LEP (Local Environmental Politics)
Wollombi Valley residents may have recently received a pamphlet being circulated by The Greens Political Party claiming to enlighten us as to the "facts on the Cessnock LEP". Perhaps it should have been more correctly titled ‘observations or opinions', (of which there are numerous) rather than ‘facts' which would be most accurately defined as ‘things that are known to be true' (of which there are few).
It's hard to understand how they can believe that the E3 Environmental Zone is not really a conservation zone, but a rural zone. The following are just some of the developments that are allowed with consent in RU2 Rural Landscape, but prohibited in E3. There are numerous others.
Non-commercial agriculture, agricultural produce industries; animal boarding or training establishments; aquaculture; childcare centres; community facilities; dairies; farm forestry; group homes; health consulting rooms; neighbourhood shops; poultry farms; pubs; recreation facilities for tourists; restaurants; retail premises (primarily for tourists); roadside stalls; rural industries; sawmills; stock and sale yards, tennis courts.
The Greens have also misrepresented the Heritage Conservation provisions. Contrary to what their pamphlet says, development consent or written approval will be required when altering any existing building, work, relic, tree or place within a Heritage Conservation Area, not just items listed in Schedule 5 of the LEP. This includes making changes to the detail, fabric, finish or appearance of the exterior of an existing building. In such a case, the consent authority may also require a Heritage Impact Statement and/or a Heritage Conservation Management Plan to be prepared before granting consent.
The Greens leaflet contains a number of so called ‘facts' which are selective, open to challenge, misleading and which at the very least need much more clarification. We would prefer to await the public exhibition of the final version of Draft LEP 2008, whenever that might eventuate, and expect due regard will have been paid by Council Planners to State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008, as well as the Report of the Independent Expert Panel December 2007 which conducted A Review of the NSW Heritage Act 1977.
Local Environmental Plan Action Group on behalf of Wollombi Valley Progress Association.
- Draft Cessnock LEP 2008 --- UPDATED
31 March 2008 (614kb pdf file)
- A brief history of planning in Rural Zone 'A'
Could possibly be the most interesting to most people, supplied by Ray Annis-Brown. (10kb pdf file)
- Appendix 2 - Explanatory Notes
Should be read in conjunction with the Draft LEP. (71kb pdf file)
- Minimum Lot Size Map
Should be read in conjunction with the Draft LEP. (1.70MB pdf file)
- Zoning Map
Should be read in conjunction with the Draft LEP. (2.11MB pdf file)
- Heritage Map
Should be read in conjunction with the Draft LEP. (1.54MB pdf file)
- Local Provisions Map
Should be read in conjunction with the Draft LEP. (1.59MB pdf file)
- Councilors Report - 21 November 2007
This file is the report that councilors passed on the 21/11/07 meeting with the latest proposed amendments to the LEP to be sent to DoP for authorisation to place on public display. Pages 12 & 13 are the most relevant to us. (116kb pdf file)
- Council meeting minutes
This file is the minutes of the council meeting where the officers report was moved and passed by councilors setting this latest round of amendments in motion. Page 4 is the relevant one here. (210kb pdf file)
- Amended E3 Zone and Heritage Conservation Area
Further information - By Ray Annis-Brown (77kb pdf file)
- The impact of extending the Heritage Conservation Area in Wollombi Valley
(481kb doc file)
Documents marked with may only be available in PDF format. If you don't have Adobe Acrobat (or the reader), a FREE reader is available from Adobe.
Documents marked with may only be available in Microsoft Word format. If you don't have Microsoft Word, a FREE reader is available from Microsoft. Other readers are available here in case the suggested one is not suitable.