Uncategorized

Council taking 75 year old to Court to evict her from home

Jun 26, 2025 Carpe Diem

Council taking 75 year old to Court to evict her from home

It started 30 years ago around 1994 when Aileen Hughes wished to build a living quarters in her large farm shed. As the property was allowed to have a dwelling under the planning scheme, she asked Council what she needed to do to build the living area. Ailleen claims Council said she could construct the living unit, and works were conducted by local builders and septic system was installed and serviced ever since.

Aileen said: “I was told, if I built over 100mtr off Rd, then I did not require a permit, standard for that time. Near or about 12mnths later, I again approached shire to ascertain if I could build a self-contained/granny flat area inside the shed. No probs so long as qualified trades ppl, all septic, plumbing, electrical etc were adhered to.”

Apparently Council records were not updated at the time to reflect these changes and Council continued charging Aileen rates for the property categorised at Vacant Rural. Effectively she was paying the same rates as if it was categorised as Residential with a dwelling so that was not a problem as such.

Around 2015 Council revamped the rates categories and as an encouragement for owners of vacant residential land, Council doubled the rates payable on such properties. Aileen did not realise her rates doubled for that reason thinking she was in a dwelling not on vacant land. The rates notice whilst correctly showing vacant land also might have confused by showing it was residential classification.

Council sent out an officer around this time and when the officer left, she said that Council would be in touch. The Council officer should have been aware at that time that Aileen was paying double rates as her property was classified as vacant residential land and not residential.

Aileen continued paying double rates on her property.

After 8 years of silence, Council again contacted Aileen and arranged a visit around Sept 2023 in which they conducted an investigation of the property. They took pictures, asked lots of questions and caused Aileen lots of stress.

A report was then produced at Council and Aileen was sent a letter in Oct 2023 informing her that she was living in a farm shed conversion without a building permit and she needed to respond to the latter within 30 days as to why living in this building should not be prohibited.

The reasons stated as to why this notice was sent to Eileen was due to Building works carried out without a building permit and building works carried out that contravened the building regulations. These contraventions were listed as performance requirements for the building such as structural stability, rainwater management, weatherproofing, rising damp, wet areas like bathrooms, room heights, lighting and ventilation. It was not claimed that there were problems with these matters, just that Eileen needed to satisfy Council that these matters were not occurring.

Aileen responded, but not to the satisfaction of the officers and so correspondence was despatched by Council repeating the request for Aileen to respond to various matters and this continued until early 2024 when Council sought legal advice from Council’s lawyers.

After receiving the legal advice Council cancelled the report from Oct 2023 and issued a new report. Council then sent a new letter demanding Aileen respond.

This new amended report now gave the reason why the notice was served as being due to the dwelling being a danger to life, safety or health of people inside it. A list of unproven reasons why the building may be unsuitable for habitation were given which roughly matched those given in the initial report. That being performance requirements for the building such as structural stability, rainwater management, weatherproofing, rising damp, wet areas like bathrooms, room heights, lighting and ventilation.

An additional reason was given as follows: It has not been verified that contaminated air is being disposed of in a manner which does not unduly create a nuisance or hazard to people in the habitable part of the building.

A freedom of information request was then submitted to Council and a 4cm thick pile of documents eventuated. The interesting thing about the report from Oct 2023 was that most of the pages were blacked out with Council claiming the details were part of a working document. A standard ruse by Council to keep hidden, details that might be embarrassing to them.

The Oct 2023 report shown here page 1 was followed by mostly blacked out pages hiding the report details. Photographs were shown of the different areas, but no problems appeared evident in any of the photos so no evidence of any of the concerns as raised in the notice from Council appeared evident.

Later in the pile of released FOI documents was the same report but upon turning the page over, page 2 was no longer blacked out except for one clause. On this page was stated the following as seen in the picture.

The section titled Conclusion said:
4.1 The only immediate risks identified by shed being used for occupation is the absence of smoke alarms. The owner was verbally directed at the inspection to immediately install a smoke alarm above the entrance to the bedroom to mitigate fire risks.

The page also stated in 3.1 that there is a record for a septic permit and a service history.

Section 2.5 stated that “Whilst it had been on site for approximately 30 years, Council’s records did not reveal a building permit for the shed.”

Section 2.4 stated that “All building works related to the habitation of the building are independent of the shed structure.”

Section 4.1 in the conclusions section was blacked out. The reason used being working documents.

After 8 years paying double rates it is estimated that Council collected around $10,000 more from Aileen than she should have paid if the rates notice had correctly indicated a residential dwelling and not vacant land. It should also be noted that Septic permits can not be approved on vacant land and at the time of the application for the septic system Council would have known of the dwelling.

Aileen is scheduled to attend Court July 10^th, 2025. Let’s hope the Courts asks Council to amend her rates and give her a refund.

Maybe also allow her to remain in her home.

Climate Change

Save the Poowong Earthworm colony

Jan 28, 2024 Carpe Diem

The Giant Gippsland Earthworm (Megascolides australis) is one of the largest known earthworms in the world. It averages 80 cm in length with a diameter of 2 cm but lengths of up to 2 m have been recorded.

The worm is comprised of 300-500 body segments and weighs up to 400 g. Its colour changes from purple for the front third, including the head to pinkish-grey for the remaining two-thirds of the body.

It is endemic to South and West Gippsland, occurring in around 40,000 hectares bounded loosely by Loch and Korumburra areas in the south, Warragul and Drouin in the north and Mt Worth in the east.

The Victorian Biodiversity Atlas identifies records of GGE as far south as Archies Creek. Within this distribution range, suitable habitat for GGE is restricted to relatively small areas (10-2500 m2); generally in moist, blue-grey clay soils on or close to the banks of streams or adjacent to soaks. They can also be found on steep south or west-facing slopes. The species lives in complex system of permanent burrows that extend to around 1.5 m in depth.

The GGE is now found almost entirely on privately owned land used predominantly for dairy production or grazing.

Although there are attributes of the habitat of GGE that still remain unknown, information to date indicates that suitable habitat results from a combination of several interrelated factors, including slope, micro-topography, aspect, soil properties and underground hydrological processes.

The biology and ecology of the GGE render the species vulnerable to threatening processes. These include the species’ limited ability to disperse through the landscape, highly fragmented habitat, low rates of reproduction and subsequent recruitment.

These characteristics indicate that present-day populations are likely to have been isolated for significantly long periods, potentially evolving as distinct genetic entities. Genetic investigation supports this pattern of population isolation, with neighbouring GGE colonies having distinct genetic profiles.

GGE is hermaphroditic (having both male and female gender parts) and breeds predominantly in spring and summer (September to February). Large, amber-coloured egg-cocoons are laid in chambers branching from the adult burrow at an average depth of 22 cm. Only one embryo is found in each egg cocoon, which is thought to take over 12 months to hatch. The species remains underground, feeding on root material and organic matter in the soil.

The number of individuals within a population can vary significantly, primarily limited by the amount of available contiguous habitat. In some instances, only one or two individuals have been observed at a site but where suitable habitat is more extensive, much larger populations have been found.

The largest known population of GGE was uncovered at Loch Hill during road construction where over 800 individuals were translocated from an area of approximately 2500 m2.

To date, surveys conducted for GGE have detected a high proportion of adults to juveniles, indicating little recruitment into populations occurring. If this is the case, populations of GGE may not be sustainable in the long-term as they may comprise mostly of long-lived adults that may become extinct unless recruitment occurs.

Poowong has an area of habitate still in the relatively safe farm zone within the township boundary and if Council were to consider protecting this habitat it could simply remove the area from the township boundary. Other areas of earthworm habitat within Poowomg township are already built upon and therefore putting the animals in a more precarious situation.

Council has the words “Support protection of Giant Gippsland Earthworm habitat and populations” for several of the smaller township areas such as Arawata so could easily add this clause to the Poowong area and help save the Giant Earthworm in Poowong.

Uncategorized

“It is clear that not doing anything is no longer an option.”-South Gippsland Council statement on Coal Creek

Dec 17, 2023 Carpe Diem

Coal Creek discussion paper starts off by stating a decision needs to be made about its ongoing operation, continued relevance, and sustainability.

The scene is set to lead the community through a process eventually leading to a foregone conclusion. Read on.

The document says it is a starting point for a community engagement process to decide the future of Coal Creek. It implores the reader to read it carefully, explore the options presented and of course, share their thoughts and ideas. Council says it is committed to taking action on the outcomes of the engagement process.

Council claims that despite recent strong events such as the Southern Lights Festival that attracted thousands of people, that underneath this lies a financial and structural reality that they say cannot be ignored.

They say that budget constraints limit the Park’s operations and development. The bulk of Council’s budget allotted to operations goes to maintaining the status quo, paying staff, maintaining buildings, and running the events and activities within the Park.

Despite current maintenance levels which Council has admitted will not stop the continuing decline in assets the report says that recent inspections reveal that many buildings and other infrastructure need repair. They claim the estimated investment could be significant if all buildings and structures were to be refurbished over the next 5-10 years.

Editorial comment: This newspaper has been highlighting the lack of investment on maintenance for 18 months now and showing the rot within many of the assets in the Park. This Council report also fails to indicate the financial commitment from Council required.

Visitor numbers have fallen from a high of 68,770 in 2013/2014 to 23, 564 (Jan-Oct) in 2023. Volunteer numbers post covid have grown from 3 in 2021 to 30 in 2023. Most people visit the Park for events, displays, and natural settings.

The operating budget for 2023-24 is $838,073 which includes major costs for administration and wages, utilities and tramway maintenance and insurance. The capital works budget also includes $114,000 for the whole Shire’s heritage buildings maintenance works.

Coal Creek is Crown Land and Council is the delegated authority to manage the area. Council is also delegated to manage the Memorial Hall and related buildings which is also Crown Land.

Council is seeking feedback on 3 options:

Option 1: revitalisation

This option involves continuing Coal Creek’s current operations while adding new activities and attractions. The key challenge is the need for funding to address operational and safety issues and the necessity to innovate beyond current offerings to significantly boost appeal. The opportunity lies in the potential for increased visitation, enhanced community engagement, and a positive impact on the local economy, particularly through hosting diverse events, festivals, and educational programs.

Summary Continuing current operations with additional activities and attractions to increase appeal.

Option 2: new direction

The community may identify a new direction for Coal Creek through the engagement process, provided it meets the strategic planning requirements outlined earlier. This ambitious approach may require significant investment, including external funding, and the challenge lies in managing large-scale development while aligning with community values. The opportunity here could be transformative – turning Coal Creek into a sustainable tourism attraction that offers long-term benefits to the community.

Summary A substantial shift based on recommendations from the engagement process.

Option 3: ceasing current operations

Ceasing operation as a Community Park and Museum is not a simple task. It involves deaccessioning the collections and dismantling the buildings and will require extensive community consultation.
The challenges here are significant – it would be an expensive and lengthy process. The costs would include wages, demolition works, storage and deaccessioning of the collection, legal fees, and security during the closure period. It’s noteworthy that the collection’s removal, a more time-consuming process than demolishing buildings, would necessitate three full-time curators over three years to complete. Council would face a significant financial burden in managing this process, ensuring appropriate standards in handling the collection, and meeting its obligations to the community and the site’s heritage. The process also involves complex logistical challenges and potential resistance from the State Government regarding asset relinquishment. However, this option offers the opportunity to re-purpose the land for new community needs and reduces long-term ongoing operational expenses.

Summary Ceasing operations involving deaccessioning collections, dismantling buildings, and extensive community consultation.

Editorial comment: Previous external reviews of the opportunities such as the report into a school camp proposal which showed the potential to turn the financial situation around to a positive cash flow opportunity have simply been shelved by the officers over the years and have failed to gain significant mention in this report.

This report appears to read as doom and gloom leading to a reduction in some way of Coal Creek’s assets. It is hard to see how any community engagement would find a positive solution when all previous reports that have been conducted by Council have not been made available for people to view in this process.

Perhaps it is not the problem that needs addressing but those in charge of managing it-if the Council does not have the staff ability to come up with a plan as shown by the last 15 years of abject failure to act, then perhaps the community needs a CEO and staff that are able to find solutions and manage assets like Coal Creek for the community.

Uncategorized

Local Lemon Law update

Dec 17, 2023 Carpe Diem

Second draft at Local Laws by the Council that brought you the Lemon Laws

Council have brought the second draft of their local laws document to the December Council meeting and there have been a few notable changes made to the original draft.

Nature strips can be mowed without needing a permit

Council have removed the reference to needing a permit to destroy, damage or remove any VEGETATION so mowing the nature strip will no longer require a permit from Council.

Farmers can be fined for having weeds (new addition)

Council did add in the word noxious weeds meaning that farmers might be issued an infringement notice if someone sees a ragwort on their property and thinks the beast is unsightly.

Bike riding is again permitted

Council removed the bicycle reference to clause 23 about toys being used, placed, or left on a road or in a municipal place. So riding your bike is now allowed again on roads and in municipal places.

Can now sell from home again without needing a permit.

Council removed the clause that stated people were not allowed to sell or offer goods for sale from their private property if the property was adjacent to a road.

So garage sales, selling on ebay, selling at the local market all allowed again without a permit required.

Lemons still not able to be given away to neighbours door to door.

The rule is unchanged as follows:

Without a permit, a person must not:…… (b) distribute any products, services, handbills, flyers or other printed material, on or from any road or municipal place, or from premises to premises, or cause or authorise another person to do so.

So people are still not going to be allowed to hand out leaflets, flyers or bibles to neighbours or door to door deliveries of lemons from your abundant lemon tree.

Grass still must be 300mm but farms are exempt if the grass is for fodder.

Dilapidated buildings wording changed to dangerous buildings

34. (1) An owner or an occupier of private property which is dangerous to the extent that it threatens a person’s or an animal’s life or health, any property or the natural environment must:

This was changed from any building in a dilapidated state that might have not been a danger to anyone.

Keeping of animals

Restrictions on the keeping of animals s40 which applied to some farmland zones has been reworded so the farm zones are exempt as follows:

S40. (3) Sub-clause (1) does not apply to private property located in a Rural Conservation or Rural Living Zone (as defined in the Planning Scheme) if the private property is farm land.

Animal waste

Farmland has been generally made exempt from the animal housing restrictions around waste as follows:

The following clauses no longer apply to farm land.

(ii) all animal food for consumption kept or stored on the private property is kept or stored in a vermin and fly-proof receptacle;
(iii) animal waste is not offensive and does not cause a nuisance to any other person; and
(iv) any animal odour emanated from the private property does not interfere with the immediate amenity of the area.

Droving

Council have reworded this section or maybe it would be more correct to say they swapped clause 1 and 2 over but the effect is the same.

The original draft version said:
Livestock – grazing, droving and movement on a road or municipal place
(1) Without a permit, a person must not cause, allow or undertake the grazing or droving of livestock on a road or on or in a municipal place.
(2) Sub-clause (1) does not apply when the person complies wholly with the Manual for Traffic Control at Stock Crossings (Vic Roads, June 2015), including obtaining all necessary permissions from the relevant road authority

The latest draft version says:
Livestock – grazing, droving and movement on a road or municipal place
(1) A person who causes, allows or undertakes the grazing or droving of livestock on a road or on in a municipal place must comply wholly with the Manual for Traffic Control at Stock Crossings (VicRoads, June 2015), including obtaining all necessary permissions from the relevant road authority.
(2) A person who does not comply or is incapable of complying with sub-clause (1) must not, without a permit cause, allow or undertake the grazing or droving of livestock on a road or on or in a municipal place

It can be clearly seen that clause (1) and (2) have merely been swapped around and reworded but say exactly the same thing.

We therefore decided to look up the manual for stock crossing on Vicroads site ourselves.

On the website it says in big text the following:

This Manual is to be used by farmers, drovers and other people who have a stock crossing permit from a coordinating road authority (VicRoads or municipal Council) – or who are exempted by a local law from the need to have a permit – to have stock on roads or road reserves in Victoria.
So the manual is saying that the manual applies to people with a permit from Council so without a permit, none can comply so everyone must get a permit.

The local law draft then says:
“This clause has been reworded to make it clearer that a permit to graze or drove livestock on a road or in a municipal place is only required if a person is unable to adhere to the conditions in the Manual for Traffic Control at Stock Crossings, including necessary permissions.”

So if the farmer is merely stock crossing the road he must comply with the requirements in the manual for stock crossings BUT he will still need a permit! If he wants to take his stock down the road and into another property he owns he will also need a permit since the manual says droving must comply with Council requirements.

The manual says the following:
“All relevant local law permits must be obtained prior to droving of stock.”

Domestic Bins

The clause stating that bins could not be out for more than 1 day before or after bin collection has been removed and put in the bin.

The Council have put the whole thing out for a further one month over the Xmas/New Year period for the community to have another go. Council might be hoping people get fed up of having to do this again and again only to spot obvious issues that should never have been included in the first or in this case, the second go at drafting these laws.

Council

Municipal Office Project Return

Dec 13, 2023 Carpe Diem

Key Dates

2013 Budget Added $34 Million unallocated roads

2015 Money transferred to Buildings then finally to the Municipal Office Project

2017 Municipal Office Project Removed from Budget by new Council

2019 June 21st Council Dismissed

2019 June 28th $30 Million New Expenditure Added to the Budget within one week of Council dismissal

2019 June 30th Administrators Approved Officer Budget Recommendations.

These included the $30 Million Future Unallocated but also $3.8 Million for Stage 1 Municipal Precinct. Total available for Municipal Office Project is now $33.8 Million.New Expenditure

2019 ??? Officers briefed Administrators on Leongatha Hub which NOW seems to include a new Municipal Office Component.

Interesting observation-Officers seem to have included the $34 Million proposal into the Budget BEFORE they briefed the Administrators on the idea. Were the Administrators FULLY INFORMED on this project when they approved it in July 2019 at the budget meeting?

History Of The Municipal Office Project And How History Repeats

History of First Attempt.

The first attempt to have this project included in Council budget was in the 2012-2016 Council. The $30 Million appeared as unallocated roads and later on it appeared as finance for the Municipal Office Project.

The debate in 2015 showed two divergent views at Council. One group, the majority block approved this project but three Councillors fought against it.

The new Council removed the Project and all references to it from the Budget and Council Plan early in 2017.

History of Second Attempt.

An amount of $3.8 Million for Municipal Project and $30 Million Unallocated Future Funds were included in the Budget approved by the Administrators in July 2019.

These two entries within the Budget were NOT included in the draft budget put out for consultation with the Community in April 2019. They were NOT included in the budget papers until AFTER the Councillors were dismissed.

Without being in the Council Plan or the previous year’s budget Officers recommended their inclusion within a week of Council being dismissed and approved of by the Administrators.

The public were unaware of these significant changes and were not made aware by Council.

On BOTH occasions it seems that Officers/Administration included the funds without consulting with the ratepayers and indeed apparently without telling the Councillors at the time either.

Below is the Record from Council Minutes showing the briefing session on the Council Offices.

Council

Return of the Municipal Office Project

Dec 10, 2023 Carpe Diem

Leongatha Memorial Hall Feasibility Study

Council has begun work on developing a business case and feasibility study for the redevelopment of Memorial Hall that looks at current and future use, multi-use, demographics, population growth, service, service levels, heritage, redevelopment models, constraints, benchmarking with other population centres, demand, impact on small towns, accessibility, and whether operational costs can be supported and maintained.

The business case would also consider the relationship between other halls and venues both within and outside of the Shire, including the Foster War Memorial Arts Centre.

Council states that a strong case for State Government and Commonwealth Government support and contribution towards capital works can only be made if underpinned by a solid business case that has a forward projection extending over 25 years.

Council’s Infrastructure Planning team initiated the development of a business case and feasibility study in 2023/2024 in consultation with relevant stakeholders including the Arts, Culture and Visitor Economy department.

The feasibility study is supposed to investigate the Memorial Hall building as a performance space and theatre as detailed within Council’s 4 year plan.

The tender documents however suggest another plan is in mind by the officers. Those documents indicate the name of the study as “Leongatha Memorial Hall Precinct Feasibility Study”.

A precinct is not confined to the Memorial Hall but is a larger area so a bigger project not indicated by the Council 4 year plan 2022-2026.

When one reads the documents more closely it can be seen that a second building site is proposed on the adjoining property to the Memorial Hall and specifications in the tender documents indicate a proposal for the redevelopment of the current Council offices on that site along with various inclusions making the total project approximately 3 times the size of the Memorial Hall area.

History of the municipal office project

Back in the 2012-2016 Council term the administration inserted a $32 Million project into the budget and hid it from ratepayers. The information on this project was released to the ratepayers via a letter to the editor in the Sentinel Times written by then Cr Don Hill who is now editor of South Gippsland Voices newspaper. The community then reacted strongly against the imposition of this $32 Million project and the newly elected Councillor group at the 2016 election voted to remove the project in 2017.

But the officers were not done. They quietly worked behind the scenes awaiting their opportunity and in June 2019 the administrators approved the administration’s budget papers which included start up cash for refurbishment of the current Council offices in Smith Street Leongatha. This led to a complete gutting of the ground floor space and reconstruction of the internal areas. As part of this improvement, they managed to make the external windows so that people could not view the officers at work inside as could be done in the past. You could say they made the Council less transparent to outside scrutiny!

After the internal fit out at a cost of a few million dollars a tender was put out in 2023 for the external revamp which is currently being assessed. Maybe another million here.
As part of the 2020-2024 Creative Arts Plan an assessment of the Leongatha Memorial Hall was to be conducted. This review was to explore and develop a business case and feasibility study for the redevelopment of Memorial Hall that looks at current and future use, multi-use, demographics, population growth, service, service levels, heritage, redevelopment models, constraints, benchmarking with other population centres, demand, impact on small towns, accessibility, and whether operational costs can be supported and maintained.

Officers began work on this in 2023 and in August Councillors spoke of this too.

Council put out a tender in November 2023 and added more detail to the assessment. It now included the buildings and space adjoining the Memorial Hall and the specifications for the tender now included Council offices, the Council Chamber and Council meeting rooms as well as adding in a Leongatha Library and first time mentioning of a community hub like the new Korumburra Hub which would also include other community facilities in addition to the Council offices and library.

So, the cat is now out of the bag. Let’s explore this project further.

Leongatha Theatre Investigation morphed into a Leongatha Theatre Complex morphed into the Municipal Office Hub-confirmed by Council tender

South Gippsland Shire Council is seeking expressions of interest (EOI) from suitably qualified consultants to undertake a Feasibility Study and prepare a Business Case that will review and provide recommendations for the future use, design and service model for a
new Leongatha Memorial Hall Precinct.

Expressions of interest are sought from consultants well experienced in undertaking feasibility studies and preparing business cases for the development of regional hubs incorporating Performing Arts, Library and Cultural facilities.

The Heritage Victoria listed Leongatha Memorial Hall and former Shire Offices is located in the heart of Leongatha on the corner of McCartin Street and Michael Place. Constructed in the 1920’s the building consists of a large brick, hip roofed public hall fronted by two storey Free Classical façade and single storey wings to either side, terminating at the corner with an engaged colonnaded rotunda and returning North along Michael Place in a single storey classical facade which fronted the former Shire Offices.

The Memorial Hall element of the building is still in regular use with other elements of the building being utilised as the Council Chamber, Meeting Rooms and Community Spaces. The site also contains a central courtyard and public toilets. One of a small group of Shire buildings erected in Victoria as war memorials, it is the largest single memorial erected in the Shire to commemorate the First World War. Council states the Leongatha Memorial Hall is due for asset renewal and Council’s Arts & Culture strategy recognises the hall as the most appropriate site for development into a performance space within the municipality. These two factors along with ageing community infrastructure and a desire to consolidate services and provide multi-functional buildings within the municipality are the underlying principles behind the project.

The proposed Leongatha Memorial Hall Precinct currently containing the Council Chambers and Council meeting rooms will include a two storey Community Hub element (approx. 880m2 footprint) including such area as a Library, Community Spaces, community meeting rooms and public toilets whilst providing updated theatrical capability in the Heritage listed Memorial element of the project (approx. 900m2).

Other key elements for the project will include the interaction with the existing street scape, public amenity and parking requirements.

The proposed timeline

In November the tender was put out for consideration. The timeline for the project is as follows:

Invitation Issued 25/11/2023
Invitation close date 19/12/2023
Closed Tender process early February 2024
Closed Tender closes early March 2024
Ideal Project start Early April 2024

It appears that the construction phase is included in the tender exploring the feasibility study. Those shortlisted in this inital phase could take part in a closed tender for the works which seem scheduled to start April 2024. Either way, the timeline does not appear to show a period for public consultation of the project which would not be designed until March 2024 at the earliest.

On the above timeline it would seem Council would need to approve the successful tenderer in the March Council meeting and give the public a couple of weeks to view it in early April before work begins.

The possible cost to date

The council set aside something around $4 million for the internal refurbishment of the main offices in Smith Street and another 1 million perhaps for the external currently under tendering.

An additional amount equal to the internal fit out was within the budget a few years ago before they closed down the 15-year capital works program details from being included in the annual budget papers. This amount was for a municipal precinct. So maybe $9 million so far.

In this year’s budget an amount of $9 million has been set aside for buildings (not the Korumburra Hub) and another $1 million for historical buildings so if this is included total of $19 million so far.

After a contract is awarded and as they do not have a firm figure for the whole project works additional amounts could be included in next year’s budget so final cost is unknown at this stage.

Toilet problem for Council

A glance at the property title boundary on the map above shows the toilet block attached to the Council building appears to be located outside the title area. Further investigation shows the toilet block to seemingly be located on McNamara’s Place which is a road. Normally buildings built off the property cause planning problems so we asked Council planners about this and they said please put the questions in writing and we will consider them and get back to you. No response has been received from Council to date.

The property area showing McNamara Place
indicated in pink along northside of Council buildings

Additional proposed development area including the “outhouse” toilet block seemingly located smack bang in the middle of McNamara Place and not within the Council building land.

Council

Local Laws Officers handing out lemons for grass longer than 75mm

Dec 4, 2023 Carpe Diem

Council’s local laws team have been active during the month of November sending out letters of demand to owners of vacant lots across the shire. The letter received by someone in the farm zone near Toora, states that the letter is a courtesy letter to remind the owner to maintain their property and keep the grass short.

The letter goes on to explain the property owner must slash all grass, weeds, and stubble so that it is no higher than 75mm above the ground level. The letter then references the current local law as follows:

Clause 11 of Council’s General Local Law 2014 states: “An owner or occupier of the land must not allow or permit the land to be kept in a manner which:

(a) Is unsightly or detrimental to the general amenity of the neighbourhood or;”

Clearly there is no mention of 75mm in the local law and even in the proposed draft local lemon laws Council is progressing now, the grass length proposed is suggested as 300mm.

The letter then goes on to make threats of $200 for unsightly land, failing to comply with a notice from Council $200, and ongoing contraventions may end up in the magistrate’s court.

An example of Council staff making up the rules as they go when they try to enforce an arbitrary grass length in farmland. The letter ends by stating that officers will be pro-actively inspecting properties they deem vacant land during December and people may be issued with an infringement notice.

Council

Cr Clare Williams the new Mayor of South Gippsland Council-Does it pass the pub test?

Dec 1, 2023 Carpe Diem

With the appointment of Cr Clare Williams to the position of Mayor of South Gippsland questions are being asked about conflict of interest with regard to the Mayor’s husband’s company Hugh Patrick Pty Ltd T/A BJ’s Earthmoving.

Whilst the new Mayor has stated on several occasions at Council meetings that she is comfortable that she does not have a conflict at Council she has excused herself on many occasions declaring a conflict of interest when her husband’s company submits a tender for Council contract.

The Mayor enthusiastically supports increased spending on Capital works projects and as Deputy Mayor has attended functions in Canberra where Council and she lobbied various ministers and public servants for amongst other things, increased support for capital works projects within South Gippsland.

We sought information from Council on the awarded contracts during the period 2018-2023 and have shown this information on page 6 of this issue. The data shows that the Mayor’s husband’s company has done remarkably well over this period of time being successful on 16 occasions gaining contracts with a total declared awarded value of close to $13 Million dollars.

Since Mayor Williams was elected to council her husband’s company has won 6 contracts to the value of around $6 Million dollars. This amount awarded over 2 years is as much as was awarded in the prior 4-year period, so company is doing much better of late.

When companies involved in earthmoving, roads, and associated works are considered it can be seen in the pie chart on page 6 that Mayor William’s husband’s company has gained 28% of the $46 Million awarded for such works.

There is no suggestion that anything illegal or in breach of Council governance laws has occurred but when a single company gaining such a large share of Council’s contract spend has his wife as the Mayor, questions are needing to be asked and answered.

We asked the Mayor for her comments but she chose to not respond.

Editorial comment:

It is our view that Councillors should not be benefiting to the tune of millions of dollars of ratepayers funds through private business arrangements with Council. The perception of possible conflict is just too high even when no wrong-doing actually occurs.

Council

Leongatha Theatre Performance

Nov 23, 2023 Carpe Diem

Councillors approved the South Gippsland Arts, Culture and Creative Industries Strategy 2022-2026 at the July 2022 Council meeting and we noted that within that document mention was made of a Leongatha Theatre.
The motion was moved by Cr Darakai.

The theatre was linked to the Memorial Hall in Leongatha and since it would be a new project the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee (CIAC) would have to review the project ahead of it being accepted into the Council works program.

The CIAC group comprises 5 members of the community chosen by Council with 3 of those 5 members from Leongatha, one from Walkerville, and the other from Mirboo North.
The terms of reference for the committee were that they were to meet roughly 4 times per year aligned with the Council budget process and they were to keep signed minutes as a record of their discussions and decisions.

It was discovered by this newspaper from a freedom of information request earlier that no minutes were kept from the committee and only one agenda in an email was ever “discovered” by Council when we did the freedom of information on all agendas and minutes from that committee.

It has since been discovered that the group met mainly in one of the years and not many times in other years suggesting the group failed to follow the terms of reference regarding aligning their meetings with the budget cycle. It also seems that Council ran the process through in one year and perhaps hope to end its term when the current group ends early 2024. Councillors will need to vote in a Council meeting to extend the group.

The group was intended to scrutinise Council’s capital works program to avoid improper conduct when it came to works appearing in the capital works program without proper strategic justification.

We asked Council on September 26th, 2022, whether the CIAC group had reviewed the Leongatha Theatre proposal and never received a response. We then wrote the following in an article on the front page issued October 10th, 2022, as follows:
“We asked about the Leongatha Theatre since that project was not already on the capital works program when the last Council was elected in Nov 2021, and it is known that several of those elected Councillors such as Cr Darakai are in favour of such a project occurring. We also note that this project was included within the 2022 Council budget so should have been reviewed by the CIAC committee.”

Around 7 days later we received an extraordinary email from Cr Darakai. We have decided to print it in its entirety on this occasion. This newspaper denies all allegations made by Cr Darakai and does not ever respond to his communications or contact him directly.

‘Here we are again. You, telling lies. Me, pointing out how you’ve once again lied to the public. What follows is just as predictable. You, attempting to deny that you’ve lied. Me, smiling in amazement that, despite incredibly strong evidence for the sinking ship that is your poor behaviour towards the community and me, you’ll clutch even firmer to its crow’s nest despite your obvious fate. To save you attempting to deny your deception, I’ll keep it simple: you have lied by suggesting it’s ‘known’ that I’m somehow ‘in favour’ of some fabled ‘Leongatha Theatre.’ Now, Don, I understand your desire to present your newsletter as a work of fiction, but this is just pure fantasy. And lies on the front page? You’re either remaining sorely ignorant or becoming cockier with your deceptive behaviour, clearly. The only person I’m aware of who has ever mentioned a ‘Leongatha Theatre’ is yourself in your newsletter when you were once again lying about me. That was one of your earlier lies. Seems they, and you, haven’t changed. I’m interested to hear what plans you have for this unique theatre project that you seem to be spearheading solo. Are you funding it privately or sourcing external assistance? And why would you build a theatre in Leongatha when you live in Mirboo North? Why not Korumburra for a theatre? Why a theatre at all? Is it feasible? Whereabouts in Leongatha do you propose to host the theatre? Were other towns not acceptable for such a project? What community consultation have you done? Are you sure you’re not being too Leongatha-centric in your thinking? I’d suggest we have a chat so you can tell me all about this project that you so boldly but wrongly claim I’m in favour of, let alone know about. Perhaps we can grab a cuppa so I can hear more about your ideas. I would suggest a cafe in Mirboo North but it sounds like your affections are with Leongatha, so let’s find a quiet spot to hear your adventurous theatrical business pitch.

Cheers, Adrian Darakai’

This newspaper chose to not respond to the Councillor’s message but did note the following as written by Cr Darakai in his candidate statement as published by the VEC for the 2021 Council election.

“I will also put in the hard work required to bring our community a multi-functional and cutting edge performing arts and cultural centre to support the countless groups across South Gippsland.”

We noted that a few weeks after receiving this email from Cr Darakai, that officers briefed Councillors on Wednesday 9th November 2022 in relation to the Leongatha Memorial Hall. This was indicated in the agenda for the Council meeting in November 2022.

In the Council meeting dated August 2023 Council voted to receive a report titled “2022/23 annual actions implemented from the South Gippsland Arts, Culture and Creative Industries Strategy”. This report was agenda item 2.3 and was unanimously approved by the Councillor group at the meeting.

In the agenda item notes officers wrote “Leongatha Memorial Hall as a performance space and community venue – discussions underway, involving engagement with interested community groups such as Lyric Theatre Leongatha.”
The section of this report featuring the Memorial Hall was as follows:
7.2 Leongatha Memorial Hall as a performance space and community venue

7.2.1 Council will undertake a business case and feasibility study for the redevelopment of Memorial Hall that looks at current and future use, multi-use, demographics, population growth, service, service levels, heritage, redevelopment models, constraints, benchmarking with other population centres, demand, impact on small towns, accessibility, and whether operational costs can be supported and maintained.

The business case should also consider the relationship between other halls and venues both within and outside of the Shire, including the Foster War Memorial Arts Centre.

A strong case for State Government and Commonwealth Government support and contribution towards capital works can only be made if underpinned by a solid business case that has a forward projection extending over 25 years.

Commenced – Council’s Infrastructure Planning team to lead the development of a business case and feasibility study in 2023/2024 in consultation with relevant stakeholders including the Arts, Culture and Visitor Economy department.

This intention clearly indicates that the Council officers were intending to embark upon the development of a business case for a performance space.

Cr Schelling moved the motion at the Council meeting and stated:
“A huge amount of discussion has occurred with arts over many years especially with regard to performing arts centre, and that looks like it might be starting to gain a few legs, and we can start to see it all to take shape. I am really proud of what we have achieved so far and I am looking forward to an exciting future and I just wish to note again we sought the assistance of the art sector specialists locally and surrounding and congratulate the officers for what they have achieved already. Well done.”

Cr Williams then spoke and said in relation to this point:
“I will pull out a few little highlights from this..
Leongatha Memorial Hall as a performance space and community venue – discussions underway, involving engagement with interested community groups such as Lyric Theatre Leongatha…”

Neighbouring Shires have similar performance centres. Baw Baw for example has an existing West Gippsland Performance Art Centre and in its current budget is the concept proposal for a new community precinct for arts to be built next to the West Gippsland Performance Centre. The budget for this new precinct is $30 million and presumably the existing performance Centre cost a few dollars also.

Council capital works program, before it was removed from public viewing in the annual budget papers, showed around $5 million for initial work on a Council Municipal Precinct. We do not know how much ratepayers’ money has been assigned to such project or to the Memorial Hall project but do note the comment by Mr Gus Blauu that within the Council financial documents, that Council has $49 million in cash reserves.

The financial budget papers for Council also show they have 3 times as much cash resources than is needed to maintain the existing capital works infrastructure so all the evidence seemingly points to a large piggy bank of funds being set aside for something big.
Total maybe $60 million? We wonder. Anyway, back to South Gippsland.

The Council’s own policy on infrastructure “Blueprint for Community and Economic Infrastructure” appears to put the dampers on this mammoth endeavour in the section headed 8.7 Performing Arts Venues on page 40, where the report states the following:
“Neighbouring local government areas have well large provisioned Performing Art Centres and Council cannot afford to emulate these standards,

Wonthaggi.
Warragul.
Latrobe Performing Arts Centre (under construction)”

Finally we will leave with a post made by Cr Darakai to the Korumburra facebook forum also during the 2021 Council election (October 2021) in which he endorses a dedicated arts and culture centre as perhaps a hint at how much Cr Darakai at least might like to spend on such a project.

And of course, it doesn’t look at all like a theatre does it?

Editorial comment:
The 3 Leongatha ward Councillors might be all gung-ho in favour of this massive venture for Leongatha but the shire ratepayers are not ready or able to fund its huge cost of development and then an ongoing rather large bill each year as is evident in neighbouring shires to run their performance centres.

Council

Council’s road managment plan approved at Council

Feb 28, 2022 Carpe Diem

Images in this article show examples from Council’s Road management plan where restoration work would be triggered.

Council has undertaken a review of the current Road Management Plan (2017) and developed a revised plan, being the Road Management Plan (2022).

Amendments made to the Road Management Plan (2017) required appropriate notice be given under Regulation 10 of the Road Management (General) Regulations 2016 for community consultation purposes. The notice period was undertaken from Thursday 9 December 2021 and concluded on Friday 14 January 2022. Interested parties were invited to view the revised Plan either online or at Council offices and make submissions in writing. No submissions were received by Council.

Adoption of the Road Management Plan 2022 by Council will enable the publishing of a notice in the Government Gazette and local newspapers within the Shire, as required by the Road Management Act 2004 and its subsequent enaction of use. The Plan will also be made available to the general public via Council’s website.

The key updates in the revised plan relate to the routine inspection frequency and methodology, along with how Council manages identified defects on roads and road related assets. Council utilises a risk-based approach to the assessment and treatment of identified defects or public safety matters. Under the Road Management Plan 2022, Council officers will use numerous new methods to identify risks and failures within the road network rather than relying solely on periodic inspections. Any risks or failures identified will be assessed by experienced and knowledgeable staff in line with the risk matrix included in the Road Management Plan and repaired within the identified timelines to maintain services levels.

Service levels act as management targets that facilitate decision making at each stage of the asset lifecycle. Service levels define performance expectations and are formulated through an assessment and consideration of legislative requirements, organisational objectives, customer expectations and financial constraints.

The primary road management objective for Council is to ensure the provision of a safe and efficient road network for use by the community. As a well-established municipality, with only a small proportion of new road and road-related assets being planned, designed and constructed each year, Council has focused on documenting the detailed service levels for the Maintenance phase of the asset lifecycle. This phase represents the stage where Council is most exposed to risk. As a result, routine defect inspections and maintenance service levels are detailed in the Road Maintenance Management Plan (RMMP)

The inspection and maintenance service levels, define and describe the scope and frequency for Council’s routine inspection and maintenance activities as well as response times in any given scenario.

Routine defect inspections

The main roads between townships and heavy traffic areas within townships are inspected every 6 months whilst property access roads are generally 1 yearly but smaller sideroads with limited properties have a 2-year cycle for inspections.

Footpaths are inspected annually for commercial areas and high traffic roads whilst general footpaths are inspected every 3 years.

Maintenance service levels

Pavement/ Surface Defects (Sealed Roads)

Examples of defects that would lead to restoration work being carried out are shown here for some aspects of roads and footpaths.

There are other areas covered under this policy to deal with bridges, culverts, and drainage.

How do your local areas roads and footpaths compare?