Several ratepayers chose to speak to their submissions in the recent budget s233 process. This process is a legal requirement under the Local Government Act. Council cannot approve a Budget until they have given, AND CONSIDERED, responses from ratepayers.
After reviewing the live stream of this meeting I felt compelled to write a letter of complaint to the Administrators since in my opinion, and it should be self-evident from watching the 5 minutes that I spoke for, that at least two of the 3 administrators were not listening.
At its meeting yesterday, South Gippsland Shire Council resolved to prohibit camping at the Franklin River Reserve due to public health concerns and the damage and inappropriate use of infrastructure. The reserve will be returned to its original use and will be open for day visitation.
Administrator Brown speaking on the 4 Year Council Plan adopted in Budget Meeting June 24th, 2020
Perhaps the Budget Documents lost their cover page? With the amount of hidden detail and missing data one does wonder.
PROPOSAL-Every Rate Notice issued for the 2020-2021 year to receive a $800 refund subject to the following conditions.
a. Rate Notices with less than $800 due are to receive a maximum of the Rates Notice amount less the FSL charges.
b. Rates Notices will receive the full $800 refund when the Rates component paid to Council is at least $800.
These appear to be a means of pulling extra rates form the residents. In the past year Council had a substantial capital works budget. Some 6 months into the 2019-2020 year Council scrapped $1.8M of works. These were not just deferred but deleted altogether.
That is $1.8M that found its way into Council reserves without the approval of the ratepayers.
Council have changed the way that s233 submissions are treated if the following is anything to go on. It appears that if the project you wish to discus is not in the next 12 months works they will refuse to even discuss or consider the proposal unless of course, they do entertain the discussion. So one can only think that they will now only consider submissions under the local government act if they agree with them or are happy to have them discussed in open and transparent style.
During the Bald Hills Wind Farm trial on June 10th, 2020, in the Supreme Court of Victoria the director of the wind farm under cross examination admitted to not submitting two letters relevant to the case.
When your neighbour has a noisy dog that disturbs your enjoyment of sleep the first step might be to ask him to deal with the problem. The second step would be for you to complain to Council for them to deal with it under the Public Health and Nuisance Act.
Council acts on all such complaints by using a section of the Act that gives them 4 choices.
A two-day hearing in the Supreme court began today and under the coronavirus pandemic rules, it was conducted from Court 2 using zoom remote conferencing technology. Around 21 individuals “attended” the zoom trial.
Next up was the cross examination of Mr Whalen by Georgia Costello SC, Council for the 5 residents in South Gippsland. Some facts that came out of this examination are that the Wind Farm was granted a permit in 2004 under the planning and environment act. Originally established by Mitzui it was later sold to Bald Hill Wind Farm in February 2017. Bald Hill Windfarm contract out the maintenance needs as well as the daily operations of the Windfarm to a group called Vestas.
Bald Hills Windfarm has 52 turbines scattered around South Gippsland in the Walkerville area. The permit was issued under the planning and environment act and the South Gippsland Planning Scheme. Permit was actually issued by the State Government Minister for Planning.
Mr Pizor QC then made reference to four of the planning conditions.
The first hour of day two was spent with lawyers for each side putting their final submissions and arguing various points of law and interpretations and what if scenarios repeating much of what was said on day one in various forms. For a non-legal person, this bit was dull although from a legal point of view quite necessary as each side tried to show the Justice towards their preferred interpretation of the law as it applied in this case.
After the Wind Farm Legal Team completed their summation it was the turn of the defence side to make their case.
First up was the lawyer for Council Mr Horan QC. After his submission, the legal team representing the 5 residents had their say. This was put to the Court by Mr Fetter QC
Are Council Staff Inappropriately Involving Themselves in Recruiting Candidates for Council Elections?
Rumours have been flying around for a while that Council staff were hunting around for “suitable” candidates to run for Council at the next elections in Oct 2021. In line with this newspaper’s policy, this report needed facts, so I decided to investigate the issue further.
This policy was approved of by Council on August 28th, 2019 by the Administrators. Within the Planning Panel report on recommendation 13, it is stated:
“Council consider undertaking a fulsome review of Clauses 22.05 and 22.06 of the South Gippsland Planning Scheme pertaining to Rural dwellings and Rural subdivision to ensure their consistency with the Planning Policy Framework and established principles (including Planning Practice Notes) relating to the form and scope of a local planning policy. Agreed”.
This week the Administrators have asked me to write a CEO Message in order to reflect on my time
Neither Administrator Brown or Zahra actually made any commentary on what was in the current proposed budget. Both claimed that Council was in a strong financial position, a claim that is not in dispute.
We have had no local government representation in South Gippsland since the State Labour government sacked the elected shire council in June last year.
Early 2017 Council approved the introduction of live streaming for Council meetings. The system worked reasonably well and was also extremely cheap to install.
I am a welfare Officer here at the Fish Creek RSL . We are delivering food to people in need , Fish Creek School, and Meeniyan School , for people doing it tough , we supply food clothing and furniture also have helped several families that have lost everything in the fires , and still have received no financial help from all the moneys donated.
What a big week it has been following the Premier’s announcement to gradually relax the Stay at Home
provisions for COVID-19. This will no doubt come as a great relief to many in our community who have
been missing social connection and will help to reduce feelings of loneliness and isolation for many of
us.
An article in this week’s Sentinel Times (page 7) called “Rate relief Plan Misses the Mark” discusses the two circulating petitions from Matt Sherry calling for a zero rate rise in this year’s budget and a second unrelated petition from Don Hill calling for an $800 refund to all ratepayers for this year.