life styler’s is predominantly attributed to the aesthetic and amenity values which are present in rural areas (online). Fairweather and Swaffield (1998) highlight the way Arcadian ideals and values have motivated people to move into the country. The idyllic rural vision of a healthy, peaceful and natural way of life is regarded as a driving force behind this trend. Fairweather et al (1998) suggests that traditional rural pursuits are not the primary interest of people taking up residence on rural small holdings as residents remain reliant on urban based incomes. A change of pace, living out a child hood dream, for health and longevity or for peace and quiet the rural milieu accommodates these desires.
The promotion of this form of lifestyle living is exemplified by the lifestyle block boom in New Zealand to the extent that web sites dedicated to promoting this type of living (online). Web sites have also been created to promote the sale of lifestyle sized farm products (online). Was the John Williamson song a number one hit in New Zealand? Furthermore the article by Carnachan (online) demonstrates the attraction and perils of the ‘lifestyle block boom’ in New Zealand. Are there similar campaigns in Australian real estate markets (online)?
Rural lifestyle land holders can be categorised into the following which are defined by Aslin (online):
- Hobby farmer;
- Lifestyle farmer;
- Small farmer; and,
- Tree changer / down shifter.
These types of rural dwellers seek small rural allotments ranging from five to one hundred hectares. It could easily be assumed that the size would vary dependant on the lifestyle sought. For example a tree changer may only need a five hectare allotment to sit and watch the possums play whereas a hobby farmer may require a much larger allotment to allow for the sheep or two or flock? This aspect has created complications for researchers and illustrated by the selection of a significant range for characterising this form of land use. However for the purposes of this weblog the lower end of the range being five to twenty hectares shall be the focal point for discussion.
Related to the consistent enquiry that plagues our planning department – ‘Can I subdivide my rural land?’ – My initial view on the creation of rural smallholdings is an opposing one. Thus, I will concentrate my efforts on the apparent negatives and invite fellow bloggers to refute these views with reference to the contrasting benefits of this type of development.
The Implications of accommodating the life styler’s:
Aslin (online) summarises the potential negative impacts of increasing rural lifestyle landholders in rural areas including rapid property and population turnover; rising living and land costs forcing farmers out or making it impossible to consider expansion; degradation of the natural environment; increased need for new services and infrastructure within expanding areas (a burden on small Local Governments); implications for policy makers in adapting traditional policies to a new audience; and the loss of farming skills.
Tonts et al (2002) examine the commodification of rurality as a result of the lure and emerging trend for rural smallholdings. The commodification of rural smallholdings can be seen in real estate advertising and in previously mentioned web sites. Tonts et al (2002) focuses on the potential for destructive outcomes as a result of concentrating people in Australia’s more scenic rural areas. The article highlights that there is a grave concern that commodification will and has resulted in overdevelopment which ironically demotes the rural milieu that attracted growth in the first instance (Tonts et al, 2002:58). The destructive tendencies of this form of development relate to such complications as community conflicts resulting from divided views and changes to community structures (John Williamson highlights the new Woolies and hard ware store down the road); erosion of the natural environment; rises in rural land prices; displacement of rural cultures and traditions; conflicts with agrarian interests; and loss of productivity and productive farm land. These implications and the growth of rural smallholdings are inextricably linked to rural as a modern commodity.
Sinclair (online) highlights that this increasing trend could have severe implications on Australia’s finite agricultural resource. Furthermore that the potential for land use conflicts between traditional farming practices and rural lifestyle living will increase. Increased non rural habitation in rural areas can reduce the capacity and scope for expansion of existing agriculture. Conflicts attributed to odour, chemical spray drift, noise, domestic pets, stock damage and stress, amenity and weed infestation are common in this scenario (Sinclair, 2003).
Costello (2007) discusses the implications of urban-rural migration consistent with the increasing trend for lifestyle living on receiving rural areas. Costello (2005) draws attention to such aspects as rising house prices and decreased affordability; tensions between existing residents and new comers the result of perceived community structures and conditions.
Knight, Riebsam and Wallace (1995) illustrate that subdivision in areas with high levels of aesthetics and most often biodiversity can have profound impacts on the natural environment. Destruction of habitat and faunal movement corridors for the construction of fences, access tracks, fire management and home sites; disruption of inter and intra specific wild life patters; increased exotic species of plants and animals (dogs, cats, the splendid rabbit and weeds); increased fires and water pollution and land contamination. Knight et al (1995) refute Wuerther’s (1994) assertion that agriculture has far greater implications than subdivision.
I could rattle off quite a substantial list of grounds for why rural smallholding subdivisions are not appropriate including the ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Deliverance principles’ – can anyone infer what I mean by these? However, I will finish here.
There are complex arguments both for and against the creation of rural small holdings particularly where elements of environment, community and agriculture interplay. With an understanding of the issue at hand should planning policies be accommodating this trend? What are the potential benefits for rural areas? Can a balance between traditional rural and the new rural be achieved?
Practical Exercise:
How do various Local Governments deal with subdivision applications / proposals? I have prepared the following scenarios as follows. Will the application be approved? Choose a local government area in Australia and have a look at their policies or codes relating to rural subdivision. What considerations should the assessing officer make? Are there any alternative proposals that might be judged better? What are the implications for approval?
1. Cookie-Cutter Surveyors on behalf of Grandma Dollar-signs have prepared an application to subdivide a 100 hectare parcel of rural land into fifteen equal portions. The site is located thirty kilometres out of town, contains remnant vegetation; includes steeply sloping portions; and is littered with intermittent watercourses. The site also has a large area (50%) of cleared land suitable for non-intensive agriculture. The surrounding area has historically been used for farming and a mix of agricultural land uses are currently operating in the area.
2. Grandma Dollar-signs is at it again, nearing eighty and wanting to fund her retirement. She owns a parcel of rural land which is situated in a very unique part of the Shire and sees the benefit of subdividing. The parcel is 100 hectares and the old dear wants to produce another ten allotments. The Shire is generally tourism focussed with a large number of host-farm type operations being present in the area. The land is generally not suitable for land based agriculture and vegetation in this area is protected. The area has a high rainfall and the terrain is undulating with coastal and rural views available on ridge lines. Roads in the area are becoming increasingly degraded due to the cost of maintenance. Other large rural holdings in the area are also considering Grandma-dollar signs option.
The following includes a number links to State Planning Policies and reference documents that commonly come into play in the Queensland development assessment regime.
Planning Guidelines Separating Agriculture and Residential Land Uses - online
Protection of agricultural land from urban development - online
State Planning Policy 1/92: Development and the Conservation of Agricultural Land - online Discretionary
Rural Subdivisions - online
References and Further Reading:
Aitkins, P. (No Date) Subdivision as an intermediate scale planning process for combined agricultural and biodiversity outcomes, Proceedings of the Conference on Rural Land Use Change, accessed online at online, on 12 August 2007.
Aslin, H. (2006) Rural Lifestyle Landholders: Implications for Rural Policy Makers, Natural Resource Managers and Communicators, Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, publication accessed online at online, on 12 August 2007.
Barr, N. (2003) Future Agricultural Landscapes, Australian Planner, Volume 40, No. 2, pages 123 – 127.
Bunce, M. (1994) The Countryside Ideal: Anglo-American Images of Landscape, Routledge, London, cited in Tonts, M, and Grieve, S. (2002) Commodification and Creative Destruction in the Australian Rural Landscape: The Case of Bridgetown, Western Australia, Australian Geographical Studies, Volume 40, No. 1, page 59.
Costello, L. (2007) Going Bush: the Implications of Urban-Rural Migration, Geographical Research, Volume 45, No. 1, pages 85 – 94.
Fairweather, J, and Swaffield, S. (1998) In Search of Arcadia: The Persistence of the Rural Idyll in New Zealand Subdivisions, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Volume 41, No. 1, pages 111 – 124, accessed via online, on 19 August 2007.
Glesson, B, and Low, N. (2000) Australian Urban Planning: New Challenges, New Agendas, Allen and Unwin, Australia, page 153.
Kelleher, F.M. (2001) Urban encroachment and loss of prime agricultural land, The Australian Society of Agronomy, accessed online at online, on 19 August 2007.
Knight, R.L, Riebsame, W.E, and Wallace. G.N. (1995) Ranching the view: Subdivision versus Agriculture, Conservation Biology, Volume 9, No. 2, Pages 459 – 461.
Phillips, M. (1993) Rural Gentrification and the Processes of Class Colonisation, Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 9, No. 2, pages 123 – 140.
Randolf, J. (2004) Environmental Land Use Planning and Management, Island Press, Washington, pages 126 – 128.
Schama, S. (2001) History of Britain: the British way 1603-1776, BBC Worldwide Ltd, London.
Sinclair, I. (2003) Growth Management and Rural Land, EDGE Planning, February, pages 1 – 25, accessed online at online, on 15 August 2007.
Tonts, M, and Grieve, S. (2002) Commodification and Creative Destruction in the Australian Rural Landscape: The Case of Bridgetown, Western Australia, Australian Geographical Studies, Volume 40, No. 1, pages 58 – 70.
Wuerthner, G. (1994) Subdivision versus Agriculture, Conservation Biology, Volume 8, pages 905 – 908.
Posted in Rural Planning |
Thank you for your informative and entertaining blog. I agree that agricultural land must be made available for agricultural use and that rural subdivision impacts negatively on this activity. I recently worked as a town planner in rural Queensland where sugar cane production was one of the main industries. As the viability of sugar cane farming reduced over recent years many farmers sought to subdivide lifestyle lots off from their main allotments as a means of income. Lifestyle lots were highly sought after by investors and council was regularly approached for further land release.
Under planning scheme provisions rural zoned land under production could not be further subdivided below 30ha. The effect of this meant that many farmers were unable to maintain an income, re-finance business activity or finance their retirement. The integrity of rural zoned lots was maintained through the inability of this land to be subdivided, but it also added to the financial hardship of many rural community members. Occasionally a means of subverting this situation was applied where boundaries could be reconfigured without the creation of extra lots.
I suggest that rural subdivsion needs to be stratgically viewed from a shire-wide perspective and rural lifestyle lots should be centralised in areas with appropriate infrastructure.
I believe the rural-urban migration and the growth in rural smallholders such as hobby farmers, lifestyle farmers or tree changers could be potentially valuable for rural areas. If agricultural land was subdivided for a smallholder who chose to replant native vegetation, most likely cleared for large-scale farming, and grow their own food supply, which could also supply local markets in times of surplus, then there are advantages of allowing this new form of rural dwellings.
I recently visited a 12 acre “Holiday” property located one hour east of Melbourne, which had been purchased a year ago by a single retired female from Box Hill. She had employed landscapers to build a permaculture design property, who constructed channels and dams to provide a perennial supply of water. She replanted native grasses, trees and shrubs, plus fruit and nut trees that will help stop the erosion problem visible on all the hills surrounding her.
If the drought worsened or if there ever was a severe flood, her property would support and protect itself better than the surrounding dairy farms that have too much water in winter and not enough in summer. If there ever was a scarce supply of food she could potentially feed 20 of her neighbours.
I agree that there are many negative impacts urban-rural migration has on sensitive natural and valuable agricultural areas, especially when rural areas are become urbanised. It is important to protect natural areas containing remnant native vegetation and maintain productive local agriculture. If more of the new rural dwellers were like my friend then valuable agricultural land wouldn’t lie idle for residential purposes. It could potentially be more productive longer-term than other larger farms. However, if new rural dwellers really cared about the land and were interested in preserving the reasons why rural areas attracted them in the first place then a balance could be achieved between traditional rural and new rural inhabitants.
The growing trend in urban-rural migration is also beneficial rural areas, as the value of land, thus wealth, increases.
As per Roger’s comment, I’d also like to thank you for such an entertaining and informative blog. I found it particularly interesting as I’m actually from Dunedin which is located on the east coast of New Zealand’s South Island and, aside from having its own lifestyle blocks on the city’s outskirts, shares a close relationship with rural towns inland and along the coastline. I actually recall a television advertising campaign, probably almost ten years ago now, which was aimed at urban dwellers primarily living in Auckland city. The campaign was promoting the small coastal town of Oamaru (http://www.visitoamaru.co.nz) which is about an hour’s drive north of Dunedin as a ‘clean, green’ place to live with a much lower cost of living than Auckland and more vacant land for lifestyle blocks. I’m not sure how successful the campaign was, but I recall at the time the lifestyle block was a big trend in New Zealand.
I do not have any rural planning experience and little knowledge of the implications the creation of rural smallholdings can have so these thoughts are based primarily on this blog. It is obvious that the so-called lifestyle block can be viewed in both negative and positive terms and it seems that there are many variables at play which could contribute to the overall view. Obvious variables that come to mind include locational issues such as how close the rural area is to a service town, how resource rich the area is, what kind of infrastructure exists; the local economic base, as well as a range of other economic, environmental and social issues. I think EAWaters provides a good argument for the positive outcomes a lifestyle block can have, although it would be interesting to know what the dairy farmers who neighbour the property think. Rising land prices and rates aside, I think lifestyle blocks can bring positive benefits to a rural area provided they are carefully managed and appropriately located. Hopefully the outcome would achieve a good balance between traditional and new rural holdings.
There is no doubt that the issues surrounding rural subdivision for lifestyle purposes are complex. Just how complex this debate is can be summed up in the 1996 survey of ‘Community expectations and perceptions of agriculture in peri-urban regions.’ This survey found that “the majority (63%) of survey respondents overall agreed with the statement ‘landowners should be able to subdivide their land if they wish’, yet 71% overall also agreed with the contra-statement ‘councils should regulate subdivision of all land.’”(1) According to this report the same contradictory view has also been reported in similar international research.
The debate can be broken down to two perspectives: the one of personal economic rights (or perceived rights) to utilise the land as the owner sees fit, versus the more altruistic view of protecting the land for agriculture, future long term planned uses or to protect land from inappropriate or unserviceable development. Policy in this area can be fraught, as “one solution does not fit all situations.”(2)
The initial blog covered some of the strong reasons against subdivision, which are very valid. In an effort to provide some alternative perspective, some views to support subdivision include (3):
- smaller lots often result in a higher level of agricultural production as landowners move from extensive to intensive production. To remain viable with a smaller holding, a landowner needs to seek enterprise activity that will be profitable on a smaller acreage. This often means that small parcels of land become economic under a new management regime and more income can be generated from less land.
- Further, smaller lots can lead to a greater variety of production in a region, as small landholders target different niche markets. This can assist with improving the economic resilience of a region as a bad year for one commodity does not have the same flow-on effects through the community.
- Small allotments can also bring people with new skills, ideas and enthusiasms to a community. Many of them are also moving for perceived lifestyle reasons, have a high level of financial security, and are often willing to invest time, energy and money in the community they choose to live in. An increased number of rural lifestyle properties also brings more people into the community, revitalising previously declining rural populations
- Increased environmental investment is also likely, with small landholders often willing to invest time and energy in planting trees, and improving the biodiversity of their properties. This is linked to a strongly held desire to ‘enjoy’ the location in which they are living – including its natural or native features.
- Then, as Ross stated in his comments to the blog, subdivision also provides very important opportunities for people to rationalize land holdings, to access necessary capital to retire or move from unviable enterprises. For many agricultural landholders, their property is their ‘superannuation’ and selling it as a single holding is not enough to fund a secure retirement. Some people continue to farm well beyond their retirement because they cannot afford to do anything else.
References:
1. Kelleher, FM, J.J. Chant & NL Johnson (date unknown). Community expectations and perceptions of agriculture in peri-urban regions. Farming Systems Research Centre, University of Western Sydney: Hawkesbury.
2. Sinclair, Ian, ‘A View From the Edge: Issues in Rural and Metropolitan Fringe Planning’ New Planner: The Magazine of the Planning Profession in NSW, no. 56, September 2003.
3. Mason-Jones, David. The Benefits of a Small Farm. Small Farms. http://www.smallfarms.net/benefitsofsmallfarm.htm Accessed: 13/9/07
Thank you S3176777 for a very topical blog. The current situation of increasingly small acreage in rural ‘fringe’ areas has both benefits & deficits. With the assured expansion of this trend, clear to anyone’s social & demographic crytsal ball, there are dilemmas of land use planning, environmental degradation, & sociocultural factors. The deficits clearly need to be addressed - but how?
Cathy T’s point about personal economic ‘rights’ to land is a good one, & typifies a common dilemma that relates to the ‘tragedy of the commons’ most people want to see both remnant vegetation & agricultural land protected regardless of whether they are a ‘greenie’ or not (as the first blogger pointed out, such fondly bucolic thinking has been around since the infancy of industrial capitalism); however, individuals will always be tied to private gain, seeing it as their right of ownership to subdivide their land for their future retirement, their children, or any other reason.
This tension between private interest & public altruism is part of the foundation of capitalist thinking. In Australia, our idea of ‘the land’ & our ownership of it is embedded in our concept of home ownership. This is particularly the case in farming families, where the land is seen as a key capital asset, & has been invested in as such.
With this in mind, & with the development pressure on ‘hinterland’ areas, statutory as well as strategic planning approaches are clearly required to control subdivision; however, further controls regulating the uses of existing small acreages to address habitat destruction are even more contentious.
The SEQ Regional Plan attempts to impose statutory control by setting out the ‘footprint’ for urban growth in SEQ. Unlike other such strategic plans, it is supported by legislation & is in place to 2026. The Plan divides SEQ into five regional land use categories with Regulatory Provisions to control each area, including a ‘Rural Living Area’ category which seeks to base future residential living around existing services & infrastructure.
However, few Councils have completed their Integrated Plans or Growth Management Strategies, & the SEQ Plan does not afford enough controls to protect existing rural habitats within the urban footprint. The State Government has recently developed new statutory provisions to further control development under the just -released paper, Planning for a Prosperous Queensland.
Given that small acreage will continue to be an issue for growth management, regulatory provisions are also critical in addressing some of the issues common to ‘i-Zone’ or ‘peri-urban’ areas noted by other bloggers. Local Government local laws vary widely in this regard, & state legislation such as the Land Protection Act (controlling declared pests) are designed for larger rural holdings & do not address issues of mixed land use.
It is worth noting also that the degree of success in maximising benefits & minimising deficits has been markedly varied across different peri-urban areas, even where similar planning controls apply. Socio-economic & cultural factors clearly play a role in whether such areas are vibrant communities containing viable local enterprises & valued natural habitat, or are merely ’suburbs’ on larger allotments. Identifyiing these factors & how they can be fostered in communities is critical to positive outcomes for small acreage areas.
Grandma-dollar signs is waiting for a decision? She keeps calling the office and I have been telling her that a blogger should have a decision shortly?
Thank you all for your comments to my blog. I have provided a response to each of the comments below and will surely need to incorporate these into my essay which is evidently looming……
Roger:
I am interested to know which Shire you worked for.
The downturn of the sugar industry in Australia echoes in my mind from third year university. Farmer reactions to the Brazilian’s flurry and domination in the world sugar market included diversification (including new forms of cropping, ethanol production and RUM), getting out (selling up) or soldiering on. Creating ‘lifestyle’ allotments would surely be a means of easing financial hardship in times of low profits especially with the high prices and demands currently felt.
The Queensland Department of Local Government and Planning Policy Position on Discretionary Rural Subdivisions (http://www.lgp.qld.gov.au/docs/corporate/publications/planning/policies_guidelines/discretionary_rural_subdivisions.pdf) highlights this reason to subdivide as an issue and has clear opposition to discretion based on the financial situation of farmers.
Boundary realignments or amalgamations are certainly alternatives to the creation of smallholdings. This would allow existing farmlands to expand and increase production. In addition long or short term lease arrangements may provide feasible alternatives to the creation of smallholdings and assist in relieving financial pressures and allow land to fallow.
I agree with Roger’s suggestion for rural zone management. This certainly needs to be viewed in context with Shire wide outcomes (In QLD Desired Environmental Outcomes). For example some Shire’s or areas within may benefit greatly from ‘life styler’ influxes. Other Shire’s may prohibit or tightly regulate this type of development in an effort to increase large scale rural production. The designation of areas within rural zones for lifestyle allotments is definitely a strategic planning issue to be addressed in the making of planning schemes. As I have highlighted there are many considerations that need to be factored into the location and planning for these areas.
Eawaters:
My Canadian WWOOFing (http://www.wwoof.com.au/WWOOFing_aound_the_world.html) experience has relevance here. I worked for my food and board (in the freezing bloody cold of Newfoundland) on a small scale farm which produced an array of organic produce. This farm was part of a network of community CO Ops which supplied local markets as well as maintaining a kind of barter system between farmers. The area was very scenic and aside from the odd WWOOFer there were a number of winter retreats which added to the diversity of land use within the area.
Land care initiatives and practices are an essential part of rural life. The cumulative impacts of rural small holdings could be ameliorated by effected land management. Aslin (online) indicates a high degree of land stewardship among rural life styler’s can contribute to better environmental outcomes in certain areas. The small holding would however need to be commensurate to the capacity of the life styler – rural living involves a lot of hard work (many WWOOFer’s make light work). I could see land and environmental management programs as an important conditional requirement for rural smallholdings, however this may prove difficult for Local Authority’s to monitor and enforce once a plan has been sealed. A means of encouraging land management is through education and planning policies (Aslin,2006) (online). This is particularly important for those who chose the lifestyle over the actual hard work.
Nikki:
The lifestyle block craze in New Zealand was included in the weblog and I would suggest Fairweather and Scwaffield (1998) as a good reference and read. One of my colleagues travelled across the ditch and now works as our subdivision engineer. He is forever anticipating that planning enquiry I mentioned in the original post (best described as a plague). He defuses the enquirers interests by emphasising the complex issues and supporting documentation required to get an application approved.
The variables you have illustrated certainly need to be considered in planning for lifestyle small holdings. Location, social, environmental and economic factors should influence planning for lifestyle allotments. One such locational factor which is not as obvious as others is the location and sitting of future infrastructure corridors such as roads, electricity and water grid pipelines. Creating more free hold parcels in rural areas where these corridors are likely to intersect could result in more compulsory acquisitions and compensation. Furthermore locating lifestyle lots in fringe areas where expanding city growth will eventually overwhelm, would grant a limited duration for this land use. Moreover this could potentially affect the pattern of urban growth by lifestyle farmers refusing to budge.
Yes there are many considerations for rural areas. This part of planning presents us planners with some diverse challenges and real issues.
CatyT:
Thank you for your refutes. Your response covers some very valid points which need to be considered in terms of the receiving area and local environmental, social and economic context. You are right one solution does not fit all situations.
The first and last points however tend to conflict especially when land prices for small holdings are increased due to market demands and the willingness of life stylers to pay larger amounts for land than farmers. This can oppose changes to production activities and result in farmers taking up less viable land or land further from the market to pursue intensive agriculture. Furthermore this is in fact a trend which can result in land use conflicts. For example the poultry farmer who moves in next to the life styler. However the lavender or flower farmer might have mixed results?
Gentrification in rural areas, in particular business centres (towns / villages) can occur as a result of influxes of life stylers. Increased affluence in a community as a result of life stylers has its good and bad outcomes. The same issues and arguments are apparent when a sleepy coastal village is invaded by sea changers.
My example from Newfoundland is relevant to your response regarding increased volume and diversity of produce (even arts and crafts) as a result of increased small scale farming. Further I have made some comments with regard to the high environmental stewardship of life stylers under EaWaters. Wuerthner (1994) referenced in the original post illustrates some of the adverse environmental impacts that agriculture has on the environment in comparison to subdivision.
Scoffy:
Thank you for highlighting the relationship between this weblog topic and a majority of this courses theoretical content.
How to address the issues?
With a clear understanding of the positives and negatives of accommodating life stylers there should be scope to plan and utilise the innovative minds of many planners to come up with solutions. As mentioned in your response – this needs to be legislated to allow effective control.
The notion of suburbs on larger (Rural / Park Residential) lots was not the focus of my blog however this point highlights Tonts and Grieve’s (2002) main argument regarding the creative destruction of rural areas.
An alternative design response to conventional rural subdivision is provided in figure 1 below. Aitkins (online) suggests that the subdivision process can result in combined agricultural and biodiversity outcomes. Aitkins (online) suggestions for varying tenure arrangements could work well where lifestyle lots are created in areas of both agricultural production and environmental value. Ideally tenure arrangements would allow certain agricultural activities to continue, maintain lifestyle milieu, provide a structural and legal framework for ongoing management and maintenance of the land in common and provide incentives for life stylers involved in the scheme. The illustration below could only be contemplated under a performance based planning framework (right) which did not stipulate minimum standards. The cookie cutter (right) example could potentially occur under a prescriptive planning framework or even better not at all.
This will appear magically in the next comment?
Figure 1: Source: Randolf (2004: 126-128)
Thank you all again for your comments. Cheers.
Rural subdivision is something that is becoming more common in my part of the world in the North East Victoria Region and so far they seem to be moving in the right direction and producing favourable outcomes.
Being a large agricultural area including dairy farms it has been necessary for dairy farmers to expand or restructure their farms to keep up with the economic changes happening with the dairy industry. This along with the drought has pushed some farmers to subdivide to either sell off to their expanding neighbours or to sell to new farming enterprises.
House excisions are also a common occurrence as it isn’t unusual for there to be more than one dwelling located on agricultural land to support the enterprise of the property. While the small housing blocks are not a desirable outcome for agricultural areas it is usually permitted along with a Section 173 Agreement to prevent further subdivision of the land. This is ensuring the future agricultural outcome of the land while the house excision and resulting sale of this asset is allowing farmers to reinvest this money back into the farm, helping to pay off debts incurred from the drought. The resultant house blocks are then providing alternative accommodation in rural areas without the need for large amounts of land to be subdivided.
Like the NSW example presented in Kelleher, Victoria also has classes of agricultural capability of the land. As a part of the local planing schemes they all look to protect and enhance the agricultural capability of the areas minimising or excluding subdivisions of land especially into lots of less than 40ha. Land that is classified as being of high agricultural capability is also usually covered by an Environmental Significance Overlay to prevent subdivisions and house excisions of this premium quality farming land.
The migration of people into the North East Region is helping the tourism and economic market of the area. It is allowing the opportunity for smaller towns to expand and provide alternate housing to suit the different lifestyle choices. “The economic development period now being experienced in rural Victoria is heavily characterised by a boom in rural residential use..”(Aitkens).
REFERENCES
Aitkins, P. (No Date) Subdivision as an intermediate scale planning process for combined agricultural and biodiversity outcomes, Proceedings of the Conference on Rural Land Use Change, accessed online at online, on 4 October 2007.
Kelleher, F.M. (2001) Urban encroachment and loss of prime agricultural land, The Australian Society of Agronomy, accessed online at online, on 19 August 2007.
When I saw this blog had been posted, I immediately thought of family friends who have retired to East Gippsland and bought a “farmlet” as we call it, essentially a subdivided farm designed for those city folk that want what the John Williamson song states- “A home among the gum trees’ without the excessive land. They have roughly 25 acres of land, and unlike many hobby farmers or tree changers, this couple have worked in the agricultural industry for many years indirectly through the Victorian Government. While they had never run a farm before, their knowledge of the industry was enough to mean that their hobby farm is effectively producing cattle for butchering instead of just keeping farm animals for the sake of it. So far they have sold numerous head of cattle, both in the local area and to Metropolitan buyers, for meat. They have also invested a significant amount of their own savings into planting native trees and shrubbery, rejuvenating the cleared paddocks and creating bushland within their farm.
My understanding of the subdivision of land is that it can travel along one of three paths-
1. The land is developed as a weekend getaway, where the owners build a large house and create only enough produce for them to survive off each weekend. Often these types of developments are most destructive on the land as they give little to nothing back to the region.
2. The land is developed as a hobby farm, where the owners build a significant house on the land and attend to a small number of animals- who fall somewhere between farm animal and pet- as well as create just enough fresh vegetables for themselves to survive off
3. The land is developed as a fully fledged farmlet, where a number of farm animals are introduced, or crops are created, and the farm gives a significant amount back to the local community through produce.
I personally have nothing against subdivisions of land, provided the land falls into the right hands and is used in a way that is beneficial to the local community as well as the environment. I guess the problem is that land too often falls into the wrong hands and ends up as wasted agricultural land or an out of character housing development.
I personally have nothing against subdivisions of land, provided the land falls into the right hands and is used in a way that is beneficial to the local community as well as the environment. I guess the problem is that land too often falls into the wrong hands and ends up as wasted agricultural land or an out of character housing development.
I live in the rural hinterland of the Maroochy Shire - so I am well aware of the dilemmas of ‘I-zone’ areas, as we call them in the Fire Brigade. Work is being done by Council on a Rural Enterprise Project, to establish viable sustainable industries in these areas & address contentious mixed-use issues, habitat protection & agricultural land loss (Rural Enterprise Project).
One thing that concerns me with the ‘large allotment suburbia’ concept - I call it the ‘Kingdom Complex’, as houses can be huge, with a big fence & gates at the front etc. - is just the sheer quantity of fossil fuels being burned to cut all that grass, line cut the edges & around the dams, blower the verandahs & the rest - most of it with 2-stroke fuel. Notwithstanding the swimming pools & the need to drive everywhere, usually in a large 4-wheel drive. The per capita greenhouse gas emissions must be huge! The contrast with people using small acreage to live sustainably could not be more stark.
Regarding Grandma Dollar-signs: her first parcel of land is west of the Bruce Highway in Maroochy, & thus comes under the ‘Northern Canelands’ precinct of the Coast, which is not subdivisible. The problem is that cane farming no longer economically viable, & other sustainable agricultural uses are limited. This means that a lot of this land - now owned by developers, is assiduously growing lots of groundsel & other declared pests, & has very little remaining habitat value.
The second development has more hope for a comfy retirement. Maroochy would probably allow 10 allotments under the Planning Scheme (2 ha. is possible), with strict provisions around vegetation protection & land use. Visual amenity would be an issue for development of the ridges but the gradients on which building is permitted is nothing short of amazing (especially if there are coastal views). Sediment & erosion control would be regulated during development only, but not afterwards. Grandma is now living on the Coast, perusing maginifcent ocean views from her rocking chair as we speak….
Maroochy Rural Enterprise Project – online at:
http://www.businessmaroochy.com/index.asp?Sec_ID=264
In response to Grandma dollar-signs, under the Mansfield Shire’s Planning Scheme, subdivision under the Farming Zone, requires a permit and the proposed lot must be at least 40 hectares unless:
- the subdivision is to create a lot for an existing dwelling (Section 173 Agreement must be entered into with owners of both lots);
- subdivison is for the re-subdivision of existing lots and does not increase the existing number of lots; and
- the subdivision is by a public authority or utility service provider.
Therefore on both accounts, I would refuse Grandma dollar signs application as each lot in the proposed subdivision in a Farming Zone in the Mansfield Shire would be less than 40 hectares.
It has been raised that subdivision enables farmers to keep going and is also a way of passing the family business onto the next generation by enabling the farmer’s son/ daughter to subdivide the land and build their own family home on it while still helping in the business. However, I have seen instances where the planner was told that the subdivision was to allow the farmer’s children to do just that and on that reason, the planner (in good faith) had reasonably approved the application. However, a few years down the track, that new smaller lot was sold off and was not used as proposed.
As a planner, I believe there is a place for rural lifestyle land and 5-20 hectares is a fair size (I’m glad they’re not half acre blocks!!!) but should we allow all or the majority of rural land to be zoned Rural Living Zone (under the Victorian Planning Scheme)? Strategically, planners should decide the areas where rural lifestyle lots are reasonable and where farming is no longer viable in those areas. And that those areas can support the demand for water, and utilities.
However, as the no. of farming families decline, some 22% between 1986 and 2001, and the retirement age for farmers get higher causing farmers to give up farming, the demand for rural lifestyle blocks will gain speed. How do we manage that demand and those of successful farmers (even those who start out as hobby farmers) who require more land to expand their business but find that it is getting increasingly expensive to acquire their next door neighbour’s rural lifestyle lot. Are we, by allowing subdivisions, putting our farmers out of business? As much as subdivision in the rural scenery has its place, I believe further examination and evidence has to be presented before an application is approved (cited in other bloggers whose examples proved there are rural lifestylers who aim to maintain the rural amenity and not wanting to import an urban lifestyle in a rural landscape).
An article which appeared in The Age over the weekend named a report by RMIT University which raised the alarm that the green land around Melbourne was being damaged, and not just visually. Of particular concern to me during this current drought is that small lot owners were entitled to build dams which restrict water flow into creeks, rivers, and reservoirs, thereby exacerbating the problem farmers face in trying to water their crops and feed their stock. While aiming to understand the demands of the community for residential, commercial and industrial land, it takes an astute planner to look at the area in question, be far-sighted, and stick to his or her guns in order to achieve “net community benefit and sustainable development” (Clause 11.03, State Planning Policy Framework).
References:
1) Living arrangements: Farming Families in 4102.0 Australian Social Trends 2003, accessed on 18 October 2007 - Link:http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/cdcd7dca1f3ddb21ca2570eb00835393!OpenDocument
2) Farming Zone in the Mansfield Shire Council’s Planning Scheme, accessed on 18 October 2007 - http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/aavpp/35_07.pdf
3) Royce Millar, “Farms carve-up puts pristine land at risk” in The Age on 13 October 2007, accessed on 18 October 2007 - http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/farms-carveup-puts-pristine-land-at-risk/2007/10/12/1191696179111.html
Thanks again for all your comments. It appears that this topic contains extensive information. I have been writing my essay and there is so much out there. Trying to condense all the material into a relatively short essay is certainly a challenge. The responses present some new arguments.
JMB – Comment dated – 5 October 2007
The section 173 agreement as I have found (still coming up to speed with Vic Planning) provides an opportunity to restrict further subdivision by legal ratification which binds all owners and successors (registered on the title). However the agreement can be extinguished or amended and when applied to a development permit as a condition, can be contested through VCAT. Dwyer (2004) provides a review of section 173 agreements. It appears that section 173 agreements are very complicated, subject to misuse, can create complex on-going obligations for land owners and administering authorities and where implemented incorrectly are ultra-vires (not worth the paper they’re written on). I think that legal agreements in an attempt to prevent further subdivision would essentially provide a means for unjustified subdivision. This was the case in Queensland for family subdivisions where basically the related provisions were abused.
Understanding Rural Victoria (Barr, 2005) provides a good analysis of what has been happening in rural Victoria. Barr (2005) discusses the changing social structure in rural Victoria including some interesting figures, predictions and conclusions with regard to rural amenity landscapes in North-east Victoria. Barr (2005) highlights the diverse local economy which exists in this area. This appears to be the result of increased small farm production activity, primarily in beef. Farm business investments versus rural amenity allotments present another complication for farmers whereby land prices are high producing a greater risk for the initial investment (Barr, 2005). It appears that traditional farmers looking to expand, diversify or intensify are in competition with new arrivals.
Barr (2005) also discusses the controversial ‘wind generator’ alternative for farmers looking for a stable income into retirement. This has created deep-seated conflict particularly in rural amenity areas in Victoria. The forty hectare plot seems to be a viable size to ensure amenity and maintain adequate separation between potentially conflicting land uses (Barr, 2005). Barr (2005) makes specific reference to north-east Victoria in discussing how farming decisions have adjusted to amenity. Beef farming in selected areas presents an attractive image / backdrop amidst the landscape.
Katherine – Comment dated 7 October 2007
The weekend getaway concept is one that disturbs me. As I have mentioned elsewhere in this weblog, rural living can mean a lot of hard work and is no place for Gucci gum boots… This would however depend on the size and nature of the allotment. If weekend retreats are created, and the same argument goes for lifestyle lots where the primary source of income is off-farm, when is the property maintained and how well is the up-keep done? Certainly the idea is not to work hard all week then spend the weekend maintaining a rural retreat? Something I observed in Canada (Muskoka, Ontaria – very pretty) was mansions, mansions, mansions……the rich and famous with their winding dirt roads through rural areas to that house overlooking a lake. These were once a month, once a year retreats of the rich and famous. The owner’s employed local people to maintain the properties during the Hollywood escapades or busy city working months. However, these mansions contained plasma TVs and all sorts of expensive things – theft was apparently common and beyond the resources of local authorities.
You are definitely right in saying that when small lots fall into the wrong hands there will be issues and problems which follow. In Victoria there appears to be obligations that rural landholders must abide by. Attention to these obligations has been made by the Department of Primary Industries Victoria. Published on the DPI Victoria web site includes information and programs aimed at assisting new, small rural landholders in managing a small property. Bio-security seems to be an emerging issue for farmers and lifestyler’s settling in rural production areas. Prevention strategies include educating new landholders in food production areas of the threats to production and human health as a result of outbreaks.
Scoffy – Comments dated 15 October 2007
You pose a good question about rural lifestyle allotments – Can they be regarded as sustainable development? This weblog has detailed a number of social, economic and environmental benefits and costs which can eventuate as a result of accommodating the lifesyler’s. The large allotment suburbia concept puts this in perspective – bigger homes, greater commuting distances, increased use of fossil fuels, increased road kill, the list is extensive. This would push the sustainability level of this form of development further down the ladder. The Maroochy Rural enterprise project might form part of the solution. If lifestyler’s attempt new business activities at their home among the gum trees, i.e. farm stays, nudist retreats, internet businesses, agistment of rare and endangered Australian mammals for trade to overseas film stars (sorry it has been a long day at the office)….new forms of farm businesses and rural activities may well reduce the need for off-farm income. This would also add to the diversity in the production sector and also in the activities and attractions of a place.
With regard to your responses to the practical exercise.
The first response highlights a challenging issue for planning. Land banking by developers with little interest other than future profits. The land which has degraded over time due to lack of activity will eventually be its demise to the survey peg and small allotments. I would suggest a pro-active response from Council that looks at a development and land management strategy which could be presented as an attractive option for the developer. The land could be developed in a community title arrangement creating lifestyle lots with a balance portion for an alternative primary industry or conservation area.
We won’t let the old dear there is a possibility of two hectare lots, as she would be funding her retirement and her twelve children’s retirement……
The cumulative impacts of Grandma Dollar signs second proposal are concerning. The development would need to be considered in context with surrounding allotments that could potentially go the same way. This would include maintaining vegetation corridors, appropriate sitting of house sites, catchment management strategies, road networks including upgrading the existing system and land management. The potential for the proposed lots to be subdivided further is also a concern. The area apparently allows two hectare lots, meaning each lot created could yield a further four or five?
Despite this a State Government department with jurisdiction for vegetation clearing under the Vegetation Management Act (NRW) has directed Council to refuse the application. Grandma Dollar-Signs is very disappointed…..
Victoria Brown – Comments dated 18 October 2007
Grandma Dollar-Signs or her consultants obviously didn’t read the Planning Scheme….I had major difficulties opening the Mansfield Council web page???
From the very depths of my black heart I would not even contemplate exercising any discretion for family subdivision or even subdivision that relieves a financial burden. To me, a planner, there is absolutely no planning merit in this exercise. I think we might think alike….
Allowing all rural land to be zoned rural living would create major land use conflicts across the board. One such mechanism aimed at promoting bona-fide rural activities and separating these from rural living areas is removing the ‘as of right’ provisions for dwellings in certain areas and essentially making dwellings an ancillary use.
Land use control provisions in unviable farming areas would need to look at mechanisms to prevent offensive agriculture from occurring i.e. pig farms.
Allocation and sharing of common resources must be factored in to this equation and rightly raised in your comments. Poor house sitting; effluent and waste water disposal system failures; clearing for fire breaks (erosion and sediment runoff) and general lack of land management result in increased siltation and pollution in neighbouring farm dams. Increased use of groundwater both in times of drought and for general farm and crop use threaten the long term viability of this resource.
Does the creation of Rural Lifestyle allotments in rural areas represent the fair, orderly and sustainable use and development of land? Can lifestyle lots be developed to be sympathetic to the characteristics and capacity of the physical and natural environment through environmentally sensitive design and/or construction techniques?
Thank you all again for your comments ;-)
References:
Dwyer, M. (2004) Review of section 173 Agreements, Discussion Paper, online - http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/7E5A5F8DDA1917CBCA256FDD000BDD74/File/Review+of+s+173+agreements+discussion+paper.pdf, accessed 15 October 2007.
Barr, N. (2005) Understanding Rural Victoria, State of Victoria, Department of Primary Industries, online - http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nrenfa.nsf/LinkView/E7CCC81CD1D09B57CA25706C00276AB4B135CE2F68C588B6CA256E760010E52E, accessed 16 October 2007.
http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au – Responsibilities of Victorian Landholder and Managing a small property.
http://yarrampa.customer.netspace.net.au/windfarm-photos.html - wind generators in rural areas.
Hi S3176777
The Mansfield Shire council website is http://www.mansfield.vic.gov.au
I hope that helps. All the best with your assignment!
This is an interesting and highly debated topic that I feel will forever go on unresolved., particularly in regions located in close proximity to urban areas and where reasonably able to commute. I agree with the author in that it would be easy to dismiss small rural subdivision (and the associated lifestyle) on planning grounds in terms of inefficient use of land, resources (such as infrastructure, etc), the ability to service these areas and the high use of fuel due to the proximity to any of the day to day needs of residents.
While the author and some other bloggers have raised some valid points as to the benefits supporting this kind of development, I am still not convinced that if you were to access it against sustainability, it would not stack up. While there may appear to be short term gains such as revitalising otherwise declining rural towns and increasing the income for the community (for a short while anyway, until these rural dwellers get bored and move back to the city), it is the long term affects of subdivision of this land that requires the most amount of attention. The implications of peak oil must be at the forefront of strategic planning and by way of approving this kind of development governments (guided by planners) are essentially providing the community with future accessibility issues. In addition, it is not viable for governments to invest in infrastructure to support minority communities just for their “lifestyle” including the provision of public transport services and community facilities.
The view of rural or hinterland areas as providing some relief from city life is fine when there is water in the dam and you have a sealed road to your gate. The practicalities are not so straightforward. Some will cope and others will buy into this lifestyle (and continue to do so) and others after a few years can’t wait to get out.
So, your blog presents interesting issues for further exploration. Unfortunately, there is an expectation from some residents that service providers will be sealing the road network, providing a garbage service, extending the bus route, piping water, and maybe even change the zone down the track! What a wish list. Yes, there are genuine land owners who understand that a rural area is just that. “Zen and the Art of Motocycle Maintenance” is a good read - it provides a picture of empty country places where people live and hardly any loneliness: Yet, in the burbs or the city you are so much closer and there is a lot more loneliness. Is this true? Yes and no. A town centre can anchor a hinterland community but it depends on the mix of people there. Should local governments be involved in social engineering? By sealing the roads in these areas we are effectively inviting a whole new sector of people who prefer driving on bitumen sealed roads (This is true!).
In fact such places will overnight become immensely desirable.
Rural and hinterland areas could make a Council go broke trying to improve what should have been a standard condition of development. If Councils (and in fact the State) are going to persist with the romantic notion (as it is romantic planning) of living in the hinterland in a patch of bush then there should be a high standard of asset creation. Rates collected should reflect the cost of living in these areas.
Bill Bryson’s “The Lost Continent” should provide you with some entertainment about small town America - if you feel like a diversary exploration of your Masters topic. Thanks for the interesting blog.