Local Housing Strategy.  It may affect you !

I have copied below some feedback on the recent EG Housing Strategy which was sent to the Shire. These sorts of questions need to be asked and the community given better options and time to consider. 

East Gippsland Housing Strategy Feedback:

I am providing this feedback on behalf of …………….there are a number of concerns that we have and feel that Council have not provided adequate information on.

I believe that the consultation process has not be fair and equitable to all. To provide information on Council’s “Your Say” page and say that you have consulted with community is incorrect. Many residents in East Gippsland do not have access to the internet, and given that we are a low socio economic area there are many that can’t afford the internet.

The notification period for the walk in sessions was in many cases very short, making this difficult for many to attend.

I have read Council’s Housing Settlement Strategy and I have outlined some areas of concern that I would like addressed.

	Housing Settlement Strategy	Question
1	·      Planned 8271 dwellings built between 2021 and 2041. ·      Developer profit per unit at least $100,000 represents $820,000,000. ·      Has EGSC Audit and Risk Committee a record of Shire Councillor and Shire Administrators (family, shareholdings etc.) interest in the land designated for development or any pecuniary interest in any potential construction/development company that could tender for the work or purchase the land?	Who benefits?       If not why not? Should such a register of assets be recorded?
2.	East Gippsland Shire is designated a “low socio-economic region”     Adding to Bairnsdale and Paynesville Conurbation will not improve the designation!	How will the housing strategy change this so that the region prospers beyond that designation?   Would spreading eastwards and north to Orbost, Cann River and Omeo be a better option for settlement.
3.		Why is a heritage site (The Tanks) not excluded from the Lakes Entrance planned residential extension? How large and area will be excluded and what access will be ensured?
4.		Wouldn’t the eastward spread of new property development and industry offer greater opportunities to improve overall infrastructure rather than focussing on the western extremity of East Gippsland!
5.		·       Who at EGSC will manage and be accountable/responsible for ensuring that if this proposed strategy is established, it is a success? ·       What are the Key Performance Indicators for that position. ·       Will Councillors be the judge of performance rather than the administration?
6.		The Omeo Mountain Bike course/plan has a budget of $7+ million with a totally unrealistic business plan of almost 200 visitors for every night of the year! How realistic is this strategy document when there appears to be no growth in Omeo’s residences to accommodate the visitors predicted for the cycling track?
7.	Report states that 33% of current EGSC residents have arrived since 2016. What was the number that left/departed the Shire.	Why have these people left? What can we learn and correct for the future from these departures?
8.	Unoccupied homes/dwellings represent 15% (400+) of East Gippsland homes.	How can Council ensure that any new dwellings must be occupied rather than for short stay/AirBnB holiday lets?
9.		Why is there no reference or any input to the document from the LEGAS community process which cost over $500,000? This has infrastructure and recognised risks for the community of Lakes Entrance.
10.		How much did this report cost to prepare?
11.	The estimated growth of over 8000 dwellings in all areas as a result of this strategy.	What increase in Council services and infrastructure is planned to support such growth? Should sufficient increases be projected, how does Council plan to fund them other than by increases in rates and charges?
12.	Increases on this scale (say 21,000 persons) will require increases supply of water and removal of hard waste.	How is the increase in management/removal of hard waste to be funded?
13.	Projected population and dwelling growth.	What increases are planned in medical, education, emergency and transport services? Medical services are already well overstretched to accommodate the needs of the current population, emergency services are under staffed and under-funded, likewise schools are full to overflowing. Transport services are to say the least basic Shire-wide.
14.	The growth of 8000 dwellings means an increase of 21,000 to the population (if you average 3 per new household).  Of this 21,000 at least 16,000 will be of working age.	Where are the projected jobs for these new residents, the new industry, business opportunities, etc.? Many of the youth who have grown up in the area leave after completing secondary education in order to attain higher qualifications and/or obtain meaningful work. Increased population will magnify this issue. What is planned to alleviate this loss of our youth in the community.
		Specifically regarding the development in the Lakes Entrance area, and directly in the northern area, what is planned to preserve the Historical Site of the old Oil Works ( a heritage area) to ensure its survival and the ability to maintain access to and from.
	As it seems Infill housing is planned in East Gippsland.	Has consideration been given to the fall in values of surrounding larger properties, the owners of which purchased specifically to live in a low-density housing area.        Is there a planned percentage of public housing in the high density growth areas and has consideration been given to the overall  social economic effects of such housing?
	If Infill  housing is to go ahead in the so-called ‘northern growth corridor’ of Lakes Entrance	What considerations have been given to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the area? Currently there are no made footpaths, and certainly none which are accessible for all. The traffic flows on perimeter roads would increase dramatically and necessitate made footpaths and changes in traffic management. These changes would also increase requirements for better drainage
	East Gippsland has a Bushfire Overlay and much of it also has a flood overlay.	With an increase in population what plans are in place to be able to manage under Emergency Conditions.  Where is the Emergency Evacuation Centre in the case of Fire, likewise for Flood.
	Planned 8271 dwellings built between 2021 and 2041, specifically Lakes Entrance.	What works are planned to improve the already limited  access to and from the town especially at peak times ?
		Current communication facilities are already unable to cope during peak periods with many outages etc. What plans are in place to affect improvements to the infrastructure and subsequent services, eg, NBN Mobile etc.
		Given the amount of hitherto undeveloped land being eaten up by these proposed developments, what offsets are being put in place to account for loss of natural flora and fauna?                                                                                                                                     Particularly in the case of the ‘Northern Corridor’ in Lakes Entrance what offsets are planned to account for the loss of Grey Gums in the planned developed area?
		Considering the large number of ‘Holiday Homes’ and ‘Air BnB’ properties especially in the Lakes Entrance area has consideration been given to either re adjusting the rates for these properties or improving control over them from a rateable value aspect.

 

Media Release

Authors Note: I came across this and feel it should be public knowledge. Importantly I make the following observations.

1. Congratulations to both Councillors for speaking out, it seems to be a rare aspect of our Elected Representatives these days, I ask why?
2. I note that the Media release is a compilation of their personal views.
3. Are our elected representatives not allowed to voice an opinion in public?
4. I am concerned re the apparent confidentiality of Councillor Briefings, perhaps this has answered #1 - #3 above.
5. Is this an example of our open, honest, transparent, Local Government?
6. The subject matter of the release itself is a cause of concern.

JM:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rural Land Use Strategy

Councillors Sonia Buckley and John White have deep

concerns re the proposed Rural Land Use Strategy

that is set to become policy at the 6th of June

Council Meeting.

When injustice becomes Law

Resistance becomes Duty

We are voicing our personal opinions and not that of the East Gippsland Shire.

The strategy which was initially set in motion by the previous council has diverged. The policy was to

ensure larger farms remained whole but not by disadvantaging those who already own smaller farms

and restricting how they use them.

We urge all Councillors to consider their positions and support an amendment to keep the 40 hectare

rule in place for current owners. This rule is still held at many Rural Shires including Wellington, that 

allows homes to be built on 40 hectare allotments to encourage smaller farms. Building permits and 

planning overlays still apply.

As the only farmers on Council and personally conducting wide community consultation re the

matter, we have personal insight, we cannot in good faith support the RLUS Policy in its current form.

Our Land

and

Our rights matter.

To date the Agricultural committee has supported the policy, however we feel it has been a grave

oversight not to challenge this aspect of the RLUS Policy and ask they reconsider their position.

The 40 hectare land owner who purchased in good faith or perhaps has owned the land for a long time,

knowing they could build, will be forced under the new strategy to go through a lengthy process to

support their application to build on the property . A farm plan will also be required which will come at 

a significant cost and no guarantees of success at the end. This new 80 hectare rule would mean to 

build on your land you would have to buy another 40 hectares of adjacent land, if that was available 

and if you could afford it.

Councillors briefings are now deemed fully confidential. 

We question the legitimacy of this clause and have challenged it. 

Being able to discuss with rate payers about protecting our farms is integral to planning and future 

proofing. We are elected to find fair outcomes. The introduction of any future minimum subdivisions 

on large parcels of land is a good outcome for food security

24th May 2023.

Bullock island and beyond

The Bullock Island issue will no doubt go on for a while and I will keep you informed via this blog as it seems there are a number of unanswered questions/issues still outstanding from the Shire, not least of all when this projects will finally be complete. It has been going nearly 10 years now!

Thank you for your many comments both on Facebook and on the blog itself which proves to me that I do not stand alone and a considerable number  (over 1000) of you stand agreeing with me.

Now here is YOUR chance to do something about it.

If you wish to maintain immediate access to the blog simply like and you will receive new additions as they are posted. I will also post on Lakes Entrance Chatter Box and Noticeboard but am reliant on their Admins to post and blogs will be mixed with other posts quite rightly.

A solution perhaps, is to start an online group of those residents/ratepayers who care about the town, those who want to see our ratepayer dollar managed to obtain best value, who want projects to be administered on time on budget and to be of value to the community, last of all those who want questions to be asked of our leaders when they are appropriate and to receive full truthful answers.

We need, as has been said, straight answers to straight questions from our leaders. We need open honest discussion with our elected representatives. We deserve both.

It is a sad fact that we seem to be controlled by an ever increasingly secretive Council, the bureaucrats of which appear to be controlling those who were elected to represent us by a range of manipulative measures. Indeed I hear even our Councillors have been effectively gagged.

Many suggestions and actions have been presented and submitted over recent years to advance the town, (see below), only to be ignored by those who claim to be the voice of the community and our elected leaders.

We the hitherto silent community, have a voice, we need to start shouting!

I, along with some other concerned ratepayers of like mind, am considering starting a group of ratepayers to collate and manage concerns in the community. This could be an ONLINE group, no meetings to attend (apart from those required by law - AGM). Communication either by Facebook, Email, SMS, and/or Zoom or similar online methods. A site where all can have their say and be considered in real open discussion with actions following.

This is in an embryonic stage, many have asked me "what can we do?" This is a start perhaps.

If you are interested please make a comment (perhaps leave name and contact) on this blog and we will be interested to gauge the level of active support.

In recent times the following fully costed projects and plans have been submitted by a small group of residents in an effort to advance our town and support local business. All have been either ignored or cast aside by our leaders and by those who claim to be the voice of the town. Most are posted in previous blogs and include the following;

Plan for Bullock Island including

Water Park, Event Space (music/theatre), Display Items, Passive Recreation.

Multifunction Interactive Interpretive Centre

informative/historical displays of Indigenous past, Fishing, Oil & Gas exploration, Sand Management

World Class lookout at Jemmy's Point

structure extending out over the point to obtain 270 + degree view

Promotion and Marketing Plans for Town

timed to assist in recovery from bushfires and two CoVid lockdowns

Circular Tour Bus encompassing major sites in town

From Forestech to Bunga and sites along the route

Celebration of the Discovery of Oil and Gas 100 years ago

Historical and modern day changes to Green energy

Event Concepts to attract Visitation out of Season

Images copyright John Munns: Text copyright Bullock Island Developments Inc. 

The continuing Saga of Bullock Island

Well,  I seem to have stirred a hornets nest, but make no apology for asking the questions that need to be asked regarding this seemingly ongoing saga. I note the response apparently released by the Shire, but apparently posted by a Councillor's wife who  it appears descended into name calling, that is addressed below.

Let's be quiet clear, our ratepayer\taxpayer funds are being swallowed up. We deserve best value for our dollar. We deserve every effort made to reduce the seemingly automatic rate rises imposed. We deserve accountability, high level, efficient, cost effective project management. We deserve open and honest efficient operations and community interaction through discussion and debate with our elected councillors - all 9 of them.

Despite the response posted, questions remain and in brief are;

What has caused these spider web cracks, there must be a reason. To  find and note the cause may save ratepayer funds in future projects.

How can we be saying " several months" when, as I recall, the West footpath was only laid right before Christmas and the East not that long beforehand?  Within the budget, which budget? We were told the bridge was well over budget, which one are we talking about and what is the current total estimated cost.

From where will the cost of project overruns already publicised by paid, alternatively which part of the Bullock Island upgrade is to be reduced to pay for bridge overruns

Regarding the toilet block, Have the conditions of the funding source been adhered to? What was the cost of the build? Why is  sewer connection a separate project? Why was this cost not itemised in the original plans, and if not why were the plans passed? Seems out of place to have a unconnected toilet block.Why not consider a sceptic tank versus the presumed expensive sewer connection.

My full explanation from the Shire response posted, follows in greater detail; 

The  East footpath had fine spider web cracks, whatever they are?  

What has caused these spider web cracks, there must be a valid reason and it would be interesting to note the cause. That is the East side, what about the West, that is the one which has been dug up. Does this mean both sides will be replaced?  My advice is Cracks are cracks -cosmetic or structural is the description not Spiders web. This  type of cracking  is normally caused by differential curing as the surface was not kept watered  under hessian while the curing process took place . This does not indicate being laid correctly.

Apparently over several months these numerous cracks are appearing in the footpaths on both sides of the new Bullock Island Bridge. Investigations have taken place apparently, and advice given that the cracks will not affect the structure of the bridge. But the footpath  is liable to crack and stain due to salt water getting in the cracks and re enforcement. No reason  has been given all cement was  apparently certified and laid correctly. Perhaps the shire has heard of The Cement ,Concrete and Aggregates Association who could provide free advice!

Based on this a call has been made to remove the top layer of  footpath and replace it with new reenforced concrete. (Seems not to be just the top layer). Rectification expected to take two weeks.  This work will, we are told, maintain the planned 100 year lifespan of the bridge without nasty cracks.  (I won't be around to make sure it happens!!)  All these repairs will apparently be made within the budget.

How can we be saying " several months" when, as I recall, the West footpath was only laid right before Christmas and the East not that long beforehand?  How can there be no reason for the cracks there must be a reason, best find it before it happens again. Within the budget, which budget? We were told the bridge was well over budget, which one are we talking about and what is the total estimated cost now?

Cost overruns have to come from somewhere, where is the question or do we the ratepayer/taxpayer cop it again?  In current times we should be cost saving to reduce rate rises and their impact on cost of living for all.

Bullock Island Toilets, were I am told built ahead of schedule to ensure that grant money could be used. Obviously a timing issue to start work here.  A separate project was sewer connection and a very expensive one. The connection can be and is , I am advised, within the works that another contractor has been allocated. Again apparently a different method and cheaper one. 

Have the conditions of the relevant funding source been adhered to, or has some shall we say manipulation been enacted? What was the cost of the build? Why is  sewer connection a separate project, is this an example of the staging and delegation I referred to? Why was this cost not itemised in the original plans, and if not why were the plans passed? Seems out of place to have a unconnected toilet block. I am all for reducing costs but why was this different and far cheaper connection not included in original plans? Has a septic tank system been investigated?

I am aware of some negative comments made in my direction, even some derogatory ones, and questions as to the level of community interest.

The blog has had considerable response on LE Noticeboard, 38 and plus 20 comments mostly agreeing with my blog, then Lakes Entrance Chatter Box, 11 plus 5 who made comment. The blog itself has had a total of reads 1108. (Figures correct at time of writing). Further and regarding LEFTRADE, if I got it wrong and it appears I did, I apologise,  so is it LEFCOL who are building the cafe at public expense? 

Yes, a small minority have had a go at me, fine, I will never have all agreeing with me, nor do I expect it. I am a big boy and can take constructive criticism.  

I will not however, respond to abusive and rude responses so don't bother writing them. They will be treated with the contempt they deserve. As for those who descend into name calling, I refuse to lower myself to that level in response.

As for the continual negativity, of which I am accused, it is denied in the strongest possible terms. I have spent years promoting the region and especially Lakes, supporting it whilst employed and since. I call it how I see it. If something is good I will say so, and have done on numerous occasions. 

The Bullock Island project is a prime example of being late and over budget. It started way back around 2013/14, that is almost 10 years ago. How many consultancies have been done and at what cost? Now I hear yet another has been authorised, and so on and so forth!

Unless questions are asked, projects held to time and budget, and management held to account, I fear for the town's future. Is the community willing to be the instigators of their own demise by lack of  questioning and interest? 

Are we as ratepayers and taxpayers willing to sit idly by and watch both rise without question? 

I deal in the truth, the facts and ask relevant questions, nothing more.

The reputation of Shire is not good it would seem by comments posted on line, this is borne out by many verbal conversations. I believe that open honest communication is a vital and an important factor in Council/Community interaction. In this case it seems to have failed, surely by pre-advising of these apparent issue's it would have, I believe, done wonders to negate these community opinions/concerns.  A matter seemingly lost of late.

I will continue to take note of my surroundings good and not so good, and will continue to call out what I feel is wrong or demands questions for the benefit of all. 

I firmly believe that Lakes Entrance has incredible untapped potential, but so many ideas and concepts are and have been ignored and it appears the ratepayers are not getting full value for their dollar.

The ongoing Saga of Bullock Island

Bullock Island swallowing our rates – WHY? 

Today I was informed that works at Bullock Island Bridge were still continuing, despite being assured that the bridge would be completed before Christmas. (I forgot to ask which one !) 

I took a drive to see for myself, what follows is a brief assessment,

• Indeed, the works are still going on,

• the traffic lights have returned, and alternate one-way traffic operating. 

• The entire area is a restricted work site 

• the new concrete footpath partially laid before Christmas has been jack hammered up.

• holes are being dug at various points despite the guard rails on North Arm side, having replaced the very temporary fencing left during the Festive season. 

• The works area is still well in use and nowhere near returned as a passive recreational area and previously used and enjoyed by many. Is this what our contractors and our Shire called finished? 

• Why is the work not finished on time as advised by Christmas

• What are these extra works costing us the ratepayers

• Is there an expected completion date for the works.

• See extract from media release 15.4.21 The new development will support Bullock Island’s transformation as a major tourism attraction and help the region recover from recent challenges associated with drought, bushfires and, more recently, the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. Both the café and masterplan work are expected to be completed in 2022. 

The bridge isn’t even finished leave alone the proposed Café!  

   

 

As for the Toilet Block we are still supplied with a smelly portable whilst the new beaut block stands deteriorating and not even connected I am advised. The weeds are now higher than the surrounding fence. 

Have the required pipes been fitted under the new bridge or any other links to main sewerage and water systems? 

I wonder if the project managers (one of the many) have even thought about that? 

 

         

 

There are other issues relating to the island which I asked in November 22 but I continue to ask

        1. Are we the ratepayers getting value for our dollar from our Council? 

        2. Are Council Officers (Public Servants) competent to, and providing us with that value? 

        3. Are our elected representatives (Councillors) aware of these matters and being kept up to date                with cost over runs, time overruns and contract staging by delegations? 

        4. What is being actioned to reduce cost over runs and overall running costs? 

        5. Where are the answers to questions posed below from last November and are

                    Was the Bridge ever really needed? 

                    Was it ever planned or projected in forward estimates of Council? 

                    Why weren’t the apparent problems estimated in original design work? 

                    What will be, as not completed yet it’s final cost? 

                    What was the initial total budget estimate? 

                    What was the contract value? 

                    Where are we now with budget expenditure on this contract number and from which part of                     the 22/23 budget is this overspend being drawn? 

                    When will it finally be finished? Previous advised completion dates have passed  

                    Why has it taken so long? 

Now of course the infamous Toilet Block. 

        Is it sited as per last plan for the island? 

        What was cost to build such a complicated structure for such a simple use?

        Could the cost have been reduced with a simple structure, (similar to at Slipway)? 

        Why is it still not in use? Is it connected to power and water? Is the sewer connection complete?            Were these aspects included in the plans. If not, why were the plans approved? 

        Given the apparent issues with connection surely water supply for toilet could be by rain water                 tank and power by solar. Were these matters considered? 

        When is it likely to be opened ? 

        What is the ongoing cost of the portable WC on site? 

Council made great issue of taking over the management of Bullock Island 3+ Years ago . This was said to remove the unworkable issue of joint management that existed for many years. Maintenance it was said would be rostered on a regular basis. The net result is no change, no improvement. 

Now the projected and apparently publicly funded Restaurant 

There is evidence of  some progress on this claimed fully funded project. 

    Is it going to happen, if so when? 

    Is there a blow-out of costs due to delays? 

    LEFTRADE stated that piling was complete, is this the case? 

    What is Council contribution to project? 

    What is Federal and/or State funding for project? 

    If the project is funded by public funds, who will operate the business. 

    Where will the profits go? If it was funded by public funds profits should be returned, seems only         fair. 

    Is the plan ever going to be enacted? It was commenced on 2014/15! 

    If the plan is going ahead, what is the extent of the work to be completed when and at what cost? 

    Is it going to be split into stages, (like other projects) so as to allow for financial delegation without         going before Council? 

    Why have other projects been started when this has been left? 

        The following projects have been started but are still not completed 

            Hotel Rd Lookout incomplete, 

            Jemmy’s Point incomplete, 

            Slipway incomplete, 

            Marine Parade incomplete, 

            Myer St Improvements incomplete 2016 /17 budget included $2m                        

            Bullock Bridge incomplete, 

            Bullock Island upgrade -incomplete,  

Quote attributable to Minister for Regional Development Mary-Anne Thomas “These investments will help Bullock Island to capitalise on its unique maritime traditions, attracting thousands of new visitors by improving tourism infrastructure and at the same time, creating local jobs.” 

Quote attributable to Member for Eastern Victoria Jane Garrett “The Gippsland Lakes are a jewel in Victoria’s east and it’s exciting to see progress underway in this region – including at Bullock Island which is the gateway to Lakes Entrance.” 

Unless this town can attract more visitors businesses will fail and our economy lost

So, there we have it, it is about time we the public had some answers to the use of our ratepayer dollars and value for our ratepayer dollar and especially in and around Bullock Island.  

If you agree contact your Councillor of choice.