This thesis contends that; in mainstream rural residential development around the
Australian Capital Territory, use of community title guidelines for sub-division should
consider social processes and environmental considerations along-side economic
imperatives and interactions.
Community title is a form of land tenure that allows for private freehold ownership of
land as well as community owned land within the one sub-division. In New South
Wales, community title was introduced in 1990 under the Community Land
Development Act 1989 (NSW) and the Community Land Management Act 1989
(NSW). Since the introduction of community title, upwards of one hundred and fifty
developments, ranging from just a few blocks to the size of small suburbs, have been
approved throughout the state. The original aim of community title was to provide a
legal framework that underpinned theme-based broad-acre development. Themebased
development could include a Permaculture© village, a rural retreat for likeminded
equine enthusiasts, or even a medieval village.
Community title is also seen as an expedient form of land tenure for both developers
and shire councils. Under community title, a developer only has to submit a single
development application for a multi-stage development. This can significantly reduce
a developer's exposure to risk. From a shire council's perspective, common land and
resources within a development, which would otherwise revert to council
responsibility for management, becomes the collective responsibility of all the land
owners within the development, effectively obviating council from any responsibility
for management of that land. Community title is also being touted in planning and
policy as a way of achieving 'sustainable' environmental management in new subdivisions.
The apparent expediency of community title has meant that development
under these guidelines has very quickly moved beyond theme-based development into
mainstream rural residential development.
Community title effectively provides a framework for participatory governance of
these developments. The rules governing a community title development are set out in
the management statement, which is submitted to the local council and the state
government with the development application. A community association, which
includes all lot owners, manages the development. Unless written into the original
development application, the council has no role in the management of the common
land and resources.
This thesis looks at the peri-urban zone around one of Australia's fastest growing
cities - Canberra, whose population growth and relative affluence is impacting on
rural residential activity in the shires surrounding the Australian Capital Territory.
Yarrowlumla Shire, immediately adjacent to the ACT, has experienced a 362 percent
increase in population since 1971. Much of this growth has been in the form of rural
residential or hobby farm development. Since 1990, about fifteen percent of the
development in Yarrowlumla Shire has been community title. The Yass Shire, to the
north of the ACT, has shown a forty five percent population increase since 1971.
Community title in that shire has accounted for over fifty percent of development
since 1990. The thesis case study is set in Yass Shire.
The major research question addressed in the thesis is; does community title, within
the context of rural residential development around the Australian Capital Territory,
facilitate community-based environmental management and education? Subsidiary
questions are; what are the issues in and around rural residential developments within
the context of the study, who are the stakeholders and what role do they play and;
what skills and support are required to facilitate community-based environmental
management and education within the context of the study area?
To answer the research questions I undertook an interpretive case study, using
ethnographic methods, of rural residential development near the village of
Murrumbateman in the Yass Shire, thirty kilometres north of Canberra. At the time of
the study, which was undertaken in 1996, the developments involved had been
established for about four years. The case study revealed that, as a result of
stakeholders and residents not being prepared for the management implications of
community title, un-necessary conflict was created between residents and between
residents and stakeholders. Community-based environmental management issues were
not considered until these issues of conflict were addressed and residents had spent
enough time in the estates to familiarise themselves with their environment and with
each other.
Once residents realised that decisions made by the community association could affect
them, there developed a desire to participate in the process of management.
Eventually, earlier obstacles were overcome and a sense of community began to
develop through involvement in the community association. As residents became
more involved, the benefits of having ownership of the community association began
to emerge.
However, this research found that management of a broad acre rural residential
development under community title was far more complicated than any of the
stakeholders, or any but the most legally minded residents, were prepared for.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/218595 |
| Date | January 2002 |
| Creators | Hazell, Peter, n/a |
| Publisher | University of Canberra. Resource, Environment and Heritage Science |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | ), Copyright Peter Hazell |
Page generated in 0.0028 seconds