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.