Issue 2: Managing rural conflicts

When rural activities are not managed, land use conflict can easily be created, whether perceived or real. In particular, there can be incompatibility between certain rural lands practices (for example agricultural activities such as spraying and processing) and neighbouring land uses. The potential for conflict is exacerbated where pre-existing notions of pristine rural lifestyles are met with the reality of living in close proximity to agricultural activities.

Typical farming practices can result in land use conflict including noise, odour, dust, smoke, chemical drift, water quality issues, vehicle movements, hours of operation and poor visual amenity. The obvious solution is to provide separation or buffers between conflict points, however such separation can be particularly difficult where small landholdings are prevalent and in areas where intensive activities are undertaken.

Another reason for conflict can be a result of how Council applies both rural and residential land zoning. For example, the application of an RU1 – Primary Production zone adjacent to a residential zone has potential to cause land use conflict if natural buffers (e.g. vegetation or waterways) or transition areas are not available.

This issue is recognised within the NSW Agricultural Commissioner’s report which highlights that land use conflict is not currently measured effectively across the State. Consultation with agencies, Council staff and industries observed in developing this Strategy that rural land use conflict in the Clarence Valley is comparably low compared to surrounding LGAs. This can be partly attributed to the extent of rural lands and the relatively low population density across the LGA. However, expanding river and coastal towns, such as around Yamba, Maclean and Grafton, as well as pockets of other rural conflicts were identified through the consultation period as being most susceptible to this issue in the future.

Opportunities to better manage activities in rural lands are explored through this section in terms of:

o Use of the available land use zones o Right to farm and activities that sit outside planning processes o Providing for education and awareness o Exploring the use of buffers o Better utilising Council’s DCP

It is also noted that the NSW Agricultural Commissioner’s report provides some details of the extent of the rural land use conflict issues across the State and provides a number of recommendations to address this. This includes the establishment of a “NSW Farm Practices Panel” that would assess and where satisfied, endorse industry codes of practice, and the establishment a “Council Reference Group” to bring councils together across NSW to share experiences of agricultural land use conflict.

2.1 Land use zones

Council can play a key role in the management of rural land from land use planning perspective through the application of rural zones. Each zone provides objectives, prohibited and permitted uses, with zones then being influenced by a range of local clauses within the broader LEP framework. An example of this is the application of

Clause 7.1(7) in the current Clarence Valley LEP30 relating to the sugarcane industry. In this way, zones and more localised clauses provide a combined framework and approach on how Council manages rural land. At the zone level there are a total of six ‘rural zones’ that can be used under State legislation, and of which the Clarence Valley LEP utilises three, as identified below:

o RU1 Primary Production (utilised in current LEP) o RU2 Rural Landscape (utilised in current LEP) o RU3 Forestry (utilised in current LEP) o RU4 Primary Production Small Lots o RU5 Village o RU6 Transition In addition to the RU1, RU2 and RU3 zones, Council’s current LEP also utilises the C1 National Parks and Nature Reserves, C2 Environmental Conservation and C3 Environmental Management zones. Together the rural and environmental zones cover a spectrum of activities on the landscape as identified in general terms in Figure 14 below.

As outlined in further detail at Appendix A, there is potential to better define the purpose of the RU1 and RU2 zones. This would create a more direct correlation to primary production on mapped significant farmland under the NCRP 2036 and opportunities for broader land use diversity on more marginal rural land within the RU2 zone.

However, conflicts are also occurring within the RU2 zone, particularly where intensive horticultural (particularly ‘protected cropping’ under nets, tunnels or glasshouses) is proposed and undertaken.

Figure 14: Spectrum of zones on the rural landscape

30 See https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/epi-2011-0701#sec.7.1 – accessed 18

November 2021

Opportunities may exist to isolate this rural use into a dedicated “special precinct” or through application of the RU4 zone where permissibility can be more clearly outlined / considered (see Issue 6.1 for further details).

Current environmental zones are considered to have a better level of differentiation, though expansion of the C2 and/or C3 zones could be further explored to capture lands with strong environmental attributes such as lands that are already, or proposed to be, covered by conservation agreements, biodiversity offsets in perpetuity, or similar arrangements.

It is noted that large extents of rural land in the Clarence Valley may have important environmental qualities and where this can be demonstrated by landowners, Council can play a role in helping facilitate the voluntarily rezoning to a more appropriate environmental zone

Consistent with Council’s adopted Biodiversity Strategy 2020-2025, there is also potential in conjunction with DPIE Biodiversity Conservation Division (DPIE - BCD), to better identify strategically important biodiversity corridors for inclusion in a more appropriate environmental zone.

2.2 Right to farm

DPI’s Right to Farm Policy 2015 was developed in response to land use conflict on rural lands. ‘Right to farm’ is commonly interpreted to be the ability for farmers to undertake lawful agricultural practices

31 See https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/412551/Land-use-conflict-riskassessment-LUCRA-guide.pdf - accessed 18 November 2021 without interference from neighbours and other land users complaining about these activities.

Section 4 of the Right to Farm Act 2019 includes provisions to protect commercial activities from ‘nuisance’ complaints. Significant expansion or variation in practice are not protected under the Right to Farm legislation, as this would unfairly infringe on the rights of neighbouring residents.

Right to Farm Policy highlights the importance of other land use planning policies and the role of the State Government in working with councils to facilitate balanced outcomes that continue to promote agriculture. For example, the NSW DPI’s Land Use Conflict Risk Assessment (LUCRA) Guide31 provides guidance on how potential future conflict can be avoided. The risk assessment includes gathering information about proposed land use changes, evaluating risk of conflict from relevant activities and identifying risk reduction management strategies.

Further to these, the NSW Agriculture Commissioner has also recently conducted a review of the NSW Right to Farm Policy32. The review found that the Policy was delivered but did not fix issues relating to land use conflicts. As such, the Commissioner recommended the development of an Agricultural Land Use Planning Strategy to address three key issues:

o Long term availability of productive land o Reducing land use conflict and supporting dispute resolution o Support the growth of agriculture and regional economies

32 DPI Right to Farm Policy Review (December 2020)

An options paper to inform the Agricultural Land Use Planning Strategy33 was also developed and released in December 2020, providing further insight into options around land use separation. This is also further considered in the NSW Agricultural Commissioner’s report34 resulting in the following recommendation:

9. The NSW Government should require councils to consider buffer guidelines for agricultural operations in relevant development application approval process.

This includes application of the agent of change principle so that established buffers are considered in neighbouring development decisions and review existing buffer guidelines to ensure they reflect contemporary science, best practice and meet regulatory needs.

Further discussion around buffers and applicability within the context of Council’s DCP is further highlighted later in this section.

2.3 Education and awareness

Land use conflict and poor planning outcomes can easily be exacerbated through individual planning decisions or cumulative impacts. A particular issue, though not the only one, is the increase in rural lifestylers or tree changers that located on rural lands. Lifestylers are not only becoming more prevalent through new dwellings, but many existing rural properties are also being purchased by those seeking tree or sea change opportunities – not farming.

33 DPI Options Paper - Agricultural Land Use Planning Strategy (December 2020) 34 NSW Agricultural Commissioner - Improving the Prospects for Agriculture and Regional Australia in the NSW Planning System (July 2021) Irrelevant of how new rural landowners arrive, issues often then arise around the lack of knowledge, communication and understanding about living in rural areas and adjoining operational farms. This is acknowledged by the NSW Agricultural Commissioner, with his recent report35 containing the recommendation that:

11. DPI in partnership with relevant NSW Government agencies should implement education programs for … the wider public about agricultural land use planning needs and the planning instruments that support these uses.

It also contains recommendations relating to determinations on what is acceptable impacts (Recommendation 12), as well as opportunities for councils to collaborate on rural issues, including responses to land use conflicts (Recommendation 13).

Providing guidance, either through Council programs and/or through other agencies/providers, on effective communication between neighbours is critical and needs to be supplemented with regular information and consultation. For example, forewarning neighbours when irregular farming activities are about to occur or establishing time-of-day preferences for activities that cause noise or odour may be simple opportunities to assist in reducing neighbourly conflict. In this scenario, proactive farmers can help to mitigate effects and neighbours may be more willing to accept them.

Strong industry codes of practice at a local level can also help to promote industry self-regulation and would potentially be effective for

35 NSW Agricultural Commissioner - Improving the Prospects for Agriculture and Regional Australia in the NSW Planning System (July 2021)

reducing some levels of land use conflict. For example, to deal with existing issues, and to safeguard against these occurring the future, Council could consider:

o the development of easy to apply best management practice guidelines to help limit community concerns about nuisance or pollution. Council, with the assistance of DPI/LLS could help key stakeholders develop best management practice guidelines and generate adoption at the local level o a requirement for sales of land or established homes in rural areas to come with statements regarding the potential for land use conflict – for example, according to the Right to Farm

Review, some councils already attach a statement to each

Section 10.7 certificate explaining what is to be expected by purchasing land in a rural-based community. o generally creating greater and more accessible information on what normal or acceptable farm practices are, and lifting understanding and reducing conflicts as a result (as recommended by the Commissioner) o providing a ‘new landowner package’ or similar when new residents are registered at a rural address. An example of this is the LLS Rural Living Handbook - A guide for rural landholders (2020) or the earlier DPI Living and Working in Rural Areas – A handbook for managing land use conflict issues on the NSW North

Coast (2007).

Council already undertakes a range of education and promotional activities across environmental and biosecurity issues (as reinforced

36See https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/841088/buffer-zones-to-reduceland-use-conflict-with-agriculture.pdf - accessed 2 November 2021 through its adopted Biodiversity Strategy 2020-2025), though has a more limited presence in this role across the agricultural space more broadly.

2.4 Buffers

DPI has developed a ‘Primefact’ interim guideline entitled Buffer Zones to Reduce Land Use Conflict with Agriculture 201836. This provides consolidated advice on recommended buffers to agricultural activities for the use of industry, development proponents and consent authorities. It suggests buffer zones between 50m and up to 1km between incompatible land uses, with the onus on the developer to use their own land as a buffer zone to mitigate land use conflict.

This direction is generally supported by both the current Agricultural Land Use Planning Strategy: Options Paper and the more recent NSW Agricultural Commissioner’s report provides further details which highlights the concept of ‘agent of change’ and need for stronger use of buffers by councils. In particular, Recommendation 9 of that document37 states:

The NSW Government should require councils to consider buffer guidelines for agricultural operations in relevant development application approval process.

This also recommends the use of the agent of change principle that places the onus of the applicant to take into consideration and provide setbacks to other current land uses. The NSW Agricultural Commissioner’s report does however acknowledge that DPI should review existing buffer guidelines and “work with industry and councils to

37 NSW Agricultural Commissioner - Improving the Prospects for Agriculture and Regional Australia in the NSW Planning System (July 2021)

ensure they reflect contemporary science, best practice and meet regulatory needs” and to better identify where buffers are in operation.

This provides a relatively sound theory provided that uses are subject to Council consent (as opposed to exempt development), and that assessors have sufficient detailed controls to accommodate the direction.

The Department of Primary Industries Living and Working in Rural Areas: A handbook for managing land use conflict on the NSW North Coast NSW, also recommends buffer distances between various types of agricultural activities and residential development. For example, 1km for piggeries, poultry facilities and feedlots, 500m for dairies and other intensive livestock operations, 200m for greenhouses and 50m for grazing stock. 38

The Primary Production and Rural Development SEPP (2019) introduced a new standard clause for Council’s LEP relating to matters that must be considered by the consent authority when rural land is subdivided for residential development or a new dwelling is erected, with the objective of minimising potential land use conflict. Whilst buffer zones are not specified as a measure to ‘avoid or minimise any incompatibility’, their presence in supporting documents – such as Council’s DCP would be beneficial to guide the assessment process.

Buffers have however been explicitly provided for in the Clarence Valley LEP Clause 5.18 pertaining to new intensive animal agriculture developments. In particular, the consent authority must be satisfied

38 See https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/lup/living-and-working-in-rural-areas/living-andworking-in-rural-areas-handbook - accessed 2 November 2021 that the development will not be within 500 metres of a dwelling not associated with the development, or a zoned residential area.

2.5 DCP controls

The Clarence Valley Rural Zones DCP provides detailed development controls for rural zones and applies to land in the following zones that are subject to the Rural Lands Strategy:

o RU1 Primary Production o RU2 Rural Landscape o RU3 Forestry

The Rural Zones DCP addresses such matters as the protection of amenity, privacy and scenic values, flooding and tidal inundation, flora and fauna, development design along with operational requirements.

It also establishes the consideration of buffers (for example within objectives), but has little guidance on distances with the exception of some being identified for the small area of former horticultural lands around Wells Crossing / Lanitza (particularly for spray drift). Strengthening and clarifying buffer requirement in accordance with best practice DPI guidance may be appropriate to assist in addressing land use conflicts over the long-term.

The Clarence Valley Development in Environmental Protection, Recreation and Special Use Zone DCP may also be reviewed to better support buffers in the applicable E zones to assist with land use conflict in those areas.

RELATED RURAL LANDS STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS

Note: the recommendation numbers relate to those presented in the Rural Land Strategy document for ease of reference.

Facilitate effective land use planning for rural areas

Recommendation 1: Review the applicability of RU1 and RU2 zones

In context of the Far North Coast Farmland Mapping, and other land with ground-verified high quality agricultural attributes, Council will review how the RU1 and RU2 is applied. This would delineate that the RU1 – Primary Production zone will primarily protect and reserve land for agricultural productivity, while the RU2 – Rural Landscape zone will enable a more diverse range of uses and activities suitable to rural areas.

Recommendation 2: Review land use permissibility and objectives in the RU1 and RU2 zone

Adjustments to the land uses that are permitted, as well as the zone objectives, should be considered to better differentiate the “Primary Production” areas within the RU1 zone, and the broader diversity in use of other “Rural Landscape” zone.

Recommendation 3: Review the zoning of rural lands that have strong environmental attributes or form part of strategically important biodiversity corridors

Applying an appropriate environmental zone where practical, reduces the potential for rural land use conflict between areas with environmental qualities and areas with a greater agricultural production focus / potential. Recommendation 4: Collaborate with State agencies and industry on opportunities to best protect agricultural activities adjoining existing and proposed urban areas

Exploring long-term protection measures on identified existing and proposed residential land through Council’s proposed Growth Management Strategy to manage the rural to residential interface.

Recommendation 6: Review LEP and/or DCP controls to include greater certainty and direction around expectations for buffers to agricultural activities

Review the current application of DCP and LEP controls and integrate current (DPI’s - Buffer Zones to Reduce Land Use Conflict with Agriculture), or revised future guidance as recommended by the NSW Agricultural Commissioner (or equivalent), to assist in assessment of applications and planning proposals on rural lands in line with best practice to reduce land use conflict.

Recommendation 7: Reinforce existing DCP controls for protection of biodiversity and environmental outcomes through review of buffers and related provisions

Consistent with Recommendation 3 relating to application of environmental zones, reviewing the current DCP controls with respect to protecting biodiversity and environmental outcomes will work towards clearly delineating key environmental qualities from other rural uses.

Elevate the importance of rural lands within Council and the community

Recommendation 12: Collaboratively identify conflict inducing practices and opportunities to work with industry and agencies to reduce these conflicts

Recognising that neighbourly conflicts typically occur outside the land use planning framework, identifying and establishing a plan to engage with rural landowners can help address ongoing concerns. This work may require collaboration with State agencies, industry and individual landholders through best practice conflict resolution, mediation and education.

Engage with government and industry to leverage support

Recommendation 15: Continue to review, collaborate and, where require, maintain consistency with evolving State polices

Considerable attention is currently being given from State agencies on establishing policies and directions around reducing land use conflict. Ensuring Council is continually aware of current State policies and directions, and their implications, is imperative to enabling effective collaboration and leveraging of State-wide resources.

Recommendation 16: Provide a range of programs, training and education opportunities for rural landowners and the broader public

Improving public understanding of the importance of agricultural practices, and what constitutes normal farm practice, is imperative to establishing a greater common awareness that can reduce land use conflicts.

Develop supporting infrastructure that enables opportunities

Recommendation 22: Consider opportunities for, and where viable develop an ‘Agricultural Hub’ to benefit a wide spectrum of rural activities

The development of a carefully planned, shared infrastructure arrangement may reduce the need for on-site agricultural activities that can cause land-use conflict. This shared approach in a carefully planned facility can centralise such activities rather than being dispersed across rural areas, as well as providing a central meeting, training and education point for a range of activities.