MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Hello and welcome.
Good evening and welcome to our March Council meeting.
I'm Mayor Liz Pattison and it's a pleasure to welcome members of the community
into the chambers tonight.
This meeting is also being live streamed, so a big welcome to those tuning
in online, and of course welcome to my fellow Councillors,
noting that we are likely to have Councillor Wellington online
tonight.
Live captioning will accompany the live stream
and the Council Chambers is fitted with a hearing loop,
which transmits directly to hearing aids.
We hope that this assists those who may be having hearing difficulties.
The Surf Coast Shire local government area spans the traditional lands
of the Wadawurrung people and the Gulidjan and Gadubanud peoples of the Maar Nation.
I would like to acknowledge that here in Torquay at the main Council office,
we are gathered on Wadawurrung country.
I pay my respects to Elders past, present and emerging.
The Wadawurrung people have nurtured and protected these lands and waterways
for thousands of generations and I am so grateful for the opportunity
to live and work in such a beautiful part of the world.
We also wish to acknowledge the traditional owners
of the lands on which each person is attending
and acknowledge any Aboriginal people who may be viewing the meeting tonight.
Last week I was part of the G21 Region Alliance of five Mayors
and Council CEOs to visit Canberra for meetings
with federal government ministers and shadow ministers
to highlight major pressures on the G21 region stemming
from rapid population growth, and that was focusing
on things such as transport, housing and key worker visa extensions.
So we took part in around 18 meetings, which included Deputy
Prime Minister Richard Marles, Infrastructure Minister Catherine King,
and Regional Development and Local Government Minister Kristy
McBain, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, and local MPs Libby Coker and Dan Tehan.
It was a really great opportunity to meet with our ministers and engage with them
on things that are really important for our region.
And as I already mentioned, we advocated for improved transport, affordable housing
and action to address our key worker shortage.
So through G21, we are seeking a permanent policy change
to the Working Holiday Maker visa, so visa holders can stay with one employer
for up to 12 months rather than just six months.
This will give our businesses more stability in staffing and attract workers
to the region with the promise of ongoing employment.
Last month Council celebrated International Women's Day
with the unveiling of a mural the Strong Woman Strong Spirit
by First Nations artist Jenna Oldaker.
So if you haven't already seen it at Wurdi Baierr, when you first walk in,
it's a beautiful mural, very bright and colourful
with some really important messages.
The artist describes the work as "a celebration of all the strong women
that have travelled this beautiful land that we are lucky enough to call home.
Our ancestors and Elders travelled these same lands sharing their culture,
sharing their stories and ideas, and it is now our responsibility to take care of
and nurture our Wadawurrung country home.
"So those were the artist's words in relation to the work.
We chose to work with an artist to realise this year's International
Women's Day theme of "Embrace Equity".
In Australia, more than half of undergraduate and three-quarters
of post-graduate fine art qualifications are awarded
to women, yet women's art makes up only one quarter of the work acquired
for public gallery and municipal collections,
including public art.
This shows us that while it's clear that women have achieved equity of access
to education and training in the arts, there is still nothing
like equity when it comes to career opportunities, and in a place
like the Surf Coast, where the creative industries
is a significant contributor to our economy, this is something we need
to work actively to understand and address.
And now to our agenda for tonight.
It's a long one and there's lots of important matters,
so let's get that under way.
So our Council meetings operate according to our Governance Rules,
which include the following procedures.
During the meeting, the mover of a motion or an amendment may speak
for a maximum of five minutes to open the debate
and then a further 2 minutes to make a closing statement.
Any other Councillor, including the seconder, may speak
to a motion for no more than 3 minutes.
We have a pledge at our Council, and I would now like to recite that pledge
as a sign of our commitment: as Councillors, we carry
out our responsibilities with diligence and integrity and make fair decisions
of lasting value for the wellbeing of our community and environment.
And moving along on apologies, are there any apologies tonight
for this Council meeting?
No?
And the confirmation of minutes
- can I please have a mover and a seconder to confirm the minutes
of the Council meeting held on Tuesday, 28 February 2023
and the special Council meetings for hearings of submissions held
on 7 March 2023 and 14 March 2023?
Thank you, Councillor Allen.
Is it as per the recommendation?
And seconded by Councillor Hodge.
All those in favour?
And the motion is carried unanimously.
Are there any leave of absence requests?
No?
We now move on to declarations of conflicts of interest.
If a Councillor or an officer has a conflict of interest,
they must declare it now and do so again just prior
to the item being discussed.
The Councillor and/or officer will be requested to leave the Chambers,
or for those online to be placed by the host in a virtual waiting room,
whilst the matter is being considered.
Once the matter is resolved, the Councillor and/or officer
will be returned to the meeting.
Are there any declarations of conflicts of interest in relation
to tonight's agenda?
I have, actually.
I'd like to note that I am declaring an interest in item 4.9, as point 2
of the recommendation requests that Council note a matter related
to the Jan Juc Kindergarten bike path proposal and as my brother-in-law
is the President of the Parents' Association.
So I will not be declaring a conflict of interest
because tonight we're just noting this report.
However, in future, when it's presented for a decision,
I'll be declaring a conflict of interest.
If any other officers or Councillors become aware of a conflict of interest,
let me know.
ROBYN SEYMOUR: Councillor Wellington is in the waiting room.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Oh, Jake, can we let Councillor Wellington in,
please?
Thank you.
- are there any presentations from Councillors tonight?
CR PAUL BARKER: A brief one, thanks, Mayor.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Sure thing.
CR PAUL BARKER: On Saturday, I attended the fundraiser
for Feed Me Surf Coast.
I learnt a hell of a lot about the organisation
and the changing demographic that they're supporting.
Historically, they've only supported, or needed to support,
those who were unemployed, for obvious reasons, but due
to the cost of living, they've found that they're now needing
to support people with jobs, but are still unable to afford to put food
on the table.
I'll be making mention of that more in the rest of the night,
but that's a significant shift in only about four years of operation
to now be needing to support those with work.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you, Councillor Barker.
We now move on
- CR PAUL BARKER: Oh, and I do note that Councillor Wellington
was also there, as was some other local representatives.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Great, thank you.
- in accordance with Part 2, clause 1 of our Governance Rules,
a person whose rights will be directly affected by a decision
of the Council is entitled to make a written submission to Council
to speak to their submission and to have their interests considered
in Council decision making.
A request has been made by Tim and Caroline Wood
to make an oral submission in support of their written submission provided
to Council in relation to item 4.1 on tonight's agenda.
I will now invite Tim and Caroline Wood to speak.
We do have a full agenda tonight, so I will allow up to 5 minutes for each
of you to have your submission.
Thank you.
Can I just ask you bring the microphone close so that we make sure everyone can
hear.
Thanks so much for coming and speaking with us.
CAROLINE WOOD: Hi, I'm Caroline Wood.
I have met quite a few of you, but you're obviously
- there's a few new faces, a few old faces.
I'm thinking you're all up to scratch with what's going on here with us.
Yes, I was an ex Businesswoman of the Year.
I've been around living in Aireys Inlet for 30 years and running a small business,
which has now closed.
Look, I think, you know, after hearing your welcome thing
and what you stand for and just saying that you mean wellbeing
and looking after people, you know, my biggest issue
with this whole application and I think what it's come down to is,
for me anyway, safety.
You know, I'm still working with horses.
I still am very passionate about it.
I took a girlfriend the other day and said, "Look, give me a hand.
I've got to take a couple of horses around that bitumen road,
it's really unsafe, but can you give me a hand?
I really need it.
"Now, the two horses, they're not really handled a lot,
and I thought god, Caroline, that's ridiculous, I can't ask her
to do that again, and nor can I ask anyone else to do that
for me.
It's just not safe.
So for me the biggest issue is that not
- to get to this point after four years and just say we need the whole process
to stop now because it's for not the benefit
of the greater community just makes me feel like I don't matter.
Am I the sacrificial lamb?
Do I have to wear that?
And I am a community member and I'm a very passionate person
in the town and I have put a lot of years into supporting tourism, kids, employees,
you know.
My three kids have grown up there.
So, yes, it has affected me but, you know, it certainly hasn't stopped me
from planning a future there and using that land
and still working with horses, but I'm still going to be doing the
same thing, moving horses from one place to the other, and for you guys
to sit there on a bench and say, "Well, sorry, we actually don't really care",
it does matter to me, and that's all I want to say.
So I think I'd really like you to consider that
and even though I haven't got a business, it doesn't mean I'm going
to not have a business in the next 10 or 20 years.
I'm still going to be the one wearing that.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you, Caroline.
TIM WOOD: Righto, I might
- again, I'm assuming
- sorry, my name is Tim Wood.
I'm assuming you guys all have a pretty good understanding
of what we're talking about here.
So there is a farm in between Aireys Inlet and Fairhaven.
I understand that it would be naive to think that this doesn't involve
a fair level of emotion from the community,
but this process has gone on for a ridiculous amount of time,
to be perfectly honest with you.
Anyway, this is where we find ourselves.
So the Council report identified Blazing Saddles as the main reason
for the bridge application, which I think probably lacks scope or
vision.
This is a farm.
It's always been a farm.
The Council
- VCAT obviously issued a planning permit and I read "for buildings and works
for the construction of a bridge and its use as a road
for the management of livestock".
That hasn't changed at all.
I'm just going to go through a couple of things here.
So the question seems to be, in speaking to Jake
- we have a permit for a bridge.
The question now is public benefit.
So I did send you guys a brief letter.
I'm just going to expand on it a little bit.
So there is no allowable shedding on the Bambra Road side of this farm.
The section 173 prevents it.
We can't put a farm shed for tractors, for hay, for anything that requires you
to run a farm.
So it all has to come from our Bimbadeen Drive side.
Now, I'm assuming
- does everyone know what a hay fork is?
In order to feed out, there's steel tines about four to five foot long go
through a hay bail, you drive along the road with the hay bail,
you drop the hay off and you drive back along the road with these hay spikes
out the front of your car.
It's a ridiculous proposition that that's a better way to do it than coming
across a farm bridge.
That's just one example.
There's obviously chemicals, there's ploughs.
Whatever we want to do to run that farm requires the use
of machinery.
A farm bridge enables us to go between paddocks instead of
around three roads.
Bambra Road is the second biggest road in Aireys Inlet.
It has a school bus at the end of it, it has trucks for Barwon Water going
down it, it has all the tradies coming from Birrego and Bambra.
It has people walking up and down in prams, bike riders.
It's a busy road.
It's a ludicrous proposition to put farm machinery on it.
As Caroline said, the second thing is livestock.
Caroline breed and trains horses.
She's always done this.
Despite taking people trail riding, one of the things she does,
she breeds them and trains them.
If you get a young foal who's untrained and you need to get it around to our side
of the farm, walking it on a public road is a ridiculous proposition.
If we have a cow with a sore eye that we need to paddock, stable, feed, put vets
on, walking a cow along a road is ridiculous.
It's unnecessary, it's dangerous, it's daft.
Now, just to further sort of prove this point,
the State Government has a fund for the Victorian Farmers
Federation which allocates $50,000 funds to farmers to put underpasses in,
bridges in, to get
- now, I should read this, right, "To get improved safety
for Victorian farmers and all road users".
There is literally a state fund to get machinery and stock off roads.
So I understand that the government
- this has gone for, what, four years.
I understand why the governance department , and I gave Jake a hard time the
other day, which I apologise for, but I understand why it would be
a hard thing to come in too late.
Caroline's business has closed, "Oh, well, Blazing Saddles is not there,
it's probably not important",
blah, blah, blah, and I understand that.
But this is clearly not the case.
There is a very obvious public benefit of a bridge being there.
It's obviously a benefit for us.
It makes it a lot easier for Caroline and safer for Caroline, but it
is bigger than that.
It is a super obvious public benefit.
I also saw in your report they're worried about the risk of someone coming
into a horse where the bridge is.
There is virtually no access to where the bridge is.
You can't see it, you can't do it.
The risk of that compared to the risk to the public on the roads
is absolutely minuscule.
Knowing this risk and allowing it to me makes no sense for you guys.
Why would the shire want to put themselves in the position where
they have a knowable risk and they allow it to happen
- to Caroline, to her staff, to the public?
It makes no sense.
As I said, I understand that this has been a political exercise, but this
is a no-brainer, guys.
It's a bridge that nobody can see.
All the environmental assessments have been done.
It helps a farm run smoothly.
It always was to be a farm.
Everyone wants the farm to be a farm.
That's what people in Aireys love.
They want it to be managed, looked after, maintained.
This bridge helps us to do that.
Anyway, I rest my case.
I hope sanity prevails.
Thank you for listening.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thanks, Tim and Caroline, for coming and speaking.
We have put a lot of time and thought and obviously because the matter is
before us, I can't really talk about it, but I just wanted to let you know that
we don't make these decisions lightly and we have had many discussions
and considered this in depth, so thank you for coming and speaking with us.
TIM WOOD: Cheers.
CR PAUL BARKER: Can I just ask a quick question?
TIM WOOD: Yes.
CR PAUL BARKER: When was Blazing Saddles closed and for what reason?
CAROLINE WOOD: At the end of April last year.
Look, I've worn myself out.
I think it probably started during COVID and yeah.
I mean, look, to be honest, a lot of it was having to walk horses myself
around the roads because I was the only one that was able
to do that a lot of the time.
If we needed extra horses, I'd have to walk them around and back.
I was exhausted, yes.
I just couldn't do it anymore.
Also, you touched on it before, but having staffing issues
and not being able to get staffing in at that time,
I just found myself seven days a week and stressed off my head and kind
of fell in a bit of a hole.
CR PAUL BARKER: So if the bridge was built within a year
of the initial planning application going in, what is the likelihood that
you think Blazing Saddles would still be open?
CAROLINE WOOD: Oh, I can't answer that.
I couldn't tell you.
I mean, I think that obviously it would
have made life really
- you know, it would have been much better.
I think COVID probably did a lot of it.
CR PAUL BARKER: Or the government response too.
TIM WOOD: I think also there's a lot
- MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Sorry, I think we're going to have to cut that
off, but we've had a couple of questions and thank you so much for your time,
Tim and Caroline.
I appreciate that.
We're going to move on to our public questions.
Thanks so much.
So we do have some public questions that came through prior
to the Council meeting.
So we have Andrew Kelly I think is here.
Did you want to come up and speak, ask your question directly?
ANDREW KELLY: Yes, thanks very much.
Andrew Kelly is my name.
I'm here with my wife, Jessie.
Tonight a very full agenda for you all.
I was trying to swot last night and understand how these things operate,
so this is a departure from the agenda.
I understand that mostly you deal with questions that are part
of the agenda.
So I wouldn't be here, obviously, if I didn't think this was an
important issue and again, as was mentioned reasonably eloquently
by the former speakers, I think that the announcement that
you made before the meeting about wellbeing
and environment probably impacts a little bit on this particular issue
that I want to bring to your attention.
On reviewing the questions, they do look a bit
- a little short, but I suppose I'm also not quite sure
whether or not there was a word constraint upon that,
so I thought maybe I'd just give a little bit of context for one minute.
And whilst this may be an exercise in futility, having spoken with the police
and also the local member and a Council officer about this,
I suppose it would be easy to shrug and say, "Oh, well, this
is a difficult issue and maybe it's too hard."
So what I'm really looking for tonight is some sort of engagement as to
whether or not it's worthwhile to do something about it
as a community member and gather some support or
whether or not it's just easier to stay in your lane and, you know,
walk past what has been seen in public spaces.
So with that in mind, there's these things called gatherings,
as I've come to understand, and they're young people between the age
of 12 and 16 ordinarily that gather through some sort of social media medium
to congregate in a particular place.
At least two gatherings of more than 150 young teenagers,
and the police lady that I spoke to suggested that the latest one was
probably closer to 300 people, so it's my estimation that the police
thought it was closer to 300, engaging in elicit
and dangerous behaviour has occurred twice in Torquay this year alone,
one on Australia Day and one most recently on the 11th of March.
I can speak with great confidence about the gathering on the 11th of March
because I attended it three times, twice on the night and once the morning
after, to ascertain exactly what was going on.
The damage to self is self-evident.
First responders
- I notice there's a policeman here with us, and he may well be well
across this
- having to look after people that have some form
of drug or alcohol on board, as opposed to being able to
- and babysitting, as opposed to law enforcement must be a
great frustration to them.
The damage to self as well as the public amenity is evident.
So what I was interested in is what is the Council doing to keep the community
and these young people safe by ensuring such activities are not able
to happen again in our neighbourhood?
Now, I make that with no experience in this field at all,
but I would have thought that it's easier just to stop it before it happens than
to deal with it when it is happening.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thanks for your question, Andrew.
I'll respond to that because I know you have two questions.
Actually, do we
- oh, no, actually, did you want to
- ANDREW KELLY: I think they do move on from each other.
Both of these have happened at holiday periods or public holiday
weekends, and the next of those is Easter holidays, which is approaching,
and young people emboldened by a lack of action and accountability
from our community leaders
- and I put everyone in that.
As parents, we have a very important role to play as well, and being devoid
of any tangible consequences that I can see anyway
- others may be able to give me some examples
of some consequences that have occurred other than people being affected
by illicit substances, and particularly very, very young people
- what can we as a community, inclusive of the Council, lawmakers, politicians,
all tiers, parents and the people of Torquay do to counter this trend
and put a stop to this before a tragedy occurs?
And yes, I admit I've been extremely scarred
by what was witnessed on that night with people in and out of consciousness,
clearly drug affected, lying on front yards, pulling people
out of trees, and it just seems to be a difficult issue that I'm keen
to get your feedback.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thanks, Andrew, for your question.
I appreciate you coming and speaking to us and I can hear
from you that it was really challenging what you've experienced
and we share your concerns.
Myself personally, I have four young children and as a shire,
we can share those concerns.
And we're working with Torquay Police and government support and agencies,
schools and parents to address these issues.
Antisocial behaviour in public places falls
under the jurisdiction of Victoria Police, who are aware
of the recent gatherings in Torquay, and I would like
to acknowledge the attendance of the current Torquay Acting Senior
Sergeant, Andrew Harris, who has actually come here
to the meeting today, so thank you for attending.
And I would also like to thank Surf Coast Local Area Commander,
Inspector Monique Leffanue, for providing a statement
from Victoria Police, which I'll read out because we passed on your concerns
to them: "Victoria Police are aware of multiple gatherings
at Torquay beaches which have been attended by a large number of students
from different schools across Torquay and Geelong areas.
We want everyone to have a safe and enjoyable time on our beaches.
However, underage drinking and antisocial behaviour
will not be tolerated.
Local police have been in regular contact with principals from schools
across Torquay and Geelong region to encourage parents
to have a conversation with their kids about the risks of underage drinking
and antisocial behaviour.
We want to reassure the community that local police will continue
to maintain a high police presence with visible patrols on foot and on roads
across Torquay's popular beach areas.
Torquay police will continue to work with the Council and community
to address concerns and are open to receiving any information
relating to offending, which impacts community safety.
"So that's the statement from Victoria Police.
Council will continue to liaise with Victoria Police as the lead authority
on this matter and support the work Torquay police are
doing in this difficult situation.
Parental responsibility is a crucial factor in ensuring the safety
of young people and this is a key focus of the work of Council
and partner organisations.
We do so knowing that COVID impacts and cost of living increases are adding
to the pressures felt by many families.
Council supports the delivery of parent and guardian skills training provided
by the Drummond Street, Geelong Regional Parenting
and Barwon Child, Youth and Family.
We operate the Youth Lounge in Torquay three nights a week,
which attracts up to 60 people each evening.
Council delivers State Government-funded programs to support young people
to gain employment, connect with their community, foster youth arts
and music and support mental health and Council is supporting Head Space
and Barwon Child, Youth and Family to deliver to specialist alcohol
and other drug and mental health services in Torquay free of cost to residents.
I've been advised that many of the young people gathering come
from areas outside of the Surf Coast Shire, and that
is not an excuse, but it adds to the complexity of managing the problem.
As the Easter holidays approach, we urge parents and guardians
to provide safe and engaging environments for their children.
Furthermore, we encourage community members
to report any suspicious or dangerous activities to Victoria Police immediately.
And I can see that this may or may not hit the mark for you, Andrew, but it
is something that's complex and we do need to work with Victoria Police and Shire,
as we mentioned, is doing a number of activities to engage, connect with
and provide those supports to families and our youth in the region.
So I really appreciate you drawing this to our attention and
to enable this further conversation around it.
I think it's a work in progress.
Thank you.
ANDREW KELLY: Okay, proof will be in the pudding.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Our next question is from Tony Watts.
Did Tony Watts come to the Council meeting today?
No?
So on that, I will read out Tony's question and this one is more
of an operational nature, so our CEO, Robyn Seymour, will respond
to Tony's question.
So the question
- this is from Tony
- "If Council decides to postpone the development
of the Deans Marsh Hub, we urge Council to consider how the ongoing environmental
damage to our community hall can be
slowed during this three-year funding pause.
Council records will show our community has requested this
protection work for at least five years.
Further extended delay could render our hall unusable, leaving us
with no meeting facilities at all.
Therefore, my question is will Council consider how the ongoing
environmental damage to our heritage community hall can be
slowed during the proposed three-year funding pause?
Our heritage hall, Council's heritage hall, is in need
of your protection.
Thank you.
"ROBYN SEYMOUR: Thank you, Tony, for your question and I can assure you
that we will continue to ensure that the building
is maintained so it's safe to be used.
We don't believe that at the moment there's any immediate risks
to the building from water or other environmental factors
that will prevent it from being used safely in the coming years
If we become aware of any new risks, we will, of course,
consider what needs to be done about that and if you or anyone else believes there's
something we haven't investigated, please let us know
by putting a service request in so that we can look into it for you.
There's probably a couple of other important points of context
in responding to your question.
Like many Councils, and in fact industry more broadly,
our building renewal budget is being impacted by cost escalations.
We're seeing really significant cost escalations across our program.
And so in developing our draft budget, we've had to look
at when we might have funding available to fund some of our larger projects,
such as the Winchelsea swimming pool and also the Deans Marsh hall.
So working with community in Deans Marsh on the facility development plan
for the Deans Marsh Community Hub is proving very helpful
to us understanding what options we have with the current building,
what these might cost and therefore how much external funding
we might need in developing the new hub and added
to our own financial contribution.
So given all of that, we will be bringing a plan
to the Council meeting in May this year and then there
will be a further public consultation on that draft plan based
on the work we've been doing with the community in Deans Marsh.
But given the heavy reliance we're likely to have on external funding
for the redevelopment, the draft plan currently identifies
- so when I say the draft plan, I mean the draft budget
- currently identifies a potential three
- to five-year timeframe for us to line up our funding and get support
from other levels of funding in order to deliver this important community
facility.
But again, just to reassure you, in that timeframe we
will ensure that the building is maintained so it's safe and usable
during this time until we can redevelop the hub.
Tony, thanks for your question.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you, Ms Seymour.
I have just realised we needed to actually note the presentations
by Caroline and Tim Wood, so can I have a mover to note the receipt
of the written submission from Tim and Caroline,
and we have the recommendation on the screen.
Councillor Stapleton, moved as per the recommendation.
CR LIBBY STAPLETON: Yes.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: And seconded?
Councillor Bodsworth.
All in favour?
Opposed?
Did you vote, Paul?
CR PAUL BARKER: Yes.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Yes, okay.
The motion is carried unanimously.
Thank you.
We'll now move on to petitions.
There are no petitions received tonight and there are also no notices of motion
for tonight's Council meeting.
So we move on to the big part of the meeting, the reports.
So our first report is in relation to the request to licence land adjacent
to Painkalac Creek.
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the request from landowner
to grant exclusive licences on Council-owned land and Council-managed
Crown land for the purpose of accessing a proposed bridge
over the Painkalac Creek and Aireys Inlet.
Officers are recommending that the Council does not grant these licences.
Do I have a mover?
Councillor Bodsworth.
Is it as per the recommendation?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: Yes, thanks, Mayor.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: And do I have a seconder?
Councillor Stapleton.
Councillor Bodsworth, do you wish to speak?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: Thank you, Mayor.
So I'd like to start by acknowledging the Wadawurrung
and Eastern Maar traditional owners, as Painkalac Creek is thought
to have marked a boundary zone between Wadawurrung and Gadubanud country
and the Creek is now the boundary between Wadawurrung
and Eastern Maar registered Aboriginal party areas.
I believe that boundary status brings an extra significance to Painkalac Creek.
I also congratulate the Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation
on the hugely significant native title determination announced this
morning in Warnambool.
I would like to thank Caroline and Tim for your submission
and I can tell you that as a person who hates conflict,
I don't relish this side of sitting in the Council chair
because I can see how deeply this affects you both.
It affects other people in the district deeply as well on both sides
of the argument and so I, like all the rest of us, take this seriously
and feel the emotional investment that you have in this really deeply.
So I thank you for coming along, submitting to us and being part
of this discussion tonight.
I'll explain
- I think the report explains the situation well and I support the recommendation not
to grant exclusive licences as it's written.
I'll explain my reasoning and look forward to hearing from fellow Councillors.
It's normal for development and use of land, including farming operations,
to be constrained by the nature of the environment and the lay
of the land.
One option might be to alter the environment
to suit the farming operation or the land use might be altered
to suit the environment.
To me, if a natural unbridged waterway runs
between the applicant's property and a property they lease,
that naturally limits options for use and development
of the separate properties.
I don't believe we should intervene to remove that natural limitation
through the issuing of a licence when that's not a privilege
we extend to all landowners and lessees facing similar constraints.
At this time, in considering whether or not to allow a licence,
I believe the question of public benefit that was central
to VCAT's consideration of the planning permit application
is still relevant and I believe the public benefit implicit
in this licence application is minimal.
The applicant's points regarding the movement of livestock
and farm vehicles describes a situation that occurs on lots
of rural roads in the shire and around the world.
It's not an extraordinary situation that warrants a high-impact intervention.
I do agree with the applicant's points about Bambra Road potentially offering a
great walking and cycling route if not for risks and accessibility
and amenity issues associated with vehicle traffic, and further
to that point, although it's not the proposal before us,
I could imagine a bridge that was not for exclusive use and formed part
of a public pathway across the floodplain linking Fairhaven
and areas and connecting to a Painkalac loop walk
as shown in the 2015 Aireys to Eastern View Structure Plan.
It could potentially be licensed for non-exclusive
commercial use, but the primary benefit would be public.
That's a discussion for another day.
As far as the licence application before us is concerned, I urge Councillors
to support the recommendation to not grant an exclusive licence.
Thank you.
CR ADRIAN SCHONFELDER: Mayor, I have a question to ask if I may.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Of the officers?
CR SCHONFELDER: Yes.
And my question is a bridge did exist over the creek for some time.
I'd just like that to be confirmed.
And my second question is about traffic volumes and movements,
whether in the roads described from the Woods, has there been an increase
in traffic volumes, because I would suggest there would be?
ROBYN SEYMOUR: Councillor Schonfelder, there was a bridge across the Painkalac.
In terms of traffic volumes and how that's changed,
I don't have that data with me.
I can only kind of make a subjective sort of comment about the fact that
as the region becomes more popular, you would anticipate that there would be
more activity on the road and that it would be getting busier,
but I don't have the data to be able to confirm that, unless anyone else does.
CR ADRIAN SCHONFELDER: Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Stapleton.
CR LIBBY STAPLETON: Thanks, Liz.
Some decisions that come to Council are harder to make than others
and for me this one is particularly challenging,
and I do understand the investment, both professional and personal,
that the applicants, Tim and Caroline, have made in wanting
to install this bridge and I really do understand their reasons
for wanting it.
Just also an acknowledgment of your submission earlier, I would hate
for anyone to think that we sit up here and we don't care
about the individual needs of people involved.
We care deeply and it is all the more why it makes it such
a difficult decision.
However, as Council, we have a duty to protect public land and
in our Council plan, we have a goal to ensure that growth and development
across the shire are not at the expense of environmental values.
We also have a strategy in place to protect significant habitats,
landscapes and biodiversity.
I'm aware that in 2005 Council developed the Painkalac Estuary Management Plan,
which speaks to the significant environmental
and cultural values of the Painkalac Creek and valley,
and that at a national level there is an ecological community listed
for the Painkalac Estuary under the Federal Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
Interestingly, one of the actions that I read
in the Painkalac Estuary Management Plan is to ensure that any structures,
including signage, are low key and do not impact on the landscape values
of the site.
With this in mind, and the information that's been presented
to us in our agenda report tonight, we must consider whether public land
of significant environmental value should be licensed for private purposes.
With the closure of Blazing Saddles, it is hard
to identify broad public benefit that I believe would be required
to justify granting a licence.
I do appreciate the safety concerns that Tim and Caroline have raised in terms
of the movement of horses and farm vehicles along Bambra Road and,
as Councillor Bodsworth mentioned, I think it's relevant
to consider Council's longer-term vision that's outlined in the 2015 Aireys
Inlet Structure Plan, which does outline a proposed pathway
along Bambra Road and could potentially mitigate some
of the concerns that have been raised around risks to the public, and part
of that vision was also to possibly connect other parts
of the Painkalac Valley with walkways to provide public access for people
to enjoy the area in a low-key, environmentally sensitive way.
I should also note that residents have regularly raised with me concerns
around the speed limits on Bambra Road, and I know that's somewhat of a diversion
but it's relevant to some of the safety concerns that have been
raised and I hope that it's something that Council can look at as part
of the future amenity and safety for all public accessing the Painkalac Valley.
But getting back
- MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: You've actually gone over time.
CR LIBBY STAPLETON: Oh, sorry.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you, Councillor Stapleton.
Do any other Councillors wish to speak, Councillor Schonfelder.
CR ADRIAN SCHONFELDER: Thank you, Mayor.
And I concur with my fellow colleagues that it's not always an easy task
to make decisions in the chamber concerning people's livelihoods.
However, I should confess that I am a hippophile,
and I'm not sure how many people here know the meaning of that,
but it means a lover of horses.
I was a member of the Barwon Valley Pony Club
and I've actually ridden on roads where people have
done burnouts deliberately.
I've actually ridden down my local road, Andersons Road, Barrabool,
where I was not far from the Princes Highway
and a dog chased me and I was about 11 and I ended up on the horse's neck.
That's how dangerous that was.
I believe the traffic volumes have increased enormously
and we welcome tourists and we welcome their input
to the local economy to help businesses, and as far as our motto
is concerned with wellbeing, it does concern local businesses
as well who employ local people.
I feel the fact that a bridge did exist over the creek has a strong bearing
on this case and I believe that was used for a long time.
So I would ask my colleagues to reconsider how they're feeling
about this item because safety, public safety and the safety
of transporting livestock across the creek,
just seems very practical to me.
And I do support helping the environment and I believe that you both would as well
and helping waterway areas, and the fact that you mentioned
about the Farmers Federation, that they allow funding, and I know
on Devon Road in Barrabool there's an underpass under that road
for livestock as well.
Also, with fire danger, we had an evacuation nearby recently
where just over a week ago we had a 37 degree day and I'm just concerned
about areas that are highly populated and traffic movements when a fire occurs,
what happens with the livestock, and we see with Black Saturday there was
like panic and tragedies actually occurred.
So I will be voting against this item because I believe that a bridge
should be allowed.
Once again, there was a bridge that did exist there
and I just hope that my colleagues can see the practical aspect
of this that I've reported.
Thank you, Mayor.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Allen.
CR GARY ALLEN: Thanks, Mayor.
Could we just stop the clock for a moment?
I just wanted to refer to a point that Councillor Bodsworth made
which I think is not accurate.
The Supreme Court decision handed down today extends the Eastern Maar,
as far as I understand it, to Kennett River, not as far
as Painkalac Creek.
I think perhaps, if that's the case, we should set the record straight.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: I'll pass that on to Ms Gail Gatt.
MS GAIL GATT: Yes, that's my understanding from attending today
and seeing the map that was provided.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: So what Councillor Allen has said is correct,
just to clarify?
MS GAIL GATT: The area that was determined today, the boundary is west
of Kennett River.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Okay, thank you.
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: If I can just clarify, I was talking about the boundary
of the registered Aboriginal party area, which is a bit bureaucratic,
but it does extend to the Painkalac, whereas the native title determination,
as Gail just outlined, does not, so just to clarify.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Okay, thank you.
CR GARY ALLEN: The journey of the applicant relating
to the existing permit held has been a long and complex one.
However, the changed circumstance to me is a fairly straightforward one
- blazing Saddles closed.
The community benefit of employment and tourism opportunities referred
to in the VCAT determination relevant to the permit have been significantly
reduced.
Therefore, we must turn our attention to the question
of who should primarily benefit from Council-owned
land and Council land managed
- sorry, Crown land managed by the Council.
There is little doubt in my mind that this is the community, the public.
We have a very strong tradition in this country
of not allowing exclusive private use of Crown land.
When we as a Council have the opportunity to exercise our responsibility
to manage Crown land, particularly that surrounding waterways,
we must act to protect water quality, native flora and native fauna.
We should decide in favour of the common good.
This view I believe is shared by the majority of the Aireys Inlet,
Fairhaven and Moggs Creek communities.
For example, the Aireys Inlet and District Association,
which has a membership base of 450 people, has clearly articulated their support
for the preservation of the creek, its special character,
and that the issuing of an exclusive licence
to a private operator would be inconsistent with the relevant provisions
of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978.
This view is supported in the VCAT decision.
The permit was granted because of the economic and tourist benefit
to the community but, and I quote from the determination,
"It would have been quite a different assessment exercise if,
for example, the use of the road was proposed
on this Crown land for purely the benefit of a residential landowner".
Since the release of the meeting papers, I have received no requests
from shire residents to grant an exclusive licence.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Do any other Councillors wish to speak.
Councillor Hodge.
CR ROSE HODGE: Yes, I was part of the Council that made the decision not
to grant the planning permit last time and it was taken to VCAT
and we were wrong, and I apologise for the Woods and the years that have gone
on from that.
Now, I know things have changed and I know it's licensing
and when you look at 17.1 and 17.2 in why we did refuse it
and VCAT overturned it.
So I won't be supporting this item.
I think we could have talked to the Woods more, gone and had a look
at the breeding program or whatever is happening and I agree that there
is safety needed around those roads.
So I know it's been a very long and drawn-out process and
if COVID hadn't hit and your business was there,
that bridge would be in place now.
So I won't be supporting this item.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Councillor Wellington.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Thanks very much.
Look, I also was present at the previous Council
which didn't support this.
I think VCAT had a different view.
I don't know that there's a right or wrong about that.
It's a matter of judgment really.
But I was surprised that VCAT didn't support it,
usually I find VCAT pretty predictable, but of course I respect that decision.
I think, you know, it was always the case that there were
going to be two decisions associated with this.
One was a planning permit decision and one was a decision about the licensing
under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act.
I emphasise it's not a personal matter and I agree
with Councillor Allen very much in this regard.
I'm very sorry for the Woods.
I know these planning issues are very difficult and ones that go on
for a long time are costly and they're stressful and I'm really sorry
at a personal level about that, but in terms of our job is always to look
at the land, not the people, not what the current people are doing
but what the benefit is for the land.
I was a bit surprised, actually, that VCAT decided that the public benefit
was so significant in the case of a private business.
So I think now that that private business has closed, there
is absolutely no justification for us to approve a licence.
In my view, we should never own that public land unless there's
a clearly demonstrable and, most importantly,
sustainable public benefit and when that public benefit is dependent
on the actions of individuals who run businesses
and own some land or lease some land, or whatever,
I think it's not a solid foundation on which to make long-term
planning decisions.
So, from my perspective, there is no difficulty in making this decision,
but I do recognise it's a very difficult decision for the Woods.
I don't agree at all that it shows a lack of good faith by Council.
Council did reject this in the past and things changed
and any public benefit no longer exists.
So I support the recommendation wholeheartedly.
In my view, no permit should issue
- no licence, I should say, should issue.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Gazzard.
CR KATE GAZZARD: Thank you.
Thank you, Caroline and Tim, for coming in and presenting your submission.
I do really sympathise the years of hard work that you've put in
and I'm sorry that you've had to close your business.
I can imagine years of this planning permit have taken,
you know, a financial, emotional and physical toll on you, but on balance,
I think the environmental protection of Painkalac Creek is important
and the consideration for the whole of the Aireys Inlet Community,
on balance I support the recommendation.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Barker.
CR PAUL BARKER: Thanks, Mayor.
Had Blazing Saddles still been in operation,
I would have likely opposed this recommendation,
though it likely wouldn't have come to this chamber.
Since that business is now closed, on the surface,
the recommendation makes sense as a bridge being built
on public land would give primary benefit to the adjacent landowner.
But since hearing from Caroline and Tim, I'm satisfied that the recommendation
is wrong.
Secondary benefit to the public will come as a result
of opposing this recommendation through the removal
of agricultural traffic on surrounding roads.
Additionally, I have concerns that the government
response over the last few years contributed
to the closing of Blazing Saddles.
If this bridge is constructed, it paves the way
to a similar business coming back.
I would have liked to have seen a more community-focused
plan for this proposed development in the first place.
Including the community on any journey that changes the way
public land is used is essential for a positive result for all involved.
Another consideration is the vegetation surrounding
the area in question.
Should a bushfire ever pass through the region,
having an additional creek crossing could very well be essential in the future.
I understand the rationale given by those who are supporting
the recommendation, but I will not be supporting it.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
CR SCHONFELDER: Mayor, I just have one more question.
It's been mentioned about a business closing
and we understand that Blazing Saddles has closed,
but the Woods have another business, they breed
- MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Do you have a question, Councillor Schonfelder?
CR ADRIAN SCHONFELDER: Can I confirm that they actually do have a business?
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Yes, we heard that when Caroline spoke to us,
she has a
- yes, that is the case.
Councillor Bodsworth, do you wish to make any closing statements?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: Oh, look, I thank everyone for their input on this
because everybody has provided a really thoughtful response
to this recommendation and I think we've had a good debate.
One thing that I'd like to add is that the Painkalac Creek has recently
been listed as a salt-wedge estuary and a new environmental protection
and biodiversity conservation threatened community listing,
so in fairly recent times there's been an extra
- I guess it's bumped up the conservation priority
of the Painkalac Creek estuary.
And as Councillor Stapleton said, additional to what I said initially,
I think granting a licence would somewhat contradict our Council planned vision
and a number of the strategies, as Councillor Stapleton outlined.
But in closing, I'd like to pay tribute to the applicant's contributions
to the local community and the good times enjoyed by patrons
of their form of business over many years.
I'd like to pay tribute to the other landholders in the valley
who contribute to its conservation, particularly those involved
in the inspiring rewilding the valley initiative, which is a work in progress.
I thank the people of Aireys Inlet and district for their engagement
in civic life and staunch protection of the environment and town character.
Thank you all.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: We now put the motion to a vote.
All those in favour.
All those opposed.
And the motion is carried.
We now move on to Council Plan Progress Report Mid Year
- CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Excuse me, Mayor Stapleton [sic],
I couldn't see how many hands were up.
Can I just ask what the vote was, please?
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: 6-3.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Council Plan Progress
- Mid Year 2.
The purpose of this report is to present the updated Council Plan Mid
Year 2 Progress Report to Council.
Thank you.
I note that officers have an updated recommendation that is up on the screen
to note a couple of changes with the attachment.
Jake, can we put that up, thanks.
So for those that can see there, the recommendation is
"That Council notes the Council Plan Mid Year 2 Progress Report subject
to the following amendments: Strategy 5
- Pathway Strategy being amended to in progress
- it was initially stated as complete
- "Strategy 5
- G21 Integrated Transport Strategy amended to in progress; Strategy 15
- first point under 'What We'll Do' amended from 'Collaborate
with the Circular Economy team and Environmental Sustainability team to'
to 'Connect businesses with ethical, social and sustainability initiatives'.
"Do I have a mover of a motion?
Councillor Stapleton, is it as per the amended
- the updated recommendation?
CR LIBBY STAPLETON: Yes.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
And a seconder?
Councillor Gazzard.
Do you wish to speak, Councillor Stapleton?
CR LIBBY STAPLETON: I do.
Thank you, Mayor Pattison.
This is a really terrific report and provides a great summary
of how Council is tracking halfway through our Council term and there's a lot
to be proud of in it and I do encourage the community
to read the report in detail to just see how much is covered.
But I'd like to just speak to a number of highlights from my perspective.
Strategy 1, which is working with traditional owners in our community
to achieve reconciliation, and there's been so much progress
under this theme from very public actions, like changing the way we acknowledge
the 26th of January and the recent introduction
of the Pilk Purriyn event this year to some less public behind-the-scenes
work that people may not necessarily be aware of, like creating a network
of councils on both Eastern Maar and Wadawurrung country
to pursue partnerships in collaboration, which we know is so important
to achieving this goal.
Under the theme of healthy connected communities,
there's obvious things like delivering really important social
infrastructure and open spaces, and then there's things like strategy 6,
enabling communities.
This has been a really strong focus of this Council.
Since the very early days when we first came together,
it was something that we highlighted and it's so rewarding
to see that there's been so much progress in this space.
A couple of things to highlight are the recently completed
Bob Pettitt Bike Park project in Jan Juc, which was very much led by the community
and embraced the whole concept of enabling communities
and has clearly had really great outcomes, and the other one
is a streamlined community grants program, which has also had more funding allocated
to it, and this really does provide the community with an opportunity
to take the lead on projects and we know there's already been a
great uptake across the various grants that are available.
There's so much that could be said under the environmental leadership theme.
Strategy 7, which is to protect significant habitats
and landscapes and biodiversity, there's been significant work
on the Karaaf, deepening our understanding of the issues there, and working closely
with community and the relevant agencies on a way forward.
Our submission to Southern Rural Water for the Anglesea River; strategy 8,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Council's reduced corporate emissions
by 41%.
We now purchase 100% renewable energy.
We've adopted a zero emissions target.
We're now certified as carbon neutral.
We've installed solar and battery across Council facilities,
we've installed EV charging stations at Council's office and depots in Torquay
and Winchelsea and we'll be installing them
for community use in townships across the shire.
It's great to see that in the next 18 months there
will be a focus on removing gas from Council facilities
and also working more closely with community to support projects that
will get us closer to net zero emissions.
Under strategy 10, which is adapting to a change in climate, there's a couple
of actions proposed for the next 18 months which I think are super important.
One is reviewing the management of the unsealed road network and shifting
to a more proactive maintenance program on areas that are seen to be vulnerable
to storm events, and the second one there is undertaking drainage
catchment management studies, which we also know are very much needed.
I've still got a little time.
Sustainable growth
- I'd really like to highlight the work undertaken
under strategy 12 to improve access to affordable accommodation.
With very limited resources, Council has achieved so much in the
past 18 months in this space.
We have an EOI process under way for the provision of social
and affordable housing at Fraser Drive in Aireys Inlet.
Council secured a $200,000 grant to undertake a major integrated planning
project for the McMillan Street precinct
in Anglesea.
That's progressing well.
We're working on a tiny house trial to get under way this year,
and I'm really excited by the potential for tiny houses in appropriate places
and I really look forward to hearing more from officers as they work
through the necessary framework and parameters for this trial.
Finally, I'd like to highlight the work completed
under our arts and creativity theme.
We have a new Develop Arts Grant of $15,000 which has been so successful
and we know that's in really high demand.
The Anglesea art space continues to support local artists, with
more than 300 artists last year benefiting from exhibitions
and professional development, and officers are close
to completing the 2023 to 2031 Creative Places Strategy,
which we should see mid-year and will provide a suite of actions
for Council to deliver under that theme.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you, Councillor Stapleton.
Councillor Gazzard, did you wish to speak.
CR KATE GAZZARD: Yes, thank you.
Councillor Stapleton has stolen all the highlights.
CR LIBBY STAPLETON: Oh, I'm sorry.
CR KATE GAZZARD: So I won't repeat what she said.
CR LIBBY STAPLETON: I'm just saving time.
CR KATE GAZZARD: Yes.
I'd just like to say all of the strategies and principles are so important
and it's really
- so much work was put into the Council plan,
it's really gratifying to see it come to fruition
and that we're actually having an impact.
I think, from a personal point of view, I have been on the receiving end
of the maternal child health nurse services having had a baby last year
and I was so impressed.
Like we know what goes on, but the support that they gave me
through some difficult times and the resources provided
and just the care was outstanding.
So I feel really proud that Council are providing these services to our community
and particularly mothers and babies, who often you're
in quite a vulnerable phase of life.
So yes, I just wanted to add in that bit.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Do any other Councillors
- Councillor Allen?
CR GARY ALLEN: Oh, thanks, Mayor.
Look, I'd just like to highlight the changed format
of the presentation of the report detailing key progress,
what is planned to be done in the next 18 months,
and the reasons why some elements will slow down or in fact cease
and I think that it is a clear and realistic assessment of our progress.
It's more transparent and I really congratulate the officers
for implementing this change.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Wellington, did you wish to speak?
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: I've just got a couple of questions.
I've got three questions, actually.
One is one of the commitments going forward is
to continue to explore best ways to engage with Traditional Owners
and First Nation community members and I just wondered how many there are
and how many we have contact with and have got engagement with.
So do we have any
- first of all, how many First Nations people do we have
in our shire and, secondly, have we managed to make contact with most
of them or do we
- you know, how do we
- MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: I'll pass that question on to our CEO.
ROBYN SEYMOUR: Thank you, Councillor Wellington.
I'll start with the second question first.
Our primary way that we work with our First Nations people is
through the registered groups and so we predominantly work with the Wadawurrung
and also Eastern Maar, which isn't to say that we don't then work with some
of our local First Nations people particularly in Lorne and other areas,
but our first point of call and our primary mechanism for working
with our First Nations people is absolutely
through those registered groups, the RAPs, and that
is how we ensure that we are responding to the needs
of the broader First Nations communities.
We do work with and have through a range of our events that we've run
and grant programs that we've supported, whether it's our artists or some
of our other NAIDOC and other events, worked more specifically with individuals
within our First Nations community.
In terms of the number of First Nations people in the broader
shire, without going to kind of census data or other things,
it's difficult for me to actually speak to the total number
of First Nations people in our shire and even the data that
is publicly available isn't necessarily very accurate.
So it's hard to assess the total number, Councillor Wellington.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Did you have another question,
Councillor Wellington?
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: There's another comment in the report that we'll provide
support to the Barwon Water-led Thomson Valley recycled water business
case and I just wondered
- I don't recall a Council decision about that
and I presume it means financial support.
I just wondered if someone could tell us what that means.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Sorry, through you.
ROBYN SEYMOUR: Councillor Wellington, that really relates
to the work that we're doing as part of the collective work
on our stormwater management and the Karaaf and so
the State Government committed $230,000, or something of that magnitude,
to really do the next phase in the feasibility towards developing
a business case for the pipeline, for the recycled water, and one
of the things that we've been working on and Council have been provided updates on
is the fact that that pipeline potentially provides an opportunity
to remove water going into the Karaaf and allow our stormwater to be mixed
- shandied with the recycled water to become productive water for high-value
agriculture in the Thomson Valley.
That's really what that particular item relates to.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Thanks, yes, and I am aware of that.
It just sounded as though the project may be contributing
financial resources to do a business case, but I think what you're saying
is we're working on an interagency level.
And the third one is that I saw that we're planning
to confirm Council's approach to the Voice to Parliament referendum
and I just wondered whether Council
- I wouldn't have thought Council even has a vote in that referendum.
Is that correct, or do we get a vote as
- MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: On that one, I can answer that one.
We had a briefing on that and it's around Council's position in the sense
of our civic leadership role.
It's not about having a vote in the referendum.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: We don't have a vote on it?
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: No, that's right.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Thanks, right.
I'll talk, if that's okay.
Look, I think it's good to read the report.
It's nicely presented.
I do think we need to move to a situation where we're measuring
outcomes, not just things that we're doing
- not just reporting things that we're doing, reporting activities.
So there's a lot of activities that we're doing
and I'm sure they're interesting, but they don't actually
- there's very few areas in the progress report that actually talk
about what we've achieved and my key issues around that relate
to things like the Karaaf, where we've done processes doing
reports and investigations, but I remain really concerned that
we're not actually addressing the key issues of the Karaaf, which
is really contaminated and damaging water flow into the Karaaf,
which we are continuing to develop really as we develop more housing in Torquay.
So I'm concerned about the lack of outcome focus,
that we're talking about processes, we're doing lots of things and many
of them are good, I know that many of them lead to outcomes,
but we don't actually say what they are and we don't have a way of measuring them
and I would hope that we would give a framework for measurement and reporting
to the community that's not just about how many things have we done or
what have they been, but what have we actually achieved
as a result of that.
I'm still confused, and not in any particular order
- generally I support the themes in the plan,
but I've always thought there's a big theme missing, which is accessible,
appropriate and effective services or something
around service quality.
We just don't address it in the plan and therefore we don't report on it.
And I think we've got big gaps.
We know we've got big gaps in access to services, in the quality of services
in some areas.
This is the only plan I've ever been involved in with a service-based
organisation where the quality of services doesn't rate a mention
in the strategy.
So I think there's an issue with the strategy, with the plan then
and the strategy.
Social and affordable housing, I'm confused about the target market,
whether we're talking about housing for workers or housing for people
on low incomes or housing for elderly people who need to retire.
It seems to me an extremely vague issue and we're giving away large
- or we're proposing to potentially give away large really
valuable parcels of land without being clear
about what the public benefit will be and what the target market is,
so I'm concerned about that.
I think that it did strike me
- I was driving past Deakin University the other day and we've got signs
up saying student accommodation, encouraging people to apply,
and it occurred to me that we may well have a lot
of accommodation on our doorstep that's not really used
much over the summer period and I don't know
whether that has been explored, but if not, I would really encourage it
to be explored.
I'm concerned about the Karaaf.
I'm concerned about if we're developing a voice because we think we're community
leaders, if we're developing a position on the Voice to Parliament,
I don't think that's our leadership role at all and I will object
to that when we do it, obviously.
I'm very concerned about the heritage status
of Deans Marsh hall in strategy 11.
We're committing to a strategy
- MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Councillor Wellington , you're now 10 seconds over.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: And I've got a couple of questions
about grammar in the report that don't make sense
and I don't understand it, but I'll leave it with that.
So I think there's some good stuff in this report
- MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: I'll get you to just finish up now, thank you,
Councillor Wellington, thank you.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: I've got some concerns, thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Any other
- Councillor Barker?
CR PAUL BARKER: Thanks, Mayor.
I still have an issue with community vision.
That states "We will leave the Surf Coast better than we found it".
It's a subjective statement.
To me, better involves being fiscally sound,
reducing debt, reducing rates, getting out of programs that duplicate state
or federal programs, such as Indigenous reconciliation
and climate alarmism programs, and stop giving out financial grants left,
right and centre that come from ratepayers that include hundreds
of families struggling so much that they are needing food aid
from Feed Me Surf Coast.
In strategy 1 it outlines a future focus to confirm Council's approach to the Voice
to Parliament Referendum.
Now, there's two issues with this.
1, it's a federal matter.
Why on earth should ratepayers be funding anything that's a federal matter?
2, I thought there weren't any racists among us.
To even consider that one might support such a referendum that divides people
on race is in its very nature racist.
To quote, it is "wrong and unfair",
dangerous and divisive",
useless and costly", words from Indigenous Australian
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price.
A key progress item in strategy 4 describes informing advocacy
Now, what does that really mean?
It means we're involved in delivering services
to the community that we can't afford and need to ask for taxpayer-funded
handouts from State and Federal Governments.
Now, I don't know about you, but I don't want taxpayers
from Bairnsdale or Sydney paying for services in the Surf Coast.
If we can afford it, we should run it.
If we can't, we should get out of it.
I don't think it's particularly fair to throw out our costs on to others that
will likely never see the benefit.
An element that is okay to see is the review of volunteering programs
as part of this, but should Council really be getting
involved in volunteering programs?
Personally, I think governments of any level should just get
out of the way of community interacting cooperatively
with each other.
And in regards to housing, it seems to me to be quite simple.
Reduce the barriers to a wider range of housing options being built,
or accept that housing affordability is going to be a continual problem
and continue to get worse and unless you remove the barriers,
do not expect any sort of relief in housing affordability in the Surf Coast
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Do any other Councillors wish to speak?
Councillor Bodsworth?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: It's mostly been said already, so I'm just going to sort
of echo my satisfaction at the things that have been done so well.
It's such a massive program and on the whole, I think we're doing great.
I do agree with Councillor Wellington's comments
about outcomes reporting and I know we have lots of data sets
around outcomes in sort of layers beneath what we've been shown
in this report
- for example, on the Karaaf water monitoring
- so I'm sure there's a way for us to provide opportunities for community
to delve deeper and get into those data sets
and see what they're saying about issues of particular importance to them.
The only one I'd like to highlight is where we initially
in error said that the pathway strategy was complete
and we've said now, we've clarified that it's not and
for me that's a huge piece of work that I think we've made some good
progress on pathways, but we're nowhere near where we'd like to be.
And we've seen through the youth census last year
through the Moriac Structure Plan how important pathways are in those contexts.
We've seen how important pathways are to the Winchelsea community.
They're an essential part of Torquay's future,
particularly the arterial-sized pathways that Torquay needs
to link town centres and residential neighbourhoods
and major community facilities like schools.
Business Anglesea has presented a fantastic vision for pathways,
pedestrian bicycle connections in Anglesea, which serve locals
as well as visitors.
So everywhere you look and you could probably look
at almost every strategy in our Council plan
and pathways are relevant to that.
So I'm not confident that rolling the pathway strategy in
with the social infrastructure plan, which is a huge piece of work,
a very ambitious and difficult piece of work to deliver, is the right way
to go.
I don't think we've discussed that enough and I do think we need
to really put together a strategy to deliver to get into our strategy,
which sounds horribly bureaucratic, but I just think we've got to get to grips
with how we move forward on pathways.
But all in all, thanks for your comments, everyone.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Did you have any summing comments?
CR LIBBY STAPLETON: Oh, look, just very quickly, just
to acknowledge that the Council plan encompasses a huge suite
of work strategies, goals and actions and I think at this point
in time it's reasonable to say that not all of it will be achievable
in this Council term and I understand that officers are doing
a lot of work at the moment and previously to really look
at what the key priorities are and to ensure that teams are focusing
on the right things over the next 18 months
to achieve those things in the Council plan that are most important.
So at this point the recommendation is just to note the report
and I'm sure that we're all able to do that.
So thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: All those in favour.
And the motion is carried.
We now move on to the Surf Coast Shire cat curfew.
The purpose of this report is to seek Council's endorsement
of an updated cat confinement order which would require all cats
within the municipality to be confined at all times to the owner's property unless
the cat is appropriately restrained.
I note that officers have an updated recommendation that is going to be put
onto the screen as there is a minor change to that proposed order.
Thank you, Jake.
So we can see there that the recommendation is
"That Council adopts the revised cat confinement order, subject
to that part 2.1 of the Order at attachment 1 be amended so that
the word 'property' be replaced with the word 'premises'",
and then the rest of the recommendation is the same.
Do I have a mover of the motion?
CR ROSE HODGE: I'm happy to move.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Councillor Hodge.
Is that as per the
- CR ROSE HODGE: Yes.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: And a seconder?
Councillor Bodsworth.
Do you wish to speak?
CR ROSE HODGE: As a cat owner
- I don't know if there's many other cat owners
on the Council, but I've had Roy for 18 years and he's slowing down a bit,
but all about cat curfews is about responsible pet ownership
and that includes that your cats are safe and not roaming from their home.
And owners should be very conscious of the way cats behave and of course
of their neighbours' amenity as well.
Surf Coast Shire has had a night curfew for quite a while and now,
if this recommendation is passed, it will be including daytime.
Cats should be on their own property as well as dogs are requested to do so
as well.
This recommendation does not force cats into enclosures, but the onus is
on the owner to try and ensure that their felines are
on their property.
If not, penalties could occur, just as dogs are too.
Out of our survey, 76% of cat owners in our survey kept their cats already 24
hours on their property and the other over 130 cat owners said it would take
them nearly two years to try to achieve what
they think enclosure would mean.
What we will be doing, there will be a six-month transition period
and the 924 registered cat owners, we'll be sending communication
to them detailing changes and the best ways any modifications
could be completed.
These recommendations by some cat owners go too far
and we've heard from environmentalists that these recommendations
to protect wildlife don't go far enough.
So I think we're in the balance.
So the data that we look at in the future could,
when we do our domestic animal management plan again, review this.
But I call on cat owners to try to keep their cats in.
We know there's a large kill on bird life and wildlife and I think those 924 owners
will read the recommendations, look at how they can improve the situations
at their homes and keep their cats safe and the environment safe as well.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Bodsworth, did you wish to speak?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: Yes, please, Mayor.
I just want to talk about the why of this proposal briefly,
given Councillor Hodge has covered things well.
In preparing for our decision making on this tonight, in addition to referring
to our own report, I've referred to the 2021 federal parliamentary inquiry
into this issue and I'm just going to pass on a few interesting findings
from that that I think are relevant to our decision.
It found that cats kill almost 2 billion native animals per year.
Roaming pet cats are estimated to kill 390 million native animals per
year.
An individual roaming pet cat kills 186 animals per year on average,
60% of which are native.
39% of cats brought in at night sneak out to roam and hunt during the night.
Pet cats bring home only 15% of what they hunt.
Pet cats' average lifespan is three to four times longer when they're confined
They also suffer a lot less injuries through fights with other animals
and being hit by cars, and things like that.
So the federal inquiry recommended cat registration,
sterilisation incentives, education campaigns and full-time
confinement.
So out of those things, we have compulsory cat registration,
we have sterilisation incentives, we have an education campaign which
is outlined in this report, and hopefully, if we all vote the way I'm intending
to vote on this, we'll bring in full-time confinement.
There is a question about whether that goes far enough in my mind,
given particularly with rural areas we can be talking
about quite large properties with really high conservation values
where cats will be still allowed to roam those properties.
However, I believe that most owners of those properties won't be inclined
to leave cats to roam in that way.
So I'm fairly confident that they would be quite small numbers
in the scheme of things.
And it's worth noting in relation to a night-time curfew that keeping cats
in at night changes the species they kill, not the number of animals, so birds
and reptiles in the daytime, mammals at night.
So, yeah, I'm very much in favour of this recommendation.
I'm a dog lover, but that means I'm a pet lover
and I understand how attached we all get to our pets and I understand that equally
with cat owners as with dog owners.
So thanks to everyone in the community for their great input on this
and I hope we vote this recommendation in.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Any other Councillors wish to speak?
Councillor Barker?
CR PAUL BARKER: Do I appreciate what this curfew intends to do?
Sure.
But the method is ludicrous.
Rules are only useful if they are easy to police.
I see this being largely an impossible rule to enforce.
Sure there will be some instances where the rules will be able to be used
and penalties applied to offenders, but I'm concerned that there are
going to be countless hours of officer time spent policing these rules
that will result in nothing.
Now, will that cost us hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of dollars,
maybe more?
Only time will tell.
When I articulate my concern with the direction Council is heading,
often driven by an agenda straight out of the Labor and Greens' playbook,
it is the same as the Liberal playbook, authoritarian.
Now, what is authoritarian?
That is favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense
of personal freedom.
Now, in this case it's restricting freedom for cats to roam and, as I mentioned
before, that's an intent I can appreciate, but the method proposed here will come
at a cost that I cannot support.
What I do find some humour in is that cats will be permitted
to leave their owner's property or premises in a reasonable means
of restraint.
I look forward to the burgeoning Surf Coast cat harness
market growing at a faster rate than our established
public dog dropping trend.
Maybe we should ban public dog droppings or put a curfew on them.
That will clean up our pathways.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Do any other Councillors wish to speak?
Councillor Wellington.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Thank you very much
Yes, I am a cat owner.
We have two cats and I've had cats all my life.
I'm also a horse lover and I won't attempt to use the sophisticated word (inaudible)
but I'm a horse rider and a horse lover, so none of that is really relevant
to what I think about this proposal.
I do think that the threat that cats pose to our native wildlife is just enormous.
I've been a very big proponent of having curfews for cats.
The times that cats tend to roam and kill is evenings and mornings, so we
and probably a lot of other farmers, I imagine, definitely lock our cats
up early in the evening, keep them locked up all night.
I'm just looking out the window at my 100 acre property and I think
if my cats are allowed to roam in a 100 acre property at night,
you know, we've spent years planting very
significant plantations of native trees and we really value and cherish the birds
that come to them and our cats are not permitted
near the plantations at all and certainly not at the time when
they would be most actively seeking to kill, which is, as I understand it,
evenings and early mornings.
So I'm pretty disappointed that this regulation won't stop people like me,
if we chose to, allowing our cats to roam any time of the day or night
over properties that might span
- you know, my property is 100 acres, but others may span thousands of acres,
and I'm told that property means all of your property that you own and work on,
not just the sort of title that you live on.
So a lot of these farming properties are made up
of multiple titles and the cats will be allowed to roam across all
of them.
So I'm disappointed at the scope of this, but I think the intent is there
and I think it is
- and most people want to comply with the law, so most people
will recognise they need to do this and they'll do it.
I can't see our rangers running around with nets and headlights trying
to find cats in the middle of the night, but it will allow neighbours who are being
bothered by cats crossing into their backyards
and soiling or terrorising their dogs, or whatever they do,
they can make a complaint and things will be able to be done about that.
So I think it's part of the way.
I will support it.
I'm disappointed in its scope.
I hope that rural people, and I think rural people generally would
be really responsible cat owners because the biggest environmental
- people should understand, I would say the most important
environmentalists in this shire are the members
of the farming community.
They are looking after the land in a way that others just couldn't understand
and the wildlife.
So I will support it, but I'm a bit disappointed at it.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Did you have any closing comments, Councillor Hodge?
CR ROSE HODGE: Oh, just to say I do agree with Councillor Wellington,
I don't see our rangers going out on cat hunts and wasting time on that.
It will be more of a reactive one, especially for neighbours
if they've got a problem cat and our rangers then have the power
to make their amenity better.
I accept this report and in several years it gets reviewed again,
so there could be more data collected over the next couple of years
and we'll see how it is.
So I recommend this report and hopefully it gets through.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
We'll now put it to the vote.
All those in favour.
All those opposed.
And the motion is carried.
We now move on to item 4.4, Bi-Annual Customer Experience Report July
to December 2022.
The item presents Council with a the Bi-Annual
Customer Experience Report.
Do we have a mover?
Councillor Bodsworth.
Is it as per the recommendation?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: Yes, thanks, Mayor.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: And do we have a seconder, please?
Councillor Gazzard, thank you.
Did you want to speak, Councillor Bodsworth?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: Thanks.
Look, I'll keep it brief.
This is a recommendation to note the report.
I think the beauty of these reports is that they provide transparency
to community on the things their fellow citizens
believe we're doing well or we're not doing well.
It provides our officers and ourselves as Councillors with a good way of working
out the things that we're doing well and not doing well,
so I think it's absolutely essential.
It's also mandated through the Local Government Act now,
which is a good thing.
There are a whole lot of different metrics that are expressed
in this report.
There are a lot of different channels for people to either complain or
to compliment us.
I note that new waste contracts, which we voted on a while back,
kerb side waste contracts that include constant GPS monitoring of trucks
and a lot of camera monitoring should make a difference to waste-related complaints,
which are quite a large percentage of the complaints.
I also note the impact of La Nina, basically simultaneously La Nina weather
patterns with extraordinary rainfall and wind, COVID
and other unusual circumstances which are visible in this report and I'd
like to thank the community for their understanding and patience
through that period when we've struggled to keep up with our responsibilities
and I'd particularly like to thank Council staff for their hard work
over a relentlessly long period maintaining good levels of service.
So as this report notes, there are lots of things that we need to keep trying
to improve, lots of things that we're doing really,
really well, but the most important thing of all is that we have this program
which guides us in those improvements.
Thanks.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Gazzard?
Would anyone else like to speak?
Councillor Allen?
CR GARY ALLEN: Thanks, Mayor.
Look, I continue to be surprised at the lowish number of residents who use
the customer request management system.
In the past two years being a Councillor, I regard this to be the most effective way
to ensure that a resident request or complaint is followed up in the system.
In any system there will always be faults and some requests complaints may not be
answered in an acceptable timeframe.
These, I believe, are very few and if this occurs, the customer has a record
to then make a follow-up complaint.
Look, I appreciate that I may get the nickname of polypharma
as the Lorne ward residents believe that I am handballing their concerns.
However, I'm a convert and I wish to take this opportunity
of promoting the system.
Customers, you receive a unique reference number
and information on when you will receive a response
from the relevant action officer.
The Council is committed to completing both customer requests
and complaints within the timeframe and as you can see from this report,
the Council measures the completion rate of requests within the timeframe.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Wellington.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Thanks very much.
As I've said numerous times, complaints is an opportunity,
so we definitely should welcome them.
As I have said previously as well, I'm just really surprised
at the low number requiring investigation.
I do think a lot of complaints are dealt with very quickly
and addressed really well, but I also
- I don't know how anyone can be a Councillor on the shire and not walk
down the street of their town in areas where people know them
and not be inundated with complaints, because that's what I get and I'm sure
if others do that walking down the street, they must get people coming up complaining
about different things.
Now, for whatever reason, some of those things are requests for service,
but others are complaints about
- you know, the mud hut in Winchelsea, I can tell you I've had probably,
I don't know, 100 complaints about that in the last couple of months,
few weeks, about the engagement process there.
If I look at the number of complaints reported here, 27 upheld
and 48 partially upheld, that means in my ward,
if Winchelsea ward had a relative proportion of the complaints
across the shire, 7 complaints would have been upheld
and 12 closely upheld.
I mean, it just doesn't accord with my experience.
So I think we have to try to understand better what
we're counting here and, you know, how we can better capture the community
feedback.
We know from the customer experience, the satisfaction survey,
that overall satisfaction in the last customer survey I think was 57%,
so that means that 43% aren't happy, and I just don't believe that that only
generates such a small number of complaints
and certainly my experience people aren't complaining, it's just
about where they complain and how they frame their complaints as to
whether they're counted.
So it's good to have the data presented.
I do believe complaints is an opportunity and as an organisation, we need
to be measuring our complaints and analysing them and trying to work
out where they're coming from.
I'd like to see us respond to them.
I've said for many years satisfaction, which is sort of a reflection
of complaints, in the Winchelsea ward on unsealed roads has generally been
around 30 to 40% and it's been highlighted
in the satisfaction surveys every year for as many years as I can remember,
but it's never rated to get its own strategy,
(inaudible) more money into the strategy which was good.
But it's not
- so I just think there's a problem
- not a problem, but this is not the full picture
and I think that we need to over time develop a better understanding
of the full picture and respond to it appropriately through a strategy
and our plan.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
CR PAUL BARKER: Just a question, Mayor.
How many of the 515 missed bin reports did we have evidence that a garbage truck did
pass by the property and the complainant just forgot
to put the bins out?
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: I think that would have to be take on notice
because that's a very detailed, specific question which I imagine officers
don't have at hand.
So that can be taken on notice and we can endeavour to look into that,
or it may not be possible to respond to, but thanks for your question,
Councillor Barker.
CR PAUL BARKER: Because if it's a significant cost,
I want the rest of the community to understand that people making bogus
complaints do cost us.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: We'll take that on notice, thanks.
Councillor Bodsworth, did you have any closing statements?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: No, thanks.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: No.
We'll now put the motion to the vote.
All those in favour.
And the motion is carried.
We now move on to the Adoption of Residential Nature Strip
Policy and Guidelines.
The purpose of this report is to present the Residential Nature Strip
Policy and Residential Nature Strip Guidelines
to Council for adoption.
Do we have a mover of a motion?
Councillor Gazzard.
And a seconder?
Councillor Stapleton.
And is it as per the motion?
CR KATE GAZZARD: Yes, as per the recommendation, thanks, Mayor.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Can I ask a question before we start, please?
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Yes.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: There's a statement within the guidelines
of this that says it's not Council's intention to require residents
to retrospectively comply with the guidelines.
I'm just wondering if somehow in this we can incorporate that
that presumably, if it's passed tonight, refers to as of now.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: That's right.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: I mean, it's presumably not saying in the future
if you don't (inaudible) the guidelines, but you don't get caught, we're not going
to make you do it retrospectively.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: No, it's my understanding that as
of once the policy is passed, anything that's already
gravelled or doesn't comply
- it's from now going forward that you can't have gravel nature strips,
et cetera.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Can I suggest that the movers might consider that somehow
that's incorporated in the recommendation because otherwise it will create,
I believe
- MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Are you putting forward an amendment or
foreshadowing an amendment?
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: I'm just suggesting that the mover
of the motion might consider incorporating an amendment that says that
- MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thanks for that comment.
We'll move on and let Councillor Gazzard speak
to the motion.
CR KATE GAZZARD: Thank you.
I will move the motion as it stands.
I think in the communications that go out to the public we could make it quite clear
that the policy is in place now and we're not enforcing it retrospectively
in terms of people who have certain nature strips
having to change it, but if people from now on do make any changes
that aren't in keeping with the policy, then there will be fines applied.
So this nature strip policy feels like it's been a long time coming.
Thank you to the officers for all the work that's been put in to this.
It is something that we've received quite a lot of correspondence about
and we've compared with other Councils who have existing nature strip
policies and guidelines.
I think it is important that we have this policy
and the guidelines for clarity.
Nature strips are obviously Council-owned land, but are managed
by the property owners.
They're a public space that can contribute to the sense of place and community
and really can be a pride for neighbourhoods
and certainly ours sometimes is a little overgrown
and our neighbour mows it for us, so it's a real community feel.
There's lots of considerations in the making
of this policy and I know a lot of people feel very strongly that certain
plants or grasses should be mandated, whereas other people would
like gravel or other materials.
It's difficult because there's a lot of considerations,
different people have different aesthetic appeals,
and I guess the main things that we've had to contend with are safety in terms
of road safety and pedestrian access, that nature strips needs to be accessed
for the amenities with gas and power and rubbish bins.
They play an active role in our climate emergency response plan
and also contribute towards a healthy environment for people, plants
and animals.
The other things that we need to be very aware of are bushfire risk
and there are areas where the new rules are difficult to enforce in certain parts
of the shire and I acknowledge that the hinterland
and different areas in the coast do differ in terms of vegetation and so while this
is shire wide, we do have to be somewhat flexible
with the existing nature strips that are in place.
So I think the main thing is that we're encouraging greening
of the nature strips, so grass, native plants that are less than
50 centimetres tall, and even edible gardens that can be
a creative way to decorate your nature strip.
Gravel, concrete and artificial turf are not allowed.
Note that all trees are managed by Council and so you can't plant new
trees, but Council might be able to plant a tree on your nature strip
if it's deemed safe, and anything outside of these guidelines requires a permit
and if there's any
- if there's no clarity, then you can contact our
development engineering team.
So I think as a starting point, having had no guideline
and now this policy, I think it reads well and is generally quite clear.
We won't be forcing people to change their existing nature strip,
but I will note that as per VicRoads law, it's illegal to park on your nature strip,
so any of the gravel nature strips made specifically for parking,
actually that's not allowed in terms of the road laws.
So thank you to Council staff and thank you to all the submissions
and the community members who have been contacting us about this issue
and hopefully this provides some clarity.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Stapleton?
CR LIBBY STAPLETON: Thanks, Mayor.
So as we all know, coming from different parts of the shire,
the character and type and role of nature strips varies enormously
across the shire.
The thing I really like about this policy is that it's a principles-based approach,
which means that the policy and the guidelines that come with it
will help to provide Council officers and the community
with greater understanding of how nature strips can be treated,
whilst still allowing enough flexibility to cater for the different needs
that are inherent in each of our townships.
As a whole, I think that nature strips should add to
and not detract from streetscapes and township character and hopefully add
to a cooler and greener environment and I'm confident that these guidelines
will help us to achieve that.
Just acknowledging Councillor Wellington's point about the retrospective application
of the policy, I'm comfortable that in the guidelines
under section 2, which is policy application,
I think it's pretty well covered with, "Council recognises that at the time
of the adoption of the Residential Nature Strip Policy
and Guidelines there are many nature strips through the shire where residents
have undertaken works which do not comply with the new guidelines.
It is not Council's intention to require residents
to retrospectively comply".
So I feel like that covers off that concern adequately.
And although the guidelines will not require residents
to retrospectively comply with the new standards,
I'm really hopeful that they provide an opportunity to educate
and inspire our community to create nature strips that contribute
to a more sustainable environment.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Do any other Councillors wish to speak?
Councillor Bodsworth?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: Thanks, Mayor.
I agree.
I think this
- well, we haven't had a nature strip policy
before, so I think this is a great first attempt.
I think partly it's good because of the input that we had from members
of the public, so I'd like to acknowledge in some cases some quite fierce input
from members of the public which pressure tested our
work while we were doing it and I think has resulted in a
better policy and guidelines.
In addition to the part that Councillor Stapleton
highlighted in the policy application in the guidelines,
there's an important paragraph around Council recognising that a
"historic lack of a clear Nature Strip Policy
and Guidelines has resulted in widespread inappropriate
and unsustainable uses and development of nature strips".
It goes on to say, "With the Policy and these Guidelines, Council aims
to initiate a shift away from those uses and towards more positive outcomes in line
with the Policy Principles".
So I think what is good about that is that it highlights that this
is not kind of a sudden revelatory change, it's a shift,
and it involves people getting to grips with the policy principles
and particularly the fact that nature strips are public land and they're
for public benefit and they're not for exclusive private benefit.
That paragraph I noted is so important it's
on the same page twice, so we could probably get rid of one
of those.
But yeah, look, I think this is really good.
I think there's a review period in several years' time.
I think that provides us a good opportunity to incorporate feedback that
we get as we put this to practice, and yeah.
So thanks to members of the public who had their input
and thanks to officers for their good work on this.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Barker?
CR PAUL BARKER: Just a quick question.
What's it going to cost to implement this policy?
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: I'll pass that on to the CEO.
ROBYN SEYMOUR: Thank you for the question, Councillor Barker.
We haven't quantified the direct cost.
Part of the intention of the policy is to try to make it as easy
as possible where we're clear around what's allowed
and it's only really when it's outside of that that residents
and ratepayers should feel that they need to come to us to seek a permit.
So we're hoping that that means that it will be fairly light touch in terms
of the need for support from Council officers and it
will just be those occasional opportunities where community members want
to do something a bit different on their nature strips that we would be
involved.
CR PAUL BARKER: Okay.
Yes, you can start the clock.
Principle 2 states that nature strips must offer safety for pedestrians
to prevent them from having to walk on the road.
We've got hundreds of kilometres of roads with nature strips that are not safe
for walking on.
I fear that we're backing ourselves into a corner where we'll force ourselves
to spend money that we don't have on nature strips.
Now, I understand that there's some
consideration because it's all not like for like, but as I mentioned before
about this direction Council has had with the climate alarmism and got
to green everything, it's going to come at a cost.
We're in a recession.
It's like you've got the blinkers on.
We just can't be everything for everyone.
I can understand the intent and desire to clear things up,
but I can't support it.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Councillor Allen, did you wish to speak?
CR GARY ALLEN: Yes, look, I think this is an important and good start.
Councillor Stapleton talked about most of the things that I wanted to say,
but I would like to stress that I accept that it's a challenging issue
with the difficulty of crafting a policy that fits the differing locations
within the shire, the obvious one being topography,
another heritage and character, and I'm quite confident not being
retrospective that it will in fact protect the tree canopy
in Lorne which is so important to the Lorne community.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Gazzard
- oh, Councillor Wellington, did you wish to speak?
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Thanks so much.
I'd like to first of all say I think this policy was kind
of stimulated by (inaudible), who are Torquay residents
who were very concerned about the gravelling and the sort
of changing of nature strips in North Torquay to make them impermeable,
which obviously just adds to the environmental risks and threats
in that area and I think they have pursued it really strongly and
on behalf of the community, so I'd really like to thank them
for what they've done there.
I think that statement about requiring retrospectively comply
with the guidelines is both redundant and unclear
and I think it should be deleted.
I think we obviously have the right to direct residents
to remove any structural planting which we deem to be a safety risk,
but we don't need to make a statement about retrospective compliance.
You know, people are
- I mean, how are we going to know what the state
of our nature strips is as of tonight?
How are we going to know when in five years' time,
if we find a nature strip among the 800 acres or so I think it is
of nature strips we own, we find a nature strip that doesn't comply
with this policy, how are we going to know when it happened?
So I think we're going into a bit of minefield there, so I think it's going
to cause problems in the future.
I noted the duplicate paragraph on page 71 as well.
Dot point 4 on page 74 is missing the last dot point.
And then we talk about garden edges and planter boxes on page 75
and unfortunately my computer is playing up and I can't get to page 75
at the moment but I think that related when I made my notes
- that related to tripping hazards and I would have thought that planter
boxes are a tripping hazard.
Oh, no, actually, sorry, there's just an edit there.
I don't think it is.
It's an edit.
In terms of the merits of the policy, I sincerely hope we enforce the illegality
of parking on nature strips.
We have not done it.
We've ended up with a big car park in North Torquay on our nature strips
that houses people's boats and caravans.
It's really very detrimental to amenity, it's very detrimental to the environment,
and it shouldn't be permitted and we should be enforcing
that much more stringently.
I think the guidelines generally are good.
Hopefully most people will comply and we will stop people gravelling their nature
strips and I hope we do actually go out with some communication to builders
and home owners.
We should be sending these guidelines to people who apply
for planning permits or building permits, or whatever, so that they've got them and
they know them.
We're talking about this not being retrospective,
if people have gravel or other surfaces they would incur costs.
I just feel that we need to be able to do better than that in the long term.
I believe there was a requirement for those people to seek permits before
they did that and I believe that needs to be addressed
in the longer term.
You know, this is an improvement on what we had, but it's
by no means perfect and I really
- there's obviously no point because everyone has decided
what they'll do already, so I don't think that there's any point
in moving amendments, but I'm tempted to do that but I won't.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you, Councillor.
Councillor Wellington, you've now gone over time now.
CR ROSE HODGE: I'll just quickly
- MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Sure thing, Councillor Hodge.
CR ROSE HODGE: I know a lot of nature strips changed.
I can remember the drought in 2000 and that's when a lot
of people I know let the grasses go and gravelled,
and there was only guidelines.
Now the policy is in, we can look at it.
And I know people that do prefer grass, that they
will probably change their gravel to grass.
But I really hope this document is sent to other agencies.
I know it doesn't include them, but my pet hate
is that horrendous roundabout as you come into Torquay,
it's the ugliest entrance into any town in the shire,
and we have tried to get the Department of Transport to at least do something
to it and they just either won't or don't.
So I'd really like to ensure that the Department
of Transport and other ones
- you know, we can do low maintenance greenery,
but that is the ugliest roundabout ever and I'd just like to say it
is only a start.
This nature strip policy isn't perfect.
I think it opened a Pandora's box, actually, from different areas
of the shire and also parts of the shire that are
under the bushfire management overlay.
So that even comes into play.
So it isn't perfect, but it's a start and any new developments that come in now,
and there will be new development in Torquay, no doubt, and in Winchelsea,
that with these new developments it's just known that grass needs to be placed.
So I think it's a good start, there's still growth in the area,
and I think people could retrospectively change their
- willingly change their nature strip back.
So I'll be voting for this recommendation.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: May I just ask a question, Ms Pattison?
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Yes.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: I'm just wondering could one of the officers just clarify
for Council how the guidelines will be enforced?
Normally guidelines are just that, they're only guidelines,
as Councillor Hodge just stated.
Are these going to be adopted into the community local law,
is that the intention?
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: I'll pass that on to our CEO.
ROBYN SEYMOUR: Thank you for the question, Councillor Wellington.
Yes, the intention is that they will be included in our local laws.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: I'd like to move an amendment.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Yes, you can put forward your amendment.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: My amendment would be that
- I'm having trouble getting my Council papers up on the screen.
The amendment would be that Council adopts the Residential Nature Strip Policy
and Guidelines subsequent to removal of that comment
about Council not intending to retrospectively enforce the guidelines
because that's an issue for the local law, not for the guidelines themselves.
So the amendment would be as it's stated, save for the removal
of the statement that Council (inaudible) retrospectively implement.
I can't get the document up on my computer.
So the statement I think that I've written in my notes
is it's not Council's intention to require residents
to retrospectively comply with the guidelines.
I think that that statement should be deleted and perhaps the officers could put
up an amendment.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: I'll seek clarification with the mover of the motion
because otherwise we'll need to go to a vote, unless that's accepted.
SPEAKER: Which part
- sorry, Councillor Wellington, which part?
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: It's the statement in the guidelines that says,
and the officers may be able to direct us to it, "It is not Council's intention
to require residents to retrospectively comply
with the guidelines however Council retains the right to direct any resident
to remove any structure or planting which Council deems to be a safety risk".
I'd like that
- I'm suggesting that that statement is removed because issues of what we bring
into the local law are for the local law, not for
- shouldn't be incorporated in the policy or the guidelines.
So the (inaudible) would change would be as it is, with the exception
of (inaudible) paragraph where that statement fits in the guidelines.
SPEAKER: Second paragraph on page 71.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: It's the second paragraph on page 71.
Councillor Gazzard, you can either choose to accept it and then it moves on,
or you can not accept it and we'll put it to the vote
and then that amendment either lapses or becomes a substantive.
So given that you were the mover of the motion.
CR KATE GAZZARD: Yeah, I'm happy to accept that amendment.
CR LIBBY STAPLETON: I'm not.
I'm the seconder.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: The seconder doesn't, okay.
Just hold on one second.
CR LIBBY STAPLETON: Can I just explain why I don't want to second it?
Is that alright?
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Just hold on a second, if you will, please.
Jake, can you
- JAKE BROWN: Through you, Mayor, if you could just give us 30
- ROBYN SEYMOUR: I think you missed
the discussion, which was Councillor Gazzard accepted
the motion, but
- MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Councillor Stapleton did not.
Do we go to a vote then if the seconder does not accept
- JAKE BROWN: Through you, Mayor, you require both mover and seconder.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Okay.
So we'll now put the amendment to the vote.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: I think the question is
whether we accept the amendment and then debate it.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: That's what I was talking about, sorry.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: I don't think there's a seconder to it yet, is there,
to the amendment?
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: No.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: So the amendment is to delete the statement that starts
"It is not Council's intention to require residents
to retrospectively comply with the guidelines however",
and I think we should just leave it in there that Council retains the right
to direct any residents.
So we delete the words from "It is not Council's intention"
through to "however"
in that second paragraph on page 71.
CR KATE GAZZARD: I'm happy to not
- just to go back to the original motion.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Okay, thank you.
So we've just had a clarification Councillor Gazzard does not accept
the amendment, nor does Councillor Stapleton.
So we will return to the original motion and we'll put the motion.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: No, I think my motion
- my motion
- MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: It lapses with the mover and the seconder.
{WHITE} CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: My motion needs to be put if there's a seconder
of it.
JAKE BROWN: Through you, Mayor, to accept the amendment,
you need the mover and the seconder to agree.
If not, then Councillor Wellington can seek
a seconder for her amendment.
If a seconder is accepted, then Council may debate the amendment.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Is there a seconder to Councillor Wellington's amendment?
Councillor Barker.
JAKE BROWN: Through you, Mayor, can I just put it up on the screen
to get the wording right first to make sure everyone is happy
and Councillor Wellington is happy before we commence debate?
I'll just need probably about 60 seconds.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Okay.
We'll just wait for that to be put on the screen.
JAKE BROWN: Through you, Mayor, we're displaying the proposed amendment
on the screen for Councillor Barker or for Councillor Wellington
to confirm that's the amendment she'd like to move and for Councillor Barker
to confirm that that's the amendment he wishes to second.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Barker, are you happy to second the amendment?
CR PAUL BARKER: Yes.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Councillor Wellington, do you wish to speak to the amendment?
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Thanks so much.
I think it's probably reasonably clear.
But I would just say to Councillors I don't believe this
is anything to be frightened of.
What it's basically doing is removing from the guidelines
- the guidelines itself should be about what we want on nature strips,
not whether or not we're going to enforce.
The guidelines need to address whether or not you can have gravel and
whether or not you can have plants.
Enforcement is an issue for the community amenity local law.
There is nothing
- we could in the community amenity local law adopt the guidelines
and put a proviso that we won't enforce prior to a certain date.
I think legally we wouldn't have a right to enforce retrospectively anyway.
People can't be expected to comply with things that don't apply to them
at the time.
So I think it's low risk.
I think it is sensible to keep our options open, and particularly
because I think the wording is currently very ambiguous and end up
with problems because it's not clear when we're talking about retrospective,
we're not addressing the date from which retrospectively applies.
So I think it's difficult in its current format.
It's going to cause problems.
Removing it will not cause problems and will make the policy clearer.
And I thank Councillor Barker for seconding the amendment.
Thank you.
CR PAUL BARKER: Mayor, I just have a question, if I may.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Yes.
CR PAUL BARKER: As far as the date of this policy being applicable,
I would assume it would be today's date once it's passed the meeting, if it
is passed, that is the date it becomes applicable.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: That would be my understanding, yes.
Councillor Barker, did you wish to speak to the amendment?
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Mayor
- MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Pattison.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: I'm sorry, can I please say something?
I didn't use my full time.
But just in relation to that, the issue will arrive in the future when we discover
that somebody has a nature strip which does not comply with the policy
and the question at that point would be what does retrospective application
of the policy mean at that point.
So I think it is going to be a difficult clause.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: It doesn't really make sense to have (inaudible).
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Yes, Councillor Stapleton.
CR LIBBY STAPLETON: My recollection from one of the briefings was that
we did seek legal advice of the policy and guidelines.
Can I just
- is that correct, and what the advice was.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: I'll put that through to our CEO, please.
ROBYN SEYMOUR: Thank you, Councillor Stapleton.
I might refer that to our General Manager of Place Making and Environment to respond
to.
CHRIS PIKE: Yes, through you, Mayor, we did seek legal advice,
but I don't have that before me right now and so I'm
going to be guessing if I try to fill in the blanks in terms
of exactly what it told us, but we were providing it so as
to position ourselves to have something that was workable and,
if necessary, enforceable and found the feedback helpful
and incorporated it where it was provided.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: And just to add to that
- sorry, Councillor Wellington
- at the briefings we were advised that aerial photos are taken and
they have recently been taken for the assessment for rating
and the assessment of property values and that that would be the basis utilised
around understanding retrospective nature strips, et cetera, because that's
across the shire and that was from my recollection of those briefings
and in relation to the legal avenues around retrospective rectification
of nature strips, and the like.
We'll now move on to Councillor Barker.
Did you wish to speak to the amendment?
CR PAUL BARKER: No, it just makes sense.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Does any other Councillor wish to speak
to the amendment?
Councillor Hodge?
CR HODGE: I won't be supporting it.
I'm just foreshadowing go back to the original.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
We'll now put the amendment to the vote.
All those
- so just to clarify, all those in favour of moving to the amendment,
please raise your hand.
That's Councillor
- and all those opposed?
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Sorry, can I
- MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: The amendment lapses and we move back to the substantive.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Can I ask what the vote was, Mayor Stapleton
- I mean Pattison.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Pattison.
It was two for the amendment and seven opposing the amendment.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: We will now vote on the nature strip policy as per
- sorry, Councillor Gazzard, did you have any closing remarks?
CR KATE GAZZARD: Thank you.
Sorry for the confusion.
I do think that removing that phrase doesn't necessarily clear it
up given the sentence before it and my concern is that not only applies
to gravel nature strips, but that also applies
to existing vegetation and wildlife.
So I'm happy that
- as a first guideline I think this policy is a good one, so yes, happy
- MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
We'll now put the motion to the vote.
All those in favour.
All those opposed.
And the motion is carried.
Given the time and it's now 8.08 and so Councillors,
we have been running through the agenda now for two
and a bit hours, so we'll have a short break.
I know ask for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Councillor Bodsworth, and seconded by Councillor Barker.
All those in favour.
And the motion is carried.
And we will be returning at 8.20.
Thank you.
(Short break) MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Welcome back, those of you,
for our Council meeting tonight.
I just will seek a motion to resume standing orders.
Councillor Allen, and seconded by Councillor Hodge.
All those in favour.
And the motion is carried.
We'll now kick straight off into 4.6, COVID Recovery Assistance Program Report.
This item presents Council with the final report on the outcomes
of projects awarded under the COVID-19 Recovery Assistance Grant Program.
Do I have a mover of a motion?
Councillor Allen.
And a seconder?
Councillor Hodge.
Councillor Allen, I'm assuming that's as per the motion?
CR GARY ALLEN: As per the recommendation, yes, thank you.
Included in tonight's meeting papers is an extremely comprehensive report
about the COVID Recovery Assistance Grants and I encourage residents to read
about the 36 grants and the 9 Council programs enabled
through this initiative.
I wish to congratulate the previous Council
for their foresight to envisage and resource this initiative and
to the officers who were tasked with the job of implementation.
We were all uncertain about the timeframe and the future individual
and community impacts of the pandemic.
55% of the package supported local businesses
and 45% was allocated to community-based initiatives.
The Surf Coast Shire was thus providing real and timely capacity building
at a time of reduced confidence.
The major determinant of economic activity and growth is the level of business
and consumer confidence.
Initiatives were varied, ranging from farm gate art, adopt a worker,
to a large freezer for Torquay food aid to support an ostrich farm that lost its
main source of income from tourism and the Council was prepared
to forgo income by reducing and staging fees and charges.
I am particularly pleased that $100,000 was allocated
to the Creative Communities Fund.
Economic rationalists may roll their eyes, but this allocation recognises
the importance of the non-tangible benefits of the arts
to individual emotional health as well as to the artists whose income
and job security is so often overlooked.
A very big well done to all concerned.
This is a comprehensive report on a targeted and compassionate program.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Hodge, did you wish to speak?
CR ROSE HODGE: Yes, thank you, Mayor.
When the Council of 2016 and 20 were faced with never before a situation such
as COVID and after much discussion, I think it was in May 2020 we placed
the money, nearly $1 million, to help combat any unforeseeable impacts
on our community.
The impacts were on personal, community, regional, state and national levels.
We were trying to do something in such a confused time in our lives.
With lockdowns, we had challenges in economic, physical and mental health
and especially social connections.
There are many statistics in the comprehensive report that
is well worth a read, but we did lose
- in Surf Coast, we had 52.9% of businesses apply for JobSeeker
and a loss of over $190 million in tourism.
One of the principles was lead initiatives and support others.
Council gave the officers the ability to quickly assess
and determine applications into the grants, eliminating wait times
for the monthly Council meetings.
The report comprehensively shows where and how and what the outcomes were
with every successful applicant.
Just to mention a few, the feed me Surf Coast, which
is such an important part of our community now
- the food parcels went from 30 to 150 and meals increased from 90 to 520.
32 volunteers were trained with the grants that we gave them
and the Lions certainly came and helped and they were a fantastic volunteer help.
The community houses also led the way too, with Let's Go Outside initiatives
and getting people outside in a safe distance,
but still socially connected.
The mental health projects were also supported and the youth.
Initiatives were all across the shire and the rapid response ones were
particularly terrific that the officers could get on this very quickly and to help
out with community groups as Adopt a Worker,
at Lorne the toy library, the sensory garden at Winchelsea,
bike hubs, and a full list of all this is in the report.
And the outcomes, as you will read, were all positive.
Overall, the COVID-19 Recovery Assistance Grants Program were
underpinned by our wonderful community and the countless volunteers who wanted
to make a difference in a challenging time
It led to incredible projects where people gained skills and found new legacies
and I too would sincerely like to thank the staff that put so much
of their lives into this report.
I don't want to miss out anyone, but special mention to Gretchen, Matt,
Simon.
I know there are others, so please pass on to the teams,
but anyone reading that report will see that that was money really well
spent.
Sometimes, you know, people are "you shouldn't be doing grants".
Well, if anyone complains about this giving
to the outcomes that we received, especially from Feed Me and
all those other ones, it was a wonderful initiative
and I thank the past Council, but this Council too for continuing it
because it was so important to our community and I think we're better
for it, we're stronger for it, and hopefully nothing like this
will happen again, but we know we've got the resources
to do it.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: You've currently gone over.
Thank you.
Do any other Councillors wish to speak?
Thanks for the clapping.
Councillor Wellington?
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Thanks very much.
Look, there's a huge report and it's some really fantastic stuff
that was done with these grants.
It was a huge amount of money.
It does have actually quite a
- there's quite a focus on outcomes here, although some of them weren't necessarily
- you know, they were one-off kind of things and it's hard
to see what sustainable difference, if you like, they made.
But it was important to get community together
at various times, get back together and to support certain sectors
of the community.
I have two I wanted to comment on in particular, though.
One is the Summer Shuttle program, Torquay/Jan Juc,
and I think that's the one that was implemented directly after the elections
of 2020 and I think it was in relation to the current proposal that we have
a free shuttle bus service around Torquay and Jan Juc and there's a whole
- we ran that and it cost quite a lot of money, $48,000.
The outcomes are reported as being extremely positive
- people were employed, the initiatives were carbon neutral,
you know, just different details about the people who rode on it,
but the reality of that
- and this is really an issue about the way we report, as opposed
to an issue about whether we should have funded that shuttle
bus.
I don't think I supported it at the time, but that's not to say it was wrong
for Councillors to support it, but I would like a more objective outcome report
on that and the reality was that the cost per person was unbelievably high.
There was very few people that took it up.
I would like that to be put down as a big tick, which it seems to be
at the moment.
It says that objectives (inaudible) I don't know what the objectives were,
but there's certainly people used (inaudible) did not make this
a successful program.
I think we need to just recognise that and we don't want to be sort of conveying
to people that it was very successful when it actually, in my view, was not.
The other thing is just in relation to the (inaudible).
I would make the comment there was a very small uptake.
I can't really tell the numbers from the report,
but there was a very small uptake from the non-Torquay
areas of the shire.
So what we've got there, in my view, is probably a reasonably good view
about what the youth of Torquay (inaudible)
but I don't think that that should be being relied on in relation to the views
of the youth around the other parts of the shire.
So I think
- personally I'd like to see (inaudible) statistician engaged
by this Council because we're increasingly doing surveys
and I think sometimes we rely on results in a way that we shouldn't
and it can be misleading in terms of future decision making.
So overall I think there were some good projects in this,
there were some that weren't so successful
We need to be clear about what was not successful as well
as what was and I'm happy to see the report and to note what came
out of it.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Councillor Allen, did you have any closing statements?
CR GARY ALLEN: No thanks.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Councillor Barker, did you have something
- you wanted to speak to the motion?
CR PAUL BARKER: Thank you.
I'm happy to support the motion, but only once in this whole agenda
is return on investment mentioned.
Any time that we're spending other people's money,
it's essential that that money spent delivers a positive need
for the community.
Now, that's going to be subjective depending
on the individual, but a million dollars is a hell of a lot of money.
And even though it was $924,711, that's still a hell of a lot of money.
And as Councillor Wellington mentioned, to gloss over the spend
on certain elements and not be critical is a disservice to
all those people in the community that are working hard to pay their rates.
So I hope it serves as a lesson for all of us that the next time government claims
there's an emergency and wants to pump out ratepayer or taxpayer funds,
take a moment, take a day, take two days, a week, a month, just as long as you need
to consider what are the long-term ramifications of significant spending.
Governments have a habit of breaking your leg,
stealing your wallet, giving you crutches and then expecting you to be happy.
There's always going to be an emergency that governments can claim they need
to do extraordinary measures, but just remember the next time it happens
, don't need to lose your collective minds and blow money on unnecessary projects
- one that I supported, being that shuttle bus,
and in hindsight it's probably one of the worst decisions I've made,
but I learnt from it and I'll definitely be more critical
on wasteful spending in the future.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Allen, any closing remarks?
CR GARY ALLEN: Just simply to say that often assessment
of the success or otherwise of programs is very much in the eye of the beholder
and it does depend on the values and the angle
from which you approach things.
Particularly with non-tangible programs, it's very hard, very hard to quantify it.
But overall, I'm just so delighted with the positive result
of the program and again, congratulate all concerned.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
We'll now put the motion to the vote.
All those in favour.
And the motion is carried.
We now move on to 4.7, Reviewing the Adopted Strategy Cash
Reserve and program of projects.
This report is presented to Council following a review which has
identified that some funds held in the Adopted Strategy Reserve
and funds allocated to particular projects are no longer
required.
The recommendation before us tonight seeks a decision from Council
to allocate these funds, totalling $1,048,693,
to the Surf Coast Aquatic and Health Centre project.
Do I have a mover?
Councillor Stapleton.
As per the recommendation?
CR LIBBY STAPLETON: Yes, thank you, Mayor.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: And a seconder?
Councillor Schonfelder.
And would you like to speak?
CR LIBBY STAPLETON: I will, thank you.
So as we know, there's currently a $3.5 million shortfall
in funding for the Surf Coast Aquatic and Health Centre and this motion provides
an opportunity for Council to allocate a little over $1 million
from the Adopted Strategy Reserve and from Council's program of projects
to help meet some of this shortfall.
Just by way of strategy, the Adopted Strategy Reserve is one
of 15 cash reserves that hold funds for specific purposes determined
by Council and when strategies are approved
by Council, funds for projects related to that strategy are held in the Adopted
Strategy Reserve until the project is considered live.
In some instances, as priorities shift or circumstances
change, cash may end up sitting in this reserve for many years awaiting
for a project to start.
Officers have recently reviewed the projects that are sitting
in the Adopted Strategy Reserve to determine whether we are holding cash
in that reserve that due to timing of projects, or for other reasons,
may be better allocated to a higher priority, which
in this instance it would be for the Surf Coast Aquatic
and Health Centre.
Two projects that I'll just highlight in particular offer an opportunity
to transfer more than $700,000 to the pool budget.
One is the Torquay Town Centre project, which currently has an allocation
of $825,000 against it.
It is proposed that $225,000 of this is retained in the Adopted Strategy
Reserve, which would be used to develop a public domain plan
for the Torquay Town Centre.
Now, given that this project has been on Council's advocacy list for a number
of years and my understanding is that it's gained very little traction
in that time, it does make sense to use that money to develop a plan
to cost and scope the work that's actually recommended in the urban design framework,
which the Torquay Town Centre project sits under,
so that the projects are shovel ready and much better placed
to attract future funding.
The remaining $600,000 from this allocation would be reallocated
to the Surf Coast Aquatic Centre.
The second significant project nominated to have funds reallocated from
is Race Torquay.
There is more than $160,000 sitting in the Adopted Strategy Reserve
for this event.
Yet it hasn't been held since 2020 and event organisers have given no
commitment to Council that this event will occur in future years.
So it makes sense to allocate these funds to a project which
is currently a much higher priority.
Just quickly, officers also reviewed a number of projects on its program
of projects and is able to reallocate more than $250,000
from projects that are either concluded or no longer required.
So essentially we have a range of projects here that are either concluded
, on hold or unlikely to happen any time soon
and it makes good sense to reallocate that money to a project that
is a current priority and needs more funds to see it through.
I hope my fellow Councillors agree and that Council can make better use of
more than $1 million currently sitting in reserves awaiting a future.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Schonfelder?
No?
Would any other Councillors like to speak?
Councillor Allen.
CR GARY ALLEN: Thanks, Mayor.
Look, just to say I'm keen that of the $3.57 million shortfall that
we don't obviously increase borrowings by a cent, and this approach to me I'm
in favour of because it's taking from Peter to pay Peter.
So in other words, we're taking from Torquay projects
to fund a project that is essentially going
to benefit the Torquay industry community.
We won't know until we see the result of the tender process which we agreed
to last month to test the financial viability and
whether we can afford to proceed with the pool, but we must be
- this motion makes us prepared in case the tenders do come
within the guidelines to move ahead without borrowing and therefore I'm
in favour of having this strategy in case we need to fund the pool
in that sense.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Wellington?
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Thank you.
I won't be supporting this because I don't support the pool
- or I don't support an aquatic centre costing almost $50 million being built.
I think that we're living beyond our means, very much
beyond our means.
There's already a lot of Council money allocated towards
that $46 million or $47 million that we've got.
I suspect what we'll do is we'll find (inaudible) all
of a sudden we'll have the 46.8, but that million is at the cost
of other priorities as well and we've got
- analysis of where we need a million dollars
at the moment.
Do we need it in a $47 million aquatic centre or do we need it in roads
and bridges and other infrastructure where we've got a massive asset gap?
We're going to create a (inaudible) really aren't able
to keep up with the assets we've got.
So I feel very
- and particularly to create an asset which is going to have an ongoing drain
on council and ratepayer funds every year for the foreseeable future.
So I just don't support it.
It's convenient to find $1 million, that's nice,
but I think it would be much more responsible to look at priorities
across the shire and determine whether a $47 million pool
is really a priority.
To me it's not, so I won't be supporting it.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Councillor Barker?
CR PAUL BARKER: Thanks, Mayor.
Spending other people's money is fun.
You don't have to work for it.
You can throw it around like confetti.
If it lands on an unaffordable project, it's okay, you just find money
from somewhere else.
Is there a need for a pool in Torquay?
Yes.
Do we have tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money allocated to it?
Yes.
Has this stifled the development of a privately developed pool
from progressing?
Most likely.
Who in their right mind would raise private capital when this project of ours
is going ahead?
No-one.
Would a privately built pool be better equipped for a lower spend?
I think absolutely.
You do whatever you want, it's not your money, it's not mine either,
but I think I'm part of the minority voice in this aspect,
so vote the way you see fit.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Stapleton, did you have any closing remarks?
CR LIBBY STAPLETON: No, thanks, Mayor.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: I put the motion to the vote.
All those in favour.
Opposed.
And the motion is carried.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: The vote was?
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: 7-2.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: We now move on to 4.8, Planning Permit Application 22/0427
Construction of a telecommunications facility
- 460 Grossmans Road Bellbrae.
This report has been presented to Council to determine a position
on Planning Permit Application 22/0427 for the development
of a telecommunications facility at 460 Grossmans Road Bellbrae.
Do I have a mover of the motion?
Councillor Schonfelder
- as per the recommendation?
And do I have a seconder, please?
Councillor Barker.
Did you wish to speak?
CR ADRIAN SCHONFELDER: Yes, just briefly, Mayor.
I'd just like to say that the application seeks approval
for the construction of a 30 metre high concrete monopole tower
on top of which is to be installed an array of antennas
for mobile phone communications reaching a maximum overall height of 32.5 metres
above ground level.
The proposed tower is to be sited in the north-east corner
of the land approximately 55 metres south of an existing telecommunications tower.
It will be set back 77 metres from Coombes Road, 29 metres
from the east side boundary, and a minimum of 37 metres from the southern boundary.
The land to be developed is currently grazing land.
The tower and associated equipment cabinet and compounds
will occupy 73 square metres of area.
And I'd just like to add that I do use my mobile phone often and
like many other members of our community, we do rely very much on telecommunications
and having the most updated infrastructure possible.
Thank you, Mayor.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Barker, did you wish to speak?
CR PAUL BARKER: Thanks, Mayor.
A key strategy for telecommunications infrastructure is
to colocate telecommunications facilities wherever practical.
Victorian planning reports note that carriers are encouraged
to colocate facilities wherever practical.
This provision encourages colocation where an existing structure has the capacity
to cope.
I'm not certain that all attempts to colocate the infrastructure in question
with this existing infrastructure have been exhausted.
I accept that if colocation were to occur, it would result in a taller pole
at the existing site.
I think this would be a preferable situation and set a precedent that
all efforts must be made for colocation.
Allowing this application to pass may set a precedent that
will result in many more similar structures popping up
around the shire.
I appreciate the applicant's attempts to meet the minimum requirements
laid before them.
I do not like the way this development is planned to occur,
though I think you should be able to do what you want with your land so long
as you aren't causing harm to others, and in this light,
I will be supporting the recommendation.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Would any other Councillors like to speak
to the motion?
Councillor Bodsworth?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: Just briefly, thanks, Mayor.
I share some of Councillor Barker's misgivings.
I'm happy to support the motion.
I just note that I'm interested in
- as a landscape architect, I'm interested in visual impact mitigation options.
I drove up Coombes Road on the way to tonight's Council meeting
past the site where this monopole is proposed and there's a combination
of green power poles and plain grey cement existing
telecommunications tower which offer an opportunity
to compare the visual impact of those two different colours
and I don't believe there's a substantial difference in the visual
impact.
But this is obviously not the last of these proposals that we're going
to get, so I think it's important for us to do some
- well, just to continue to stay in touch with best practice
in visual impact mitigation, in electromagnetic emissions
and in the other issues that were part of this consideration tonight.
So, yeah, I'm happy to support the recommendation,
but I think these impacts are really important and we need to do what we can
to mitigate them on an ongoing basis.
Thanks.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Wellington?
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Yes, can I just ask a couple of questions?
On the east of that site at 460 there's a parcel of land which
is also (inaudible) on the corner of Coombes Road
and (inaudible) Road on the south-west corner.
I just wonder if somebody could tell me
- as I understand it, the pole is proposed to be located in the north-east corner
of the subject land and then there's another parcel of land
next to it and another one south of that adjacent to the public land
and I just wondered if I can be told the
- I was trying to find the size of those blocks and
whether or not they've got homes on them.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: I'll pass that through to you, CEO.
ROBYN SEYMOUR: Councillor Wellington, I can't give you the size of those blocks
at this point.
In terms of whether they've got homes on them, to be honest,
I'm not actually clear which blocks you're talking about.
I'll just check if the General Manager of Place Making and Environment is clearer
on those blocks of land for you.
CHRIS PIKE: Yes, through
- CR ADRIAN SCHONFELDER: Sorry, I was just going to say, Mayor,
on page 207, point number 5 is helpful in this regard.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you, Councillor Schonfelder.
CHRIS PIKE: Yes, through the Mayor, I was going to point to that image
on the top of page 208.
Certainly the smaller block to the south, if you like, does have a residence on it
and that's referenced in the analysis of the potential impacts
of the pole being sited there.
There is a property to the east too, and likewise that's addressed
in the report.
I too don't have the information on the size of the parcels.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Wellington, do you wish to speak to the motion?
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Yes.
Look, so I've just
- I can see there's farming zone land to the east
of this property which I presume would be separate ownership, but I don't know.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Councillor Wellington, I'll just let you know the clock started
because I did ask if you were speaking, so are you speaking currently
to the motion or are you
- CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: I'm speaking, yes.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Great.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Thank you.
So in looking at this, it seems to me there's farm zone land,
parcel (inaudible) Coombes Road, there's a parcel
of farming zone land just south
- just to the south of that.
There's a lot of rural or low-density residential zone land around this
and it's very close to Kithbrooke and various other sort of low-density
residential developments.
I'm really concerned just about the fact that (inaudible).
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Councillor Wellington, your internet is becoming very unstable
and we can't actually hear what you're saying.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: (Inaudible) support that.
I agree totally with Councillor Barker what he says there (inaudible).
Can I turn my video off for a moment?
Is that better?
Can you hear me?
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Yes, that's better.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: I'll just leave it off for a moment, if you don't mind.
So I agree entirely with Councillor Barker that the duplication of infrastructure
is just absolutely appalling and will just create, you know,
massive visual impact on the environment.
I know there's a lot of infrastructure in this sort of area already,
but if there's unnecessary additional
infrastructure, then I don't support it.
I'm just not convinced about the location of this and I'm not sure about the impact
on that land that's adjacent to it.
To me it's very close to the boundary.
That land is small and probably not suitable for, you know,
a commercial farming enterprise and the parcel of land to the south
of that corner next to the public use farmland
is also fairly small and still zone farming zone.
So it just is potentially going to leave some orphan land
in that corner that won't be very useful for much because it
will be very closely adjacent to a telecommunications facility.
I don't think I can support.
And I know there's a lot of community unrest about this, a lot
of submissions made about it, although I think only one person attended
the hearing of submissions, but I'm sympathetic to those submissions
and I don't think I will support this proposal.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Schonfelder, did you have any closing remarks?
No.
We'll put the motion to the vote.
All those in favour
- sorry, Gary, did you want to
- and also, Councillor Wellington, you'll need to put your video on
before we vote.
CR GARY ALLEN: Yes, thanks, Mayor.
Again, I'm a bit conflicted about this.
I'm very sympathetic to the Kithbrooke Retirement Village
people who submitted to us, just adding to the terrible visual pollution
that exists in that area.
I understand it's probably well within the planning laws
and therefore perhaps there's little we can do about it, but I think
on principle I'm really opposed to this ad hoc siting
of telecommunications poles, so I think I'll vote against the motion.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
We've already talked about
- great, okay.
All those in favour
- we'll put the motion to a vote.
All those in favour.
All those opposed.
And the motion is carried 6-3.
The next item we have is 4.9, Community Project Development Program
- March 2023 Update.
I'd like to note that I am declaring an interest in item 4.9 as point 2
of the recommendation requests that Council note a matter related
to the Jan Juc kindergarten bike shed proposal as my brother-in-law
has a key role in the project.
I will not be declaring a conflict of interest tonight because this
is just for noting.
However, when the item is presented for decision at a later date,
I will declare a conflict of interest then.
So the purpose of this report is to provide Council
with the quarterly Community Project Development Program update.
Do we have a mover of a motion?
Councillor Allen
- is it as per the recommendation?
CR GARY ALLEN: As per the recommendation, Mayor.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: And do we have a seconder?
Councillor Hodge.
And would you like to speak, Councillor Allen?
CR GARY ALLEN: Thanks, Mayor.
The Community Project Development Program is driven from community ideas,
with the Council helping through investigation support
and finally approval.
In the March quarterly update, we are affirming the feasibility
of the Deans Marsh community streetscape proposal,
referring the Jan Juc Kindergarten bike shelter program to the June meeting
to allow for further investigation, and moving three proposals
into the investigation phase.
The Deans Marsh and District community is a very dynamic, proactive community
with the Deans Marsh and District Community Action Plan being
formulated in late 2019 through what is affectionately known
as the mad cap process.
The actions identified in mad cap were delayed due
to the impacts of COVID.
However, it's great to see the reactivation of the plan
through the streetscape proposal.
One of three actions in priority 2 our local environment
and this recommendation tonight affirms its feasibility.
The plan includes principally avenue plantings, an art and heritage trail,
and township entry signage.
Because of the demonstrated level of community commitment to the proposal,
element working groups will start their detailed planning,
which includes funding strategies.
Congratulations to the streetscapers, a committed group who have worked
with Council officers and a landscape architect
to progress high-level ideas and to identify any site or project
constraints.
This group will be the catalyst to drive the proposal forward,
with detailed planning and design work.
It is also pleasing to note that three proposals now move
into the investigation phase
- namely, the upgrade to the Stribling Reserve Cricket Nets,
netting behind the goalposts at the north end
of the Polwarth Oval Torquay, and lighting for the Winchelsea Bowls Club.
I have knowledge of the cricket nets proposal
at Stribling Reserve Lorne, which I strongly support.
It is great to see the revival of the cricket club at Lorne
after several years in recess, with special thanks to Darren Balderas
and his band of volunteers.
It was a really special experience to be at a Friday night cricket match
in Lorne under lights
- and unlike the Gabba, they didn't fail
- with several hundred people enjoying the game and the joy of seeing the revival
of the club going against the trend of many sporting clubs
in smaller rural townships.
Polwarth Oval netting to stop lengthy retrieval of footballs
is important for the fluency of the game and the protection of the surrounds.
And lights at the Winchelsea Bowls Club will extend the amenity of the facility to
all in the community, with extended hours of play being possible, and I expect it
will place the club in a position to capitalise
on the expected increased interest in bowls generated
by the Commonwealth Games, which certainly was the experience
in Manchester
- Manchester, or Birmingham?
Birmingham.
It certainly was the experience in Birmingham, probably Manchester too.
So I have much pleasure in moving the recommendation.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you, Councillor Allen.
Councillor Hodge.
CR ROSE HODGE: Well, I think it's all been covered, actually.
But one thing great about this, we've got great officers that work out
with the community and you see the volunteers coming forward
and putting forward their ideas of what they want and then
they can help go fund part of it and it's absolute ownership.
So congratulations to Deans Marsh, great to see that is moving on, and we
all saw
- many of us went up to Deans Marsh on Sunday for their festival.
What a fantastic community that is.
But to see Lorne and Torquay and Winchelsea all involved
with their volunteers of these clubs getting together,
putting forward what they want, working with our officers,
it's a great relationship we have with these volunteers of these great clubs
and I recommend the report.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Would any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion?
Councillor Wellington.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Yes, I'd just like to say the Winchelsea Bowls lighting,
as Councillor Allen mentioned, I do think bowls has been
becoming increasingly popular.
It's attracting a younger group, which is what's happening out
at Winchelsea, and I think it will only continue to grow
and particularly as Winchelsea grows.
So I think we need to look at the facilities those clubs have,
not just their lighting but the quality of other facilities.
They're certainly not as good
- I think the quality is not as good as some other sports around the district,
like potentially basketball, et cetera, have got really good facilities.
But the bowls club I think need to be (inaudible) and
they are becoming increasingly popular, so I'm pleased to see that project funded.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Barker?
CR PAUL BARKER: Thanks, Mayor.
We're heading into a recession.
Hundreds of rate paying, working families in our shire are struggling to put food
on the table.
Many of the projects listed here generally sound, sure.
But in the current financial climate, I don't think so.
I think this is discretionary spending that needs to be halted.
I'd prefer to see greater fundraising from the community to pay
for these sorts of items.
All of these commitments of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands
of dollars add up to millions of dollars.
If you want to carry on like business as usual, that's your choice.
I know we're only at the start of widespread financial pain
over coming decades.
With all of mainland Australia's states now
governed by big spenders and supposedly financial conservatives
dwindling in relevance, you can be sure financially responsible
governance is a long way off.
There's just so much to address here.
I know I'm in the minority, so you vote the way you do
and I'll vote the way I do.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Allen, did you have any closing statements?
CR GARY ALLEN: Just a couple of comments.
I think what is often overlooked with government spending at all levels
is the multiplier effect of that spending, that it has generating income
and employment throughout the community and it does put food on the plates
of workers and their families.
The effect of this spending is widespread and is directly related to the ability
of people to consume or to spend, influencing that multiplier effect,
but it's real.
Talking about the Winchelsea Bowls Club, Councillor Wellington raised the issue
of the expansion of the club.
I think bowls is really an intergenerational sport
and it's gender neutral, so in all those aspects it's just fantastic
that you've got a 20-year-old bowling with an 85-year-old,
no matter what the gender.
So what we can do to enhance bowling within our communities I think
is a very positive thing.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
All those in favour.
Opposed.
And the motion is carried 8-1.
Now we move on to 4.10, Community Asset Committee Changes
to Membership
- Anderson Roadknight Reserve, Anglesea Bike Park,
and Connewarre Reserve.
The recommendation for this report requests that Council
accept the resignation of members from the Anderson Roadknight Reserve
and Anglesea Bike Club Community Asset Committees and appoints new members
to these committees as well as to the Connewarre Reserve
Community Asset Committee.
Do we have a mover of a motion?
Councillor Bodsworth
- as per the recommendation?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: Yes.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: And a seconder?
Councillor Barker.
And Councillor Bodsworth, do you wish to speak?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: Yes, thanks, Mayor.
In the interests of time, I'd just like to thank all
of our community asset committee members past, present and future,
including the people listed in our report, but I'd particularly like
to acknowledge Ari Lingam's contribution as the driving force behind the creation
of the Anglesea Bike Park, which was completed in 2006.
I think it's pretty fair to say that if it wasn't for Ari's advocacy
and tenacity on that, the bike park wouldn't exist and
in that time, in that 16-odd years, it's brought so much joy to so many people
as well as being a significant part of Anglesea's attractiveness to visitors.
So a special shoutout to Ari and great appreciation
to the other people mentioned.
Thanks.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Barker, did you want to speak to the motion?
CR PAUL BARKER: No, thanks.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: No?
Councillor Hodge?
CR ROSE HODGE: Just very, very quickly, I want to reiterate Councillor Bodsworth
on Ari and the other people as well, but I remember it was
in December 2006 when that bike path was opened.
It was my first event as Mayor and it was about 110 degrees,
I remember it very well, and Ari was a shining star then and
he still was and he was a huge driver in that area and has continued.
So could you please pass on my personal thanks to him too
for being there for me for my first event and also the great work that he's given,
it's really been great.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Did you have any closing remarks, Councillor
- sorry, Councillor Wellington?
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Thank you.
Sorry, I just wanted to briefly say thank you to those volunteers that have retired
and to all the volunteers who run these committees and facilities for us.
I'm deeply disappointed to see that we still require them all
to do a Working With Children check.
It's not a good policy and it's a bureaucratic barrier put
in people's way.
There's a cost to it.
It is clear that it's not good practice.
You only should do Working with Children checks when people actually
have some realistic prospect of working with children and many
of these people do not.
Obviously some of them would, some of our communities would, but many
of them do not and it's very poor practice and I'm very disappointed
to see it's still there.
But I hope it doesn't dissuade some volunteers from continuing to come forward
to do this important job.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Bodsworth, do you have any closing?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: No, thanks, Mayor.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: We'll put the motion to the vote.
All those in favour.
And the motion is carried unanimously.
We now move on to Review of SCS-004 Place Naming Policy.
This report seeks Council's endorsement for the draft Place Naming Policy
to be placed on public exhibition.
Do I have a mover?
Councillor Schonfelder.
And a seconder?
Councillor Allen.
Did you wish to speak to the motion?
CR ADRIAN SCHONFELDER: I'll just speak very briefly and say that
since being elected, I've been really heartened
by the measures that we've taken as a Council towards reconciliation
and I've actually heard back from many members
of the community who are very enthusiastic about us and they believe the time
is right to forward the progress of trying to achieve reconciliation.
And I know that this policy is a review of place naming and recently, Mayor,
I visited relatives overseas and I went to the museum of the City of New York
and I learnt that Manhattan is actually the native American Indian
name for Manhattan Island and I was really heartened by that,
and I know that many of our areas within our shire have Aboriginal names
and there are also names of areas that have English or
non-Aboriginal names and I know as a part of the reconciliation process
we're addressing that.
So I welcome this review.
Thank you, Mayor.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Allen?
CR GARY ALLEN: Thanks, Mayor.
We're combining two policies into one
- namely, the place making policy with the plaque and memorials policy.
If the recommendation is passed, this draft policy will be put out
to the community for four weeks to seek feedback.
Now, whilst not wishing to comment specifically about any element
of the policy, I was reminded a little bit of the policy when I recently conducted
a tour of the Lorne cemetery for the Lorne Historical Society.
The old cemetery was a variety of memorials both colourful
in their design and with the stories also colourful, compared
to the recent Lawn Cemetery, that's L-A-W-N Cemetery,
with admittedly the same colourful stories but with the standard memorials.
And I thought we are regulated in life and now we are regulated and controlled
in death.
The Lorne community were recently told they could not name a seat
after an individual or have a wall to remember those whose ashes have been
scattered at sea.
Now, this was not a Council regulation, but it was a regulation
by a similar authority with ever increasing power over our lives.
I'll be very interested to look at the policy feedback that we receive
by putting this draft out for consultation.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Wellington?
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: I just had a quick question.
As I read this proposal for names of roads and other infrastructure,
it could be traditional owner
- you know, Indigenous names or they could be other names.
There's no compulsion to name every street in the shire
after Indigenous persons, is there?
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: No, that's not the case.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Okay, thanks.
The reason I asked that is because I've been told in Winchelsea that
for some reason people associated with new development had the impression
that officers were saying to them that they could only put forward Indigenous
names and they didn't understand that and it doesn't seem to be associated
with any
- well, certainly I don't believe that the new developments
of which I'm aware have been compelled to use Indigenous names
and I think it's appropriate
- I mean, I live in a place with an Indigenous name,
but it's certainly there in the mix principally, which I see
as being appropriate.
But I wouldn't like to think we would sort of implement a requirement that no
other names were acceptable or appropriate
So I just wanted to clarify that this policy didn't do
that.
I'll be interested in the feedback on this.
There's obviously a lot of people in communities (inaudible) you walk
around the cemeteries, but you only need to talk to people in small towns
and you'll get the names and family histories
and the incredible contributions people have made over the years
and it's right that those people should continue to be recognised.
As long as we're not somehow precluding that through this policy,
which it didn't read to me as if we were, but I was surprised to hear that feedback.
However, I'm happy for it to go out to community and I'll make sure it goes
to the people who gave me that feedback and just see what their view on it is.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Schonfelder, did you have any closing remarks?
CR ADRIAN SCHONFELDER: No, thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: No.
We'll put the motion to the vote.
All those in favour.
And the motion is carried unanimously.
We now move on to 4.12, Local Government Performance Reporting
- 1 July-31 December 2022.
This item presents the Local government Performance Report to Council
for the period of the 1st of July to the 31st of December 2022.
Do we have a mover of a motion?
Councillor Barker.
Is that as per the recommendation?
Yes.
And a seconder?
Councillor Bodsworth.
Councillor Barker, did you wish to speak to the motion?
CR PAUL BARKER: No, thanks, Mayor.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Councillor Bodsworth, do you wish to speak to it?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: No, thanks, Mayor.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Would anybody like to speak to the motion?
Councillor Allen?
CR GARY ALLEN: Look, many of the service indicators are incomplete
as they require a 12-month period or that the surveys are
to be conducted in January to March and have not yet been completed.
And I note with satisfaction that there are fewer Council decisions made
at closed meetings.
This is resulting in improved transparency due mainly
to more tenders being awarded in the open meeting,
which I think has been a fantastic move.
The timeframe to action food complaints is very good, with most being completed
within one day, and perhaps we can give ourselves a bit
of a pat on the back with the number of Councillors attending Council meetings
rising significantly since 2019.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
We'll now put the motion to the vote.
All those in favour.
And the motion is carried.
I note that's 8.
- Councillor Wellington, Councillor Gazzard has just stepped out
for a moment, so that's why it's 8 that have been
in favour.
4.13, Award Contract Under 2022-23 Capital Works Program.
This matter is being presented to Council to seek higher powers of delegation
for the CEO in relation to one specific 2022-23
Capital Works Project so that it can be delivered prior to the winter months and
to meet grant deadlines.
Do we have a mover of a motion?
Councillor Bodsworth
- is it as per the recommendation.
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: Yes, thanks, Mayor.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: And seconded by Councillor Schonfelder.
Did you wish to speak, Councillor Bodsworth?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: Briefly just to say that this is an example
of what Councillor Allen just mentioned, where we're discussing more
contract-related motions in open Council meeting rather than
in closed Council meeting, which I think is a good thing.
We're not able to discuss the budget and other aspects of it,
which are confidential, but we can discuss the content
of the report, and in this case, we're looking at a restricted time window
to get really important work done before the winter season strikes,
which requires that the CEO be able to sign on to a contract without it having
to come back to Council.
So I think it's a sensible recommendation given the time constraints.
You also have a grant
- we have some external funding deadlines to meet in relation to this work,
so there are a couple of good reasons why it needs
to be expedited and we don't want it to have to come back to a council meeting.
So I fully support the recommendation.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Schonfelder, did you wish to speak to it?
No.
Would any other Councillors wish to speak?
Councillor Wellington.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: (Inaudible) this is a very important project.
(Inaudible) suffered substantial damage in (inaudible) that we had.
I think this is an important project to help address this (inaudible) get
the report back to the CEO.
There's no problem with it.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Councillor Barker, did you identify you wanted to speak
as well?
CR PAUL BARKER: Yes, thanks, Mayor.
This recommendation is based on time constraints bound
to external grant funding.
If it wasn't the key consideration would be whether impact to works I might be keen
to support it, but it's related to external grant funding,
so what we're voting on here is rushing a piece of road works
because we want to get our hands on taxpayer funds from outside our shire.
The reason this delegation of power for spending exceeds the CEO's
financial allocation of $600,000 is that a number of projects,
most of which I don't think are critical, have all been lumped together.
Now, what happens when multiple projects are lumped together?
They create tenders that smaller contractors simply cannot apply for.
That leaves only larger companies in a position to tender,
meaning less competition, resulting in a less competitive
tender process, meaning we all pay more.
Yeah, I'd rather see a focus going into specifically fixing Horseshoe Bend
Road at the Thompsons Creek rectification zone, but that was only built in
- well, reconstructed in 2019, I think.
Is that about
- MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Mr Pike, did you want to mention something.
CHRIS PIKE: Through the Mayor, just if I can offer a point
of clarification to help Councillors in their debate.
Obviously Horseshoe Bend Road is a significantly long road
and the section that this contract would relate to is here in urban Torquay close
to the primary school, the Torquay Coast Primary School, so south
of South Beach Road roundabout.
There's separate work being undertaken around rectifying the damage
at the actual bend in Horseshoe Bend Road where the flood damage occurred.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thanks for clarification.
Did you have any further comments, Councillor Barker?
CR PAUL BARKER: Yeah, thanks for that clarification, Mr Pike,
but I see there's all these bits and pieces going on on
like the wombat crossing and all the rest and we're getting taxpayer funds for that.
I think we need to focus on what's most important
and that's the Thompson Creek damage, but getting into
all these other little bits and pieces, I don't think it's essential.
So again, you do you, I'll do me.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Councillor Bodsworth, did you have any closing statements?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: No, thanks, Mayor.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: We'll put the motion to the vote.
All those in favour.
And opposed.
And the motion is carried, 8-1.
We now move on to item 4.14, Project Budget Adjustments
and Cash Reserve Transfers
- March 2023.
This report is presented for Council ratification and approval
of proposed budget adjustments and cash reserve transfers
relating to the 2022-23 financial year.
Do we have a mover?
Councillor Allen
- as per the recommendation?
CR GARY ALLEN: As per the recommendation.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: And do I have a seconder, please?
Councillor Bodsworth.
Councillor Allen, do you wish to speak?
CR GARY ALLEN: Yes, thank you, Mayor.
I just wanted to focus on the item that is reporting the transfer of $1,260,000
from the Deans Marsh Community Hall redevelopment
to the Winchelsea Pool redevelopment.
I along with Councillors Hodge and Stapleton was
at the Deans Marsh Festival on Sunday and I and they heard mixed views
about this recommendation.
One consequence was referred in the public question time by Tony Watts
- namely, the ongoing maintenance issues at the hall.
Others were despondent that the project has been placed on hold.
People have been working very hard over the past two years
to reimagine the facility.
Due to the issues faced with the redevelopment of the hall
and the comprehensive nature of our consultation
with the Deans Marsh community, this project is not ready
to progress in the 2023-24 financial year and given the complexities identified,
we will need grant funding as identified by the CEO earlier this evening.
And as stated in the report, this project will be rescheduled
for asset renewal in the 2026-27 budget, thus giving time
to source the necessary grant funding if the project proceeds.
It is therefore appropriate to allocate, or reallocate, this asset renewal funding,
which we know is an important element of our future budgetary deliberations and
is limited to the Winchelsea Pool redevelopment
project which has seen cost overrun.
This is an asset that will also be accessed by the Deans Marsh
and District communities and therefore I think it
is a worthy project for that money to be redirected too
as the Deans Marsh Hall project isn't ready to go out.
Although it's painful in the Deans Marsh community and I sympathise
with the various views expressed in that community,
but it's just the reality, I'm afraid.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Bodsworth?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: Just to agree with Councillor Allen and
to say I appreciate the report, the transparency that it provides,
and I think it's fairly self-explanatory.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Do any other Councillors wish to speak?
SPEAKER: Just very briefly.
I'd just like to add that there have been prior examples
of where money has been relocated.
One such example was the Lions Park in Moriac, where the soil was being tested
for contamination and that money went to Torquay for a Scouting project.
So it has happened previously and I sympathise
with the Deans Marsh community and I understand the sentiments expressed
by Councillor Allen.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Counsellor Barker?
CR PAUL BARKER: I'd like to thank Victorian taxpayers.
Without your contribution of $90,000, we would not have been able to $74,595.
It's only about 2 cents for every Victorian taxpayer to chip in,
so it's no biggy, right?
But how many of these small contributions are we
all making to projects that have little to no relevance to the funding source?
It's disappointing to see the Deans Marsh Hall redevelopment
get bumped to the 26/27 financial year, as noted by other Councillors,
so we can focus on Winchelsea Pool budget.
I'm sure there will be many sad to hear this.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Wellington?
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: Thank you.
I really very much empathise with the Deans Marsh people.
$1.2 million is a huge allocation for a small community like that and then
to have to sort of forgo the Winchelsea Pool renewal
is really a very important project, obviously, to the Winchelsea community,
but if I'm still around in whenever it was, 2026/27,
when I think the project is due to come up again,
I'll certainly support Deans Marsh with their hall.
I do think that
- I'm concerned about the hall, I'm concerned about its condition,
and I think Tony Watts' question was a very good question.
We are the custodians of that hall and it does have a heritage overlay
and we should not and cannot just allow demolition
by neglect.
So I'll be watching this current budget, forthcoming budget process,
to see what we're doing.
If that hall is just left with water undermining it, then it
will just continue to deteriorate and there will be no prospect
of retaining the heritage that some people think is a really important element of it.
And the fact that it's listed in our planning scheme as a property
with heritage significance, we should be taking that seriously
and supporting it.
So I thank Councillor Allen and the Deans Marsh community
for their tolerance of the situation regarding the pool
and throwing that money (inaudible) Winchelsea, but I also will be looking
to make sure that the Deans Marsh Hall is probably maintained.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
I think you've stopped speaking there, Councillor Wellington.
I think we heard everything that you were saying, but you seem
to have frozen a little.
I'll take that, thank you.
Councillor Allen, did you have any closing remarks?
CR GARY ALLEN: Just to thank Councillor Wellington
for her sentiments expressed.
But obviously there is division within the Deans Marsh community
and we can't gloss over that.
The community is a little bit divided about whether we retain or
whether the hall is replaced and this is one of the reasons I think why
the project was delayed.
But we must be diligent and continue to work with the community
to reach resolution.
The drainage was one of the reasons why there had
to be massive maintenance and a massive amount of money spent
to redevelop the hall, which opens up a whole series
of questions which we can't explore this evening.
But I thank Councillor Wellington for her concern and it's something that we
will all be monitoring.
Thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
We now put the motion to the vote.
All those in favour.
All those opposed.
Councillor Barker, did you vote?
CR PAUL BARKER: Yes.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Opposed or for?
CR PAUL BARKER: For.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: For.
Okay, the motion is carried unanimously, and that's eight.
So we now move on to 4.16, s6 Instrument of Delegation
- Council to Members of Council Staff.
The purpose of this report is to present the s6 Instrument of Delegation
from Council to members of Council staff which has been reviewed
and updated following changes.
Have I skipped one?
Sorry.
In my eagerness, I skipped over it.
Apologies for that.
Moving on to 4.15, Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation.
I'm glad no-one has fallen asleep.
Actually, it was just a test to make sure you're all awake.
Planning & Environment Act 1987.
So the purpose of this report is to seek Council's endorsement
for authorised officers under the Planning & Environment Act 1987
through the updated Instrument of Authorisation and Appointment.
This instrument requires updating due to recent staff appointments.
Do we have a mover of a motion?
Councillor Barker
- as per the recommendation?
Seconded by Councillor Bodsworth.
Did you wish to speak, Councillor?
No?
And Councillor Bodsworth?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: No, thanks.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: No.
Do any other Councillors wish to speak?
No.
We put the motion to a vote.
All those in favour.
And the motion is carried unanimously.
We now move on to
- and that's eight, Councillor Wellington.
Councillor Gazzard is still out of the meeting.
We now move on to 4.16, s6 Instrument of Delegation
- Council to Members of Council Staff.
The purpose of this report is to present the s6 Instrument of Delegation
from Council to members of Council staff which has been reviewed
and updated following changes to relevant legislation.
Do I have a mover of a motion?
Councillor Schonfelder
- as per the motion?
Seconded Councillor Barker.
Councillor Schonfelder do you wish to speak?
CR ADRIAN SCHONFELDER: No, thank you.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: No.
Councillor Barker?
CR PAUL BARKER: No, thanks, Mayor.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Anyone else wish to speak?
No.
We put the motion to a vote.
All those in favour.
Motion is carried unanimously.
Once again, that's eight, Councillor Wellington.
Kate Gazzard is still out of the meeting.
CR HEATHER WELLINGTON: I did have my hand up to speak.
I just wanted to say that these are really
important documents.
We're relying on officers to tell us if there's any substantial change or
anything we should be aware of because they're so (inaudible) that's
all I wanted to say and I did vote for it.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Great.
Thank you.
Sorry about that.
With the delay with your internet, it was hard
to see that you were wanting to speak, so apologies on that one.
We now move on to 4.17, Conflict of Interest Records.
This item presents Conflict of Interest Records received
since the previous Council meeting.
Do we have a mover of a motion?
Councillor Bodsworth
- as per the motion?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: Yes, thanks, Mayor.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: And a seconder?
Councillor Stapleton.
Would you like to speak, Councillor Bodsworth?
CR MIKE BODSWORTH: No, thanks.
MAYOR LIZ PATTISON: Councillor Stapleton?
No.
Would anybody like to speak to this motion?
No.
We'll put the motion to the vote.
All those in favour.
And the motion is carried unanimously.
Once again, that's eight voted on that one.
Now, that was
- we whizzed through a few there.
So there is no urgent business and we now actually have a closed section.
So we have one confidential item to consider tonight.
We will now say good night to everybody watching from home
and thank you for joining us.
Thank you for our loyal listeners in the gallery.
We much appreciate your attendance.
Thank you so much.
And we now will need you to leave, though, so we can move into confidential.
Can I have a Councillor to move a motion to go into confidential?
Yes, that's right.
Councillor Hodge.
Councillor Allen.
Thank you.
All those in favour.
And the motion is carried unanimously.
And that's eight.
Can Governance please turn off the live streaming.
Thank you, everyone, for your attendance tonight.