Landmark council approval splits property

Fears Pandora's Box of rural zoning has been opened

An aerial shot of Balnagowan. Picture: Queensland Government

EXCLUSIVE: There are some fears a precedent has been set that will pit city mouse against country mouse - after a landmark council decision to approve the subdivision of the region's smallest rural lot yet.

An application to split a 3.47 hectare lot at Balnagowan, punted back and forth in council since 2013, was this week approved by one vote, against council officers' recommendations.

Councillors who voted against the subdivision warned rural landholders could be emboldened to lodge similar applications, paving the way for conflict when urban dwellers start moving in.

Councillor Laurence Bonaventura said it may take some time, but he expects once word gets around, more unorthodox rural subdivisions could be proposed.

According to the planning scheme, rural lots should be subdivided into lots no smaller than 100 hectares.

"You are really playing with fire to go against the planning scheme, in such a major deviation from what it says in regards to lot size,” he said.

"You're opening up an avenue (to successfully subdivide a lot) anywhere from three hectares to 100 hectares.

"It's an issue that we face in the future, from these subdivisions... when someone who moves out there who doesn't have an understanding of rural activities, farmers waking up at 3am to do harvesting, the smell of fertiliser from a dunder truck... you will have to put up with these differences and that's when you get people ringing up complaining.

"It's an offshoot of subdivisions of rural land that people want the same services they had in town, that is hard for council to provide because of the cost.”

Cr Martin Bella fears the possibility of losing good agricultural land from a sector that is already struggling.

"We have less quality agricultural land than Afghanistan, we are very arid and a lot of our soil is seriously leached and lacking in trace elements, so you have to protect what you've got,” he said.

"I would be tempted to say that it will create a precedent for any farmer with a run down house to say, and I can name any number of them, using this as a precedent, push through for a similar decision.”

The applicants, Stewart and Leticia Ross, proposed the subdivision of their lot once in 2013, and again in 2014, and were knocked back both times.

This week, a council report recommended refusing the application on the basis it was inconsistent with three codes of the Mackay planning scheme, would reduce the ability for rural activities to be undertaken, and because there wasn't a demonstrated "over-riding need” for the development.

However, Cr Fran Mann proposed it be allowed because the conflicts with the planning scheme were "minor and don't warrant refusal of the application”. Supportive councillors argued the planning scheme was a living document and each application was considered on its own merits so precedent wasn't an issue.

The 3.47ha lot is classed as 'non-good' agricultural land and has never been farmed.

Mr Ross told the council meeting that he appreciated the impact additional housing had on farming practices, but argued there were no negatives from his applications.

"However, we would appreciate council acknowledging the fact that in this particular case no negative changes would occur, or have any effect or impact on the farming area... the only change would be the addition of a boundary line caused by reconfiguration,” he said. "What the council, the rural community and my family would end up with, is already there, with the addition of another set of rates.”

Originally published as Landmark council approval splits property