Draft Submission from Bywong Community on the Palerang Social and Community Development Plan 2006-2010

General Manager

Palerang Council

PO Box 348

BUNGENDORE NSW 2621

Draft Palerang Social and Community Development Plan 2006-2010 (December 2006) -response from Bywong Community Incorporated

Dear Mr Bascomb,

Bywong Community Incorporated (BCI) welcomes the Draft Palerang Social and Community Plan 2007 (Report) and has considered its content. It is an extremely long document and BCI has focused on it maimly in relation to Bywong. As part of its deliberations on the Plan, it consulted Bywong residents, Councillor Terry Bransdon, and representatives of the Country Womens' Association (CWA), the Wamboin Community Association (WCA), the Bywong Hall Committee and Greenways Management Committee  (both s355 Committees of Council).

As a result of this consultation, BCI makes the following comments and recommendations on the draft plan.

1.  The Report is very disappointing to BCI. There is a considerable lack of balance in its discussion of the various geographic areas within the Palerang Local Government Area (LGA) and there is little information about, or understanding of, the large rural residential areas in the west of the LGA. Indeed, Bywong barely rates a mention in the 97 page document, even though Bywong contains a large number of ratepayers.

2. In total, Bywong, Wamboin and Sutton represent more than a third of the Shire in terms of residents and rates but these areas together receive only a fraction of coverage in the Report. Indeed, Bywong and Sutton appear to be almost non existent as far as the authors of the report are concerned, being lumped in with Wamboin and many Bywong and Sutton organisations, social clubs and businesses ignored. There is scant coverage of the Les Reardon Reserve and Hall at Bywong, and no reference at all to the Gearys Gap Pony Club, our local Guides group, the Hall Committee - a S 355 Committee of Council - the Greenways Management Committee  - also a S 355 Committee of Council, the Bywong Book Club , the Bywong Community Incorporated (BCI) and the BCI website, and the social and community functions BCI runs. The authors of the Report need only to have googled Bywong to find our website! In addition, there is scant coverage of the historical, cultural and tourist attractions of Bywong. Bywong has most of the wineries (5) in Palerang. It has the historical gold mining town - placePlaceNameOld PlaceNameBywong PlaceTypeTown - and a cafe. There is even less information provided for neighbouring Sutton with its golf course and restaurant and conference facilities, caravan park, hotel etc. BCI notes that while the visioning workshops are mentioned as input into the document, Bywong residents who attended the Bywong Workshop can find no trace of the Bywong Workshop outcomes in the Report.

Recommendation 1: The report include a separate section on Bywong (and Sutton) in Chapter 3 of the Report and include in its discussions elsewhere any relevant information about Bywong as a separate entity in the Palerang LGA.

Recommendation 2 : Council contact the various community associations in Palerang's rural residential areas  (Bywong, Sutton, Burra, Carwoola, Wamboin etc) in order to ensure they have accurate information about the social and community needs of the rural residential areas of the Palerang LGA.

3. BCI also notes the omission from the Report of the significance of a great number of important community groups such as the Country Womens' Association (CWA), and similar organisations. All of these organisations should have a place in this document as they contribute to the social wellbeing of residents of Palerang LGA.

Recommendation 3 :  Council contact the local committee of the CWA for input into the report.

4. In addition, BCI considers the Report to be badly constructed and contains a great deal of `fill' apparently copied verbatim and unsourced from other documents. While we understand that the Plan follows State Government requirements as to content and arrangement, the content should nevertheless be considered and relevant to the LGA it is describing. In addition, it would have been helpful to summarise the content of the Report's predecessors, the Yarralumla and Talaganda social plans. Some of the information in the Report is outdated information - for example the reference to the Bungendore tennis courts.

5. There are only 4 recommendations in the Report. This seems very light on for so long a document. The recommendations are also rather eclectic in their content. There appear to be other potential recommendations scattered throughout the document but not set out in the Executive summary. BCI supports the recommendations for a consistent approach to S94 Developer Contribution Plans and for the Employment of trainees. Support for the employment of an Economic Community Development Officer to write grant applications would depend on the business case supporting such an appointment i.e. the appointment would need to ensure that grant money more than covered the costs of such an appointment, providing a net financial advantage to Council and ratepayers. BCI finds the inclusion in this list of the recommendation regarding caravan parks odd and reminds Council to include the large caravan park at Eagle Hawk in Sutton in its deliberations on low cost housing and tourism.

6. BCI believes that Bywong as a community would benefit from better geographic definition in the LGA, particularly since its name was changed from Gearys Gap to Bywong in recent history. Some organisations continue to use Gearys Gap to describe themselves - e.g. the Pony Club and Landcare - and this might have lead the authors of the Report astray when considering the extent and importance of Bywong in the Palerang LGA. BCI would like to see the following improvements  :

Locality maps and signs defining Bywong

Similar signage indicating greenways, mountain bike trails and similar attractions in Bywong as per the current wineries signage

Improved signage for the Les Reardon Reserve and Hall, including Bywong in the signage.

Recommendation 4 : Council to provide :

locality maps and signs defining Bywong;

similar signage indicating greenways, and similar attractions in Bywong as per the current wineries signage;

 improved signage for the Les Reardon Reserve and Hall including `Bywong' in the signage in consultation with BCI and the Hall Committee.

7. The greenways could be developed into a significant feature of the Palerang LGA. We have beautiful scenery and should encourage people to walk and experience its attractions. Apart from providing a significant resource for the people of Palerang, they could also become a significant tourist attraction as well. The report encourages other similar facilities elsewhere in Palerang.  BCI would like to see more discussion of the greenways in the document and that Council provide ongoing support to existing greenways and support the extension of the greenways in Bywong.

Recommendation 5 : Council provide ongoing support to existing greenways and support the extension of the greenways in Bywong

8. Telecommunications issues are very relevant in discussions about social and community planning. BCI draws Council's attention to the following issues in Bywong.

Land line telephones are problematical

There are still many blackspots for mobile phone services and the CDMA cut-off is looming as a further problem

The same applies to Broadband coverage although the Bywong business, YLESS4U is providing a good wireless service to Bywong. Tesltra also provides an ADSL service to some Bywong residents and others have satellite coverage.

8. Transport and rode safety issues are also important in a social and community plan. BCI stresses that there is a need for a reduced speed limit on addressStreetBungendore Rd., to match reduced speed limits on addressStreetMacs Reef Rd and addressStreetNorton Rd. The Report discusses a variety of walking and cycling options in and around the towns. BCI would like to see at least one of the verges on the major roads of Macs Reef and Bungendore Rds widened to allow for safe walking, cycling and horse riding from the addressStreetFederal Highway to Bungendore. Currently, Bywong residents who participate in events such as Clean Up Australia are at risk when working along these roads and most people would never attempt to do other than drive a car along them.  Signage which mirrors the signage at the intersection of Bungendore and addressStreetMacs Reef Rd should be placed at the intersection of Norton and addressStreetBungendore Rd. This is a safety black spot, particularly at night. The report need to better differentiate the travel needs of rural residential areas as opposed to the towns.

Recommendation 6: Council facilitate the introduction of a reduced speed limit on addressStreetBungendore Rd similar to those on Norton and Macs Reef Rds.

Recommendation 7 : Council widen at least one of the verges on the major roads of Macs Reef and Bungendore Rds to allow for safe walking, cycling and horse riding from the Federal Highway to Bungendore

Recommendation 8 : Council arrange for signage, which mirrors the signage at the intersection of Bungendore and addressStreetMacs Reef Rd, be placed at the intersection of Norton and addressStreetBungendore Rd

10. Insurance for voluntary organisations is a major issue and is not mentioned in the report. The costs of insurance has seen the demise of several voluntary bodies in Palerang and should be seen as highly relevant in a social planning document, given the importance of voluntary bodies in the social fabric of society. BCI has had notice that its insurance is likely to rise yet again in 2008, after a ruling by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and has raised this issue with Councillors. BCI notes that the matter has been discussed on a State wide basis by local Councils but would like the issue addressed in the social plan and some recommendations made as to how to progress the issue.

Recommendation 9 : Council to ensure that insurance for community organisations is addressed in the Report

11. The Les Reardon Reserve and Hall are very important to Bywong. Users such as Landcare, BCI, Guides, Pony Club, and private rentals ensure that the facilities are in constant use. However, the following improvements are required to further enhance their support to the social and community fabric of Bywong :

To allow for more functions such as the highly successful Car Boot Sale, it is necessary to upgrade the electricity at the Hall;

Signage to the Hall needs improving

The current reserve is heavily used and a further reserve is necessary to accommodate the growing number of Bywong residents.  BCI recommends the deeding of another piece of ground for community recreational and sporting activities in Bywong and that that land should be the area currently used as the Macs Reef Rd Tip, soon to close.

Recommendation 10 : Council to upgrade the electricity at the Bywong Hall

Recommendation 11 : Council to provide the land currently used for the addressStreetMacs Reef Rd Tip as a community facility for community recreational and sporting activities when the tip closes.

12. BCI notes that the Community Consultative Committee meetings have not been regularly held and this fact should be highlighted in the report. Their usefulness should be investigated and discussed with community groups.

13. The report only provides demographics for the LGA as a whole.  We need to know who Bywong people are demographically in order to tailor services to them. As noted previously, the report focuses far more print on the towns than on the far greater numbers of rural residential dwellers. According to the Report, there appear to be about 7,625 (66% of the LGA) residents not living in Bungendore, Braidwood and Captains Flat. Many of these people would live in Bywong and Wamboin. However, without information on the demographics, it is impossible to comment on much of the content of the Report. BCI notes that data at Collection District (CD) is available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and that an ABS Consultancy service exists and could provide the required data. There is also a lot of other statistical data available from the ABS e.g. Journey to Work, Labour Force, which could provide useful input to the Report. BCI urges Council to ensure the Report provides far more detailed demographic statistics at CD level.

Recommendation 12 : Council to ensure the Report provides far more detailed demographic statistics at Collection District (CD) level

14. BCI notes that in Chapter One - Outline of aim of plan and planning principles used - no context is set. When are the updated S94 and S64 plans to be completed? Council needs to provide strategic directions for the future growth and development of Bywong i.e. its rural residential areas and this should be included under Aims and not just an `intended outcomes'. There needs to be a separate section under `key issues' for Rural residential. Garbage disposal to be included under the Environmental protection heading

15. Chapter Three - Information about localities - is not cohesive and is factually incorrect. It deals with Wamboin as though it covered Bywong and Sutton, which is totally incorrect. Even though it claims to cover the three areas, it basically only covers Wamboin. Wamboin Community Association does not provide an umbrella organisation for BCI or Sutton, (which also has its own residents group). The authors of the Report did not approach BCI for any input into the Report. If this `methodology' is reflected throughout the Report, then Council has wasted its money.

In summary, BCI found a great deal of interesting information in the draft Report about other areas in Palerang. It is a welcome start to the process of identifying the social and community requirements of Palerang LGA.  However, information about Bywong and its social and community development requirements needs to be included using the information and recommendations in this response. In addition, the report needs to be checked for accuracy, as it would be unfortunate if planning proceeded for example on upgrading the Bungendore tennis courts when they have been upgraded to a high standard for some time

Judith Miller

President

Bywong Community Incorporated

dateMonth4Day20Year200720th April, 2007

 The RLPB submission from Bywong Community

The Hon. Richard Bull

RLPB Rating Review

c/- State Council

Locked Bag 21

ORANGE NSW 2800

cc. Mr Steve Whan MP

Member for Monaro

PO Box 490

QUEANBEYAN  NSW  2620

REVIEW OF RURAL PROTECTION BOARDS' RATING SYSTEM - SUBMISSION FROM BYWONG COMMUNITY  (BC)

Dear Mr. Bull,

The Bywong Community Association represents residents of mainly small rural residential holdings in the Braidwood Rural Lands Protection Board (BRLPB) catchment.  A number of Bywong landholders have recently been presented with bills for rates from the BRLPB for the first time, due to a reduction in land size which now attracts rates. Many of these landholders do not receive any perceived or actual benefits from this rate and are justifiably unhappy with both the rate, with the method of its introduction and also with the lack of transparency in its introduction.

In addition, the voting system used to elect the Board is undemocratic and also lacking in transparency. One of the results of this has been the election of a Board member to the BRLPB to represent the interests of small landholders now being charged this rate. However, despite this, the current Board is generally unrepresentative of the majority of landholders now paying rates.

In general terms, the rates charged by Rural Lands Protection Boards

(RLPBs) in NSW are seen as inefficient, inequitable and undemocratic. They are seen as a discriminatory additional tax based on where ratepayers live and charged whether the ratepayer is a farmer or not, whether the land is productive or not, and regardless of whether the amount of land involved could ever support a rural livestock industry. BCA notes that only NSW has such a system and that all other Australian States provide the services provided by RLPBs via State Government Departments, funded out of consolidated revenue by all taxpayers, and not just an unlucky and largely unrepresented few.

Therefore, BCA was pleased when this Review was announced, despite its limited terms of reference, and now takes the opportunity to make a submission on behalf of its constituents. The submission will follow the dot points set out in the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the Review.

Draft Terms of reference:

To report to the Minister on ways in which the Government can effectively administer RLPB rates including in light of recent and foreseeable regulatory and administrative changes.

In general, the ToR are not well set out. What exactly the ToR means by the use of the words `recent and foreseeable regulatory and administrative changes' are not clear to BCA. We understand that 2 years ago, regulatory changes allowed rates to be lowered to cover 4 hectare properties and that this could be in part what is meant by `recent'. What is meant by `foreseeable regulatory and administrative changes' is a mystery to BC.  Therefore, we ask you to set out exactly what matters are covered by these terms. You will understand that interest groups cannot reasonably comment on such vague notions.

The review will:

·       assess the effectiveness of current RLPB rates in achieving its objective(s);

It is not clear to BCA what the RLPB objectives are. We have looked at the Charter of Service on the RLPB website and also at the 2005 Annual Report of the State Council of RLPBs which provides the following guidance as to objectives : “deliver services to ratepayers and the wider community as the frontline in the management of animal health, pest animal and insect control, traveling-stock reserves, stock movement, stock identification and assistance in natural disaster relief”.

BCA can only comment on these objectives and the Charter of Service in relation to the BPLPB. Most of the objectives are important but largely irrelevant to the small rural lifestyle landholder.

The main issues we would like to address are the electoral process, accountability and communications.

Electoral process. Boards are currently elected ostensibly by ratepayers. However, in the case of the BRLPB, ratepayers have to `opt in' to vote and it is not clear to many ratepayers how to `opt in'. This has lead to the effective disenfranchising of many ratepayers in the BRLPB catchment. The Review should examine the methods and procedures used by RLPBs in the election of their Boards.

Accountability. The current situation in the BRLPB has lead to the ludicrous situation of a Board representing landholders who are truly engaged in agribusiness deciding to raise more revenue by increasing the rateable base by including small landholders, to whom at the time they were in no way accountable, and who are not engaged in agribusiness. It is possible that, over time, these small landholders could gain a majority on the Board and vote to raise the minimum rateable area, and presumably the rates, so that they no longer have to pay them. The majority then reverts to the larger landholders and the cycle starts again. The Review needs to come up with a system that avoids these results, results which can become a problem for the elected government of the day.

Accountability. BRLPB does not appear to publicly provide a budget or financial projections so that the new ratepayers have no idea what their rates are to be spent on.

Communications. Often the first communication a landholder has with the BRLPB is a bill for rates from an organization they may never have heard of. This is not ideal and provokes a very negative reaction.

·       analyse equity considerations in current rating structure;

There are several issues that BCA would like the Review to consider under this heading.

Of the 48 RLPBs in NSW, only 6 Boards (and this includes the BRLPB) charge from 4+ hectares. The remaining 42 charge from 10+ hectares to 400 hectares. This is quite inequitable;

There appears to be no consistency in setting the minimum rate. In the case of the BRLPB, the same general rate applies if neighbouring properties are 4 hectares and 180 hectares. It is obvious that the 180 hectare landholder is getting a much better deal, in that they are more likely to benefit from the BRLPB services than the 4 hectare landholder, yet they pay the same amount. Small landholders are subsidizing large landholders, which is completely inequitable;

The figures are not easily confirmed but somewhere between 70% and 88% of landholders in the BRLPB catchment pay the same base rate, yet probably only 20% of these landholders obtain any more benefit from the rate than do all the residents of the entire State;

BCA notes that the current method of setting carrying capacity has not been reviewed for at least five years, was not genuinely reviewed five years ago (merely a confirmation of the previous decision five years before that) and might not have been genuinely reviewed for 20 years. It is open to manipulation and the current method also disadvantages owners of a few livestock, often kept for lifestyle reasons rather than a rural livestock business;

The rate is a tax deduction for landholders running a rural livestock business but is not tax deductible for small landholders of rural lifestyle blocks;

·       identify and evaluate any systematic discrepancies in current rating structure across RLPB system;

BCA assumes that the word `systemic' is meant rather than `systematic' and has proceeded on this basis. It has identified the following systemic discrepancies in the system:

Different minimum rates across RLPBs are supported for no logical reason;

Different minimum rateable areas across RLPBs are supported for no logical reason;

Different base levels of service e.g. field days; quality of information provided from websites, newsletters etc are provided;

Levels of accountability vary e.g. agendas and minutes of meetings should be available on RLPB websites; reliable and professional statistics should be provided on topics such as number of ratepayers and what rates they pay.

·       examine alternative rating structures (with emphasis on):

In general, setting rates to cover the services provided by RLPBs is fraught with difficulties and is a very inequitable system. It would be far better to ensure that these services were paid for, either by all NSW taxpayers, or via Council rates, as is the case with the vast majority of similar agricultural services. The problems arise when formerly broad acre farmland is subdivided into small rural lifestyle blocks. Policy needs to be developed to address this issue in an equitable manner. Savings could be made, via economies of scale, if the work was taken into the Dept of Agriculture, for example by saving the entire costs of the elected Boards. The current 'policy' of allowing Boards to raise this revenue over increasingly small lots needs urgent review.

The RLPB rates are an anachronism left over from the nineteenth century and should be funded in a more usual way. They do not represent a user pays levy but are an inequitable tax on some NSW citizens. Boards should have no discretion in applying a minimum land size.

There should be a minimum land size which attracts the rate and it should be applied consistently across NSW. The minimum land size should return to 10 hectares.

The rate should be assessed on a per hectare basis on an ascending basis. This is the most equitable method of assessment.

Using the same logic, the rates set in respect of livestock should also be based on a head count on an ascending scale

If they are to continue as a stand alone tax, then the rates should be based on the size of the land, rather than carrying capacity, which is potentially open to rorting

Issues such as carrying no stock; restoring degraded land (for which there is a State Government Program) need to be taken into account when setting rates

To ensure equity across all of NSW, RLPB rates should be set by an independent body to ensure that no real or perceived benefit accrues to RLPB Directors and staff. The current system could be open to such claims.

Boards should be regularly audited by the NSW Auditor-General

standardised minimal rating arrangements across all boards;

If the RLPB system is to continue, then BCA supports consistent standardized minimal rating arrangements across all boards.

consistent rating arrangements for general rates and animal health rates

If the RLPB system is to continue, then BCA supports consistent rating arrangements for general and animal health rates across all Boards

other alternative rating structures

The rating structure should be based on the `user pays' principle. If the whole State benefits from having these services, then all taxpayers should pay. If a subgroup of NSW's taxpayers benefit, then only they should pay the rates.

Judith Miller

President

Bywong Community