WHAT appeared to be a simple tick and flick exercise at Council’s most recent meeting turned out to be otherwise, when two Councillors voted against gaining State Government support to coordinate and fund coastal hazard overlays.
The motion, which will be submitted to the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) at the next State Council Meeting on Friday, October 10 calls on the Victorian Government to urgently coordinate and fully fund a statewide Coastal Hazard Overlay to be implemented into applicable planning schemes across Victoria.
MAV may then advocate for the proposal to the Victorian Government on behalf of local governments.
If successful, this would allow South Gippsland Shire Council – among other coastal Councils – greater ability to implement coastal hazard overlays and strengthen erosion controls and plan appropriately for the future.
“This is actually what is needed, because low-lying coastal areas, they need to be treated differently than inland areas. When you look at places like Inverloch, when you look at these places where there’s a lot of legacy planning issues and things are moving and shifting and being more susceptible to more extreme storms and storm surges – there’s lots of inundation issues,” explained Cr Gilligan.
The State Government has a vast amount of information on hazard mapping and data mapping, which has been carried out on our coastline and on other Victorian coastlines, added Cr Gilligan.
“All coastal councils are screaming out for the planning tools that will allow us to get on with common sense planning.”
Councillor Scott Rae agreed with the motion.
“We need the tools to help those that can’t help themselves. The only thing more prevalent in humanity than ignorance is greed, and greedy people will always find ignorant people to purchase swampland, tell them they can build a house,” he said.
“I’d like to see the ability to tell people, you can’t build there because it’s no good.”
However, both Cr John Kennedy and Cr Steve Finlay disagreed with submitting the motion to MAV for consideration, but only Cr Finlay outlined his reasoning.
“I like the concept of personal responsibility. My concern is handing responsibility or being compelled by a State Government in regard to our planning schemes. I may well be wrong, but I wish that all our planning and many other areas would be independent of State Government interference.”
Cr Nathan Hersey responded to Cr Finlay’s comments.
“Why would you not want us to be asking with a united voice that the State step up and do their job? Why would you not want to be asking with a united voice that we have the Municipal Association of Victoria’s support in advocating alongside us? That the State Government do exactly that – their job in spending money on a planning scheme? Why would we not be asking with a strong, united voice, along with others in the state, that we save money on a planning scheme amendment that probably is going to have to happen anyway and will ultimately cost us money?”
The Sentinel Times made several attempts to contact Cr Kennedy to gain his views on the issue and learn why he voted against the motion; however, no response was forthcoming from the Councillor.
