Draft LEP – Phil Beazley

Much of Coomba is currently zoned RU2. These properties will become C2 or C3 zones in the new LEP. Below shows the current RU2 area. Below is a map of the proposed RU2 area. All RU2 zoning will be gone in the […]

7 May 2026

Tagged Draft LEP, LEP

Current RU2 -> Proposed RU4

Draft LEP

LEP

Electricity Generating Works are Permitted with Consent in the Proposed RU4 zoning. This means solar farms, wind turbines and battery storage. A Strategic Rezoning for Rural Economic Development Rezoning from RU2 to RU4 is a proactive policy tool to reshape rural areas. […]

29 April 2026

Electricity Generating Works are Permitted with Consent in the Proposed RU4 zoning. This means solar farms, wind turbines and battery storage.

A Strategic Rezoning for Rural Economic Development

Rezoning from RU2 to RU4 is a proactive policy tool to reshape rural areas.

Strategic Intent Likely Is:

1. Create Rural Enterprise Clusters: To encourage the development of intensive, high-value agriculture (berries, aquaculture, niche livestock) and its supporting processing and service industries on smaller, more affordable lots.

2. Prevent Rural Sprawl & Commercial Creep: The detailed prohibited list is a powerful tool to stop rural land from being used for suburban-style housing estates, retail strips, or standalone tourism resorts.

3. Develop Rural Service Nodes: By allowing a wide range of community and utility uses, the zone can facilitate the growth of identified small towns or the creation of new rural service hubs to support a growing intensive farming population.

Potential Impacts & Conflicts:

For Landowners: Could significantly increase land value and development potential for those wanting to run intensive agricultural businesses. For those seeking a quiet rural lifestyle or existing tourism businesses (like a B&B or caravan park), it could devalue their land or make their business non-conforming.

For Community: Could lead to more jobs and local services, but also to more intensive farming impacts and a busier, more “industrial” rural character.

For Council: Provides a strong tool to direct and manage rural economic growth, but requires careful mapping to ensure it’s applied to appropriate locations with adequate infrastructure.

In summary, this change represents a move away from a passive, protectionist rural zone towards an active, economically-driven one. It trades the broad flexibility of RU2 for a more directed, productive, and community-supporting model in RU4, with clear fences to keep urban uses out. It’s a vision for a working, productive countryside.

Overall Shift: From Broad Rural Landscape to Intensive Rural Enterprise Hub

Current RU2: A flexible, landscape-focused rural zone that accommodates a wide mix of rural living, tourism, and light industry, with an emphasis on maintaining character and preventing fragmentation.

Proposed RU4: A highly permissive, economically-focused rural zone designed for intensive, diversified, and value-adding rural enterprises on smaller lots. It encourages a dense mix of agriculture, industry, tourism, and even community services, while drawing a sharp line against urbanisation.

Key Changes & Their Implications

1. Evolution of Zone Objectives

RU2 Objectives: Focus on sustainable production, landscape character, preventing fragmentation for agriculture, and rural tourism.

RU4 Objectives: Expands to include diversity, employment, small-lot/intensive enterprises, and the maintenance of productive rural landscapes. The tourism objective is refined to be more explicitly linked to primary production.

Implication: The zone’s purpose shifts from preserving a landscape to actively fostering a diverse rural economy. “Productivity” and “employment” become central goals alongside character.

2. “Permitted Without Consent”: Minor Change

RU2: `Extensive agriculture; Home occupations`.

RU4: `Environmental protection works; Extensive agriculture; Home businesses; Home occupations`.

Implication: `Home businesses` are promoted to “as-of-right,” encouraging rural entrepreneurship. `Environmental protection works` are formally recognised.

3. Massive Transformation of “Permitted with Consent”

This is where the change is most dramatic. RU4’s list is longer and more intensive, but with a different focus.

New Intensive & Value-Add Focus:

`Intensive livestock agriculture` and `Intensive plant agriculture` are explicitly added. This is a major shift from RU2’s broader `Agriculture`. RU4 is designed for feedlots, poultry sheds, greenhouses, hydroponics, etc.

`Artisan food and drink industries`, `Markets`, `Rural supplies`, `Vehicle repair stations`. This turns RU4 into a zone for processing, selling, and servicing the rural economy.

Expanded Community & Service Role:

`Correctional centres`, `Public administration buildings`, `Places of public worship`, `Health service facilities`, `School-based child care`. RU4 can evolve into a rural service centre or village hub, which is not the intent of RU2.

Tourism Model Shift:

RU2 allows specific types: `Backpackers’ accommodation`, `Bed and breakfast accommodation`, `Caravan parks`, `Hotel or motel accommodation`.

RU4 uses a broad category `Tourist and visitor accommodation` but explicitly prohibits the specific types listed in RU2 (`Backpackers’, Caravan parks, Hotel/motel`). This suggests a preference for a different, undefined tourism model (likely `Agritourism` and `Farm stay`).

New Infrastructure: `Electricity generating works`, `Telecommunications facilities`, `Waste or resource management facilities`.

4. Introduction of a Major “Prohibited” List

This is the most critical difference. RU2 has a simple catch-all prohibition. RU4 introduces a detailed list of 49 prohibited uses.

What’s Now Prohibited (that was allowed in RU2): `Airports`, `Backpackers’ accommodation`, `Caravan parks`, `Hotel or motel accommodation`, `Industries`, `Kiosks`, `Marinas`, `Neighbourhood shops`, `Restaurants or cafes`, `Shops`.

Implication: While RU4 is more permissive for rural industry, it is dramatically more restrictive against commercialisation and urban-style development. It prevents RU4 land from becoming a strip of shops, a tourist resort, or an industrial estate.

Comparison Table: From Landscape to Enterprise

Aspect	Current RU2	Proposed RU4	Implication of Rezoning
Economic Driver	Broad-based rural living & tourism. Character is key.	Intensive, diversified rural production & value-adding. Productivity is key.	Land is for business, not just lifestyle. Expect more sheds, packing facilities, on-site sales
Scale & Intensity	Lower intensity, broadacre focus	Higher intensity allowed (feedlots, greenhouses, workshops).	Potential for more noise, traffic, odour, and visual impact from concentrated operations.
Tourism Role	Explicitly encouraged in various forms	Refocused and restricted. Specific tourist accommodation types are prohibited; only `Agritourism` and broad `Tourist accommodation` allowed.	Shifts from general tourism to tourism directly linked to and subordinate to the farming operation.
Commercial Activity	Allows `Kiosks`, `Neighbourhood shops`, `Restaurants`.	All retail, shops, and cafes are PROHIBITED. Only `Roadside stalls` and `Markets` allowed.	Prevents any evolution into a commercial hub. Commerce must be directly farm-based
Community Function	Allows some community facilities.	Expands significantly to include prisons, government buildings, health facilities.	Can become a service centre for surrounding rural areas, not just a collection of farms.
Land Use Control	Flexible, permissive list.	Highly prescriptive: Very long “Permitted” list paired with a very long “Prohibited” list.	Much less ambiguity. Provides certainty but less flexibility for innovative uses.

Current RU2 -> Proposed C4

Draft LEP

LEP

A reclassification of land from a broad, production-oriented rural zone to a more tightly controlled, residential-focused environmental living zone. From Working Landscape to Residential Enclave Rezoning from Current RU2 to Proposed C4 is a fundamental shift in land use philosophy. It transforms […]

27 April 2026

A reclassification of land from a broad, production-oriented rural zone to a more tightly controlled, residential-focused environmental living zone.

From Working Landscape to Residential Enclave

Rezoning from Current RU2 to Proposed C4 is a fundamental shift in land use philosophy. It transforms land from a working rural landscape (where farming, tourism, and light industry are encouraged) into a low-density residential enclave (where homes are the priority and other activities are strictly limited to those that do not harm environmental values).

Major Implications for Landowners:

– Loss of Commercial Rights: Most tourism, retail, and industrial uses become prohibited. A landowner cannot open a cafe, a shop, a caravan park, or a small factory.

– Retained Housing Rights: The ability to live on the land and build a home (including dual occupancies and secondary dwellings) is preserved.

– Farming Constrained: Extensive agriculture now requires consent, adding a layer of bureaucracy to grazing or cropping.

– Potential Property Value Impacts: Land values to shift as buyers will be deterred by the loss of commercial potential.

For the Community:

– Loss of Local Services: No shops, cafes, or community facilities (beyond basic community facilities) would be permitted, potentially increasing car dependency.

– Reduced Tourism Economy: No hotels, caravan parks, or restaurants would be allowed, affecting local employment and visitor accommodation.

Likely Stakeholder Reactions:

– Landowners with existing commercial operations: May oppose the loss of development rights and potential non-conforming use status.

– Tourism operators: Would oppose the loss of accommodation and food service options.

Summary

Rezoning from RU2 to C4 tells landowners: “Your land’s primary value is now its residential amenity and environmental significance, not its productive capacity. You can live here and enjoy the environment, but you cannot run a commercial business, open a shop, or operate a tourist facility. Farming is permitted only if it does not harm environmental values and requires our approval.”

This change is less extreme than a move to C2 or C3 (which would prohibit most residential development), but it still represents a significant devaluation of commercial rights on the land. It would be most appropriate for areas that are already predominantly residential in character but have been zoned RU2 for historical reasons, and where there is community support for protecting environmental values over economic development.

Overall Shift: From Productive Landscape to Low-Impact Residential Enclave

– Current RU2: A highly flexible, multi-functional rural zone. It prioritises maintaining rural landscape character while enabling a vast range of agricultural, tourism, commercial, light industrial, and residential uses. It is fundamentally about managed human activity and production in a rural setting.

– Proposed C4: A zone specifically designed for low-impact residential development in areas with special ecological, scientific, or aesthetic values. It prioritises protecting those values, with residential use as the primary activity, supported by a narrow range of complementary low-impact uses.

Key Changes & Their Implications

1. Significant Change in Zone Objectives

Aspect	Current RU2	Proposed C4	Implication
Primary Focus	Encourage sustainable primary industry; maintain rural landscape character	Provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special values	From production & landscape to residence & environment
Agriculture	Central: “encourage sustainable primary industry production”	Not an objective; only mentioned as a possible compatible use	Agriculture is downgraded from a core purpose to an ancillary activity
Tourism	Explicit: “provide for rural tourism in association with primary industry”	Not mentioned; tourism uses are limited and must not harm environmental values	Tourism is no longer a stated goal
Fragmentation	“Minimise fragmentation… and loss of potential agricultural productivity”	Not mentioned	The economic concern about land fragmentation is removed
Environmental Values	Implied through “natural resource base” and “scenic amenity”	Explicit: “special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values”	A stronger, more direct environmental mandate

Implication: The land’s purpose shifts from being a productive rural asset (where farming is central) to being a residential environmental asset (where homes in a nice setting are central). Agriculture becomes a secondary, compatible use rather than the primary goal.

2. Changes to “Permitted Without Consent”

Use	Current RU2	Proposed C4	Change
Environmental protection works	Requires consent	Permitted	Added
Extensive agriculture	Permitted	Requires consent	Downgraded
Home businesses	Requires consent	Permitted	Promoted
Home occupations	Permitted	Permitted	Unchanged
Home industries	Requires consent	Requires consent	Unchanged
Roads	Requires consent	Requires consent	Unchanged

Implication:

– Extensive agriculture moving to “with consent” is a major change. Broadacre grazing or cropping now requires planning approval, allowing assessment of impacts on environmental and residential values.

– Home businesses promoted encourages home-based work, which aligns with the residential focus of C4.

3. Dramatic Restructuring of “Permitted with Consent”

The proposed C4 list is substantially narrower than RU2, with many commercial, tourism, and industrial uses removed entirely.

Category	Current RU2	Proposed C4	Implication
Core Agriculture	Agriculture (broad), Extensive agriculture (without consent)	Extensive agriculture (now with consent), Horticulture	Farming is heavily constrained; no broad Agriculture
Intensive Agriculture	Not explicitly listed	Not listed	Intensive farming (feedlots, greenhouses) is not permitted in C4
Tourism	Backpackers’, B&B, Camping grounds, Caravan parks, Eco-tourist, Farm stay, Hotel/motel	Agritourism, B&B, Eco-tourist facilities, Farm stay	Most commercial tourism prohibited; only farm-linked or low-key accommodation remains
Commercial/Retail	Kiosks, Neighbourhood shops, Restaurants or cafes, Roadside stalls, Rural supplies	Roadside stalls only; Cellar door premises added	All standalone retail and food service effectively prohibited; only farm-gate sales remain
Housing	Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses, Secondary dwellings, Group houses	Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses, Secondary dwellings, Group houses	Unchanged – C4 retains RU2’s housing flexibility however constraints will be placed on them (environmental protection objectives) and there will be a loss of non-residential uses (commercial, tourism, industrial) that could previously co-exist with housing.
Industrial	Depots, Extractive industries, Open cut mining, Rural industries, Timber yards, Transport depots	Home industries only	Most industrial uses prohibited; only small-scale home workshops remain
Community	Cemeteries, Crematoria, Community facilities, Educational establishments, Places of worship, Public admin	Community facilities, Information and education facilities, Research stations	Narrowed; no cemeteries, crematoria, or places of worship
Recreation	Extensive: indoor, outdoor, major, registered clubs, recreation areas	Recreation facilities (outdoor) only	Most recreation prohibited
Infrastructure	Sewerage systems, Water supply systems	Adds Jetties, Wharf or boating facilities	Slightly expanded for waterfront properties

4. What is LOST (No Longer Permissible in C4)

Moving from RU2 to C4 would mean losing the right to conduct the following activities (which are currently permitted with consent in RU2):

– Tourism: Backpackers’ accommodation, Camping grounds, Caravan parks, Hotel or motel accommodation, Function centres

– Commercial: Kiosks, Neighbourhood shops, Restaurants or cafes, Rural supplies, Timber yards, Landscaping material supplies, Plant nurseries

– Industrial: Depots, Extractive industries, Open cut mining, Rural industries, Transport depots, Truck depots, Warehouse or distribution centres

– Community: Cemeteries, Crematoria, Places of public worship, Public administration buildings

– Recreation: Recreation facilities (indoor), Recreation facilities (major), Registered clubs

– Infrastructure: Sewerage systems (retained), Water supply systems (retained)

Comparison Table: The Strategic Reclassification

Aspect	Current RU2	Proposed C4	Implication of Rezoning
Primary Purpose	Maintain rural landscape while enabling diverse uses	Provide low-impact residential development in areas with special values	From multi-use rural to residential-focused environmental
Economic Base	Broad: farming, tourism, retail, light industry, forestry	Narrow: extensive agriculture (with consent), home businesses, agritourism	Severe reduction in economic development potential
Tourism	Diverse accommodation and food services	Only agritourism, B&B, eco-tourism, farm stay; no hotels, caravan parks, or restaurants	Tourism becomes subordinate to residential amenity
Commercial Activity	Kiosks, shops, restaurants, rural supplies	Effectively prohibited (only roadside stalls and cellar doors remain)	No commercial core – the zone cannot function as a service centre
Housing	Standard dwellings, dual occupancies, secondary dwellings	Standard dwellings, dual occupancies, secondary dwellings	Housing flexibility is preserved with constraints (environmental protection objectives) and a loss of non-residential uses (commercial, tourism, industrial) that could previously co-exist with housing.
Industrial Activity	Extractive industries, rural industries, depots, timber yards	Prohibited (only home industries remain)	All significant industrial uses removed
Community Facilities	Wide range (cemeteries, churches, public admin)	Narrowed to community facilities, education, research	Loss of community hub functions
Environmental Protection	Implied through landscape objectives	Explicit mandate with “no adverse effect” test	Stronger environmental controls
Control Mechanism	Flexible, permissive list	More restrictive; many former uses are now prohibited	Tighter control; less flexibility for commercial ventures

Current RU2 -> Proposed C3

Draft LEP

LEP

A fundamental strategic reclassification that will move land from a broad, permissive rural zone to a tightly controlled environmental protection zone. Rezoning from Current RU2 to Proposed C3 represents one of the most drastic changes possible in the planning system. It transforms […]

27 April 2026

A Contested and Compensable Rezoning

Major Implications for Landowners:

– Loss of Property Rights: Most current permissible uses would become prohibited or heavily restricted.

– Potential Compensation Claims: This change likely constitutes an “acquisition” of property rights under just terms compensation principles. Landowners could have grounds to claim compensation from the government.

– Existing Use Rights: Existing farms, tourism businesses, or other lawful uses would become non-conforming uses. They can continue but cannot expand, rebuild if destroyed, or be transferred easily. Their long-term viability is threatened.

– Property Devaluation:

Land value would likely decrease significantly, as its development and economic potential is removed.

For the Community:

– Loss of Local Services: No shops, cafes, or community facilities would be permitted, reducing amenity.

– Loss of Tourism Economy: No hotels, caravan parks, or restaurants would be allowed, affecting local employment.

Likely Stakeholder Reactions:

– Landowners: Fierce opposition; potential legal challenges and compensation claims.

– Local Council: May face significant political backlash and financial liability.

Summary

Rezoning from RU2 to C3 is not a minor update—it is a fundamental change in land use philosophy. It tells landowners: “Your land’s primary value is now its environmental significance, not its productive capacity or development potential. You may continue existing uses, but you cannot expand them, and most new economic activity is prohibited.”

This would be one of the most controversial and impactful re-zonings possible under the NSW planning system, with significant legal, financial, and social consequences.

Overall Shift: From Rural Production & Lifestyle to Environmental Stewardship

– Current RU2: A highly flexible, multi-functional rural zone that prioritises maintaining rural landscape character while enabling a vast range of agricultural, tourism, residential, commercial, and light industrial uses. It is fundamentally about managed human activity in a rural setting.

– Proposed C3: A restrictive zone focused on protecting, managing and restoring areas with special ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values. It permits only a limited range of development that has “no adverse effect” on those values. It is fundamentally about environmental protection first, with human activity as a secondary consideration.

Key Changes & Their Implications

1. Complete Overhaul of Zone Objectives

Aspect	Current RU2	Proposed C3	Implication of Change
Primary Focus	Maintain rural landscape character	Protect, manage and restore special ecological/scientific/cultural/aesthetic values	From aesthetic landscape to substantive environmental protection
Agriculture	“Encourage sustainable primary industry production” – agriculture is central	No mention of primary industry as a goal; only “limited range of development” with no adverse effect	Agriculture is downgraded from a core objective to an afterthought
Tourism	Explicitly “provide for rural tourism”	No mention of tourism	Tourism is no longer an objective; only `Eco-tourist facilities` may be permitted
Fragmentation	“Minimise fragmentation… and loss of potential agricultural productivity”	No mention	The economic concern about land fragmentation is replaced by ecological concerns
Biodiversity	Not mentioned	“Conserve biological diversity and native vegetation corridors, and their scenic qualities”	New environmental mandate added
Natural Hazards	Not mentioned	Ensure development considers and addresses natural hazards, risks and constraints”	New risk-management mandate added

Implication: The land’s purpose is being redefined from a productive rural asset to a protected environmental asset. Economic and social objectives are replaced with ecological ones.

2. Changes to “Permitted Without Consent”

Use	Current RU2	Proposed C3	Change
Environmental protection works	Requires consent	Permitted	Added
Extensive agriculture	Permitted	Requires consent	Downgraded
Home businesses	Requires consent	Permitted	Promoted
Home occupations	Permitted	Permitted	Unchanged
Home industries	Requires consent	Requires consent	Unchanged (but listed in C3
Roads	Requires consent	Requires consent	Unchanged

Implication:

– Extensive agriculture moving to “with consent” is a major change. Grazing or cropping on a broad scale now requires planning approval, allowing assessment of impacts on environmental values.

– Home businesses promoted is a minor flexibility gain, but largely irrelevant given the overall tightening.

3. Radical Restructuring of “Permitted with Consent”

The proposed C3 list is a tiny fraction of the RU2 list. Most uses that define RU2 are simply absent (and therefore prohibited).

Category	Current RU2	Proposed C3	Implication
Core Agriculture	Agriculture (broad), Extensive agriculture (without consent)	Extensive agriculture (now with consent)	Farming is heavily constrained; no broad Agriculture
Intensive Agriculture	Not explicitly listed	Intensive livestock agriculture, Intensive plant agriculture	Intensive farming is allowed only with consent – a notable retention
Tourism	Backpackers’, B&B, Camping grounds, Caravan parks, Eco-tourist, Farm stay, Hotel/motel	Agritourism, B&B, Eco-tourist facilities, Farm stay	Most commercial tourism prohibited; only farm-linked or eco-tourism remains
Commercial/Retail	Kiosks, Neighbourhood shops, Restaurants or cafes, Roadside stalls, Rural supplies	Roadside stalls only (implicitly, via list)	All retail and food service effectively prohibited
Housing	Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses, Secondary dwellings	Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses only; Secondary dwellings not listed	Slightly reduced housing flexibility
Industrial	Depots, Extractive industries, Open cut mining, Rural industries, Timber yards, Transport depots	Extractive industries only	Most industrial uses prohibited
Community	Cemeteries, Crematoria, Community facilities, Educational establishments, Places of worship, Public admin	Information and education facilities, Research station	Narrowed to environmental education and research
Recreation	Extensive: indoor, outdoor, major, registered clubs, recreation areas	Recreation facilities (outdoor) only	Most recreation prohibited
Infrastructure	Sewerage systems, Water supply systems	Adds Environmental facilities, Jetties, Sewerage systems, Water supply systems	Limited to essential services

4. What is LOST (No Longer Permissible in C3)

Moving from RU2 to C3 would mean losing the right to conduct the following activities (which are currently permitted with consent in RU2):

– Tourism: Backpackers’ accommodation, Camping grounds, Caravan parks, Hotel or motel accommodation.

– Commercial: Kiosks, Neighbourhood shops, Restaurants or cafes, Rural supplies, Timber yards

– Industrial: Depots, Rural industries, Transport depots, Truck depots, Warehouse or distribution centres

– Community: Cemeteries, Crematoria, Places of public worship, Public administration buildings

– Recreation: Recreation facilities (indoor), Recreation facilities (major), Registered clubs

– Housing: Secondary dwellings

– Other: Airports, Airstrips, Helipads, Heliports, Marinas, Moorings, Wharf or boating facilities

5. What is GAINED or CLARIFIED in C3

– Intensive livestock agriculture and Intensive plant agriculture – explicitly permitted (they were not explicitly listed in RU2)

– Research stations – explicitly permitted

– Environmental facilities – now permitted without consent (was with consent in RU2)

– Natural hazard consideration – new objective requiring flood, bushfire, landslide risk assessment

Comparison Table: The Strategic Reclassification

Aspect	Current RU2	Proposed C3	Implication of Rezoning
Primary Purpose	Maintain rural landscape character while enabling diverse uses	Protect special environmental values; only low-impact uses allowed	From multi-use rural to single-purpose conservatio*
Economic Base	Broad: farming, tourism, retail, light industry, forestry	Narrow: extensive agriculture (with consent), intensive agriculture, eco-tourism, research	Severe reduction in economic development potential
Tourism	Diverse accommodation and food services	Only agritourism, B&B, eco-tourism, farm stay; no hotels, caravan parks, or restaurants	Tourism becomes subordinate to environmental values
Commercial Activity	Kiosks, shops, restaurants, rural supplies	Effectively prohibited (only roadside stalls remain	No commercial core – the zone cannot function as a service centre
Housing	Standard dwellings, dual occupancies, secondary dwellings	Dual occupancies and dwellings only; no secondary dwellings	Slightly reduced housing flexibility
Industrial Activity	Extractive industries, rural industries, depots, timber yards	Extractive industries only	Most industrial uses prohibited
Community Facilities	Wide range (cemeteries, churches, public admin)	Narrowed to environmental education and research	Loss of community hub functions
Control Mechanism	Flexible, permissive list	Highly restrictive list; many former uses are now prohibited by omission	Much tighter control; less ambiguity but also less flexibility

Current RU2 -> Proposed C2

Draft LEP

LEP

A planned rezoning. The differences are stark and reveal a fundamental change in land management philosophy. This change constitutes a “TAKING” of property value. Moving from RU2 to C2means losing the right to conduct almost all current rural and tourism activities. Affected […]

26 April 2026

A planned rezoning. The differences are stark and reveal a fundamental change in land management philosophy. This change constitutes a “TAKING” of property value. Moving from RU2 to C2means losing the right to conduct almost all current rural and tourism activities. Affected landowners would have strong grounds for claiming compensation from the government, as their right to farm or develop has been extinguished.

A Contested and Compensable Rezoning

Comparing these zones reveals what is likely a highly contentious strategic planning decision: to rezone certain “Rural Landscape” areas to “Environmental Conservation.”

Major Implications & Likely Conflicts:

* Property Rights & Compensation: This change would likely constitute a “TAKING” of property value. Affected landowners would have strong grounds for claiming compensation from the government, as their right to farm or develop has been extinguished.

* Existing Uses: Existing homes and farms would likely become “existing uses” with limited rights to repair or rebuild. Their long-term viability is threatened.

* Community Opposition: This would be fiercely opposed by rural communities and landowners who see it as a top-down removal of their livelihood and way of life without consent.

In summary, this comparison doesn’t just show a zoning update—it reveals a fundamental and potentially explosive shift in land use policy. Rezoning from RU2 to C2 moves land from the realm of private, productive enterprise into the realm of public, protected environmental estate, with profound legal, financial, and social consequences. It is the type of change that defines planning battles and shapes regions for generations.

The DPHI Strategic Intent

To comply with State Policy: Driven by biodiversity or climate change policies requiring stronger protection of certain land types.

Overall Shift: From Productive Rural to Protected Environment

* Current RU2: A flexible, multi-functional rural zone for agriculture, rural living, tourism, and various supporting industries. Its focus is on land use and production within a rural landscape.

* Proposed C2: A strict, protection-focused environmental zone. Its sole purpose is to protect and restore high ecological, scientific, cultural, or aesthetic values. All human activity is subordinate to this goal.

Key Changes & Their Implications

1. Complete Overhaul of Zone Objectives

* RU2 Objectives: Focus on sustainable primary industry, rural character, a range of compatible uses, rural tourism, and preventing fragmentation for agriculture.

* C2 Objectives: Solely to protect, manage, and restore environmental values and prevent adverse effects.

* Implication: The land’s purpose is being redefined from **productive asset** to **conservation asset**. Economic and social objectives are removed in favor of ecological ones.

2. Drastic Reduction in Permissible Activities

This is the most dramatic change. Moving from RU2 to C2 means losing the right to conduct almost all current rural and tourism activities.

* Activities Lost (No Longer Permissible): Virtually all agricultural production (`Agriculture`, `Extensive agriculture`, `Horticulture`), all intensive tourism (`Hotels`, `Backpackers`, `Caravan parks`, `Restaurants`), all retail (`Kiosks`, `Neighbourhood shops`, `Roadside stalls`), and all industrial/rural support uses (`Rural industries`, `Timber yards`, `Depots`, `Extractive industries`).

* Activities Gained/Grandfathered: A very limited set of compatible uses: `Dwelling houses` (likely existing only), `Eco-tourist facilities`, `Bee keeping`, `Research stations`, and essential environmental/infrastructure works.

* Implication: For a landowner, this represents a **catastrophic reduction in property rights and economic potential**. A functioning farm or tourism business could no longer operate or be re-established if it ceased. The value of the land would likely plummet, as its development potential is erased.

3. New, Stringent Prohibitions

The C2 zone introduces explicit prohibitions that are far more sweeping than RU2’s catch-all clause.

* Key New Bans: `Forestry`, `Business premises`, all `Retail premises`, `Service stations`, `Warehouse or distribution centres`. This creates an absolute barrier against any commercial or industrial development.

* Implication: This solidifies the zone’s protective intent and prevents any argument for “compatible” commercial ventures.

Comparison Table: The Radical Transformation

Aspect	Current RU2	Proposed C2	Implication of Change
Core Purpose	Multifunctional rural production and living.	Single-minded environmental protection.	Shift from human-centric to ecology-centric management.
Economic Base	Broad: Farming, tourism, forestry, rural services.	*Extremely narrow:** Only eco-tourism, research, bee keeping. Existing dwellings may remain.	**Severe devaluation of land for traditional rural enterprises.**
Tourism	Encouraged & Diverse: B&Bs, hotels, caravan parks, cafes.	Highly Restricted: Only `Eco-tourist facilities` (low-impact, educational).	Tourism becomes a conservation tool, not an economic driver.
Agriculture	The foundation of the zone (`Extensive agriculture` without consent)	Effectively prohibited (except `Bee keeping`).	Existing farms become non-conforming uses. Future agricultural use is banned.
Residential Use	Encouraged (`Dwelling houses`, `Secondary dwellings`).	Only existing `Dwelling houses` likely contemplated. No new subdivision.	Freezes rural residential development.
Control Mechanism	Permissive list; many uses allowed.	Highly restrictive list; almost everything is prohibited.	Places an absolute ceiling on development intensity.

Current RU1 -> Proposed RU2

Draft LEP

LEP

A strategic reclassification of land from a productive agricultural zone to a landscape protection zone. Electricity generating works ie., solar farms, wind turbines and battery storage. A Fundamental De-prioritisation of Production Rezoning from Current RU1 to Proposed RU2 represents a “strategic decision […]

26 April 2026

A strategic reclassification of land from a productive agricultural zone to a landscape protection zone. Electricity generating works ie., solar farms, wind turbines and battery storage.

A Fundamental De-prioritisation of Production

Rezoning from Current RU1 to Proposed RU2 represents a “strategic decision to reclassify land away from a primary production focus towards a landscape protection focus.“

Major Implications for Landowners:

– Loss of Development Rights: Activities that were once “as-of-right” (forestry, horticulture, roads) now require consent, adding time, cost, and uncertainty.

– Reduced Economic Potential: The prohibition on certain tourism and retail uses (B&Bs, kiosks, restaurants) may reduce income diversification opportunities.

– Potential Property Devaluation: For a working farm, being rezoned from a “production” zone to a “landscape” zone could negatively impact land value, as the primary permitted use is no longer the priority.

In summary, this is not a minor update—it is a fundamental change in land use philosophy. Moving from RU1 to RU2 tells landowners: “Your land’s primary value is now its landscape character, not its productive capacity.” This will be a highly contentious rezoning likely to face significant opposition from agricultural stakeholders who rely on the production-focused objectives and permissive nature of RU1.

Overall Shift: From Productive Agriculture to Landscape Protection

– Current RU1: A zone focused on sustainable primary industry production as its primary goal. It encourages farming, diversity in agricultural enterprises, and minimises fragmentation of resource lands. Eco-tourism is permitted but must minimise adverse effects on production.

– Proposed RU2: A zone focused on **maintaining the rural landscape character** as its primary goal. It encourages sustainable primary industry and extensive agriculture, but also provides for compatible land uses. Tourism is reframed from “eco-tourism” to “small-scale and complementary rural tourism.”

Key Changes & Their Implications

Fundamental Shift in Zone Objectives

– RU1 Objectives: Emphasis on **encouraging sustainable primary industry**, maintaining the natural resource base for production, minimising fragmentation of *resource lands*, and minimising land use conflict. Eco-tourism is secondary and must not harm production.

– RU2 Objectives: Emphasis on **maintaining the rural landscape character**, promoting *productive rural landscapes* (note: different phrasing), and providing for compatible uses including extensive agriculture. The tourism objective is removed entirely.

– Implication: The primary purpose changes from **production-first** to **landscape-first**. Agriculture becomes one of several compatible uses, not the overriding priority. This represents a significant de-emphasis of primary production as the zone’s raison d’être.

2. Changes to “Permitted Without Consent”

– RU1: `Environmental protection works; Extensive agriculture; Forestry; Home occupations; Horticulture; Roads; Viticulture`

– RU2: `Environmental protection works; Extensive agriculture; Home businesses; Home occupations`

– Implication of Losses (now require consent or are prohibited):

– `Forestry` – Now requires consent. A major increase in control over timber operations.

– `Horticulture` – Now requires consent. Commercial plant growing is no longer as-of-right.

– `Roads` – Now requires consent. Council gains oversight of new road construction.

– `Viticulture` – Now requires consent. Vineyard establishment is now subject to assessment.

Gain: `Home businesses` promoted to “without consent,” encouraging home-based enterprise.

3. Dramatic Restructuring of “Permitted with Consent”

The lists are entirely different, reflecting the different philosophies.

Category	Current RU1	Proposed RU2	Implication
Core Agriculture	Agriculture (broad), Intensive livestock agriculture, Intensive plant agriculture`	Intensive livestock agriculture, Intensive plant agriculture (explicitly listed)	Intensive agriculture remains; broad Agriculture is removed.
Tourism	Backpackers accommodation, Bed and breakfast, Eco-tourist facilities, Farm stay accommodation	Agritourism (new category), Eco-tourist facilities, Tourist and visitor accommodation` (broad)	Shift from diverse specific types to a single Agritourism` focus. B&Bs and backpackers are prohibited in RU2
Commercial/Retail	Agricultural produce industries, Kiosks, Restaurants or cafes, Roadside stalls, Rural industries	Markets, Roadside stalls, Rural industries, Rural supplies	Kiosks and Restaurants are prohibited in RU2. Only Markets and Roadside stalls remain.
Housing	Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses	Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses, Rural workers’ dwellings, Secondary dwellings	Adds more housing flexibility for workers and extended families.
Industrial	Extractive industries, Open cut mining	Extractive industries, Open cut mining	Unchanged.
Community	Cemeteries, Community facilities, Educational establishments	Cemeteries, Community facilities, Group homes, Places of public worship, Respite day care centres	Expands community uses.
Infrastructure	Flood mitigation works, Waste or resource transfer stations	Electricity generating works ie. solar farms, wind turbines and battery storage, Sewerage systems, Telecommunications facilities, Water supply systems	Adds modern utility infrastructure.

4. Introduction of a Detailed “Prohibited” List

– RU1: Has a catch-all prohibition (`Any development not specified in item 2 or 3`).

– RU2: Introduces a **detailed prohibited list** of specific uses.

– What is Explicitly Prohibited in RU2 (that was allowed in RU1 with consent):

– Tourism: `Backpackers’ accommodation`, `Caravan parks`, `Hotel or motel accommodation`, `Restaurants or cafes`

– Commercial: `Kiosks`, `Neighbourhood shops`, `Shops`

– Transport: `Airports`, `Freight transport facilities`, `Heliports`, `Port facilities`

– Industry: `Heavy industries`, `Industries`, `Warehouse or distribution centres`

– Other: `Brothels`, `Correctional centres`, `Sex services premises`

– Implication: This creates a strong line between RU2 and more intensive uses. RU2 is explicitly not for standalone tourism resorts, retail, heavy industry, or logistics hubs.

Comparison Table: The Strategic Reclassification

Aspect	Current RU1	Proposed RU2	Implication of Rezoning
Primary Purpose	Encourage sustainable primary industry production.	Maintain the rural landscape character.	From production-first to landscape-first.
Tourism Stance	Eco-tourism permitted if it minimises adverse effects on production.	Agritourism and small-scale complementary tourism.	Tourism must be subordinate to rural character, not just not harm production.
As-of-Right Activities	Broad: forestry, horticulture, viticulture, roads, extensive agriculture.	Narrow: extensive agriculture, home businesses, home occupations, environmental works.	Major reduction in permitted development rights. Most productive activities now require consent.
Housing Model	Standard rural dwellings and dual occupancies.	Adds workers’ dwellings and secondary dwellings.	Slightly more housing flexibility for farm labour.
Commercial Core	Allows some retail (kiosks, restaurants).	Prohibits most retail. Only markets and roadside stalls allowed.	Prevents commercialisation. Keeps the zone non-urban.
Control Mechanism	Permissive list; many uses allowed with consent.	Permissive list + long prohibited list.****	Much more prescriptive. Provides certainty but less flexibility.

Current RU5 -> Proposed RU5

Draft LEP

LEP

This change represents a massive expansion of the zone’s scope, transforming it from a basic rural village zone into a much more comprehensive and permissive “rural town” or “service centre” zone. From Village to Growth Centre The Proposed RU5 zone represents a […]

26 April 2026

From Village to Growth Centre

The Proposed RU5 zone represents a quantum leap in the intended function of rural villages under this planning framework. It is no longer a zone for quiet, contained settlements, but a strategic tool for facilitating the growth of key rural settlements into larger, more self-sufficient service and tourism hubs.

Strategic Intent:

1. Decentralisation & Regional Development: By allowing a wide range of uses, it encourages investment and job creation in rural villages, supporting population growth outside major urban centres.

2. Tourism-Led Growth: The extensive tourist uses suggest a policy to capitalise on scenic and historic village settings.

3. Character-Led Planning: The new heritage/scenic objective is the critical counterbalance. It signals that while economic growth is encouraged, it must be achieved in a way that protects and enhances the very village character that makes these places attractive.

Stakeholder Impact:

* Village Residents: Could see significant change, with potential for both positive (more services, jobs) and negative (increased traffic, loss of character) impacts.

* Developers & Investors: Have a very wide range of opportunities, but will face scrutiny to ensure proposals are “consistent with the village character.”

* Local Council: Has been given a powerful but double-edged tool. They can foster growth but must be vigilant in using development controls (like detailed Local Environmental Plans, Development Control Plans) to manage the form, scale, and design of new developments to prevent character erosion.

In summary, the proposed RU5 is a high-flexibility, high-ambition zone designed to transform suitable rural villages into economically active nodes in the regional network. Its success will hinge entirely on the strength of the accompanying character and design controls.

Overall Shift in Philosophy

* Current: A **simple, focused zone** providing essential services, housing, and limited tourism for a rural village. The single objective is broad but implies a contained scale.

* Proposed: An expansive, multi-functional zone aimed at creating self-contained rural communities with diverse economies, housing, and tourist appeal. The new objectives add layers of purpose around community, heritage, and scenic quality.

Key Changes & Their Implications

1. Expansion and Refinement of Zone Objectives

* Added: “To enable diverse housing and employment uses to create inclusive communities consistent with the village character.” – This explicitly encourages economic diversity and housing variety as a means to achieve community vitality.

* Added: “To enhance the historical significance and scenic quality of village settings.” – Introduces heritage and landscape conservation as a core planning concern for villages.

* Implication: The zone is now tasked with not just providing for a village, but **actively shaping its economic resilience, social inclusivity, and physical character.**

2. Minor Changes to “Permitted Without Consent”

* Current: `Home occupations; Roads`.

* Proposed: `Bee keeping; Environmental protection works; Home businesses; Home occupations`.

* Implication: `Home businesses` are promoted (from “with consent”), encouraging micro-enterprise. `Bee keeping` is specifically recognised as a low-impact rural activity. `Roads` now require consent, giving the council control over new road layout and design within the village, which is crucial for managing character and safety.

3. Explosive Expansion of “Permitted with Consent”

This is the most dramatic change. The proposed list is **extremely long and inclusive**, adding uses that would traditionally be found in urban or industrial zones:

* Major Tourism Expansion: `Amusement centres; Backpackers accommodation; Bed and breakfast accommodation; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Hotel or motel accommodation; Marinas; Registered clubs`. This positions villages as potential **tourism destinations**, not just service stops.

* Significant Industrial & Service Expansion: `Boat building and repair facilities; Depots; Industrial retail outlets; Light Industries; Storage premises; Transport depots; Truck depots; Vehicle repair stations; Warehouse and distribution centres`. This allows villages to host **light industry, logistics, and service trades**, creating local employment.

* Expanded Commercial & Retail: `Commercial premises; Function centres; Service stations` are added to the existing `Neighbourhood shops`.

* New Community & Utilities: `Cemeteries; Crematoria; Emergency services facilities; Health services facilities; Mortuaries; Public administration buildings; Sewerage systems`.

* Recreation & Infrastructure: `Recreation facilities (major); Resource recovery facilities; Waste or resource transfer stations`.

**Implication:** The proposed RU5 zone can now accommodate the functions of a **small country town**. It has the potential for a main street (`Commercial premises`), light industrial estate, tourist precinct, and full suite of community services, all within the “Village” zone.

4. Removal of the Formal “Prohibited” List*

* Current: Uses a standard catch-all prohibition.

* Proposed: No specific prohibited list. The clause reverts to the standard `Any development not specified in item 2 or 3`.

* Implication: Because the “Permitted with Consent” list is so exhaustive, there is little need for a specific prohibited list. Almost every conceivable rural and semi-urban use is already included. Truly incompatible uses (like Heavy Industry or Airports) would be captured by the catch-all. This structure offers **maximum flexibility** to planners and proponents.

Comparison Table: The Evolution of RU5

Aspect	Current RU5	Proposed RU5	Implication
Core Purpose	Provide basic village services	Create vibrant, inclusive, economically diverse rural communities with tourism appeal.	Shift from servicing a rural population to developing destinations.
Economic Base	Small shops, cafes, agritourism, basic services.	Diverse: Light industry, logistics, major tourism, commercial premises, marine industries.	Can support a much broader and stronger local job market.
Tourism Role	Minor (`Tourist and visitor accommodation`).	Major: Hotels, motels, backpackers, caravan parks, amusement centres, marinas.	Actively encourages villages to grow their tourist economy.
Industrial Activity	`Local distribution premises` only.	`Light Industries`, `Warehouse and distribution centres`, `Depots`, `Vehicle repair`.	Allows villages to have proper employment lands, reducing commute dependency.
Housing	Good variety already (Dual occupancies, Seniors housing, Secondary dwellings).	Unchanged, but supported by the broader economic base.	Housing diversity is supported by job diversity.
Character Control	Not mentioned in objectives.	Explicit objective to enhance historical significance and scenic quality.	New developments (even warehouses or depots) must be sensitive to village character and scenery.
Planning Control	Moderate flexibility.	Extreme flexibility with a vast permissive list and no specific prohibitions.	Places immense importance on development assessment and design controls to ensure compatibility with village character.

Current RU4 -> Proposed RU4

Draft LEP

LEP

The proposed changes are extremely significant and represent a fundamental expansion and redefinition of this zone’s role. From Niche to Hub The Proposed RU4 zone undergoes the most radical transformation of all the rural zones. It is redesigned from the ground up […]

26 April 2026

The proposed changes are extremely significant and represent a fundamental expansion and redefinition of this zone’s role.

From Niche to Hub

The Proposed RU4 zone undergoes the most radical transformation of all the rural zones. It is redesigned from the ground up to be a key zone for rural economic and community development on smaller land holdings.

Strategic Intent Appears to Be:

1. Create Rural Activity Nodes: Allow the development of small, contained rural communities/hubs with a mix of housing, local tourism, artisan production, and essential services, preventing the need for residents to travel to urban areas.

2. Maximise Economic Use of Small Lots: By allowing a wide array of compatible uses, it increases the economic viability and resilience of smaller rural properties.

3. Manage Growth Pressures: The detailed prohibited list ensures these hubs do not spontaneously urbanise into towns or industrial estates. The “rural landscape character” objective is the ultimate check on development intensity.

Stakeholder Impact:

* Landowners gain a huge array of new potential development options, significantly increasing land value and flexibility.

* Local Communities may see the emergence of new local services, tourist attractions, and employment opportunities within the rural area.

* Planners & Councils are given a powerful but complex tool. They will have great discretion (via the consent process) to shape these emerging rural hubs, ensuring they meet the zone’s multiple new objectives and do not create conflict.

In summary, the proposed RU4 shifts from a restrictive, production-only zone to a highly enabling, multi-functional zone designed to foster semi-self-contained rural communities. It represents a bold policy shift towards decentralised rural development.

Overall Shift in Philosophy

* Current: A narrowly focused zone for small-lot, potentially intensive primary production (like horticulture, plant nurseries) with minimal tourism (B&Bs, farm stays) and very limited other uses.

* Proposed: Transforms into a broad rural enterprise and community zone that actively encourages diversified agriculture, agritourism, and a wide range of supporting rural services, while still prohibiting large-scale urban or industrial uses.

Key Changes & Their Implications

1. Major Expansion of Zone Objectives

The proposal adds three new objectives, dramatically broadening the zone’s purpose:

* *Added: “To provide for rural tourism in association with the primary industry production capability of the land…” – This **explicitly introduces tourism** as a core goal.

* Added: “To promote productive rural landscapes by minimising the fragmentation of rural land.” – Aligns with the state-wide rural land protection theme.

* Added: “To maintain the rural landscape character of the land.”– Introduces a key character protection objective.

* Implication: RU4 is no longer just about “small lot primary production.” It is now envisioned as a **multifunctional rural zone** where production, tourism, landscape, and community services intersect.

2. Changes to “Permitted Without Consent”

* Current: `Extensive agriculture; Forestry; Home occupations; Intensive plant agriculture`.

* Proposed: `Environmental protection works; Extensive agriculture; Home businesses; Home occupations`.

* Implication: `Forestry` and `Intensive plant agriculture` now require consent, giving planners more control over these potentially impactful activities on smaller lots. Promoting `Home businesses` to “without consent” encourages rural entrepreneurship.

3. Explosive Expansion of “Permitted with Consent“

The proposed list is vastly longer, turning RU4 into one of the most permissive rural zones for a wide array of uses:

* New Tourism & Agritourism Focus: `Agritourism; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Charter of tourism boating facilities; Camping grounds; Function centres`.

* Expanded Rural Enterprise: `Artisan food and drink industries; Markets; Rural supplies; Timber yards; Vehicle repair stations`.

* New Community & Social Infrastructure: `Places of public worship; Public administration buildings; Correctional centres; Health service facilities; Educational establishments; Cemeteries; Crematoria`.

* Expanded Industrial & Service Uses: `Extractive industries; Open cut mining; Depots; Transport depots; Waste or resource management facilities`.

* Recreation & Utilities: `Recreation facilities (major); Electricity generating works ie. solar farms, wind turbines and battery storage; Telecommunications facilities`.

* Housing Flexibility: `Dual occupancies` (no longer specified as “attached”), `Secondary dwellings`, `Rural workers’ dwellings` are all included.

Implication: This transforms RU4 from a niche production zone into a comprehensive rural activity zone. It can now accommodate a small rural village centre with a church, admin building, and tourist facilities, surrounded by small farms and supporting industries.

4. Introduction of a Formal “Prohibited” List

* Current: Has a standard catch-all prohibition.

* Proposed: Introduces a detailed list of **49 prohibited uses**, mirroring the approach in proposed RU1/RU2.

* Implication: This creates a “bright line” against full urbanisation. While the zone is now very permissive, it still prohibits:

* Urban Retail/Commercial: `Shops, Neighbourhood shops, Kiosks, Restaurants or cafes, Commercial premises`.

* Major Tourism: `Backpackers’ accommodation, Hotel or motel accommodation, Caravan parks`.

* Heavy Industry & Logistics: `Heavy Industries, Warehouse or distribution centres, Freight transport facilities`.

* Specific Bans: `Airports, Brothels, Sex services premises`.

Comparison Table: The Transformation of RU4

Aspect	Current RU4	Proposed RU4	Implication
Core Purpose	Small-lot intensive plant agriculture.	Diversified small-lot agriculture + agritourism + rural community node.	Complete redefinition of the zone’s function.
Tourism	Limited to B&Bs and farm stays.	Actively encouraged as a core objective. `Agritourism`, `Tourist accommodation`, `Camping grounds` allowed.	Small-lot farms can now formally become tourist destinations.
Economic Base	Farming, roadside stalls, plant nurseries	Greatly diversified: Artisan production, markets, rural supplies, vehicle repair, resource management.	Becomes a zone for a complete rural economy.
Community Role	Almost none	Significant: Can include churches, schools, health services, crematoria, even correctional centres.	Can evolve into a service centre for surrounding rural areas.
Industrial Activity	Not contemplated.	Allows `Extractive industries`, `Open cut mining`, `Depots`.	Accepts that small-lot areas may have extractive resources or need service depots.
Housing	Dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies.	More flexible: `Dual occupancies`, `Secondary dwellings`, `Rural workers’ dwellings`.	Supports a slightly higher density of rural living.
Control Mechanism	Simple permissive list.	Complex, two-tiered system: A very long “Permitted with Consent” list balanced by a detailed “Prohibited” list.	Gives planners great flexibility to assess proposals against the new multi-faceted objectives.

Current RU3 -> Proposed RU3

Draft LEP

LEP

A Tightening of Controls. Electricity generating works ie. solar farms, wind turbines and battery storage. The Proposed RU3 zone is not a philosophical overhaul like RU1 or RU2, but a technical update with significant regulatory implications. Key Outcomes: 1. Strategic Control over […]

26 April 2026

A Tightening of Controls. Electricity generating works ie. solar farms, wind turbines and battery storage.

The Proposed RU3 zone is not a philosophical overhaul like RU1 or RU2, but a technical update with significant regulatory implications.

Key Outcomes:

1. Strategic Control over Roads: The requirement for consent for roads is the single most important change. It empowers planners to manage the environmental footprint of forestry operations directly.

2. Streamlined Legislation: Focusing the “as-of-right” use on the core *Forestry Act* and *Local Land Services Act* simplifies the regulatory framework.

3. Supporting Infrastructure Recognised: The zone pragmatically allows for the utilities and services (`Electricity generating works ie. solar farms, wind turbines and battery storage`, `Sewage systems`) that are claimed to be needed for modern, potentially more intensive forestry operations or associated `Rural industries`.

4. Maintained Exclusionary Character: By keeping the list of permissible non-forestry uses very short and specific, the zone continues to strongly resist diversification into tourism, agriculture, or residential uses, maintaining its primary purpose.

In essence, the proposal modernises the RU3 zone to give planning authorities a stronger hand in managing the environmental and spatial impacts of forestry (especially via roads) while providing a clearer framework for necessary supporting infrastructure and value-adding industries.

Overall Shift

* Current: A highly permissive zone for forestry operations, with a limited list of other compatible uses, and an explicit prohibition on Agritourism.

* Proposed: A more narrowly defined and controlled forestry zone. It reduces the “as-of-right” forestry uses, clarifies permissible supporting uses, and removes the blanket ban on other development, replacing it with a more conventional permissive/prohibited structure.

Key Changes & Their Implications

1. Objectives of Zone: Unchanged

The core objectives remain identical, signaling that the *purpose* of the zone is not changing, but the *mechanism* for achieving it is being refined.

2. Drastic Reduction in “Permitted Without Consent”

* Current: Includes `Roads` and `Uses authorised under the Plantations and Re-afforestation Act 1999` in addition to the main forestry acts.

* Proposed: Only `Uses authorised under the Forestry Act 2012 or under Part 5B (Private native forestry) of the Local Land Services Act 2013`.

* Implication:

* Roads: This is a major change. The construction of **roads now requires development consent**. This gives the planning authority significant control over the location, standard, and environmental impact of new roads within forestry areas, which is a critical tool for managing erosion, water quality, and habitat fragmentation.

* Plantations Act: The removal of this act from the “without consent” list suggests its operations will now likely require consent or may be covered under the broader “rural industries” or other categories. This streamlines and centralises control under the primary forestry legislation.

3. Complete Overhaul of “Permitted with Consent”

The list of compatible uses has been almost entirely replaced, reflecting a more modern and infrastructure-focused approach.

* Removed Uses: `Agriculture; Animal boarding/training; Extractive industries; Open cut mining; Flood mitigation works` (moved to PwC in other zones, but likely considered less compatible here).

* New/Retained Uses:

* Retained: `Aquaculture` remains, suggesting it is still seen as compatible.

* New Infrastructure: `Electricity generating works; Sewage reticulation systems; Water supply systems`. This allows for essential utilities to support forestry operations and potentially other compatible development.

* New Services: `Emergency services facilities; Environmental protection works`.

* New Industry: `Rural industries` – a broad category that could include sawmills, timber processing, or other value-adding related to forestry.

* Re-categorised: `Roads` moved here from “without consent”.

* Recreation: `Water recreation structures` is a new addition, potentially allowing for limited recreational use of dams or water bodies within forestry land.

4. Rationalisation of the “Prohibited” Clause

* Current: Explicitly prohibits `Agritourism` and uses a catch-all “Any other development not specified…”

* Proposed: Uses a standard, simpler catch-all: `Any development not specified in item 2 or 3`.

* Implication: The explicit ban on Agritourism is removed. Whether agritourism could now be considered depends on its interpretation. It does not neatly fit the new “Permitted with Consent” list, so it would likely be captured by the prohibited clause unless argued as a component of a `Rural industry` or another use. This change removes a specific policy stance but likely maintains a *de facto* prohibition through the narrow permissible list.

Comparison Table: Key Shifts in RU3

Aspect	Current RU3	Proposed RU3	Implication
Core Forestry Ops	Permitted without consent under 3 separate Acts.	Narrowed to the two main forestry Acts only.	Centralises control
Roads	Permitted Without Consent.	Permitted With Consent.	Major increase in control. Council can now regulate forestry road networks for environmental/landscape impacts.
Other Industries	Allows `Agriculture`, `Extractive industries`, `Open cut mining`.	Replaces with `Rural industries`.	Shifts focus to forestry-linked processing (`Rural industries`), while removing seemingly incompatible uses like open-cut mining.
Infrastructure	Limited mention.	Explicitly adds energy, water, sewerage utilities.	Recognises the claimed need to service forestry and any future compatible development.
Agritourism	Explicitly Prohibited.	Implicitly Prohibited** (via catch-all clause).	The policy intent to exclude tourism remains, but the blunt instrument is replaced by the zone’s narrow focus.
Flexibility	Very limited list of other uses.	Slightly more flexible list focused on supporting infrastructure and industry.	Allows for a more integrated forestry operation with on-site processing and so-called ‘renewable’ utilities.

Current RU2 -> Proposed RU2

A move away from a flexible, multi-functional rural zone towards a highly prescriptive, protectionist zone.Note: Electricity generating works, which includes solar farms, wind turbines and battery storage are allowed with consent. Comparison Table: Key Shifts in RU2 Category Current RU2 Proposed RU2 […]

24 April 2026

Comparison Table: Key Shifts in RU2

Category	Current RU2	Proposed RU2
Core Purpose	Mixed rural living, enterprise, and tourism.	Landscape protection & primary production first. Other uses are secondary and highly controlled.
Tourism Stance	Explicitly encouraged (“provide for rural tourism”).	Not mentioned in objectives.Agritourism and Tourist and visitor accommodation (broad) are permissible, but specific forms (B&B, Hotel) are prohibited.
Commercial Activity	Allows Neighbourhood shops, Kiosks, Restaurants.	All shops, cafes, and kiosks are prohibited. Only Roadside stalls and Markets are allowed.
Community Services	Allows Places of public worship, Centre-based child care, Public admin buildings.	Most are prohibited, limiting the zone’s role in providing community nodes
Housing	Dwelling houses, Dual occupancies, Secondary dwellings allowed.	Largely unchanged, but Rural workers’ dwellings added to support primary production.
Landscape Control	Objective to “maintain” character.	Strengthened by removing conflicting uses (tourism, commercial, industrial) that could compromise it

Overall Shift in Philosophy

* Current: A “flexible rural living and enterprise zone” that permits a wide mix of uses including various tourism, retail, and light industrial activities alongside agriculture.

* Proposed: A “tighter, more protective landscape-focused zone” that actively discourages urbanisation, larger-scale commercial development, and standalone tourism to preserve landscape character and prevent fragmentation.

Key Changes & Their Implications

1. Objectives of Zone: A Sharp Refocus

* Removed Objective:”To provide for rural tourism in association with the primary industry capability of the land…”. This is a major philosophical shift away from explicitly encouraging tourism.

* Revised Objective: “To secure a future for agriculture… by minimising the fragmentation…” is changed to “To promote productive rural landscapes by minimising the fragmentation of rural land.” This broadens the focus from just agriculture to the overall ‘productive landscape’.

* Implication:** The zone’s purpose is being re-centred on **landscape protection and primary production**, with tourism and other uses taking a subordinate, strictly controlled role.

2. Expansion of “Permitted Without Consent”

* Current: Only `Extensive agriculture; Home occupations`.

* Proposed: `Environmental protection works; Extensive agriculture; Home businesses; Home occupations`.

* Implication: `Home businesses` are promoted to a more accepted status, and `Environmental protection works` are formally recognised as foundational. This encourages small, low-impact rural enterprises and environmental management.

3. Major Reshuffle of “Permitted with Consent”

The proposed list removes many “urban” or “commercial” uses and adds new rural-supporting ones:

* New/Emphasised Uses: `Agritourism; Artisan food and drink industries; Markets; Research stations; Rural workers’ dwellings; Electricity generating works; Telecommunications facilities`. This supports a modern, diversified, but still land-based rural economy.

* Notable Removals (moved to Prohibited): See next section. Crucially, many specific tourism and retail uses are gone.

* Broad Category Introduced: `Tourist and visitor accommodation` replaces several specific types (B&B, Backpackers, etc.), giving planners discretion but within a narrower overall intent.

4. Drastic Expansion of the “Prohibited” List

This is the most impactful change, fundamentally altering what the RU2 zone can be used for. The proposed zone now explicitly bans a vast array of developments currently allowed with consent, including:

* Tourism & Accommodation: `Backpackers’ accommodation; Bed and breakfast accommodation; Caravan parks; Hotel or motel accommodation`.

* Food & Retail: `Kiosks; Neighbourhood shops; Restaurants or cafes; Shops`.

* Community & Services: `Centre-based child care; Crematoria; Places of public worship; Public administration buildings; Respite day care centres`.

* Recreation: `Marinas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (major); Registered clubs`.

* Industry & Storage: `Industries; Warehouse or distribution centres; Freight transport facilities; Storage premises`.

* Specific Infrastructure: `Airports; Heliports`.

Implication: This creates a ‘bright line’ against urbanisation. It prevents RU2 land from becoming a location for larger-scale tourist resorts, commercial hubs, or light industrial estates, which are seen as incompatible with the core objective of maintaining the rural landscape.

Key Drivers of the Change:

1. Landscape Paramount: The objective to “maintain the rural landscape character” becomes the overriding principle, justifying the extensive prohibited list.

2. Anti-Urbanisation: By prohibiting shops, cafes, major recreation facilities, and larger tourist accommodations, the proposal seeks to prevent rural land from transforming into quasi-urban or commercial destinations.

3. Refocused Economy: The economic base is shifted firmly towards **primary production and its direct, small-scale diversification** (artisan, agritourism, markets), not secondary service industries.

Stakeholder Impact:

* Landowners may find their development options significantly reduced, particularly for tourism or commercial ventures.

* Existing Businesses operating uses that will become prohibited (e.g., a B&B, a small cafe, a childcare centre) may have existing use rights but could face restrictions on expansion or redevelopment.

* Community: Access to certain services (like a local place of worship or a larger childcare centre) within the rural landscape will no longer be a permissible planning outcome under this zone.

In summary, the proposed RU2 is a much “tighter” zone designed to act as a strong policy instrument to contain urban sprawl, preserve scenic landscapes, and ensure rural land remains primarily for rural purposes.

LEP Zoning Changes

Draft LEP

LEP

The pages listed under this menu have comparisons of zoning permissions and prohibitions in the current LEP with those that will be introduced at the time of the gazetting of the Draft LEP. Many properties will remain with the same zoning and […]

24 April 2026

Current RU1 -> Proposed RU1 Zone

Draft LEP

LEP

The changes are significant and represent a major shift in planning philosophy for the Primary Production zone. Electricity generating works will be permitted with consent ie., Solar Farms, Wind Turbines and Battery Storage. The Proposed RU1 zone represents a more prescriptive and […]

24 April 2026

The Proposed RU1 zone represents a more prescriptive and protective planning framework. It aims to:

1. Allow Electricity generating works with consent.

2. Prevent urbanisation and fragmentation by prohibiting a wide range of commercial, industrial, and standalone tourism uses.

3. Actively shape rural economic diversification towards on-farm value adding (`Artisan food industries`), direct sales (`Markets`, `Cellar door`), and farm-linked tourism (`Agritourism`).

4. Strengthen landscape and character protection as a core objective.

Stakeholders (farmers, rural businesses, tourism operators, residents) would need to carefully review these changes, as they significantly alter what can and cannot be done on land currently zoned RU1. Uses like existing caravan parks or B&Bs may become prohibited uses if redeveloped.

Summary of Impacts

Aspect	Current RU1	Proposed RU1
Core Purpose	Primary production, with some supporting tourism.	Diversified primary production + agritourism. Tourism must be linked to the farm.
Dev. Control	Lighter touch for forestry, viticulture, roads.	Tighter control. More uses need consent, giving council more oversight.
Tourism Model	B&Bs, caravan parks, cafes allowed.	Agritourism focused. Traditional tourist accommodation/commerce is prohibited.
Rural Character	Implied protection from conflict.	Explicitly protected via a new objective and a long prohibited list.
Housing	Dwellings and dual occupancies allowed (with consent).	Largely unchanged, but with added options for rural workers’ and secondary dwellings.
Home Businesses	Allowed with consent.	Promoted by being made permitted without consent.

Here is a summary of the key changes, structured to highlight their implications.

Overall Shift in Philosophy

* Current: Focused on primary production with limited, low-impact tourism and rural living.

* Proposed: Expands to actively encourage agritourism and a wider range of small-scale rural enterprises, while tightening restrictions on uses considered incompatible with the new vision (like large-scale tourism or urban-style development).

Notable Practical Implications

– Tourism: Current RU1 allows eco-tourist facilities, farm stay, backpackers’, camping, caravan parks, B&B, cellar door with consent. Proposed RU1 allows agritourism, tourist & visitor accommodation, camping grounds, eco-tourist facilities with consent, but prohibits backpackers’, caravan parks, B&B (unless ‘tourist & visitor accommodation’ covers B&B – likely not, as B&B is a specific use elsewhere). This suggests a shift away from budget/large-scale tourism toward smaller-scale, farm-integrated agritourism.

– Residential: Current RU1 allows dwelling houses and dual occupancies with consent. Proposed adds secondary dwellings and rural workers’ dwellings with consent, but prohibits all other ‘residential accommodation’ (which would include multi-dwelling housing, residential flat buildings, etc.).

– Commercial: Current RU1 allows restaurants/cafes, kiosks, roadside stalls, function centres with consent. Proposed allows roadside stalls, function centres, markets, but prohibits restaurants/cafes, kiosks, shops, commercial premises. This significantly limits retail/food service.

– Heavy industry: Both zones prohibit heavy industry (explicitly in proposed; via default in current). Current allows extractive industries, open cut mining with consent; proposed retains that.

– Forestry & horticulture: Downgraded from ‘permitted without consent’ to ‘with consent’, giving council more control.

Overall Planning Direction

The proposed RU1 zone is more restrictive on non-primary-production uses, especially commercial tourism, retail, and residential development. It seeks to protect rural landscape character and channel tourism through ‘agritourism’ tied directly to primary production capability, rather than standalone visitor accommodation or eateries.

Major Changes & Their Implications

1. Drastic Reduction in “Permitted Without Consent”

* Current: Includes `Extensive agriculture; Forestry; Roads; Viticulture.’

* Proposed: Only `Environmental protection works; Extensive agriculture; Home businesses; Home occupations`.

* Implication: Forestry and Viticulture now require development consent, giving the planning authority greater control over these activities. This could be to manage environmental impacts or landscape character.

2. Significant Expansion of “Permitted with Consent”

The proposed list is much longer and introduces many new uses, reflecting the diversified rural economy vision:

* New Agritourism & Rural Enterprise Focus: `Agritourism; Artisan food and drink industries; Markets; Plant nurseries; Rural supplies.’

* Expanded Tourist Accommodation: `Tourist and visitor accommodation` is now a broad category (replacing specific types like B&Bs).

* New Infrastructure & Services: `Electricity generating works; Sewerage systems; Water supply systems; Telecommunications facilities; Depots; Transport depots`.

* Additional Rural Uses: `Rural workers’ dwellings; Secondary dwellings; Research stations`.

* New Community & Recreation: `Recreation facilities (major); Places of public worship; Respite day care centres`.

Notable Re-categorisations:

* `Dwelling houses` and `Dual occupancies` remain permissible with consent.

* `Home businesses` moved from “with consent” to “without consent”, encouraging small home-based enterprises.

* `Roads` moved from “without consent” to “with consent”, implying greater scrutiny of new road construction.

3. Dramatic Expansion of the “Prohibited” List

This is the most striking change. The proposed zone prohibits a wide array of uses that are currently permissible with consent, fundamentally changing the zone’s character:

* Tourism & Accommodation: `Backpackers’ accommodation; Bed and breakfast accommodation; Caravan parks; Hotel or motel accommodation; Restaurants or cafes` are now prohibited. This suggests a move away from standalone tourism towards tourism that is directly complementary to primary production (Agritourism).

* Commercial & Retail: `Kiosks; Neighbourhood shops; Shops; Commercial premises` are now prohibited, preventing commercial sprawl.

* Industrial: Many industrial and storage uses are now explicitly prohibited (`Warehouse or distribution centres; Freight transport facilities; Storage premises`), protecting the zone from large-scale industrial intrusion.

* Specific Bans: `Airports; Brothels; Sex services premises; Correctional centres` are now explicitly listed as prohibited.

4. Changes to Objectives

* Revised Tourism Objective: The objective changes from encouraging “eco-tourism enterprises that minimise adverse effects”to “provide for small-scale and complementary rural tourism in association with the primary industry capability of the land.” This is more restrictive and ties tourism directly to farming.

* New Objective: “To maintain the rural landscape character of the land.” This new objective supports the prohibitions on urban-style development.

How to Find Your Property on the Mapping Portal

blog

Draft LEP

LEP

1 min

Either use this link https://cloudmaps.midcoast.nsw.gov.au/ or, as I outline in the YouTube video linked below, go to https://www.midcoast.nsw.gov.au – Development (use the dropdown menu) – Mapping – then choose Mapping Portal. https://youtu.be/odSjE9VT1b8 The video shows how to locate your property and discover […]

21 April 2026

Tagged blog, Draft LEP, land zones, LEP

Overall MCC RU1 Zone Changes – Part 1

blog

Draft LEP

LEP

8 min
5

9 April 2026

Tagged blog, Draft LEP, land zones

This post is about macro level changes to RU1 land which will take place at the time of gazettal of the Draft LEP. My next post will analyse RU1 land that will become RU2 but for now I’ll look at the land that will remain as RU1. Shown below is a screenshot of the whole LGA and their current zonings.

And below is shown the Draft LEP zonings.

Straight away it’s obvious that there are big changes in the old Taree and Gloucester council areas. The colouring of the zones can make the zone changes difficult to see, so below I’m showing only the current RU1 zones.

And below are the Draft RU1 zones.

HUGE areas, covering almost half of our LGA, will no longer be the least restrictive rural zone, RU1. Looking at the remaining RU1 zone around Gloucester it’s worthwhile to see how that zone will change. You’ll find the conditions placed on the current and draft RU1 zones here.

This is an AI analysis of a comparison between the current and draft.

Summary of Key Changes

Objectives: The proposed zone adds two new objectives: promoting small-scale rural tourism and maintaining rural landscape character.
Permitted without consent: Home businesses are upgraded (from ‘with consent’ to ‘without consent’); Forestry and Viticulture are downgraded to ‘with consent’; Extensive agriculture remains, but Horticulture is removed from this list.
Permitted with consent: Major additions include Agritourism, Artisan food & drink industries, Tourist & visitor accommodation, Secondary dwellings, and various industrial-type uses (Depots, Timber yards, Transport depots). Many rural tourism uses (e.g., Farm stay, Eco-tourist facilities) are retained but renamed/regrouped.
Prohibited: Drastic expansion of prohibited uses. Previously, only unspecified uses were prohibited. Now, 50+ specific uses are banned, including Airports, Backpackers’ accommodation, Caravan parks, Restaurants or cafes, Shops, Service stations, Hotels/motels, and most residential accommodation (except dwellings, dual occ, group homes, secondary dwellings, rural workers’ dwellings).

Detailed Comparison Table

Provision	Current RU1	Proposed RU1	Change
Zone Objectives	5 objectives: sustainable primary production, diversity, minimise fragmentation/alienation, minimise conflict, encourage eco-tourism (minimising adverse effect on production & scenic amenity)	6 objectives: first 4 identical, then adds: • Provide for small-scale & complementary rural tourism in association with primary industry capability • Maintain rural landscape character	Eco-tourism de-emphasised (now part of broader tourism); new focus on small-scale tourism and landscape character; scenic amenity no longer explicitly linked to eco-tourism
Permitted w/o consent	Environmental protection works; Extensive agriculture; Forestry; Home occupations; Horticulture; Roads; Viticulture	Environmental protection works; Extensive agriculture; Home businesses; Home occupations	Added: Home businesses (was with consent). Removed: Forestry, Horticulture, Roads, Viticulture (all now with consent or prohibited?) – Roads not listed in w/o or with consent? Check: Roads appear under ‘Permitted with consent’ in proposed – yes.
Permitted with consent (selected highlights)	Agricultural produce industries; Agriculture; Airports; Airstrips; Animal boarding; Aquaculture; Backpackers’ accommodation; B&B; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cellar door; Cemeteries; Community facilities; Dual occ; Dwelling houses; Eco-tourist facilities; Educational; Emergency services; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Farm stay; Flood mitigation; Function centres; Home businesses; Home industries; Intensive livestock/plant ag; Kiosks; Open cut mining; Recreation areas/facilities (outdoor); Restaurants or cafes; Roadside stalls; Rural industries; Veterinary hospitals; Waste transfer stations	Agritourism; Airstrips; Animal boarding; Aquaculture; Artisan food/drink; Boat ramps/sheds; Camping grounds; Cemeteries; Community facilities; Crematoria; Depots; Dual occ; Dwelling houses; Eco-tourist facilities; Educational; Electricity generating works; Emergency services; Environmental facilities; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Flood mitigation; Forestry; Function centres; Group homes; Helipads; Home-based child care; Home industries; Home occupations (sex services); Info/education; Intensive livestock/plant ag; Jetties; Landscaping material supplies; Markets; Open cut mining; Places of worship; Plant nurseries; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (major & outdoor); Respite day care; Research stations; Roads; Roadside stalls; Rural industries; Rural supplies; Rural workers’ dwellings; School-based child care; Secondary dwellings; Sewerage systems; Signage; Telecom; Timber yards; Tourist & visitor accommodation; Transport depots; Truck depots; Veterinary hospitals; Waste management/transfer stations; Water recreation structures; Water supply systems; Wharf/boating; Any development not specified in item 2 or 4	Major additions: Agritourism, Artisan food/drink, Depots, Group homes, Helipads, Home-based child care, Landscaping material supplies, Markets, Recreation facilities (major), Rural supplies, Secondary dwellings, Timber yards, Tourist & visitor accommodation, Transport depots, Truck depots, Waste management facilities. Removed (or moved to prohibited?): Airports (now prohibited), Backpackers’ accommodation (prohibited), B&B (? not listed – prohibited as residential accommodation?), Caravan parks (prohibited), Cellar door (maybe subsumed into Agritourism/Artisan food?), Kiosks (prohibited), Restaurants/cafes (prohibited). Retained: Most primary production and rural uses.
Prohibited	Any development not specified in item 2 or 3 (i.e., default prohibition only)	Specific list of 50+ uses, including: Airports; Air transport facilities; Amusement centres; Backpackers’ accommodation; Brothels; Caravan parks; Car parks; Centre-based child care; Charter tourism boating; Commercial premises; Correctional centres; Early education & care; Entertainment facilities; Exhibition homes/villages; Freight transport facilities; Funeral homes; Heavy industrial storage/industries; Health services facilities; Heliports; Highway service centres; Hotel/motel accommodation; Industrial retail outlets/training facilities; Industries; Kiosks; Local distribution premises; Marinas; Moorings/mooring pens; Mortuaries; Neighbourhood shops; Passenger transport facilities; Public admin buildings; Port facilities; Recreation facilities (indoor); Registered clubs; Residential accommodation (except as allowed in with-consent list?); Restaurants or cafes; Restricted premises; Storage premises; Serviced apartments; Service stations; Sex services premises; Shops; Vehicle body repair/repair stations; Warehouse or distribution centres; Wholesale supplies	Dramatic change: From a default prohibition to a specific, long blacklist. Many uses that were ‘with consent’ in current RU1 (e.g., Airports, Backpackers’, Caravan parks, Kiosks, Restaurants/cafes) are now explicitly prohibited. Residential accommodation is broadly prohibited except for specific forms allowed with consent (dwellings, dual occ, group homes, secondary dwellings, rural workers’ dwellings).

Notable Practical Implications

Tourism: Current RU1 allows eco-tourist facilities, farm stay, backpackers’, camping, caravan parks, B&B, cellar door with consent. Proposed RU1 allows agritourism, tourist & visitor accommodation, camping grounds, eco-tourist facilities with consent, but prohibits backpackers’, caravan parks, B&B (unless ‘tourist & visitor accommodation’ covers B&B? – likely not, as B&B is a specific use elsewhere). This suggests a shift away from budget/large-scale tourism toward smaller-scale, farm-integrated agritourism.
Residential: Current RU1 allows dwelling houses and dual occupancies with consent. Proposed adds secondary dwellings and rural workers’ dwellings with consent, but prohibits all other ‘residential accommodation’ (which would include multi-dwelling housing, residential flat buildings, etc.).
Commercial: Current RU1 allows restaurants/cafes, kiosks, roadside stalls, function centres with consent. Proposed allows roadside stalls, function centres, markets, but prohibits restaurants/cafes, kiosks, shops, commercial premises. This significantly limits retail/food service.
Heavy industry: Both zones prohibit heavy industry (explicitly in proposed; via default in current). Current allows extractive industries, open cut mining with consent; proposed retains that.
Forestry & horticulture: Downgraded from ‘permitted without consent’ to ‘with consent’, giving council more control.

Overall Planning Direction

Farmers, tourism operators and residents would need to carefully review these changes, as they significantly alter what can and cannot be done on land currently zoned RU1. Uses like existing caravan parks or B&Bs may become prohibited uses if redeveloped.

Have those affected reviewed the changes, were all involved made sufficiently aware of these alterations?

Land Use Changes in the North-West of the MCC after Gazettal of the Draft LEP

blog

LEP

7 min
11

I’ve been investigating what areas will be rezoned when the MCC Draft Land & Environment Plan is gazetted later in the year. To do this I’ve looked at corners of the area using the Mapping Portal available at https://cloudmaps.midcoast.nsw.gov.au/ To understand the […]