Save remaining vegetation on Community Land
On the corner of Broulee Road and Clarke Street
History and where we are at

In 2003, Eurobodalla Shire Council (ESC) was reviewing the Plan of Management for its Community Land (reserves). It sought comment on the future use of land at the north western corner of Broulee Road and Clarke Street, Broulee, claimed by Council to be Operational (land which Council can use in performing its functions or can sell as an asset).
At the time, the President of the Broulee Community Association presented to Council saying the “overwhelming wish of the Broulee community” was to retain the land as bushland.

Subsequently, the Plan of Management for Broulee and Mossy Point Reserves required the reclassification of Lots 8 and 9 as Community Land. Additionally, the unformed road was to be closed and added to the Plan of Management as Community Land once this process was finalised. Council Minute 478 of 25 November 2003 confirms reclassification of Lots 8 and 9 as Community Land and adoption of the Plan of Management (which includes closure of the adjacent unformed road).

From that time onwards, the Broulee community treated the parcel of land (both Lots 8 and 9) and the unformed road as Community Land. This was confirmed by Council in 2004 by its placement of a sign on both sides of the community bushland indicating that it was a Eurobodalla Landcare Project site.

Moving on to more recent times, the now Broulee Mossy Point Community Association (BMPCA) became aware that ESC was planning to sell the Lots 8 and 9 (now identified as Lot 89 DP1093710) and the unformed road. When questioned by the BMPCA Executive in a meeting (27 April 2021) with ESC Management about the status of the land, ESC vehemently denied that it was Community Land.

Following this matter up, BMPCA sent copies of the 2003 documentation to Council in early May 2021. On 18 May 2021, ESC agreed that the parcel was Community Land and was not correctly classified in Council’s database of land classification. It stated use of this land as Operational Land was no longer under consideration and the database was being amended accordingly. The letter acknowledged that there is an unformed road in that area and in a subsequent email stated that Council “would have needed to apply to the Crown to get permission to close the road”.

In early June 2021, the surrounding developer’s area and the unformed road were cleared of vegetation. Council advised that the unformed road was now an APZ (Asset Protection Zone) adjacent to the developer’s land and on 29 June 2021, because of significant community angst about total clearfelling of the area and many complaints about the lack of consultation with the community, Council has agreed that action will be taken to make, the now cleared unformed road Community Land.

However, Council’s approach has now changed and despite significant BMPCA presentations to Council and meetings with the General Manager and senior staff, Council has now refused to acknowledge that any of the land, Lot 89 and the unformed road was Community Land. It maintains that it was always Operational Land.

The primary reason that Council gave to support it’s contention that the land is Operational Land is that staff failed to implement the 2003 decision. It also claims it has legal advice that the unformed road referred to in the Plan of Management was incorrect as the Plan of Management was about reserves and the unformed road is not a reserve.

After the BMPCA presentation on 27 July, Council staff has advised that it will revisit the status of the land and present a number of options for the future use of the land to Council for consideration!!

THIS MEANS SALE

The BMPCA has lodged a number of questions to be discussed at the upcoming Council Meeting. These questions relate directly to the four issues below. A friend of the Community Association has also prepared a summary of the relevant rules and legislation.

1. Why there was no communication with the community about the use of the Community Land and the land proposed for Community Land although there were many opportunities for this. The letter from Andrew Bain to the General Manager raises this issue in more detail.
2. Why was the creation of an APZ on public land provided for this developer. Normal practice seems to be for the developer to provide APZ requirements and associated building requirements within their own boundaries.  The Local Government Act, Standards for Asset Protection zones states the APZ should be located wholly within your land and the NSW Government/ RFS Planning for Bushfire Protection (PBP) states that the APZ should be contained within the overall development site and not on adjoining lands.
3. Has the APZ been created with due consideration and compliance with all legal requirements and Council requirements? For example the Planning for Bushfire Protection (PBP)  requires an easement under the Conveyancing Act and that the developer obtain written confirmation that the easement will continue in perpetuity. All legal requirements should have been completed at the time of the DA in February.  Has this happened?
4. Can an APZ co-exist with Community land categorized as Natural Area: Bushland. They both have their own sets of rules and guidelines that seem to be contradictory. For example the PBP requires that an easement should not be considered where the adjoining land is used for a public purpose and where the vegetation management is not likely or cannot be legally granted, while the intention of the adopted Plan of Management was that the Community Land would be categorized as Natural Area: Bushland
   

We understand that the topic will be an agenda item for Council on Tuesday 13 July 2021. Andrew Bain has registered to talk prior to this meeting. At this stage the public can attend but numbers are limited. Covid may get in the way of this.