2016-06-07 - P&E Agenda - Item 5, Attachment 1 - Agriculture and Agricultural Land Study

farming. Agriculture which is less reliant on fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals is therefore
preferred. Statements should explain what is expected of rural enterprises in terms of their impact
on the environment including the land, water and air. For instance, the planning scheme should be
supportive of pasture fed and free range livestock and high value organic crops.

Mapping within the scheme should clearly delineate an urban footprint or boundary for urban
growth and development. Urban uses with no association to primary production should be avoided
outside of this boundary. The hinterland towns and villages are well serviced and make logical
locations for value chain industries and service industries that support agriculture and food
production.

An overlay should be applied to show lands that are to be reserved for agricultural to the general
exclusion of any development that would fragment, alienate or result in loss or diminished
productive capacity of agricultural land. This mapping should be based on the State’s Agricultural
Land Classification Class A or Class B but be further refined to reflect local circumstances,
removing lands that are either already committed to other purposes or lands which are more
important for other purposes such as biodiversity and waterway protection.

Land use zones, supported by desired outcomes should explain the intention for land and the uses
and development that would be supported thereon. Ideally it would be clear where the preferred
dominant land use is for agricultural pursuits or associated rural enterprises as opposed to rural
living or conservation purpose.

Subject to the agreement of land owners, Council might consider using a land use zone such as
“environmental management” rather than rural where the intent is to protect bushland or enhance
wildlife habitat rather than carrying out farming.

It is suggested that the new planning scheme adopt as best as practicable standard definitions
consistent throughout Queensland through the planning reform process. These might be modified
slightly if necessary for local circumstances.

On rural properties (including rural residential properties) over a certain size, non-intensive
agricultural pursuits should be allowed without being subject to planning approval. More intensive
agricultural uses should have an appropriate level of assessment applied but industrial farming
uses which are not in keeping with the expectations of the Noosa community such as feedlots,
intensive piggeries and intensive broiler sheds or battery cage egg production should be avoided in
Noosa Shire and clearly identified as inconsistent with the scheme.

Opportunities should be provided for complementary land uses that support the viability of
agriculture and do not alienate or diminish agricultural productivity on the same or surrounding
lands. Priority sectors that could successfully co-exist with agriculture include certain health and
wellness uses, rural or nature based tourism, creative industries and environmental industries.
Low impact home based businesses or home-hosted visitor accommodation in particular should be
allowed without needing planning approval.

The creation of new allotments outside the urban footprint and the rural living areas should
continue to be tightly limited and the minimum lot sizes be enforced to enable continued
agricultural viability and a range of farming options long term, whether it is good quality soils or not.
The only exception to the minimum lot size should be made where a portion of land is being
excised for conservation purposes and transferred to public ownership.

There is a sufficient supply of small to medium sized rural properties and there would seem to be
no reason to reduce the minimum lot size from 100 hectares as has been the case for over 10
years.



                                                                                                       6