A couple of weeks ago I received an email suggesting that trees were being cleared on a few properties in the old North of Beaudesert with permits or approvals from Logan Council and the sender was concerned that there was going to be a new influx of Protected Horticulture operations due to some kind of moratorium on tree clearing.
Being pre occupied with work and other personal issues I checked out a couple of addresses and found that one of them was definitely cleared and now has been covered with the familiar plastic igloo type structures that have caused much concern for people who want private residential use of their land adjacent to what is essentially factory farming.
I was however, amazed to see this weeks local paper and the sensationalised stories about one property in Greenbank and whilst I have sympathy for the owner of the neighbouring property if there is a change of use to Intensive Horticulture I have to wonder why just one property has been targeted and why the hysterical views about small cropping in any form, of another person, have been added as a separate story.
Actually I don't have to wonder, it is quite obvious in my opinion that the alliances are gathering their forces together once again to try to get one persons idea that we should all only be allowed to garden up to 200 square meters on our land revisited by Logan Council and forced upon us.
I have had email discussions with someone who has been a well known advocate for regulation of Protected horticulture within rural residential or what they call rural living areas now, for well over 5 years and who despite having a comprehensive document lodged with the Beaudesert Council all that time ago which would have seen both Council and community well served by allowing everyone, including new buyers to know the rules and have a clear understanding of the requirements before attempting to buy land for intensive horticulture operations and allowing the community fair dispute resolution as well as a process of objection to any proposed new change of use, that person has been gagged and omitted from discussions because it has become politicised and that person will not come out against market gardens and does not believe in extinguishing the "as of right use" that existing operators have now.
In those email discussions I was also enlightened to the fact that the regulations can be applied at State Government level as they are in NSW which removes the ability of some opportunistic politically savvy aspirants to use such a polarising issue for their own purposes.
I was asked this interesting question, and it is so pertinent, " why would someone move into a rural area, into roads named Farm or Harvest even, and then try to stop others who are just using their right to follow a typically rural pursuit from running a small crops operation on their land?
12 comments:
What has happened to individual's rights to quiet enjoyment of their own property? Council no longer allows that. We are constantly bombarded with new rules and laws and somehow each one carries a hefty fee or levy?
It seems that the individual at the centre of this issue has not won a single issue - the N McClean issue is still open, the Greenbank parking area is not on Army land - the list goes on and on.
Is this the reason for the constant assualt on community? In all honesty what has actually been achieved in the last 5 years?
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds.
What great ideas? And where is the Violent opposition? Wow!
You're kidding right, people who live in Farm or Harvest roads are complaining about farming and harvesting ? Thats typical though. I have heard of people who bought cheap land near a motor race venue who then got together and formed an action group to get the race circuit shut down, and they did it too.
One has to wonder why some people move to acreage - surely its not just the cheap land?
Surely the city slickers don't come out here and want to have a suburban lifestyle?
I wonder if these are the same ones complaining about our truckies?
no one minds the market gardens as long as one rule is for all to abide by!!
All the blowharding by one particular councillor is not going to result in one rule for all, it will be one rule in logan and everywhere else will work on the State regulated system, even if implimented, the 200 square meter garden rule cannot be applied retrospectively to existing market gardens who will be continuing to operate and in fact the rule may actually make their small farms worth a fortune.
The original intent of those lobbying beaudesert Shire Council over 5 years ago was to have local laws reflect guidelines for everyone to follow at the time of purchase of land which would have made potential growers able to consider whether a particular lot was viable with conditions applied for certain types of cropping including buffers, screening, run off catchments, chemical storage facilities and safety requirements.
These are things that are already regulated in other States for new operations coming into residential areas (even rural residential) and it is always suggested that growers seek to purchase land in rural areas 9 which this area was many years ago when most of these type of small cpopping farms began)where land prices are lower, where land sizes are larger, where others are already engaged in similar land uses and where there is not likely to be oposition from whingers.
There was (about 5/6 years ago) reason to believe that market gardens were being set up for the purpose of future development due to tree clearing regulations that allowed every tree to be cleared from land being used for cropping, with many being cleared, ploughed and even small areas cropped and then just left while owners of multiple lots lobby for development approval.
There were also tennant farmers immigrating to run some small cropping farms who weren't familliar with local regulations and who may have created problems innitially with neighbours, however this is not generally the case with the vast majority of small cropping farms following best practise simply to get good produce to markets and actually make a living out of doing so in a very competitive business.
The attack on small croppers by an elected representative shows utter lack of representing all sectors of the community in my opinion, and I find it hard to understand how an outspoken supposed "National" Party member can oppose an activity that is about as national as you could possibily get.
The fact that this councillor only supports those against small cropping, which I might add has been in many of those areas since before the councillor was born, shows in my opinion, immaturity, no real understanding of how a representative should conduct themselves and very little understanding of the issue itself.
Vince, knowing little about
the background of Hajnal
Ban`s percieved betrayal of
small lot farmers and horti-
culturists in North Beaudesert
going back to the time of the
Beaudesert council, i am not
going to say anything more
other than i know exactly
where you are coming from
with your perplexed opinion
as to how something that is
so `National` could be so
misrepresented in the current
council by one of their own.
My opinion is that until you
get someone like Russ Cooper
or Jo-Bjelke back running the
LNP, then leftist city slickers
like Langbroek and maybe even
the woman in question will not
give the time of day about the
agrarian demographic which is
traditionally the cornerstone
of the National Party. Some of
these socialist LNP politicians
may as well join the Labor Party,
and support urban and commercial
encroachment of farming properties.
The LNP may as well follow the
Labor Party around like a lapdog
and in local government support
the introduction of by-laws which discriminate against people who are enterprising enough to want
to stat up a business. I do agree with one thing, ugly igloos should not be popping up here there and
bloody everywhere creating an eyesore for the people who live next door to commercial greenhouses. But provided that
that small crop farmers and horticulturalists do not create eyesores, and provided they do not desicrate native vegetation to
build any commercial structures, then a member of the National Party more than anybody should be
in total support of people who
are enterprising enough to want
to own and operate a viable business on their own property.
Tim, I agree, being a member of a Political Party should mean that you are in agreeance with, respect and promote the core values and the mission of the Party and its core support base rather than the joining of that party being a last resort because the others would not pre select one to be the candidate at a particular election in my opinion.
Recently we have seen stories in the press about another local government representative who also has announced a desire to contest elections for the next level of government, and in my opinion also it was only a matter of time before this occurred and the local community issue being used as a trigger is just that and nothing more.
I recall, this particular person bragging that they were a political advisor to people in office in the Labor Party, and now they want to contest elections for the nationals? a long hop to say the least that someone's ideology could possibly encomapss both extreems of the political realm and it's more likely that once again it seems more about ladder climbing and the lust for power than service to the community.
Grass roots community service is what the people need, not political wanna be's who's idea of community is to control every committee or just throw money around local groups and get ones photo in the paper!
By the way Tim, don't fall for the yrap that some people like to continue to perpetuate that Market gardens need regulated in the same way as intensive horticulture, e.g you igloos.
There is a vast difference in the way land is used in each of these types of agricultural persuits and the attack on market hardeners is totally unwarrented in almost every case especially when quite often the supposed evidence that i have seen against particular operators by some of the loudest protagonists for their ceasation has been found wanting and is some cases appears to me to be fabricated.
Intensive Horticulture, Factory Farming or Protected Horticulture come under the banner of Controlled Environment Horticulture and the issues with them are particular to them and do not relate to the ordinary market garden in almost every case becaus eof the very different way the growing of a crop is acheived and the steps it takes to get there.
Coming from a background in agribusiness I have some knowledge of some types of operation and the basis by which farms work to make an income from what they produce, farmers and Market gardeners operate in a sustainable way, they have to, continuing to rotate crops and look after the farm to maximise theri yeild and therefore their profit, this is not what those opposed to market gardens are saying.
The igloo type operations meerly use the soil upon which they have built structures to somewhat control the environment to more favourable conditions, as a medium to facilitate the intake of nutrients to the plants inside to maximise their crop, they sometimes do not use the soil inside the igloos at all, that's the major difference, not good , not bad, but different.
I had lent my assistance to Beaudesert Shire Council in the form of a document showing the simple steps for local regulation of the IH industry within residential acreage areas and even provided support during the Intensive Horticulture Task Force meetings which made policy for that council and finished with some reasonable outcomes for both residents and growers for the future.
Of course one person did not get the Kudos from that and didn't get their photo in the paper, and it did not make anyreccomendations to ceasate ant existing operations and rightly so, that of course did not sit well with a particular person who in my opinion was there to persue a personal grudge not create policy and enduring harmony in the community.
Being totally non political myself, I see this as a 'control and bullying' tactic.
For the past 5 years we have seen a definite move towards controlling the people and trying to ensure that everyone becomes submissive [or else].
I feel the motives are purely selfish in as far as certain individuals wanting to big note themselves all the time and further their careers without any consideration of the damage they incur.
Its also ironic that both claim to be working for their communities - I think they have lost touch with reality and become legends in their own minds.
They are all over the shop - first fighting the industrial presinct then stating that every development needs an industrial/commercial area, stating that they intend to stay in council to 'fight for their constituents' then stating they are about to jump ship?
My gawd, what is wrong with these two?
No farmers, no truckies - what next?
But I guess it makes it easier for those sitting in the wings just waiting to jump right into these two seats - and the three names floating around makes one wonder about the devil you know.........?
Surely the people can find decent representatives for both areas?
I also wonder why these two have attracted more bad publicity in the short span of time than others do in a life time?
I for one believe this re visiting policy on the market gardens is another waste of precious money and time, that doesn't come easy for most of us.
I believe Beaudesert Shire Council and and taskforce effectively determined how heavily the farmers where regulated also developing strategies if anymore issues where to arise, and acknowledging there are regulations in place at every corner the grower turns.
Now Logan City Council is addressing it for a second time.
Greenhouses / protective Horticulture seem to be one of the vexing issues. Growers have been changing rapidly to utilise Greenhouse production, you may have noticed the influx of greenhouses way before government declared drought.
While this growing technique does not suit every crop, it is meeting the many requirements for the environment also for sustainability.
Why Greenhouse? Take five acres in a greenhouse, it is equivalent to twenty five acres in open field, other benefits are as follows: Faster growth, higher yields, better quality, growing out of and extend season, pests can be excluded or controlled easier, minimum weeds, much reduced impact on the natural environment, significant reductions in herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, fertilisers, waste-water and land area. Higher outputs on significantly smaller footprints, and also delivers major energy and water efficiencies.
This is just to name a few; many more benefits have been identified by industry. Growers are constantly modifying their farming practises to work more efficiently with the environment.
Sure Plastic is not pretty, but it can be recycled. Growers have an option to put up hedging, so do the neighbours. As we all know this takes money, time, and water. A few growers have been talking to an Entomologist regarding native landscaping which will help visually also with pest management, this all takes time and money. Be patient, we are trying to be an integral part of the community.
I don't think Logan City Council has re-ignited this issue - its one cr who seems hell bent on having her way.
BSC voted this down and so did Logan when it previously presented but it seems the cr is flogging a dead horse. What really surprises me is that she is advocating for commercial/industial areas in new development areas but is set against farming.
Could it be that farming is not as lucrative as commercial/industrial enterprise? No shares to be obtained?
Post a Comment