Jan Davis: Rezoning a killer for farms as new urban dwellers turn up the heat

We are about to see some major planning reform in Tasmania – and it’s not before time. This place is legend for its planning complexities, bureaucratic overlap, red tape and delays that have driven many investors to give up and take their enterprises elsewhere. Farmers, though, have no option but to work their way through the bizarre machinations of the planning system – they can’t pick up and move!

A new planning regime does not have to relax environmental standards, for instance, but it does have to result in simpler and more consistent outcomes. And these outcomes have to pass the common-sense test – something it seems that is all too rare at the moment.

Planning becomes complicated on the fringes of urban settlements where housing subdivisions, roads and services encroach on what is still traditional farming land. The challenges of the peri-urban sprawl are an important part of any review of planning.

The reasons people move from the cities to live in urban fringe areas are varied. The most often-stated one though is an appreciation of the perceived lifestyle benefits of semi-rural areas. However, newer residents moving into these areas often have little experience with agriculture; and many farmers have little experience with non-rural neighbours. Conflict situations usually arise through lack of understanding of the different needs of various land users.

This is reflected in planning decisions which have alienated agricultural buffer zones and approved residential subdivisions in the midst of productive farming operations.

There is seems to be little appreciation of the two-way impacts of this changing settlement landscape. All attention is given to the impact of agriculture on the incoming residential land users; but little thought is given to the impact of urban residents on existing agricultural holdings.

A rural landscape may provide a nice view for new residents; but also carries with it the smells, noises and dawn-to-dusk activities of modern farming operations. However, non-rural land uses also have adverse impacts on farming operations too. Just a few examples we hear of every day include dogs attacking and killing livestock; vandals breaking down fences and damaging property; and burnt out cars dumped in paddocks.

As yet, we do not seem to have come to grips with the implications of the problems this changing settlement pattern is creating. Nor have we looked at ways of addressing the issues raised and learning from experiences in other places. The ‘ostrich approach’ of pretending there is no problem is a sure route to disaster. These problems are not going to go away, and we need to learn to plan for changing expectations in a way which achieves the best possible outcomes for all.

A recent case at Ravenswood in northern Tasmania has highlighted this conflict. In that case, farm fences are being cut on an almost daily basis to allow people to ride their trail bikes on the farmer’s land. When his cows escape and wander through residential streets, he is the one held to account. In public meetings, local residents have been vocal and even vicious in their attacks on perceived his lack of concern about the stress this is causing them. Yet no thought is given to the cost and emotional toll it is taking on him; and nothing seems to be done to deal with the vandals that are causing the problem in the first place.

These issues are not new – and certainly not unique to Tasmania. In another life, about 25 years ago, I sat on a taskforce appointed by the NSW Premier to deal with these very same issues. We need to learn from experiences elsewhere to protect the farmers that make up the backbone of our communities.

Farmers need some security of tenure ­– they cannot operate their businesses if they live in fear of being “re-zoned” out of their livelihood.

If, after consideration and consultation, the local community decides it does not want a particular farming activity to continue in a given area and the local council makes farming impossible, then farmers are entitled to compensation and it is likely to be substantial – loss of future income, loss of capital appreciation, the financial cost of a fire-sale of assets, the costs of relocation and re-establishment.

All farmers want is a fair go – to be allowed to carry out their businesses within reasonable parameters. Surely that’s not a big ask?
TFGA chief executive Jan Davis