Original source · versioned page text
Appendix B - Agricultural Assessment
APPENDIX B - Agricultural Assessment JFP Ref: M1775 Page 26 [OCR of page images] aaa | Sep) ARRAN URBANCONSULTANTS APPENDIX B - Agricultural Assessment JFP Ref: M1775 Page 26
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 9 pages
Page 2
Resource
Planning Services – RPS Pty Ltd
(Incorporating LRAM Pty Ltd)
ABN 99 321 312 916 ACN 050412032
Agricultural Land Assessment
Hofmann
Hollett Road
Prepared by
W.P. Thompson
Nov 2019
Phone: 0417641440
Web: LRAM.COM.AU
E: [email protected]
1569 TAROME ROAD, MOORANG VIA KALBAR, QUEENSLAND 4309
Page 3
Page |2
Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3
2 Proposed Subdivision ......................................................................................................... 3
3 Existing Land Use, Zones and Overlays............................................................................... 3
4 Existing Assessments of Agricultural Potential................................................................... 4
5 GQAL status ........................................................................................................................ 4
6 Noosa Shire Plan Considerations ........................................................................................ 5
Declaration
I have been instructed to investigate and report on the agricultural and rural land use aspects of the
land that is the subject of this minor change to an approved development. These matters are within
my field of expertise as a land resource specialist/agronomist.
W.P. Thompson
25-Nov-19
Rural Review Hofmann Hollett Road 25 Nov 2019
Page 4
Page |3
1 Introduction
This assessment has involved an initial review of the supplied brief, a search of relevant state
agency land suitability related data bases, a site inspection of the subject land and surrounds, a
review of land assessment from projects within the local area and a review of relevant strategic
framework documents.
This report has been prepared following a request from Hopgood Ganim. The request required an
assessment of the land quality, agricultural potential and land use of land associated with lot 53 SP
163571 which is bisected by Walter Hay Drive in the Noosa Council area.
2 Proposed Subdivision
The report has been prepared to accompany an application for a minor change to an approved
development resulting in a 40 lot subdivision. A GQAL overlay plan (M1775 00 13 E (sheet 5 of 6))
forms part of that application and shows a map of the GQAL units identified as a result of this
assessment.
3 Existing Land Use, Zones and Overlays
Existing land use as shown on the satellite imagery from Figure 1 and the field inspection includes
the following:
A. Eastern Side of Walter Hay Drive
a. To the east of Walter Hay Drive a shed is located in a cleared area and is surrounded
by tropical improved pastures. Setaria grass (a rank tropical grass) dominates with
lesser amounts of Pangola grass and some Signal Grass. These types of grasses
require the use of fertilizer in order to sustain the relatively heavy stocking rates
needed to manage excess growth. In the absence of grazing and fertilization, the
pastures rapidly become rank.
b. The remainder of the eastern area comprises lower lying tea tree communities and
lesser amounts of tall forest in better drained gently undulating areas.
B. Western Side of Walter Hay Drive
a. The same sequence of landscapes and land use is found to the west of Walter Hay
Drive. The gently undulating areas where they have been cleared have improved
pastures of a similar suite to the eastern side. Signal grass and pangola tend to
dominate and this appears to reflect past grazing intensity.
b. There are a number of small dams/excavated sumps serving as stock water points
and a limited amount of internal fencing.
c. No cattle were observed during the field inspection. There is evidence of feral pig
activity
Under the Tewantin and Doonan OMG9 natural resources overlay map, the subject lot is not
included in the Agricultural ALCA category and it does not adjoin any areas considered ALCA. The
subject land is included in the rural zone designation of the Noosa Plan Zone Map ZM9.
The subject lot borders areas zoned (See Map ZM9) as Community Services and Open Space
Conservation to the south (a largely rural disturbed forested area), Open Space Conservation to the
north and east, and Rural Settlement to the west and Detached Housing uses to the north.
Rural Review Hofmann Hollett Road 25 Nov 2019
Page 5
Page |4
4 Existing Assessments of Agricultural Potential
The subject land is zoned rural and is not included in the ALCA overlay. Public domain data for
agricultural potential within agency data sets include the agricultural land classes assembled as part
of the Land Audit1 as well as individual survey reports.
Figure 1 shows a compilation of these data sets. Unfortunately, the subject lot is located on the
common border of 3 very different data sets.
Map unit LP1:100,000 is from the series of acid sulphate mapping data sets. These are areas
of deep sands and texture contrast soils of low fertility and moisture storage capacity. The
scale of this work is 1:100,000 and is a regional data set. The site inspection indicates that
these soils dominate the area proposed for more intense development.
Map Unit SW1:100,000 is from the same data set. These are areas of non saline water
logged soils associated with the drainage lines.
Map Unit Cb321:2 million is from the national data set of the Atlas of Australian soils. It is
1:2,000,000 in scale and is not suited for assessments of this type.
The south eastern boundary of the site literally touches the 1987 horticulture land suitability
mapping where soils similar to LP soils have been mapped and assigned to a marginal land
suitability classification (rank 4) in that now dated work. The Land Audit agricultural land classes
data set shows the area to the south east to include ALCB or limited arable land defined as … limited
crop land that is suitable for a narrow range of current and potential crops. Land that is marginal for
current and potential crops due to severe limitations but is highly suitable for pastures. Land may be
suitable for cropping with engineering or agronomic improvements. That definition is similar to the
concept of marginal suitability.
Whilst the agency data sets use differing methodologies and terminology even when referring to
the same soils in the same landscapes, there is general agreement that the land is not ALCA and this
agreement thus supports the designation of the area in the OMG9 natural resources overlay map as
not being within the Agricultural Land Conservation area. Given the coarse scale of these data sets,
it is likely that the area is dominated by non GQAL soils.
Map OM 9.5 from the Noosa Plan is reproduced in this report as Figure 2 and shows that the
Tewantin and Doonan Natural Resources overlay does not contain any Agricultural Land
Conservation and ALCA area.
5 GQAL status
An unpublished report2 which was prepared in 2012 for the “Noosa on Weyba” Development
contains more detailed soil mapping information for the subject land and has also helped inform
this report.
That report more accurately defines soils in the area than that available from the state agency data
sets discussed above. The methodology used in the analysis of this data and outcomes are detailed
below.
1
For details of classes see https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/business-priorities/agriculture/sustainable/ag-land-audit/guide-
for-local-government/agricultural-land-classes
2
PRELIMINARY GOOD QUALITY AGRICULTURAL LAND AND STRATEGIC CROPPING LAND ASSESSMENT, NOOSA ON
WEYBA DEVELOPMENT NOOSAVILLE, QUEENSLAND PREPARED FOR NORTHBROOK CORPORATION PTY LTD SEPTEMBER 2012 by
Gilbert and Sutherland.
Rural Review Hofmann Hollett Road 25 Nov 2019
Page 6
Page |5
1. The map units covering the area were overlain on the DCDB for the area.
2. Detailed site descriptions also formed part of the data along with soil limitations for crop
suitability criteria of each of the 12 unique map units covering the subject land.
3. Those limitations were cross assessed to the site descriptions of 14 detailed soil profile
descriptions from the 12 mapping units.
4. The regional land suitability framework for coastal south east coastal Queensland3 was used
to assess crop suitability. The main limitations identified were wetness and soil moisture
storage. That framework was not in place when the soils data for the Wyeba development
was collected.
5. The only crops showing some degree of suitability in one or more of the map units were
bamboo, banana, hemp, maize (forage), millet (forage), pineapple, sorghum (forage)
soybean, sugar cane and macadamia nut (dryland). None of these crops are widely grown in
the Noosa area at a commercial scale
6. The map units that lie within the proposed subdivision area were then divided into one of
four classifications:
a. NON GQAL – areas which fail more than 1 suitability criteria for the assessed crops
based on the available data
b. FRAGMENTED GQAL – areas covering parts of all of the proposed lots 11, 14, 15, 16,
19, 20. These lots contain approximately 1.9 ha of GQAL within the subdivision area
with a further 2 ha outside of the lots. The 3.9 ha of land in this group is surrounded
by areas not suited to cropping. This area is too small for cropping and is fragmented
or isolated from better quality soils outside of the proposed development area.
c. NON GQAL due to wetness limitations – areas which fail suitability criteria because of
wet subsoils. These areas have mottled, gleyed or bleached layers in the top 90 cms
of the soil profile that are seasonally or permanently wet and waterlogged. Based on
the data available these areas are a combination of ALC B and ALC C.
d. POSSIBLE GQAL subject to soil water storage limitations – these are areas where the
available field data is insufficient to assess the amount of water which can be stored
in the soil profile for crop water use, but the data is sufficient to suggest that these
areas are on the border of suited and unsuited. These areas are likely to be ALC B.
The conclusion drawn from the above analysis is that there are no GQAL matters which would
warrant refusal of this minor change which involves the number of lots being reduced from 52 to
40.
6 Noosa Shire Plan Considerations
The Noosa Shire Plan requires that a number of aspects be considered for developments such as
this. Some if not most of these aspects are outside of the land quality and agricultural land use
considerations. However, there are other aspects that in part or in whole ought to be addressed.
This section discusses a number of the aspects that appear to be relevant to land quality and
agricultural land use for this proposed development.
6.1 GQAL considerations
3
DNRM/DSITIA (2013/2015)
Rural Review Hofmann Hollett Road 25 Nov 2019
Page 7
Page |6
The Natural Resources Overlay Code (NRO Code) for Noosa Shire [paragraph (a (b) (c)] makes
reference to the need to protect agricultural land and not impact GQAL or land uses on GQAL. GQAL
is identified as Agricultural Land Class A (ALCA) and land able to support agriculture. The Natural
Resources Overlay Map does not show the proposal area as GQAL and therefore the proposed land
is not shown as being within the Agricultural Land Conservation area.
A check of the data sets available on the land suitability of the site indicates that a fragmented area
of GQAL does occur on the site on 6 of the proposed 40 lots. 19 of the remaining lots are dominated
by non GQAL soils and the remainder have wetness and soil water storage limitations which at best
would mean they are Agricultural Land Class B.
The Noosa Plan does not include ALC B as GQAL and the definition of ALC B suggests that major
engineering and agronomic improvements would be needed in order for these soils to be cropped.
These improvements would include improved surface drainage (via land levelling), high rates of
fertilization to overcome nutrient deficiencies, subsoil drainage and soil amendment regimes to
improve internal soil structure and adjust soil pH.
Given that less than 2 ha of already fragmented and isolated GQAL lies within he proposed
subdivision area, the proposed subdivision is unlikely to significantly diminish the availability of
GQAL in the region for arable use.
6.2 Land Use Considerations
The subject land contains land which has previously been used for grazing as well as areas where
grazing of the uncleared lands is impractical. The remainder of the area contains both wet land
communities and tall open forest communities of limited grazing potential and with varying extents
of disturbance. Whilst the economic viability of lot sizes is not an overriding consideration in a
planning sense for rural land, the quality of these soils essentially means that even at its current lot
size, the lot is not viable for commercial rural purposes.
These past cleared areas are fragmented by Walter Hay Drive and only parts of the once cleared
areas on the western side of Walter Hay Drive are proposed for more intensive development and no
substantive change in land use is proposed for the areas outside of these once cleared areas.
The likely impact of the proposed development on the role performed by these rural land uses in
the area is summarized below:
These will be no significant impact on the potential land uses and values on the eastern side
of Walter Hay Drive as this area is not within the proposed footprint for development to a
range of lot sizes and is already isolated from the western area by Water Hay Drive.
On the western side of Walter Hay drive, there will be a conversion of existing larger sized
grazing areas to more intensive high and low density lots and a consequence of this will be a
reduction in the grazing land use.
For the remainder of the area, there will be essentially no significant impact on rural land
use and values.
Given that the impact on grazing land use in the area proposed for development is the main impact
and that impacts on other land uses and values can be mitigated by appropriate conditions, then
whether grazing at the scale that currently exist is a defining feature of the location and its
surrounds is a consideration.
Rural Review Hofmann Hollett Road 25 Nov 2019
Page 8
Page |7
Grazing does occur on some surrounding areas; however, it is normally associated with rural
living/pursuit recreational type uses (including horses). Grazing of a similar extent to that which has
previously occurred on the proposed development area is not a defining feature of land uses to the
north, south, east or west of the subject land and in fact is the only example of such uses in the
area. The smaller scale of grazing practiced on some of the adjoining land in effect defines the uses
and values in the surrounding area.
Whilst conversion of this single example of larger scale grazing use will result from this proposal, the
proposal does include a number of lots of low density/rural pursuit type designations which could
support grazing of type which is consistent with the forms of grazing uses in the surrounding area.
Rural Review Hofmann Hollett Road 25 Nov 2019
Page 9
Page |8
Figure 1
Rural Review Hofmann Hollett Road 25 Nov 2019
[OCR of page images]
Figure 1
'53SP 163571}
10,000
ISW1:100,000
153SP 163571}
i
}
Walter Hay Dr
4
Page [8
Scale: 1:8,028
Google Earth
Rural Review Hofmann Hollett Road 25 Nov 2019
Page 10
Page |9
Figure 2 OM9 overlay reproduced from Noosa Plan
Rural Review Hofmann Hollett Road 25 Nov 2019