Dear Editor,

I’m concerned by a trend by some State Governments, which seems to make the implementation of ecovillages even more difficult. In a brochure published by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning in NSW, it is suggested that residential developments on land outside villages and towns may not be desirable and should be avoided. The reason given is “new roads have to be built… garbage collections have to be extended…” It also claims that this would “keep as much good farmland for agriculture as possible”. As always in Australia, the “hip-pocket nerve” is not being missed with the promise that this would ‘save local ratepayers money”.

I agree that some of the rural subdivisions which have been permitted during the 1980’s (and no doubt before and after) have carved up land without due consideration for the needs of the land (resulting in the loss of agricultural land) the environment (and we can blame them for the loss of habitat) or indeed people (I wonder how many divorces they have to answer for). The changes to rural residential strategies from spot zoning would probably avoid such subdivisions but would also make developments like Kookaburra Park and Crystal Waters (both in Queensland) impossible in NSW.

Current planning laws already permit Councils and the Dept. of Planning to place conditions on developments it deems unsuitable or to withhold development permission. Ecovillages of the recent years have a good record in preserving agricultural land and protecting environmental assets. Crystal Waters and Kookaburra Park are excellent examples where the environmental values have been considerably enhanced. Crystal Waters with Green Harvest, the wood fired bakery, a bamboo nursery, a healing sanctuary and many other initiatives have shown that a mix of traditional crafts and businesses based on modern communications technologies can do well in a rural environment.

In Germany particularly, the policy of village consolidation has often destroyed the “village picture” but has done little to save the agricultural landscape. On the contrary, moving people away from rural areas has resulted in the loss of family farms, creating larger and larger monocultures.

Either by design or due to lack of understanding, the Residential Development Strategies will mean the end for many small rural villages. It will do little in the direction the legislation had intended.

Hans Hammer

Dear Hans,

We’ve only recently become aware about the change in policy by the NSW government. I believe that the WA government also is pushing for similar legislation.

I basically agree with the point you are making. Crystal Waters and Kookaburra Park are the examples of ecovillages I’m most familiar with. Crystal Waters, if applied for today, could fall victim to this policy. I do believe that policies like the one you mention are based on information that has little to do with a modern ecovillage.

For example, the fear that agricultural land would be lost is not based on fact. The fact is (at least for Crystal Waters and Kookaburra Park) that just about all agricultural land was kept for agricultural or horticultural purposes and indeed in both cases agricultural production has been increased compared to when they were farms.

If one compares pre ecovillage aerial photos it is easily seen that environmentally, the Crystal Waters property has benefited from having all the extra working hands. The 167 bird species, 26 frog species and the amazing and diverse wildlife are ample proof for this.

All less than 30 km from Maleny, the area around Crystal Waters (like the village of Conondale) was losing population fast. Thanks to the increased population Crystal Waters has provided, the primary school at Conondale is viable as is the Rural Fire Brigade and other community and social organisations which are so important in rural areas.

We encourage ideas from all quarters regarding any issues. This newsletter is an ideal forum to inform government organisations.

Max Lindegger, GENOA Inc