Planning problems in Logan City Council – Intensive agriculture

The residents view presented to The Office of Minister for Infrastructure and

Planning, Hon. Stirling Hinchcliffe

Background information -The truth about intensive agriculture; a clean

industry?• People commonly

perceive farming as a clean wholesome activity in which the farmer works in harmony with nature to produce food.

• So, why is there a conflict around the intensive agriculture issue in what was the northern part of the Beaudesert Shire?

Industrialised farming

• In reality, intensive agriculture is an industrial process which requires the eradication of the natural environment.

• It requires huge inputs of fuel, plastic, fertiliser, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and other chemicals.

• It is an industrial process with negative industrial outputs (pollution) similar in impact to light industry.

• It’s impacts spread far beyond the immediate work site.

• It is not a clean and natural process!• It’s impacts are similar to light

industry and it should be treated in a similar manner.

The flash point!• This is a home in

Greenbank in a rural residential estate.

• The neighbouring property established a commercial intensive agriculture enterprise, and Beaudesert Shire Council did nothing about it.

• Note the home is only 15 metres from the neighbours farm where crops are sprayed

• There is no town water, tank water is collected off the roof of the house.

Spraying crops

• This is the same fence line and the “farmer” is using a tractor and boom sprayer 15 metres from the residents home.

• This resident got bladder cancer.

• It was never proven in court, but medical opinion was that it was probably the result of exposure to agricultural chemicals.

Spray drift

• Here the spray drift is clearly visible as it crosses onto the neighbours property.

• It is an inescapable fact that when chemicals are sprayed, there is a risk of spray drift.

• Spray drift can easily travel hundreds of metres, even up to a kilometre or more.

The other neighbour• And this is the other

neighbour, another intensive agriculture enterprise that Beaudesert Shire Council ignored in a rural residential estate.

• It can not possibly be argued that this land use is “predominantly residential” as per the definition of rural residential zoning.

• Eventually Beaudesert Shire Council started addressing this issue, In the last 2 years of Beaudesert Shire Council this type of development was banned in this area.

Standard Government response – “it’s a Work place health and safety issue!”

• Local Governments and State Government’s response is highly predictable, they inevitably say that dealing with spray drift is not their responsibility, it is a Work place Health and Safety issue. This attempt to avoid taking a responsible approach to the issue does nothing to solve the problem, it only serves to fuel the anger of the residents affected.

• Intensive agriculture is similar in some respects to a panel beating shop. The panel beating shop must use spray paint, it is an operational requirement. The spray paint causes nuisance and potential health hazards if used too close to peoples homes. But it is not Work Place Health and Safety laws that keep panel beating workshops out of residential areas. It is zoning and land uses in Town Plans that keep Panel beating shops in light industrial areas.

• In the case of intensive agriculture, the use of dangerous agricultural chemicals is an operational requirement (and these chemicals are far more dangerous than paint fumes). These chemicals can potentially have lethal health impacts when used too close to people’s homes. Work Place Health and safety laws are not going to keep new farms from being developed too close to surrounding residents homes, they were never intended for this purpose. Town planning laws are required to keep intensive agriculture operations a safe distance from surrounding residents homes and out of inappropriate areas such as rural residential estates.

• People readily accept that we need to plan the location of panel beating shops because they are a form of light industry. Intensive agriculture should be treated in a similar manner to light industry, because the effects of operations are widespread well beyond the immediate work area. There should therefore be plans about where we locate intensive agriculture, and what buffer zones should be used. Work Place Health and Safety Laws do not define where intensive agriculture is to be located and what buffer zones are required, they never can and they never will.

• Work place health and safety laws will not solve this problem, It is a planning issue!

State Government Guidelines

• There are Planning Guidelines published by the Queensland State Government, “Planning Guidelines, Separating Agricultural and Residential Land Uses”, Department of natural Resources Queensland.

• The Queensland government has acknowledged that intensive agricultural and residential land uses are incompatible in close proximity in its planning Guidelines. It is a planning issue!

• The Planning Guidelines provide technical advice to local government, developers, consultants, and landholders on minimising conflicts between farming activities and residential uses.

• These guidelines were prepared in consultation with a number of experts including Queensland Farmer’s Federation, Canegrowers, Australian Cotton Foundation, Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers, Royal Australian Planning Institute, Department of Primary Industries and others.

• The main solution to this land use conflict is the use of buffer zones (separating distances) between incompatible land uses.

Buffer Zones - Vegetation

The other standard response from government.

• The next standard response from Government is that we can not implement retrospective legislation to deal with the existing intensive agriculture in your residential estates, so we can not do anything about it.

• The residents response is that we are not asking you to implement retrospective legislation. We are asking you to learn from the past mistakes and stop the same mistakes from being repeated again and again. We need the Government to make appropriate planning measures for the future – you can do something about that! State Government already has the tools to make this possible, Policy 1/92 and the attached guidelines.

State Government Policy

• The above mentioned Guidelines are attached to State Government Policy 1/92 Development and Conservation of Agricultural Land.

• An underlying theme of planning policy is the control of land use and development in the public interest.

• State Government Policy1/92 addresses key principles for the protection of agricultural land. The policy is supported by the planning guidelines which provide detailed advice on implementing the policy.

The twist!• Policy 1/92 and its attached Guidelines are intended for use by local government to

protect high quality agricultural land from being destroyed by inappropriate developments in close proximity. The usual situation is of residential development encroaching into rural production areas.

• Greenbank actually has the reverse of this situation, intensive agriculture has been encroaching into rural residential estates. It is not high quality land, and there is no need to promote the area as a place to establish intensive agriculture.

• Regardless of whether it is residential development encroaching into agricultural areas, or as in Greenbank, intensive agricultural development encroaching into residential estates, the result is farming operations being conducted in close proximity to people’s homes.

• The resulting problems are the same. There are a number of nuisance issues created, but the greatest concern is the risks to human health and safety from the use of agricultural chemicals being sprayed too close to peoples homes.

• The risks are greatly increased in Greenbank because there is no town water, the water supply is from rain water collected from the roofs of houses.

• If State Government has no intention of actively trying to apply it’s own policies and guidelines, the residents are asking why bother having them?

We don’t have any problems in Logan!

• In response to the residential v rural production conflict, in the last 2 years of Beaudesert Shire Council, 2006-2008, Beaudesert Shire Council made substantial changes to the Town plan to try to limit the development of intensive horticulture enterprises in the rural residential areas in the North of the shire (Mount Lindsay Corridor).

• Logan City Council is trying to reverse this situation back to what it previously was, no development approval, no code of assessment, no restrictions on intensive agriculture being established in rural residential estates.

• Logan City Councillors, of particular note the Chair of Planning and the Deputy Mayor, have consistently stated that there are no problems with conflict between intensive agriculture and residential development in Logan, their rules work just fine. They seem to believe that the same rules should be applied to the amalgamated areas from Beaudesert. They maintain that Logan has the problem all under control.

Logan has it all under control. Really?

• Here at a school in Logan agriculture is established metres from a primary school.

• The vegetation buffer is approximately 5 metres, clearly inadequate to protect the children.

• This is a huge shortfall from the 40 metres minimum recommended in the State Government Guidelines.

• It is the school that has provided this vegetation buffer, otherwise there would be NO buffer.

• Children are the most at risk of exposure to agricultural chemicals.

• Genuine health and safety risks are created that should not be tolerated in an advanced country.

• Clearly Logan City Council has some planning issues!

Full Speed Reverse!!!• As previously mentioned, Beaudesert Shire Council made some moves

towards separating intensive agriculture and rural residential land uses by not allowing the clearing of vegetation for further development of intensive agriculture in residential estates without a development approval. This was in response to opposition to intensive agriculture being established in close proximity to peoples homes. It wasn’t great legislation, it had big problems, but at least Development Approval was required for clearing vegetation for intensive agriculture on rural residential blocks.

• Beaudesert also began the process of amending the Town plan to put a stop to new farms in Rural residential estates in the Mount Lindsay Corridor; Logan put a stop to this amendment immediately after amalgamation.

• Logan City Council’s amendment of 2010 will remove all restrictions on developing intensive agriculture enterprises in rural residential estates. In many respects the original legislation was poor, but Logan’s proposed amendment is even worse, a retrograde step. This is full speed reverse back to the original situation that created the serious health and safety risks illustrated earlier in this presentation.

• I will highlight two of the major failings of the proposed amendment.

Logan’s proposed buffers are inadequate!

Element State Government

Ausveg Redlands Shire Council

Logan City Council

Spray drift 300m across open ground

40 metres vegetation Buffer

300m across open ground

40 metres vegetation Buffer

300m across open ground

40 metres vegetation Buffer

Originally no mention of protection from chemical spray drift-now listed as a “desired outcome”.

Odour 500m 500m 150 metres

40 metres vegetation buffer

Noise dust light odour – 5 metres vegetation buffer

Noise 60m intermittent

500m long distance

60m intermittent

500m long distance

7am-10pm 8db (A)

10pm-7am 5db (A)

Dust, Smoke, ash

150 metres

40 metres vegetation buffer

150 metres

40 metres vegetation buffer

150 metres

40 metres vegetation buffer

Logan’s 8000 square metres rule misses the mark.

• Logan’s proposed intensive agriculture rules only apply to blocks under 8000 square metres, the rules do not apply to any block 8000 square metres or more.

• The problem is, there is no intensive agriculture conducted on blocks under 8000 square metres!

• These rules completely fail to address the issues created by intensive agriculture being carried out in our rural residential estates.

Commercial Agriculture in Greenbank

Property Total Area Ha Total Area in Square metres Road frontage in metres ***

346 Backwater Road, ** 3.452 34 520 77

326 Backwater Road * 3.559 35 590 80

252-258 Backwater + 3.133 31 330 79

152-160 Begley Road + 4.054 40 054 101

297 Begley Road + 4.02 40 200 99

64 Harvest Road 3.6 36 000 199 (Harvest Rd)

354 (Begley Rd)

52-60 Harvest Road + 4.179 41 790 101

70-76 Kingfisher Drive + 2 20 000 63

135 Thompson Road + 4.049 40 049 111

385 Thompson Road + 2.16 21 600 134 (Thompson Rd)

160 (Lyndale Rd)

36-42 Farm Road + 4 40 000 100

19-35 Farm Road 2 20 000 80

90-104 Pakenham Road * + 3.696 36 960 117

49-57 Wirraburra 1.517 15 170 85

27-39 Cheviot Street * 3.958 39 580 115

51-59 Attunga Road 2 20 000 76

15-21 Coolac Court * 2 20 000 75

45 Warbler Court 3.505 35 050 23

The Macro View• Let’s assume for a moment that the State Government decided to try and

sort this issue out. A logical question would be, “What effect is this going to have on agricultural production in Queensland?

• The land area of Queensland is 1,730,648 Square kilometres• The Land area of Logan is approximately 963 Square kilometres.• The area that is zoned rural residential is approximately 400 square

kilometres. This is the area that the conflict is most intense in.• 400 square kilometres is 0.023 of 1% of Queensland.• It is only a tiny fraction of this that will be used for intensive agriculture• Even a total prohibition of agriculture in this area will have no measurable

impact on agriculture production in Queensland, however allowing it in our rural residential areas will have a significant negative impact on a large number of people and pose serious health and safety risks.

• The benefits of a minute amount of added agricultural output are far outweighed by the social costs that will be borne by the community.

• We are pleading with Council and State Government to take a responsible approach to addressing this issue.

A view in light of the South East Queensland Regional Plan

• The South East Queensland Regional Plan made it very clear that the existing land use rights continue to exist after the plan was implemented.

• Most of Greenbank was established as a rural residential estate in 1978-1980. Prior to that it was used for grazing cattle. It has never been used for intensive agriculture, quality agricultural land was not destroyed to create this rural residential estate.

• The Beaudesert Town plan has always maintained that this area is rural residential, which means it’s use is “predominantly residential”. It has not been zoned as rural production at any time during the last 30 years. We have existing rural residential land use rights!

• For Logan City Council to try and open our rural residential estate to commercial intensive agriculture uses is a violation of the residents rights! It is much the same as allowing a new industrial development such as a steel foundry to be built in the midst of a residential suburb – No local Government would allow that, yet they will allow this abuse of our rights.

• Farmers are able to establish new farms in other areas such as Gatton or Boonah, but according to the SEQRP there will be no new rural residential developments so residents can’t simply relocate.

• We are calling on the State Government to stand up for what is right for the community and act in accordance with the South East Queensland Regional Plan.

What can the State Government do? Stop this amendment!

• It is a retrograde step that will contribute to increasing dangers to human health and safety with minimal benefits.

• It does not comply with the underlying principle of Policy 1/92 and the attached guidelines; Rural production and residential areas need to be identified and separated not mixed even more.

• It assists Logan to violate the rights of residents in rural residential estates.

• It is generating a lot of conflict that will continue and intensify.• The amendment completely fails to address the issues causing

conflict.• If the amendment is blocked and even if no new intensive

agriculture is allowed in rural residential areas of Logan, it will have no measurable impact on agricultural production in Queensland.

So, what is next? Appropriate planning is needed.

• Rural planning, especially around the urban-rural interface is extremely complicated.

• It requires the use of planners who are experts in the area of the urban-rural interface.

• Proper analysis needs to be undertaken before plans are made. Issues to be examined include present land use, size of land holdings, agricultural land suitability, environmental opportunities and constraints and limitations, ecological impacts, proximity to urban development, social and economic factors.

• Most importantly, a detailed land use survey and lot size analysis must be conducted. (Reference; Ian Sinclair, Principal consultant, EDGE Land Planning, “Preserving Rural Land in Australia”, 2002)

• It appears that Logan City Council has not done any of this analysis or attempted to understand the land use patterns. They are trying to implement an amendment that will open almost any land to commercial intensive agriculture without any consideration of the impacts on surrounding residents.

Logan City Council lacks the expertise, and the will to listen.

• It seems highly likely that Logan City Council lacks the necessary skills to do such analysis, this is a highly specialised field. We should not expect that Logan City Council would have such skills because until 2008 Logan City Council’s area was almost 100% urban.

• Logan’s first attempt at amending the Town Plan to deal with intensive agriculture has demonstrated that they do not understand the issues involved, or the consequences to those affected.

• Of greater concern, Logan City Council has displayed a resolute determination to ignore the concerns raised by the residents of the ex-Beaudesert area. They have ignored all complaints, suggestions, pleas, advice and public submissions. The Chair of Planning has openly and publicly stated to the media that Logan City Council has decided not to comply with the State Government Planning Guidelines.

The solution?• It is time for the State Government to intervene in this issue. • Firstly, we are pleading with the State Government to stop this proposed amendment.• The State Government needs to intervene in the planning of Logan to bring about a

resolution of the problems for once and for all.• The State Government should consider making Logan City Council implement Policy

1/92 and the attached guidelines in a similar manner to what Redlands Shire Council has done in 2008.

• Alternatively, we are suggesting that the State Government consider employing the services of a planning expert to bring about a high quality planning outcome that will resolve the issues with as little conflict as possible. For example, State Government could employ the services of a specialist planning consultant to put together a comprehensive plan to implement in Logan City Council’s area. State Government should also force it to be implemented as based on past behaviour, it is highly unlikely that Logan City Council will ever agree to the plan.

• In order to achieve an outcome that is as close as possible to optimum, and based on professional planning principles, it would be essential to use a consultant that will not be pressured or unduly influenced by political forces within Logan City Council, farmers groups, or residents groups.

• It would seem to be a lot easier for the State Government to simply make sure that Logan City Council adheres to the State Planning Guidelines – Redland Shire Council has already shown that this can be done.

What if State Government doesn’t intervene?

• If State Government does not stop this amendment, there is going to be strong conflict between residents and farmers that will be on-going. This issue will continue on and Government at Local and State level will be continuously dragged into the conflict. The conflict is only going to escalate!

• Logan City Council is currently drafting a new Town plan for the whole of Logan, including old Logan, and the amalgamated areas of Beaudesert and the Gold Coast. Logan intends to implement this new Town plan in 2012. If the 2010 amendment is not stopped, it is highly likely that Logan City Council will once again put forward the same or similar legislation dealing with intensive agriculture in 2012. It is almost a guarantee that we will all be going over the same issues again in 2 years time. I can guarantee that the residents of rural Logan will be raising their voices again, but next time the outcry will probably be louder because of the additional damage done to our area from new farms established during 2010-2012 that Logan City Council has allowed (with the assistance of the State Government because they did not stop the 2010 amendment).

The bottom line – What will State Government do?

• Is State Government going to stop this amendment?• Is State Government going to address the issues of land

use conflict in rural Logan?• Is State Government going to attempt to bring about an

optimum outcome in the new Town Plan for Logan City, and if so, how? If not, why not?

• Is State Government going to insist that it’s policies, particularly 1/92 and its guidelines are implemented in Logan?

• The bottom line – Is State Government going to simply try to maintain the status quo and do nothing, or is State Government going to actively try to make Queensland a better place to live by protecting the residents rights? This choice starts with each one of you!