Link to ammendment

Although the document is to large to publish here you can object view ammendment via the department of planning and community development http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/web14/dvc/dvcmain.nsf

If you have any problems please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks Kim

ABC INTERVIEW

This morning John did an interview on local ABC radio. McCubbin gave a very long introduction to the issue, followed by John, who emphasized the unfairness of the shire's dealings with landowners over the years, of the poor consultation and of the likelihood that any compensation would only be a pitance, as it has been in the past. McCubbin made a long response which included the old chestnut 'we need to avoid the potentiality of a 14,000 allotment Surfer's Pardise type development'. It was very typical of our local consensus style media - very much slanted toward the establishment. Les at the Gippsland TImes is the closest we've come to balance, but unfortunately he's gone. Nevertheless I think we need to keep getting the message out - as John did - that the shire is not to be trusted on account of what's gone on in the past, including the corruption.

Carol

2008 FINAL DRAFT VICTORIAN COASTAL STRATEGY

This is the final draft of the Coastal Strategy now open to submission from the public, it talks about inappropriate subdivisions which is suppose to be us and defining boundaries. Once again a sign that the labour government has labelled our properties "inappropriate" I urge everyone to write an objection...


http://www.vcc.vic.gov.au/

Gippsland Times Article

Recent correspondence to Ministers office

In response to recent issues along the 90 mile beach please see attached article for your info and copy of recent VCAT decision. We would also just like to make you aware of the fact that council have continually sold their strategy suggested it is environmentally inappropriate. We reject this, along the whole stretch of coastline there is only 100 or so restructured blocks with the ability to develop. This is by no means an environmental disaster the potential developments will be entirely self sufficient low impact environmentally sustainable houses.

We would also like you to be aware that councils business case has been based on the devaluing of our properties to unbelievable valuations of approximately $500 - 1000 for single blocks and in my case $5,000 for restructured block with planning approval. On legal advise we have in fact been told that should you sign the planning changes and set the process of obtaining our properties, the valuations would be on market value without planned changes to amendments. Single blocks in the deemed town boundary are from $50,000 - 90,000 with a value of anywhere from $90,000 - $150,000.00 for restructured.

Kind Regards
Kim Harpur
on behalf of property rights action group

TO WHICH WE HAVE A REPLY..FROM TRARALGON AGAIN.

Dear Ms Harpur,

I refer to your email to the Minister for Planning, Justin Madden MLC, in relation to the above matters. Please find attached the response letter.

Yours sincerely
Alan Freitag,
Manager Planning and DevelopmentOffice of Planning and Urban Design,
GippslandDepartment of Planning and Community Development
71 Hotham Street, Traralgon, VIC 3844
http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/_________


Our Ref:
File:
DSE0464l0
PL-PL/05/0029
71 Hotham Street
Traralgon Victoria 3844
Telephone(:0 3) 51722 111
Fassimile(: 03)5 1722 100

052 204


Ms Kim Harput
kharpur@optusnceot.m .a u
246 October 2007

Dear Ms Harpur

WELLINGTON COASTAL STRATEGY, NINETY MILE BEACH

Thank you for your e-mail to the Minister for Planning, Justin Madden MLC in relation to
oppositionto the Wellington Shire Council Coastal strategy.I have beena skedt o respond
to you directly on the Ministers behalf.
I have noted the various m atters which you have raised.
As previously advised the Department of Planning and Community Developments
working with the WellingtonC ouncil to assess their preferred implementation approach for
the Wellington Coast Subdivision Strategy.

In respect of compensation of land owners, I expect the inter-department working group
will provide advice in respect of that matter in their final report.


___________________________________________________

Letter from Minister of Planning

Today Tonight

Did anyone see the Today Tonight Story. I missed it but was told our local "Real Estate" was interviewed saying what an investment opportunity along 90 mile beach.. I think we need to answer the story?? What do you all think


Achieving the Australian dream
Reporter: Marguerite McKinnon
Broadcast Date: September 03, 2007
The great dream of buying a home, let alone one by the beach, is something many believe will never happen but there are still some bargains.
In some suburbs, Australians can pick up coastal land for as little as $10,000.
Australia's east coast is blue-ribbon real estate with a price-tag to match but just when you thought there was no chance of buying a beachside paradise, some little gems have surfaced in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.
Just ask owner Duncan Knightsbridge.
"You didn't hear this from me but this is the best kept secret in Australia, let alone the world," he said.
Russell Island, off mainland Queensland, has shaken off its 1970s bad investment reputation.
The median land price is $32,000 and along with Coolbie, is one of Queensland's best bargains.
Allan Murray's $5000 is now 17 times more valuable.
"I purchased a block of dirt on Russell Island about 27 years ago and now it's worth anything from $80,000 to $90,000," he said.
Real Estate Agent, Max Platt, said Russell Island is a goldmine.
"Well if you could buy a nice block of land with some water views for around about the $75,000-$85,000, I think by the middle of next year you'd see a rise of somewhere up around the $135,000 mark," he said.
"The cheapest block we've got on the island at the moment is $55,000."
It is a similar story down south in Victoria where two sites standout.
At the aptly named Paradise Beach, a 600sqm block of land costs about $53,000 while Golden Beach has land for about $58,000.
But the cheapest coastal land in the country is in NSW and Wyee has land for $45,000, North Arm Cove is selling for $22,000.
John Rumble from Hawks Nest First National Real Estate said there is a catch.
"Basically they start from around $10,000, you get about 900sqm block of land and it's a non-urban block of land," he said.
"I mean it's very rare that you can find a block of land this close to the coast for $10,000, even though you can't do anything with it."
related links
{{{{{{{{{{

C48 Planning Amendment

URGENT,

WE ALL NEED TO ACT TOGETHER TO SAVE OUR LAND
PLEASE EMAIL YOUR GIPPSLAND MEMBER, PETER RYAN RIGHT NOW peter.ryan@parliament.vic.gov.au
ASK HIM TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS IN PARLIAMENT. WHICH IS NOW SITTING, OR PERSONALLY WITH THE MINISTER. ASK PETER TO URGE MINISTER MADDEN NOT TO SIGN OFF ON WELLINGTON SHIRE'S C48 PLANNING AMENDMENT ON THE 90 MILE BEACH.

Thankyou
Carol

New Planning Ammendment

If you haven't already done so please email your objection to planning ammendment C48 to justin.madden@parliament.vic.gov.au it is really important to lodge your objection

Great Letter Sent to Minister From Charlie Grech

Hon Justin Madden Mlc
Minister for planning
Level 17, 18 Nicholson St,
Melbourne Vic 3000


Dear Mr Madden,

I am in receipt of your response to my letter of 8/6/07 regarding issues concerning my property at Golden Beach. Your response is disheartening, and I put to you the following matters for your further consideration

Wellington shire council have adopted their nodal approach for the 90 mile beach on a one strategy suits all approach without any consideration to blocks past the nodal point which are not subject to any inundation, flooding or sinking problems.

They have adopted their Golden beach Nodal boundary to coincide with the end of the power lines purely for their convenience. They say this is because there is no infrastructure past this point.
And of course there is no infrastructure because of Wellington Council’s indecision, and their discouragement to landowners wanting to build and invest in the area. Wellington Shire say they want tourism, yet they are mismanaging this prime tourism asset.

With the State Government’s encouragement and Sustainable policies, a dwelling can easily be self sustainable with Solar Power, Rain water tanks, and On site Sewerage treatment. Therefore infrastructure is not an impediment to residential development.

My restructured block on Shoreline drive has never flooded or shown any signs of sinking as the doomsday people would have us believe, over the 40 years I have owned it. Indeed even during the recent heavy rains there was no water anywhere near the restructured blocks.
Yet Many areas of Gippsland were Flooded.

Whilst there were issues emanating from the original subdivision, these have been eliminated with the restructuring of blocks, and the elimination of land subject to inundation and flooding from the low density residential Zoning.
The request for interim controls by Wellington shire are therefore unnecessary, and raise high suspicion about the motivations of those promoting this wholesale denial of our rights to build on our land.

Wellington shire council which is supposed to represent all their ratepayers fairly and equitably have treated 90 mile beach land owners as outcasts as it seeks to have you, the minister, apply controls over our properties, without any concern for us the landowners.
An honourable council representing all ratepayers is bound to make sure that landowners are not disadvantaged, and if so that they are compensated at to-days prices.
Wellington Shire are quite happy to demand and collect rates from us, without providing us any tangible services, and then go about using these rates to work against our interests.
Their blanket nodal approach is flawed and discriminatory, and needs to be revisited by a committee represented by your office, council, and Landowners.

It is a sad fact of government these days that decisions are driven by bureaucrats who have no concern for people, and are driven purely by ideology. I am aware that there are inter departmental, and council committees making recommendations to you on the ninety mile beach issues, and these do not have any landowner representatives on them to give you a balanced recommendations.

I urge you to apply your governments policy of fairness to all Victorians by not acceding to Wellington Shire’s request, and to ensure that landowners are represented and consulted at all times.

In summary

1 The problems of flooding, inundation, sustainability and sinking are NOT widespread to the Whole of the Ninety Mile beach area.

2 The nodal approach assumes that it is. It is hard fisted and discriminatory as there are hundreds of blocks outside this nodal area which are sustainable and not beset by any problems.

3 Sustainable, Independent and envoiremently friendly infrastructure can be provided on all blocks of land.

4 Camping is permitted and encouraged by Parks Vic. Along the foreshore of Ninety mile Beach, indicating that even government departments don’t believe the sustainability rhetoric that is being advanced by Wellington Shire and others.

5 Landowners must be represented on all committees making recommendations on the Ninety Mile Beach area (Our Land). Council and Government must desist from their divide and conquer attitude.

6 If the State Government and Council are to persist with their current policy on the Ninety Mile Beach area, COMPENSATION levels should be set Now, and NOT when our land is made valueless by State Government and Wellington council policies




Hoping the above gets serious and fair consideration


Yours
…………………………. Charlie Grech

Everyone needs to write to the minister

See below section of a large document submitted by the shire for signing by DSE and the minister. It is not available on the DSE web as it is suppose to be confidential - we have copies of the entire document changing various clauses to the planning schemes, mostly it is asking for a two year halt on all development so council can work on their strategy.

Everybody needs to write to the minister urgently and get this stopped.


Planning and Environment Act 1987

WELLINGTON PLANNING SCHEME

AMENDMENT C48

EXPLANATORY REPORT


Who is the planning authority?

This amendment has been prepared by GHD Pty Ltd on behalf of the Wellington Shire Council. The planning authority for this amendment is the Minister for Planning.

The amendment has been made at the request of the Wellington Shire Council.

Land affected by the amendment.

The amendment applies to land along the Ninety Mile Beach between The Honeysuckles and Paradise Beach, as shown on the attached Precinct Plans.

What the amendment does.

The amendment introduces reference to the ‘Wellington Coast Subdivision Strategy: The Honeysuckles to Paradise Beach, February 2007’ in the MSS and incorporates the key strategies of that document as policy under Clause 21.04. This Strategy is included as a reference document in Clause 21.09.

The amendment includes a new local policy, “Ninety Mile Beach Policy”, in Clause 22.08.

The amendment also adds an incorporated document, ‘Ninety Mile Beach Use, Development and Subdivision Controls’ to Clause 52.03 and list its inclusion within the Schedule of Clause 81.01.


Strategic assessment of the amendment

· Why is the amendment required?

The coastal subdivisions of the Ninety Mile Beach have for many years been considered inappropriate due to a lack of infrastructure and environmental factors. Although some lots are developed, a full development scenario would have significant and unacceptable impacts on the coastal and lakes environment. Various approaches to restricting development have been initiated over the last three decades with limited success and with continued uncertainty for landowners. The area is likely to be under increasing development pressure in the future. Planning and management reforms are needed and land ownership issues need resolution.

The Shire of Wellington adopted the ‘Wellington Coast Subdivision Strategy: The Honeysuckles to Paradise Beach, February 2007’ to assist with resolving these issues. This strategy provides a preferred settlement structure for the Wellington Coast between Paradise Beach and The Honeysuckles, as a way to encourage development that responds appropriately to environmental values and community needs. This amendment aims to implement the strategy by including its key strategies as policy in the Wellington Planning Scheme.

Through the implementation of this policy, the Wellington Coast will provide for the settlement, recreation, tourism and environmental aspirations of the community. Settlement patterns and development outcomes will respond to the values and capacities of the natural environment, the cost of infrastructure, and will seek to include equitable solutions for all ratepayers and landowners in the Shire.

In February 2007 the Victorian Government established a Project Control Group to examine the implications and options available for implementing the Strategy and recommend an appropriate response. The Project Control Group is due to deliver its recommendations to Government at the end of 2007. In the interim, however, Council has refused several planning permits in line with the Strategy, which are now the subject of appeals to VCAT. Council wishes to amend the Planning Scheme to ensure adequate policy and regulatory reference to the Strategy to further support its discussions on planning permits.

The amendment to Clause 52.03 provides an interim means of development control to ensure that development along Ninety Mile Beach will not compromise the orderly planning until the Planning Control Group recommendations have been finalised and appropriate long term planning controls are in place.

· How does the amendment implement the objectives of planning in Victoria?

The amendment will implement the following objectives of planning in Victoria under Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987:

4(1)(a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land;

4(1)(b) to provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity;

4(1)(c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria;

4(1)(d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value;

4(1)(e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community;

4(1)(f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e);

4(1)(g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

The amendment implements these objectives of planning in Victoria by encouraging orderly development that responds appropriately to environmental values and that minimises adverse impacts on the coastal and lakes environment. It also aims to provide and improve access to utilities, community services and infrastructure where appropriate.

· How does the amendment address the environmental effects and any relevant social and economic effects?

The amendment addresses the environmental effects by encouraging orderly development that responds appropriately to environmental values and that minimises adverse impacts on the coastal and lakes environment. The inclusion of precinct plans to the Ninety Mile Beach Policy provides for the environmental management of areas that are subject to inundation, that have coastal values and that have not been substantially modified. These areas will be protected from inappropriate subdivisions and unserviced development.

The amendment addresses social and economic effects by focusing development in defined urban nodes. This would improve access to utilities, community services and infrastructure where it is deemed appropriate. The amendment also aims to provide for recreation, tourism and related commercial activities in designated areas.

· Does the amendment comply with the requirements of any Minister’s Direction applicable to the amendment?

This explanatory report addresses the requirements of Ministerial Direction No. 11 – Strategic Assessments of Amendments.

The amendment is consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under section 7(5) of the Act.

· How does the amendment support or implement the State Planning Policy Framework?
The amendment directly supports and implements the SPPF, in particular Clauses 14.01, 15.02, 15.08 and 18.09. The objectives of these clauses are:
Clause 14.01 – Planning for urban settlement
To facilitate the orderly development of urban areas.
Clause 15.02 – Floodplain management
To assist the protection of:
§ Life, property and community infrastructure from flood hazard.
§ The natural flood carrying capacity of rivers, streams and floodways.
§ The flood storage function of floodplains and waterways.
§ Floodplain areas of environmental significance.
Clause 15.08 – Coastal Areas
To protect and enhance the natural ecosystems and landscapes of the coastal and marine environment.
To ensure sustainable use of natural coastal resources.
To achieve development that provides an environmental, social and economic balance.
To recognise and enhance the community’s value of the coast.
Clause 18.09 – Water supply, sewerage and drainage
To plan for the provision of water supply, sewerage and drainage services that efficiently and effectively meet State and community needs and protect the environment.
· How does the amendment support or implement the Local Planning Policy Framework?
The amendment supports the MSS by including a reference to the ‘Wellington Coast Subdivision Strategy: The Honeysuckles to Paradise Beach, February 2007’ within the relevant Clauses 21.04 and 21.09. The existing MSS already provides guidance in regard to managing coastal development, however it needs to be strengthened with additional references to the preferred settlement structure for the Wellington Coast between Paradise Beach and The Honeysuckles. This encourages development that responds appropriately to environmental values and community needs.
The amendment strengthens the Local Planning Policy Framework by including a new local policy: the Ninety Mile Beach Policy. This policy applies to the use, development and subdivision of land along the Ninety Mile Beach between The Honeysuckles and Paradise Beach, as shown on the precinct plans included in this new Clause 22.08. The policy provides guidance on managing the use, development and subdivision of land in accordance with the Wellington Coast Subdivision Strategy.
· Does the amendment make proper use of the Victoria Planning Provisions?
The amendment makes proper use of the Victorian Planning Provisions. The inclusion of the ‘Wellington Coast Subdivision Strategy: The Honeysuckles to Paradise Beach, February 2007’ as a Reference Document is an appropriate mechanism for controlling land use and development in accordance with this strategy.
The use of Clause 52.03 and the associated incorporated document is an appropriate means of controlling development in the interim until such a time as appropriate zoning can be implemented.
· How does the amendment address the views of any relevant agency?
The amendment is generally in accordance with the Wellington Coast Subdivision Strategy, which was developed with consideration of community feedback from extensive discussions and consultation with landowners, residents and other interested community groups.
The Wellington Coast Subdivision Strategy was developed in accordance with the relevant coastal planning and management principles of the Victorian Coastal Strategy, 2002 prepared by the Victorian Coastal Council, and the Gippsland Coastal Board’s Coastal Action Plans.
The amendment also addresses the views of the Department of Sustainability and Environment by giving due consideration to its Coastal Spaces Recommendation Report.
· What impact will the new planning provisions have on the resource and administrative costs of the responsible authority?
The amendment will not cause detrimental impact on the resource and administrative costs of Council as existing zones and overlays already trigger the need for permit applications. The amendment will provide clearer policy and decision guidelines for the assessment of applications within the area, and in this way may reduce resource and administrative costs for the responsible authority.

Where you may inspect this Amendment.

The amendment is available for public inspection, free of charge, during office hours at the following places.

Department of Sustainability and Environment
Planning Information Centre
Ground Floor
8 Nicholson Street
East Melbourne 3002
Department of Sustainability and Environment
Gippsland Regional Office 71 Hotham StreetTraralgon VIC 3844

Wellington Shire Council
Port of Sale Civic Centre
70 Foster Street
Sale 3850
Wellington Shire Council
Yarram Customer Service Centre
156 Grant Street
Yarram 3971

VCAT Hearing

There was a VCAT hearing held in Melbourne 15th August for planning approval for 7 permits.

Seems that the hearing went well for our members, some interesting points out of VCAT.

* Suggestion from VCAT that council coastal strategy is breaking planning laws

* Asked council what new rezoning they proposed for our area - council solicitor replied "Rural Conservation" - "VCAT informed council that if zoning rural conservation it would not effect the rights of these people obtaining permission to build".

* Council confirmed the recent ammendment submitted to Justin Madden for approval to stop all development for 2 years so they can continue work on their strategy.

We are hoping a decision is handed down in the not to distant future

New Valuation Notices

As you are all probably aware council has issued its new valuations, once again with valuations way below their true worth. Council claim that part of the coastal strategy they became aware of the frustrations of increasing rates for properties that are unable to be developed (sensitive bunch) and have valued properties accordingly.

* Suggest you do a goggle search on real estate in our area and property values in the deemed "safe area" and see how much your property is really worth. Dont forget our land has already been rezoned as Low Density Residential - Restructured Allotments after the last "inappropriate subdivision label" and therefore able to be developed if you have a restructured block.

* To be also noted is at our recent meeting it was suggested if government approve the stategy and fund it, property owners should not expect "market value" more like our rate notices or less.

Although we have otherwise been informed that legally this would not happen and should they compulsory acquire our properties in the future the valuations would be in accordance with correct market value without the stategy effecting valuations - your judgement call on what avenue you would like to take.

For those of you who would like to object to valuations you need to fill in this form and submit it to council.... http://www.wellington.vic.gov.au/page/Download.asp?name=Lodging_a_Valuation_Objection.pdf&size=15483&link=../Files/Lodging_a_Valuation_Objection.pdf

Council Meeting

Meeting at Wellington Shire 23rd August -

Attendees:- Bruce Graham and Ian Hatfield (Council Coastal Strategy) Peter Ryan - Local Member and Paul Theogolou, Mark Williams, Kim Harpur (Group Members)

Points from meeting:-

* In the eyes of the council strategic genius the strategy is progressing well with planned submission of planning changes expected Jan - Feb next year. (Well just happened that the new ammendment was submitted the same day as our meeting).

* Mark keen to obtain letter of existing use rights for all existing houses or properties with existing planning permits. Council would treat property owners individually not as a group - so individuals need to write or email ihatifeld@bigpond.net.au or BruceG@wellington.vic.gov.au or if you have no luck peter.ryan@parliament.vic.gov.au.

* Peter Ryan suggested that if government fund this project property owners should not expect to get market value for properties.... something more like the recent rate notices or less.

* Ian Hatfield is going to send another letter to all property owners on progress.... have asked for our contact details to be on letter to enable property owners to contact us. (only taken 18 months of negiotation... will see if this really happens).

* Informed of two committees set up which consists of "high level representatives" working on business case to submit to government. When questioned once again about why there is not one property owner on either committees the smiling assassins felt it was not necessary.

* We spoke about the recent flooding with Golden Beach "subject to inundation areas" not inundated - "Mark told Bruce Graham it showed that Mark was safer at home than Bruce at work as the council offices were inundated"..

Basically another frustrating meeting ... Highlights "Had a nice cup of coffee in Sale"

New Rural Conservation Zones

Most victorian councils have now rezoned all land environmental rural zones into Rural Conservation.. This has effected all Low Density Residental - Restructured allotments with the Environmental Significant Overlay ES01 and ES02 and subject to inundation it seems as far as Wellington Shire Council.

I suggest everyone have a look at their own properties at to see if your zoning has changed, I will work on a better copy of the overall map but the section of land between the green and the pink is now zoned rural conservation... (see below for map numbers effected)

Amendment details Exhibition Panels Approved documentation
Current status of amendment

Amendment status: Finished
Amendment status date: 12/07/2007

Proposal

Please Note: Proposal description below describes the amendment at exhibition stage. To verify content of final approved amendment see Explanatory Report under Approved amendment documentation.

Introduce the Rural Conservation and Farming Zones into the Scheme and rezone all land in the Environmental Rural Zone to Rural Conservation and all land in the Rural Zone to the Farming Zone. The Environmental Rural Zone and Rural Zone are deleted from the Scheme.

This amendment affects Map(s):
2ZN, 3ZN, 4ZN, 5ZN, 6ZN, 7ZN, 8ZN, 9ZN, 10ZN, 11ZN, 12ZN, 13ZN, 14ZN, 15ZN, 16ZN, 18ZN, 19ZN, 20ZN, 21ZN, 22ZN, 23ZN, 24ZN, 25ZN, 26ZN, 27ZN, 28ZN, 29ZN, 30ZN, 31ZN, 32ZN, 33ZN, 34ZN, 35ZN, 36ZN, 37ZN, 38ZN, 39ZN, 40ZN, 41ZN, 42ZN, 43ZN, 44ZN, 45ZN, 46ZN, 47ZN, 48ZN, 49ZN, 50ZN, 51ZN, 52ZN, 53ZN, 54ZN, 55ZN, 56ZN, 57ZN, 58ZN, 59ZN, 60ZN, 61ZN, 62ZN, 63ZN, 64ZN, 65ZN, 66ZN, 67ZN, 68ZN, 69ZN, 70ZN, 71ZN, 72ZN, 73ZN, 74ZN, 75ZN, 76ZN, 77ZN. 78ZN, 79ZN, 80ZN, 81ZN, 82ZN, 83ZN, 84ZN, 85ZN, 86ZN, 87ZN, 88ZN, 89ZN, 90ZN, 91ZN, 92ZN, 93ZN, 94ZN, 95ZN, 96ZN, 97ZN, 98ZN, 99ZN, 100ZN, 101ZN, 102ZN, 103ZN, 104ZN, 105ZN, 106ZN, 107ZN, 108ZN, 111ZN, 113ZN, 114ZN, 115ZN, 116ZN, 117ZN, 118ZN, 119ZN, 120ZN, 121ZN, 122ZN, 123ZN, 124ZN, 125ZN, 126ZN, 127ZN, 128ZN, 129ZN, 130ZN, 131ZN, 132ZN, 133ZN, 134ZN, 135ZN, 136ZN, 137ZN, 138ZN, 139ZN, 140ZN, 141ZN, 142ZN, 143ZN, 144ZN, 145ZN, 146ZN, 147ZN, 148ZN, 149ZN, 150ZN, 151ZN, 152ZN, 153ZN, 154ZN, 155ZN, 156ZN, 157ZN, 158ZN, 159ZN, 160ZN, 161ZN, 162ZN, 163ZN, 164ZN, 165ZN, 166ZN, 167ZN, 168ZN, 169ZN, 170ZN, 171ZN, 172ZN, 173ZN, 174ZN, 175ZN, 176ZN, 177ZN, 178ZN, 179ZN, 180ZN, 181ZN, 182ZN, 183ZN, 184ZN, 185ZN, 186ZN, 187ZN, 188ZN, 189ZN, 190ZN, 191ZN, 192ZN, 193ZN, 194ZN, 195ZN, 196ZN, 197ZN, 198ZN, 199ZN, 200ZN, 201ZN, 202ZN, 203ZN, 204ZN, 205ZN, 206ZN, 207ZN, 208ZN, 209ZN, 210ZN, 211ZN, 212ZN, 213ZN, 214ZN, 215ZN, 216ZN, 217ZN, 218ZN, 219ZN, 221ZN, 222ZN

Recent Council Minutes Climate Change

ITEM 4 4.15pm – 5.30pm GIPPSLAND COASTAL BOARD – CLIMATE CHANGE


In Attendance:
Councillor Ripper (Mayor)
Councillor Jeff Amos
Councillor Peter Cleary
Councillor Peter Gault
Councillor Darren McCubbin
Councillor Jenny O’Neill
Councillor Bob Wenger
Councillor Malcolm Hole
Councillor Peter Garlick
Chief Executive Officer
Steven Dickson (Director Community & Development)
Ralf Kastan (Director Assets and Operations)
Presenting:
Brett Millington, Gippsland Coastal Board
Mr. Millington briefed Council in respect to recently determined climate change statistics with the
assistance of a powerpoint presentation (available in the Councillors Library.)
The following key points were made:
• An increase in sea level is anticipated and will effect the Wellington Coast
• Concurrent lowering of coastal land due to subsidence will clearly exacerbate the effect of any
sea level rise.
• An estimate of subsidence was given for Golden Beach and Alberton in comparison with 1969
data which demonstrated that levels of subsidence are trending higher than expected.
• The estimate of subsidence in Alberton is extremely high.
• A number of factors contribute to extreme sea levels such as: Weather pattern changes,
winds, wave dynamics and cold fronts.
• It is likely that more frequent extreme rainfall events and storm surges will be biggest issues
for Wellington.
• Evidence suggests that the biggest issues East of Lakes Entrance are storm surges and West
of Wilson’s Promontory are tide levels.
• King tides are usually driven across Bass Strait with the potential impact on the 90 Mile Beach
being a 0.8mt increase.
• A mean sea level rise will make a big impact on the 90 Mile Beach; however expected
decreased wind speeds may counteract their effect.
• The Gippsland Coastal Board are facilitating workshops in Leongatha and Bairnsdale to
develop risk profiles based on critical assets and discuss potential adaptations that can be
implemented. These workshops will be held with asset holders and representatives from
Councils.
• The next stage is to identify vulnerability of built and natural assets on the Gippsland Coast,
implement appropriate actions to protect them and think about strategic plans for the future. At
present, the research and planning that has been undertaken currently puts us ahead of any
major changes. To stay ahead of any significant changes we must continue to plan for the
future.
• The most significantly affected parts of Wellington Shire Council will be Port Albert,
Robertson’s Beach, Mans Beach, McLaughlin’s Beach, Seaspray and Loch Sport.
• The preliminary assessment indicates that many barrier islands may become lower than sea
level which would expose areas such as ‘Corner Inlet’ and ‘Nooramunga Inlet.’
COUNCILLOR AMOS/COUNCILLOR HOLE
That the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 89(2) of the Local Government
Act to consider: h) any other matter which the Council or special committee considers
would prejudice the Council or any person; (e) proposed developments;
CARRIED

Another Letter to Justin Madden

Hi everyone

Yesterday we sent a letter to Justin Maddens office (below) I received a message that they will look into it an lets us know if we can get an appointment



As per our telephone conversation we request appointment with Justin Madden to discuss Wellington Shire Coastal Strategy.

Basically we have submitted numerous documents with regards to this matter, property owners have waited patiently for 18months whilst their properties have been devalued up to 85%. We have followed the processes available at VCAT to obtain our planning permits. We have discussed this matter from council planning office all the way to Liz Beattie, lawyers and media.

Meanwhile we wait, we have seven submission waiting for VCAT - we have half finished houses because the bank will not refinance with the coastal strategy looming. We have permanent residents that have had acquisition notices sent to them 18 months ago and nothing since. For those with planning permits our ability to obtain finance to commence building on our properties has been taken away with council proposals.

All this whilst council prepare their strategy for submission to the ministers office for approval, it is clear to us with time restraints imposed we will have once again lost our ability for consultation or representation on various boards working on the strategy.

Council have now placed a Design and Development Overlay over part of the strategy because of their underhanded way of trying to divide a community which I might add has been a waste of their time. Plus of course the recently initiated moratorium to stop development and our right to apply to VCAT, once again allowing council time to continue their destructive process of our environment and constitutional rights.

We are not discussing a handful of properties this is effecting thousands of private property owners. Since notification to your office of our issues we have not had a response written or otherwise to acknowledge our concerns.

Historically property owners have followed the planning amendments slapped over their properties, basically they have already been subdivided twice the initial and the restructure now once again another restructure. How many times do you expect to allow councils/government to affect the lives of the remaining property owners without a political nightmare developing?

We wish to make an appointment with Justin Madden as a last resort for some meaningful answers to our concerns foremost to stop the moratorium and secondly for private property owners to have a true representation with regard to the strategy. This is not an outlandish request and is basically our last attempt to follow the protocol available until all avenues are exhausted, at which time dependent on outcome we will initiate other processes available to us.

New Design and Development Overlay

Just noticed new design and development overlay on Paradise Beach, Golden Beach and Honeysuckles which is basically to do with low density residential areas in the strategy.

Just click on the DDO section of the map and the highlighted area is the DD07 which is basically Low Density Residential http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/wellington/inset3bmap.html Paradise Beach
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/wellington/inset4cmap.html Seaspray Honeysuckles.

If you read the maps in conjunction with the ddo7 explanation.
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/wellington/ordinance/43_02s07_well.pdf

So basically half the coastal strategy is getting through by separating it into the urban section and the so called strategy.... what can I say??

Ideas "We need some GENIUS"

It would be great if everyone could contribute ideas about our next steps so finally we can discuss as a group....

Just reply to this post and see what we come up with.

So far we have:-

* Individually submitted our objections to Justin Madden

* Had meeting with Liz Beattie and submitted document for Justin Madden plus involved the constitutional Law Firm

* Gippsland News and Neos Kosmos ran stories .... plus John has sent information to Italian Newspaper

* Individually written to all councillors

* Arranged meeting with Peter Ryan, Mark, Kim, Paul, Bruce Graham and Ian Hatfield scheduled for 23rd July

* Contacted Craig Ingram - who spoke to Justin Madden on our behalf

* Contacted ombusdman and followed up with letter to council

* Contacted Local Goverment Body with regard to Local Council Act

Kim

Whats New?

Wellington Shire have submitted their plan for roads within the township ... for those interested in objecting or having a read (see link..).

Download: GB_Special_Charge_Scheme-Proposed_Declaration.pdf

Neos Kosmos

Ninety Miles to nowhere

A stretch of the Ninety-Mile Beach where residents Carol Glover said it is rare to see anyone else

The saga of Ninety-Mile Beach has stretched for decades, affecting the lives of many first generation Greek Australians who invested in the stunning coastland. Eleni Hale reports.SOME of the first Greek and Italian migrants to land on Australian shores in the sixties had a dream; it was sold to them in the form of a block of land, on a beautiful part of Victorian coastline known as Ninety-Mile Beach in Gippsland.A few bought the land before arriving in Australia, others were made an offer as they disembarked and took their first steps in the new country and for some it was a decision they made in the months after arrival. Though many signed without seeing the property, the sceptical ones were tempted with a free bus ride and lunch to come and view the untouched scrubland.The plan was perfect.It would be the Victorian equivalent of the Queensland Gold Coast. They were shown plans for a dreamy coastal town, which had yet to be built but promised to meet all their needs should buyers decide to build homes and lives in the area.Otherwise, property developers Wilmore and Randall assured them, it would serve as a wise future investment.Law firm Wilmore and Randall worked together with the state government and Rosedale shire, who have since amalgamated to become part of Wellington Shire, subdividing the coast-hugging properties into the small, yet long thin blocks of land.Some buyers spent 200 pounds on the tiny portions, a lot of money when you consider regular incomes could be as little as six pounds per week, and a couple of hundred pounds could get you a property in Melbourne, which today could be counted as a significant investment.Neither the government, nor Wilmore and Randall mentioned that some properties were situated on a mostly-dry lake and so unable to sustain a building. Nor did anyone warn of the flooding tendencies some properties suffered. None of the buyers could have predicted just how far from the dream investment this would turn out to be.Soon a large number of non-English speaking migrants owned many of the 1400 properties on the stunning coastline that ran in a long strip between the pristine beach and Lake Reeve. The documents were signed with little more than 'good faith' and a handshake, because most details were in English and translators still rare.First generation Greek Australians said they trusted government involvement would signal a safe investment.It was a brave move. But after leaving homeland, friends and extended family behind, an impulsive investment might have seemed painless in comparison.The European experience indicates townships near the ocean flourish, but then they had never encountered the vastness that is Australia and the lonely stretches that make up much of its landscape.After that initial sell-off, which proved so lucrative for Wilmore and Randall, the promises began a slow rollback.No town was ever built. No paradise settlement. Few homes. No jobs.Greek and Italian Australians who hoped to live in South Gippsland would not be able to sustain a living.Then, a rethink on subdivisions in the seventies led the state government and Rosedale Shire to decide on a minimum of four blocks before a building permit would be issued. This placed the dream of erecting a home high above the grasp of families struggling to earn money and create opportunities for their children.The dream was turning into a costly nightmare.The pressure of paying annual rates on an investment that offered no kickbacks became too much for some who simply stopped paying and the properties fell back into shire ownership. They often resold this land. Six years ago in 2001, Sale resident Carol Glover wanted to purchase land and build a holiday house of the Ninety-Mile Beach.She was aware Greek Australians owned property there and it had been a bad investment.She attempted to find them. This proved difficult because of protection laws but she finally located the Zaharopoulos and Bilalis families who quickly agreed to sell.This was the beginning of a lengthy battle with Wellington Shire who had already compulsory acquisitioned one of the properties.She said the shire went to great lengths to block the proposal but after using her contacts within council, she was able to purchase the blocks. And finally, after much wrangling, she was granted a building permit.She is one of the lucky few.

The Zaharopoulos and Bilalis families both have English as their second language. Carol said they expressed frustration and disappointment dealing with council, which had been fraught with complicated bureaucracy. She believes it would have been very difficult for them to achieve what she has."The people I bought my blocks from didn't have a hope in hell of doing what I've done because they were dealing with Wellington Shire from Melbourne. I live locally in Sale and have knowledge of the corruption that is taking place," she said.As the seaside boom created demand for coastal properties some have accused the shire of planning a take-back.They say information is being withheld and property owners are being 'tricked' into handing back property whilst believing they have no choice.Concerned local residents believe Wellington Shire has a new big plan for Ninety-Mile Beach but this time it has nothing to do with homeownership.Carol said by 2002 when she applied to buy land, Shire was increasing restrictions and there was a sharp rise in compulsory acquisitions.At the same time council staff were buying properties but when questioned they responded by telling angry residents they had as much right to buy property as everyone else. Accusations have surfaced that Wellington Shire is trying to get control of Ninety-Mile Beach and take advantage of 'prime real estate.' Residents believe, in time, developers will control the area.

The shire has responded to this by denying any business with developers.Mayor Beth Ripper said people should not be "paranoid" because this is not the plan."Absolutely not, that's not the intention," she said.Ms Ripper said current restrictions were for environmental conservation. To protect delicate ecosystems in the area.But angry local residents continue to accuse the shire of changing rules and misleading property owners.

And as for the Greek Australian buyers who were first promised the paradise township?State government and Wellington Shire have called it a bad investment.Both deny any responsibility or compensation for the losses.But residents are urging those who still hold titles to come forward and resist pressure to forfeit rights because they believe with enough people, the bad investment could still become the dream holiday home on what is a truly stunning stretch of beach.If you would like more information about Golden Beach and other areas along Ninety-Mile Beach phone Carol Glover on (03) 51431664 home or (03) 51226325. Or phone John Rafferty on (03) 9761 0735.

Gippsland News Article

08 June 2007




Call for inquiry into council's land dealings
Leslie White

GOLDEN BEACH: A Golden Beach landowner has called for an independent inquiry into methods used and prices paid by Wellington Shire Council to acquire land it owns in the Golden Beach area.
John Rafferty's call follows calls he received after an article on council's subdivision strategy appeared in the Greek newspaper Neos Kosmos.
"As a ratepayer I demand you initiate an independent audit of all land acquisitions going back to the start of the original restructure plan," Mr Rafferty told the Tuesday's council meeting.
"I stress the audit should be independent and transparent, it should show clearly the value of each block acquired by council at the time of acquisition and the price, if any, paid to the owner."
Mr Rafferty understands restructuring, or consolidation, of small blocks along the Ninety Mile Beach has been occurring since the 1980s. Councils have required restructuring prior to issuing permits to build.
Mr Rafferty said he had been contacted by a couple who had bought a beach block in the 1960s for 200 pounds at a time when average weekly wage was five pounds.
The couple claimed they received a letter in 2002 from council suggesting they give the block back to council in lieu of $1000 unpaid rates.
The pensioner couple would have done so but could not find the title, he said.
Council valuation on the last rates notice asserts the block is worth $12,000.
"How many blocks of significant value have council taken back for small rate debts?" Mr Rafferty asked.
"This is nothing to be proud of. This council cannot claim the moral high ground.
"I understand council owns a lot of land in the area - how did it acquire this land?
"How many blocks were taken from misinformed owners?"
Mr Rafferty told the Gippsland Times he was concerned at the idea council could acquire neighbouring blocks, consolidate the titles and sell them as a restructured lot.
"Council should not be acting as a real estate agent, I don't think it's right at all," he said.

Letter to council - 14 days

Hi everyone ... this is the copy of the letter we sent after advise of ombudsman

Thursday, June 07, 2007



Lyndon Webb
Wellington Shire Council Port of Sale Civic Centre 70 Foster Street Sale, Vic, 3850
Fax: 5142 3499


Dear Mr. Webb


As you are aware, and voiced once again at the 5th June, 2007 council meeting concerns have been raised with regard to council policy on the below points. Further to this, and under instruction from Victorian Ombudsman, would you please be kind enough to provide us with the following information:

(a) A list of all council owned properties along the Wellington Shire Subdivision Strategy effected areas.

(b) Council policies “historically” on rating properties, with the inability to be developed such as subject to inundation, single blocks without being restructured or subject to previous buyback.

(c) Explanation of council policy on acquiring land to assist the restructure process.

(d) Explanation of council policy of acquiring land in lieu of unpaid rates

(e) Council policy since the adoption of the strategy on points (b) and (c) above.


We would request notification in writing within 14 days


Kind Regards






Paul Theologou

"Wellington Shire" Busy Beavers

Keep checking the shire web site http://www.wellington.vic.gov.au/

Printer Friendly
Major Projects - Wellington Coast Subdivision Strategy

CURRENT PROGRESS
As part of an ongoing communication initiative, landowners have been sent a newsletter outlining the latest developments with the Wellington Coast Subdivision Strategy. To download a copy of Coastal Matters, click on the links below.Landowners in the Wellington Coast area (between The Honeysuckles and Golden Beach) have also received a letter which explains what the Strategy means for their property, the next steps in the process and a map showing the different precincts.

Council has adopted a modified version of Option 4 that was contained in the draft Strategy. The modifications to Option 4 are to allow rural living development at Glomar Beach and to defer consideration of how Hollands Landing and Seacombe are to be managed until further information is obtained. Council also decided to increase its discussions with the State Government to seek commitment, involvement and funding assistance; review rating of properties in the area; and commence an implementation program.

These decisions are not yet effective under the Wellington Planning Scheme. The details of how development, restructure and land transfers will proceed have not been decided, nor have planning scheme amendments been prepared. Landowners will have the opportunity to comment on the amendments before they are adopted and come into effect. This process may take several years.

COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Wellington Shire Council considered proposals that respond to the settlement and environmental issues on the Wellington Coast (Golden Beach to The Honeysuckles) at its 20 September 2005 meeting.This follows preparation of the Wellington Coast Strategy by consultants GHD Pty Ltd and the community consultation process managed by GHD on behalf of Council.

AN OVERVIEW BY WELLINGTON MAYOR, CR MALCOLM HOLE
The beautiful Wellington Coast along the 90 Mile Beach is now facing the pressures of sea change and the increasing demand for coastal land. This land is right on the coast albeit inappropriately subdivided; it lacks the services that people expect. There’s also an expectation by property owners that they will be able to develop their land, so we are under huge pressure to find a solution.Inappropriate subdivision on the Wellington Coast is a problem that has been around for more than 40 years and it will take considerable time to work our way through it but we are committed to resolving it.Following Council’s decision last year, we have been working on what the Strategy means for the thousands of landowners involved. This is a continuing process and will take some time to complete. Council is proposing the establishment of a high level task force to include State Government representatives to address the various aspects of implementing the Strategy and work to achieve a long term whole-of-government solution. Cr Malcolm HoleMayorWellington Shire CouncilMonday, January 30, 2006

THE PREFERRED SETTLEMENT STRUCTURE
On 20 September, 2005, Wellington Shire Council adopted the Wellington Coast Strategy Option 4 – Urban Nodes as its preferred settlement structure for the coastal area (refer attached settlement map) with modifications to the Urban Nodes, Rural Conservation areas, Glomar Beach and Public Conservation areas as follows:a. Urban Nodes Council, in partnership with government and property owners, to pursue infrastructure provision (water, sewerage, electricity, roads, community) to allow for residential developmentb. Rural Conservation areasCouncil, with support from government and input from property owners, to:• decide land use and conservation outcomes• seek high level environmental outcomes • determine restructure lot boundaries • pursue private sector involvement c. Glomar Beach Council, with support from government and input from property owners, to allow for low density residential development:• decide land use and conservation outcomes • determine the boundaries of Glomar Beach• determine restructure lot boundaries and the land assembly process• ensure appropriate infrastructure provision (water, sewerage, electricity, roads, community)d. Public Conservation areasCouncil, in partnership with government and property owners, to pursue buy back of coastal dunes and Lake Reeve inundation areas.

WANT TO KNOW MORE? OR SHOULD READ (TELL SOMEONE WHO CARES)
For more information on the strategy and/or the specific precincts please click on the links below.All enquiries about Council’s preferred settlement strategy and/or about individual lots should be directed to Council’s Customer Service Business Unit on 1300 366 244.
Links
Download Files
Coastal Matters Newsletter (August 2006)
Precinct Fact Sheets (February 2006)
Council Media Release (February 2006)
Council Report with Recommendations (September 2005)
Map Showing the Preferred Settlement Structure (September 2005)
Consultation Report (June 2005)
Glomar Beach Focus Group Notes (March 2005)
Golden/Paradise/Delray Beaches Focus Group Notes (March 2005)
Non-Priority Restructure Areas Focus Group Notes (March 2005)
The Honeysuckles Focus Group Notes (March 2005)

Not sure where your block is??

For those new to the group and not sure how to find your block some good web sites are:-

http://services.land.vic.gov.au/landchannel/jsp/map/InteractiveMapIntro.jsp select I agree and type your address this will show where it is situated, if it doesnt come up with Golden Beach try Flamingo Beach seems it has been named now.

For all those that need to see what overlay effect their properties see:- http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/ select rural Wellington Shire - click to Golden Beach area, once you know where you are situated you should be able to find what overlays effect your property.. If you need help just send me a note.

Kim
kharpur@optusnet.com.au