Bega Valley council voted 5 to 3 to prepare a planning proposal to permit forestry without consent in the RU2 zone, where it is currently prohibited

If you own RU2 land in the Bega Valley and want to log native forest on it, the answer today is still no. The staff report to the council's 23 September meeting says Forestry is currently a prohibited land use within the RU2 zone in the Bega Valley Shire. (agenda, item 8.3, page 111). What changed on 23 September is that councillors resolved, 5 to 3, to proceed with the preparation of that Planning Proposal: one to amend the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2013 to include forestry as a land use permissible without consent in the RU2 Rural Landscape zone (minutes, resolution 112/26). The council's own release is blunt about the limits: To be clear, Council’s decision does not mean private native forestry is now permitted in the RU2 zone, its Director Community, Environment and Planning, Emily Harrison, said (Bega Valley Shire Council, 28 September 2026).

What would change, if the proposal succeeds

Forestry is already permitted in the shire's RU3 Forestry and RU1 Primary Production zones. In RU2 it is prohibited, and the staff report says that As a result, Private Native Forestry (PNF) activities cannot currently be approved on RU2 zoned land within the Bega Valley Shire. Under the amendment, forestry on RU2 land would be assessed and regulated by Local Land Services under the Private Native Forestry Codes of Practice, with no requirement for approval by Council (page 112).

Forestry on RU2 Rural Landscape land in the Bega Valley

As the 23 September 2026 staff report describes it

Now

Prohibited

Forestry is a prohibited land use in RU2. Private native forestry cannot currently be approved on RU2 land in the shire.

If the amendment is made

Without consent

Forestry becomes permitted without development consent. Local Land Services would assess and regulate it under the Private Native Forestry Codes of Practice and permits, with no council approval.

How much land is that? The council's consultant, Gyde Consulting, put it in its February scoping proposal: the shire is about 6,280 square kilometres, and the RU2 zone covers close to 450 square kilometres, about 7 per cent of it. The RU3 Forestry zone covers over 1,600 square kilometres, roughly a quarter. Gyde adds that most RU2 land is privately owned (agenda, attachment 1, pages 123 and 126). In a later letter of advice, Gyde gave as one of its reasons for not assessing all RU2 land in detail that only a small proportion of landowners are likely to be interested in undertaking PNF (page 146).

The RU2 zone is about 7 per cent of the shire

Bars drawn to scale against the shire's whole area

Bega Valley Shire about 6,280 sq km

RU3 Forestry zone over 1,600 sq km, roughly 25%. Forestry permitted without consent

RU2 Rural Landscape zone close to 450 sq km, about 7%. Forestry prohibited; the proposal is about this land

What councillors chose, and what staff had recommended

The staff report did not recommend preparing a proposal. It recommended that council note the agency responses and the consultant's advice, and publish the scoping report and supporting information for landholders or developers to use in the preparation of proponent-led planning proposals, with a third point asking councillors to advise staff of any further action (page 111). Councillors O'Neil and Daly moved the first two points; that motion was lost, 3 to 5. The foreshadowed motion from Cr Mitchell Nadin, seconded by Cr Mudaliar, then carried 5 to 3: Councillors Allen, Mudaliar, Nadin, Noble and Porter for, Councillors Daly, Haggar and O'Neil against (minutes, pages 4 to 6).

The mayor did not take part. The minutes record that Cr Russell Fitzpatrick declared a non pecuniary but significant conflict of interest for the item, and advised the draft planning proposal referred to was prepared by his brother, a qualified planner; he left the chamber and did not vote, and Cr Nadin chaired the item (minutes, pages 2 and 4). That draft is the privately funded May 2024 draft Planning Proposal which the resolution directs be lodged as supporting material, with the 2026 scoping report, Gyde's advice and the scoping addendum.

The staff recommendation, and the point that carried

Staff recommendation, point 2 (motion lost 3 to 5)

That Council make the scoping report and supporting information available on Council’s website for landholders or developers to use in the preparation of proponent-led planning proposals.

Resolution 112/26, point 4 (carried 5 to 3)

Resolves to proceed with the preparation of that Planning Proposal

What it costs, and what gives way

The resolution says the proposal goes ahead without new technical studies before Gateway unless they are needed to lodge it, and asks that transport and road network impacts be addressed at a strategic level. Then it puts the trade-off in writing.

Resolution 112/26, point 8

Notes that within existing Operational Plan and resource priorities, the Planning Proposal cannot be prepared without removal of other identified priorities

The staff report is more specific about what would be displaced. It says further work has not been planned for and would require reallocation of internal resources, and that this would impact progress on other land rezoning, housing and development focused projects. On money, it says the exact amount is unknown because the studies required are not known, but this could be in excess of $100,000 should detailed environmental assessments be required by agencies (pages 116 and 117). The scoping work so far was paid from a $20,000 allocation in the 2025-26 budget, set by a council resolution of 21 May 2025 (page 111).

The state agencies consulted in February and March 2026 raised heavy vehicle movements on state roads, biodiversity and threatened species habitat, waterways and riparian corridors, Aboriginal cultural heritage and state heritage items, and land use conflicts on land adjoining rural and urban areas (pages 114 and 115). Gyde concluded a proposal could potentially be prepared with minimal supporting studies, with further requirements confirmed at Gateway (page 115). Two uncertainties sit over that. NSW changed how local plans are amended on 1 July 2026, and the report says it is currently unclear whether the requirements for additional studies previously identified by agencies would also be required by the DCA, the new Development Coordination Authority (page 115). A separate staff answer recorded in the same minutes, on the new planning rules, says the validity of agency responses to completed scoping reports is currently uncertain, for example the Ru2 Scoping report (minutes, item 16.1, page 26).

The staff report also notes a bill tabled in the NSW Parliament by the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, the Local Land Services Amendment (Private Native Forestry) Bill 2026, which it says seeks to achieve the same outcomes of the proposed amendment to Council’s RU2 zone; at the time of the report, it said, debate on the bill had not concluded (page 117). We have not read the bill or checked its progress since.

What happens next

From the resolution to any change on the ground

1. 123 September 2026: resolution 112/26. Council resolves to prepare the planning proposal, 5 to 3.
2. 2Staff and funding identified. The chief executive is to identify what is needed and, if extra budget approval is required, report it to council at the earliest available meeting. The next scheduled ordinary meeting is Wednesday 21 October 2026.
3. 3Proposal prepared and lodged with the 2024 draft, the 2026 scoping report, Gyde's advice and the addendum as supporting material.
4. 4Gateway determination by the NSW Government, which the council says will decide the next steps, including any further studies or consultation.
5. 5Public exhibition and engagement on any proposed change to the Local Environmental Plan.

As at 9 October, the council's meetings portal did not yet list an agenda for 21 October, so we do not know whether the resourcing report will be on it (Bega Valley meetings portal). For a sense of pace, Gyde's February scoping proposal put the benchmark for a standard planning proposal at 320 working days, about 16 months, including pre-lodgement (attachment 1, page 128); that was written before the 1 July 2026 changes. The staff report says no formal community engagement on the scoping proposal has been undertaken to date (page 117).

Our view

This is opinion, built on the documents above. We take no side on whether native forestry belongs on RU2 land; that is a contested question, the Gateway process exists to test it, and exhibition will give residents their say. Our point is about the bill for getting there. Councillors were entitled to choose a council-led proposal over the staff option of leaving it to a proponent, and they were candid that, within existing priorities, it means removing others. Staff told them which kind: land rezoning, housing and development projects. At a meeting that also asked staff to prioritise a tiny homes policy under the shire's Affordable Housing Strategy, that matters: ratepayers should be able to see, in the chief executive's resourcing report, exactly which projects slip, by how long, and what the proposal will cost, before any extra money is approved.