What is Bega Valley Shire Council being asked to decide about the land south of Bega? At its meeting on Wednesday 21 October 2026, councillors are asked to finalise the change to the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 that would rezone about 279 hectares of rural, rural residential and productivity support land for houses, shops and parks, together with a draft scheme that charges developers an affordable housing contribution. The staff report describes the scheme as a draft affordable housing contribution (AHC) scheme that will apply to land that is rezoned to increase residential capacity
. The recommendation is to finalise both subject to the amendments detailed in this report
, under the planning minister's delegation, and to tell everyone who made a submission what the council decides (agenda, item 8.1, page 9).
The rezoning itself builds no houses. The report says it would allow around 2,200 new residential lots, providing an estimated 25 to 30 years of housing supply for the Bega Valley Shire
, each subdivision still needing its own development application (agenda, pages 9 and 10).
The proposal in three numbers
Land to be rezoned
About 279 ha
Eastern, Central and Western precincts, south of Bega.
Residential lots, as exhibited
Around 2,200
Through later development applications. The recommended changes would lower this; see below.
Housing supply
25 to 30 years
The report's estimate, for the whole shire.
What the rezoning does
Most of the land would become low-density housing. In the new R2 Low Density Residential zone the minimum lot would be 550 square metres, but up to 40 per cent of lots could be smaller, down to 350 square metres, with council approval; the R5 Large Lot Residential minimum would be 5,000 square metres. Height limits would stay as they are except in the proposed local centre in the Eastern Precinct, which would get 14 metres. The commercial land could hold around 55 more dwellings in mixed-use buildings (agenda, page 10).
Where the 279 hectares go
| Proposed zone | Hectares, approx. |
|---|---|
| Low-density residential (R2) | 168 |
| Large-lot residential (R5) | 81 |
| Public open space | 18 |
| Commercial | 12 |
| Total | 279 |
The plan would also add three urban release area clauses to the LEP, so that water, sewer, roads and utilities would have to be available or planned before development could occur, and staging plans and development control plans would have to exist before subdivision could be approved (agenda, page 10). The council's response to submissions puts the pace plainly: Development of the Urban Land Release Area is expected to be slow and staged, occurring over decades rather than years.
(agenda, attachment 1, page 57).
Six changes since exhibition
The proposal was on public exhibition from 22 September to 2 November 2025 and drew 137 public submissions and 12 from government agencies. Staff recommend six changes in response (agenda, pages 9 and 13 to 21).
The six recommended changes, and what each does to the lot count
Lot changes are the report's approximations
- 1Boundary Road, Eastern Precinct. The R2 boundary moves after a landowner's consultants supplied flood and biodiversity studies. About 39 more lots. Page 14.
- 2Near Bega Cemetery. The R2 boundary pulls back east of the cemetery for amenity and contamination risk. About 24 fewer lots, but change 3 would take in this area anyway. Page 15.
- 3North of the Bega saleyard. R2 land within 500 metres of the saleyard is removed. About 170 fewer lots; the existing potential for 15 rural residential lots there stays. Page 17.
- 4A saleyard clause. Subdivision applications within 1 kilometre of the saleyard lot must assess its noise, odour and dust and how they will be managed. Page 19.
- 5Central Precinct uses. Transport depots, storage premises and warehouses stay permitted in the new commercial zones, which resolves an objection from Crown Lands. Pages 20 and 21.
- 6Affordable housing cash rates. $300 to $215 a square metre in R2; $112 to $50 in R5. Page 21.
The report does not give a new total. On its own figures, adopting all six would leave roughly 2,070 lots: around 2,200, plus about 39, less about 170. We have not subtracted change 2's 24 lots as well, because the report says change 3 would negate this amendment to the planning proposal because it includes the area identified for removal in Recommendation 2
(agenda, page 15).
Change 5 has a consequence attached. The report says Crown Lands has stated they will formally object to the planning proposal if this amendment is not endorsed by Council
; without it, the council would have to ask the minister to finalise the plan instead (agenda, page 11). Existing lawful businesses in the Central Precinct can keep operating whatever the zoning, but planned uses not yet approved and not permitted in the new zones could not proceed (agenda, page 20).
The saleyard change came late
The saleyard was the issue raised most often in submissions, on the council's own chart of the top ten (agenda, attachment 1, page 29). As exhibited, depending on where the measurement is taken, the saleyard sat about 150 metres from the nearest proposed residential zone (agenda, page 46).
The 500-metre setback follows advice that arrived after a public council briefing on 9 September 2026. When staff then asked the NSW Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development where a saleyard fits in its buffer guidance, the department said the Bega saleyard is more intensive than a farm stockyard, and that the council should look at the guidance for feedlots, intensive livestock and abattoirs. The report adds: This clarification had not been provided previously by DPIRD.
The department also acknowledged it had not reviewed the updated land use conflict risk assessment, despite being sent it multiple times since April 2025, the report says (agenda, pages 16 and 17).
The department's letter, dated 6 October 2026, says that assessment does not adequately show the saleyard's impacts have been assessed, and that a buffer greater than that applicable to standard farm stockyards may be warranted
(agenda, attachment 2, pages 84 and 85). On why it had not reviewed it earlier, the department's letter says it was not apparent that substantive amendments had been made to the LUCRA
(agenda, page 84).
Buffer distances in the guidance the report cites
| Use | Minimum separation |
|---|---|
| Farm stockyards (DPIRD) | 200 m |
| Intensive livestock operations (DPIRD) | 500 m |
| Abattoirs (EPA) | 500 m |
| Feedlots (DPIRD) | 1,000 m |
| Bega saleyard to nearest residential zone, as exhibited | about 150 m |
| Recommended setback | 500 m |
Staff stopped at 500 metres. A setback greater than this is not recommended because it may unnecessarily sterilise land that could otherwise be developed for housing.
The detailed assessment is left until subdivision, through the new clause, because development near the saleyard is not expected soon and the council has resolved to prepare a strategic plan for the saleyard that may change how it operates (agenda, pages 16 to 19).
How the affordable housing contribution works
The agenda summarises the scheme rather than attaching it: a contribution of up to 2 per cent on land rezoned for housing, phased in over six years, payable as cash, land or completed dwellings, with social and affordable housing and some other development exempt (agenda, page 10). For the mechanics we read the scheme document lodged with the planning proposal on the NSW Planning Portal. Under it, a subdivision's contribution is 2 per cent of its net developable area. Paid in cash, that area is multiplied by a dollar rate per square metre. The percentage starts at nil in year one and reaches 2 per cent in year six. Exempt are social and affordable housing, group homes and hostels, community facilities, non-residential development and subdivisions that create no new residential lot (Bega Valley Shire Affordable Housing Contribution Scheme, pages 11 and 12).
The scheme's own worked example, at the old and new cash rates
2 hectares of net developable area, contribution fully phased in: about 27 lots in R2, about 3 in R5
| Zone | Exhibited rate | Cash due | Recommended rate | Cash due |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 Low Density Residential (about 27 lots) | $300/m² | $120,000 | $215/m² | $86,000 |
| R5 Large Lot Residential (about 3 lots) | $112/m² | $44,800 | $50/m² | $20,000 |
In the R2 example that is about $3,190 a lot at the new rate, against about $4,440 at the old, our division by the scheme's 27 lots. Submissions pulled both ways. The council's summary records that some said the rate is too small and fails to demonstrate leadership or meaningful commitment to affordability outcomes
, and others that the scheme will discourage development, push up land and house prices, and ultimately be passed on to buyers
(agenda, attachment 1, page 35). The exhibited rates came from the Bega Affordable Housing Feasibility Analysis; staff say further market research and scenario testing since exhibition support new rates that specifically reflect recent Bega sales prices and planned lot sizes
(agenda, page 21). That research is not in the agenda.
Roads, floods and who pays
The report says all agency objections have been resolved except Crown Lands' (agenda, page 13). The agency letters attached to it are worth reading alongside that.
On roads, the council's agency report says a consultant designed the proposed roundabout at Finucane Lane and the Princes Highway, which has been accepted by Transport for NSW, and the requirement to update the TIA has been resolved
(agenda, attachment 2, page 74). The latest Transport for NSW letter among the attachments, dated 24 June 2026, records that the agency has been working closely with Council on the development of the strategic design
for the roundabout, and says TfNSW has significant concerns with the PP proceeding without addressing the outstanding matters raised in TfNSW previous responses
, listing trip assumptions, how upgrades will be funded and delivered, staging and cost estimates, and ends: The above matters should be addressed prior to rezoning of the land.
(agenda, pages 132 and 133). Those are concerns, not a formal objection, and the acceptance the report describes may have come after that letter; it is not among the attachments. The council's answer is that the plan includes the model state infrastructure clause, which requires that satisfactory arrangements are to be made, via a concurrence role for the DPHI, for the provision of designated State public infrastructure before development consent can be granted to the development (including subdivision) of land
in the release area, with staging and sequencing to be set in the development control plan (agenda, page 74). An earlier letter, of 4 November 2025, said Currently, TfNSW has no plans or funding for any upgrades on the Princes Highway in this location.
(agenda, page 126).
On flooding, the state's flood branch reviewed the council's updated flood risk assessment and wrote on 2 October 2026 that it has no further comments, as there is enough information for a decision. Its detailed comments add that the assessment recommends sheltering in place for all three precincts, and that the proposed SIP strategy on greenfield developments does not align with the DPHI guidance
; it asks the council to consult the State Emergency Service (agenda, attachment 2, pages 100 to 102). The SES's own letter in the agenda, of September 2025, describes the local flood plans as ones where evacuation is the preferred emergency management strategy for people impacted by flooding
(agenda, page 116). The agenda holds no later SES response. The council's answer is that Flood risks and emergency management will be considered in the preparation of the Development Control Plan
for the release area, and in detail when each subdivision is assessed (agenda, attachment 2, page 72).
Most local infrastructure, from local roads to water and sewer reticulation, is to be paid for or built by developers, through a new local infrastructure contributions plan and planning agreements. For state infrastructure the council's response says there is currently no guarantee of state funding for new state infrastructure (such as schools, health facilities, regional and state roads)
(agenda, attachment 1, page 56). The Department of Education wants a primary school site of at least 3 hectares in the Eastern Precinct (agenda, page 139). The council applied for a state grant for an infrastructure needs analysis of the release area; the application was unsuccessful (agenda, page 74). The council's response says the sewage treatment plant upgrade already allows for the population, and the Bega bore field can supply the water (agenda, page 59).
What the submissions said
About 30 people came to each of two drop-in sessions. After the saleyard, the issues raised most often were infrastructure capacity, the loss of farmland, the scale of the release, and traffic (agenda, attachment 1, page 29). The council's summary is that many submissions accepted the need for new homes, but support for the rezoning proposal was often conditional or critical with many submissions questioning aspects of the rezoning proposal
(agenda, page 13).
On farmland, the council accepts there is good quality agricultural land in the Eastern Precinct, but says removing the land now zoned RU1 Primary Production would cut the release from around 2,200 lots to around 1,350 (agenda, page 39). The primary industries department says the proposal will contribute to the cumulative loss of agricultural land in the Shire
and has offered to help the council monitor it (agenda, page 79). Landholders who asked whether their rates would rise were told the zoning change alone does not change rates, but the Valuer General may revalue land on its highest use, and the council cannot estimate what that would do (agenda, page 40).
What happens next
From the vote to the first houses
In the order the agenda gives. Dates only where it gives them
- 121 October 2026. Councillors decide whether to finalise the plan, with all, some or none of the six changes, or not to support it.
- 2Finalisation under delegation. Clause wording goes to the Parliamentary Counsel. Submitters are told the decision.
- 3Precinct planning. Precinct planning, including a development control plan, starts after finalisation; $100,000 is allocated from the 2026-27 strategic planning projects budget. An infrastructure needs analysis is also planned, but the state grant the council sought for it was unsuccessful, and the agenda names no other funding.
- 4Subdivision applications. None can be approved until a staging plan is in place and essential services are, or will be, available.
- 5Building, over 25 to 30 years.
Our view
This is opinion, built on the documents above. The rezoning is worth doing. The submissions and the report agree the shire needs more homes, and one planned release with staged infrastructure is better than piecemeal subdivision. Most of the six changes are sensible, and a 500-metre setback is a better answer for the saleyard than the 150 metres exhibited.
But on three points councillors are being asked to settle things on late or missing paper. The setback rests on a letter dated 6 October, sent after the department found it had never reviewed the revised conflict assessment; the site-specific assessment both the consultant and the department say is needed has not been done, and the new clause pushes it to the first subdivision. The report says Transport for NSW accepted the roundabout design, and the acceptance may postdate the June letter, but the latest Transport for NSW letter in the agenda says its matters should be addressed before rezoning; councillors should see that acceptance before they vote. And the agenda has no SES view on sheltering in place since its 2025 letter favouring evacuation, though the state's flood branch says the strategy does not align with guidance.
On affordable housing, a lower rate may be justified, but the market research behind it is described in one sentence and not attached, and residents should be able to see it. At full rate the scheme takes 2 per cent of developable land: in its own example, 400 square metres from 27 lots, less than one 550-square-metre lot, and nothing in year one. That is a start. It is small next to an affordability problem that submissions described as at crisis point (agenda, attachment 1, page 34).
Methodology
We read item 8.1 of the Bega Valley Shire Council agenda for 21 October 2026 in full, pages 9 to 142: the staff report, attachment 1 (the community consultation report) and attachment 2 (the agency consultation report with the agencies' letters), plus the strategic planning work program in item 8.2 (page 145). Page numbers are the agenda's printed page numbers. For how the affordable housing contribution is calculated we read the scheme document lodged with the planning proposal on the NSW Planning Portal (cover dated February 2025); the version councillors are asked to finalise is not attached to the agenda and may differ in wording, and the report gives only its changed cash rates. Our arithmetic: the zone areas sum to 279 hectares; around 2,200 + 39 − 170 = about 2,070 lots, not subtracting change 2's 24 lots because the report says change 3's area includes them; 20,000 m² × 2% × $215 = $86,000 and × $50 = $20,000; $86,000 ÷ 27 = about $3,190 and $120,000 ÷ 27 = about $4,440. The staff report gives the exhibition as 42 days and the consultation report as 40; 22 September to 2 November 2025 inclusive is 42 days by our count. We have not named landowners or individual submitters. We have not read the land use conflict risk assessment, the flood risk assessment, the traffic assessment or the market research behind the new rates, and we have not put questions to the council for this piece.