Speaker John Ramsey is up first, and is advocating for an exclusion zone along the Princes Highway to be upgraded, to protect Corunna State Forest. He says the area is important for the environment and for tourism. Mr Ramsey was not granted and extension.

Cr Anthony Mayne has asked if Mr Ramsey would like him to put forward a motion on the topic, and Mr Ramsey has agreed.

Alex Christelo live in the Estuary, and is speaking in opposition to the Oaks Ranch development. He says “preferential treatment” is given to business developments. 

“The Oaks will have their cheap access for future development, and the Estuary will have lost their chief amenity – a closed road estate.

“It was obvious the council was determined to give consent to the developer. We were being ignored (earlier this year).

“Estuary residents were surprised when informed of the planned access road. It appears the developer and the council were not deferred, and over 29 residential dwellings that were denied by the NSW Government were approved in the LEP.

“Our concern is that partiality may have been shown without any concern to the impact on the adjoining Estuary estate, without any consultation or publicity.

“The traffic will increase by approximately 700 per cent over the next ten years. The land owner makes money, the council makes money, and the residents lose their amenity. As they say, money has no morals.”

Cecilia Christelo

“I speak as a long term resident of the Estuary in Mossy Point, and I speak with frustration and anger.

“The increase in traffic from the Oaks Ranch is identified as 4.5 per cent, but the council has identified it as 16 per cent. This is a considerable difference.

“The community understands permission has been given for 90 residential dwellings. This is unheard of.

“They will use the Estuary road for vehicle traffic. It would be a significant negative impact on the community, who carefully selected their properties in the knowledge that the Estuary did not have the potential for a through road.

“Development of the Oaks Ranch must not be allowed to proceed on a piece-meal basis. Allowing developers to pursue design options with total diregard … is not acceptable.

“How can the community have confidence?”

Cr Mayne: “My understanding is the 90 lot subdivision has not been formally approved, and the road has not been formally approved – can we seek further clarification?”

Cr Innes: “You can but not in this forum, this is an opportunity to ask questions of the speaker.”

Linda Chapman – values and vision of the shire.

“A few years ago, the council voted for this shire to welcome refugees, and so I assume the council values supporting refugfees.

“Would we as a shire write to the federal government to say we would welcome the children on Nauru who have attempted self-harm?

“Another value is the natural environment – we are so fortunate to live here. I would encourage people as we consider the RLS to value our role as custodians of this land. Rather than chipping away at our natural environment, to consolidate our urban development and encourage artisan culture and local food production.

“Pleas consider a vision of this shire that can hold together both of those possibilities – welcoming people and developing local economies without chipping away at the environment we love. Together we can all enjoy a shire that is bountiful, beautiful and inclusive.”

Outroar of applause.

Sandy Wilder – a safe community.

“Our climate is changing. Sustain all life is a group approved by the United Nations. In many places local and state governments are stepping up action to stop climate change where federal government response is inadequate.

“I mention this worldwide concern in the context of the RLS. We cannot afford increasing carbon emissoins from development. In the Eurobodalla, we could be a model community in that regard. In the last few weeks along with several others, I have spoken with many people (about the RLS).

“Many people are alarmed, and shocked.”

Ms Wilder’s voice breaks.

“I put it to you that it needs more time for the community.

“Crs I’m sorry if this feels like an attack – it is not a personal attack. 

“Things between people can get hard when we disagree, but please, let’s keep talking and seeking a cooperative outcome.

“Our climate crisis and the backsliding on the Paris agreements lead to us running out of time for our survival on earth.

“So my ask, is that we step back and consider this motion.”

General applause.

Fitzroy Boulting – Turlinja. On behalf of Tuross Head Progress Association. Completion of previous presentation.

“Increased and compromised fire risk management. We draw councils urgent attention to the substantial liabilities to which this exposes the shire’s ratepayers. This is no small matter.

“We believe the RLS MUST be redrawn. I can only counsel one thing with certainty – disregard of the community's concern may result in complete distrust of the council. After the disgrace of councils Tuscany in the south in 2000, why wouldn’t the people of Tuross and Turlinja have long memories? The decision is yours and yours alone.”

Peter Bernard. Development control plans.

“To the chief planner: one, would you advise whether there is a development control plan for the Potato Pt area and it’s surrounds?

“There is a need for a corner shop in this area. Many from Bodalla and in the bush – it is a forgotten area without representation of any significance.

“Could there be a link from Tuross Head to Potato Point? This would open up a majestic part of our coastline.”

Trish Hellier. Council procedures.

“At a council meeting i attended and incident occured when an attendee was asked to leave and refused to do so. Whilst media was allowed access to the adjourned room, I and other attendees were denies. I believe this action was incorrect. We were left in the gallery, and convinced the person to leave.

“Prior to this incident, Mr Bernard had asked a number of questions, and the Mayor had assured him that they would be answered when the item came up on the agenda.

“As that must have come up in the part of the meeting held out of the meeting room, and was not live streamed, I was unable to hear whether Mr Bernard’s questions were answered.

“I was also in attendance at another cl meeting when a person was asked to apologise due to an incident i was not familiar with. At that time I did not know this person, but I was of the view he was entitled to sit in the gallery. I have waited three months to hear something back in relation to this issue. I have alwasy maintained just because someone had a title it doesn’t mean they are always right. You are elected to represent us. I firmly beleive myself and other attendees were discriminated against on that day and I seek an apology from the cl and an assurance that this will not happen again. I have an email from the OLG indicating that the actions on this day were incorrect. I thought we would be given the courtesy of ahving some communication, which would have meant I wouldn’t have had to come in here today.”

Cr Innes; “Did you write to the cl about your concerns?”

Mrs Hellier: “No. But the OLG indicated they had contacted council.”

Cr Innes: “If I could ask you to forward any information and correspondence to myself, we will get you a response.”

Public forum begins.

Cr Innes: “This morning we have a significant mount of speakers. Cl would appreciate members of the public to give speakers and crs the courtesy of not interjecting while they are speaking. Please be respectful to all speakers. Even if you do not agree with what they are saying, everyone has the right to their point of view. I ask members of the community to respect crs, and not approach them during the meetin. I will be adhering to the cls code of conduct for any misbehaviour during the meeting. I would ask everyone to treat others with respect and courtesy, and not make defamatory comments.”

Apology for Cr Nathan – accepted (although she may arrive later).

Cr Brown: “Move Cl suspend standing orders, consider NOM Tuross Head grazing lands, petition, audit and risk report, renewable energy options analysis and following that Rural Lands Strategy Proposal.”

Carried. Speakers will present when the agenda item they are speaking to is debated.

Previous meeting minutes accepted. No conflict of interest declarations. No mayroal reports. 

Tuross Head grazing lands: 

Cr Mayne: “I read this NOM with interest – I put a QON seeking clarifiaction a few weeks ago and though cl response comprehensive. Community concern that council could only (commit) to preserving grazing lands during this council.”

Cr Mayne says he believes key issue is decision of future councils.

“Change happens. Thats the nub. If change happens at Estuary estate, change can happen at Kyla Park. Anything that supports greater transparency and confidence that we will work to preserve area that is significant to the community.

Cr Tompson: “Rumours and mistruths getting around, and we are just trying to keep residents in the loop.”

Motion carried.

Petition – protect our heritage grazing lands.

McGinlay: “I was gratified to see that the original presenter of this position was given the opportunity to finalise his presentation. Thank you.”

Cr Mayne: “I think this is an important petition. It was terrific to be out at Kyla Park with Crs Constable nd McGinlay the other week to receive the petition.”

Motion carried.

Peter Bernard presents on audit risk and improvement committee annual report and investments made as at July 31.

“Madam Mayor, audit risk improvement committee – whilst the processes of the committee may be satisfactory, it tells me nothing. Recent changes to (act?) have given power to auditor general NSW of local govt. Problem – who will guard the guards? Council procedures should be carried out honestly and to the satisfaction of each community. Were they fearful the truth would be revealed? In this report I note that one of the functions of the committee was to monitor DPOP – I address this cl with regard to suspect figures in previous DPOP’s. Local member passed the buck to the minister for local government. Soon after my last presentation the GM wrote to me and confessed that there had been errors. These errors amounted to tens of millions of dollars. It is beleived these fake figures were designed to deceive the public during the fit for the future period. Were the councillors aware of the figures for the year prior to their election? One column did not show any figures whatsoever. Why Madam Mayor? Will the chairman ensure that the council will manage in accordance with the new legislative requirements? These are not Rafferty’s rules.”

“Investments made. These have bothered me for some time. What are the consequences created by the cl to the community if there is a crash or a credit crisis? Some of the wording worries me greatly. Is there any evidence that these institutions are fossil fuel free? Will you please produce evidence of this. Some of those institutions were found to have invested up to 90 billion dollars that weren’t fossil fuel free.”

Crs McGinlay, Mayne and Constable support an extension. Not carried.

Cr Constable: “Would ask Mr Bernard leave submissions with secretary so we can take those on notice and provide a response.”

Cr Innes: “Yes.”

Mr Bernard: “It’s not for the benefit of the cl that i come to address, it is for the members of the gallery, and they deserve to hear what I have to say in the allotted time.”

Cr Innes: “Questions raised are answered and provided on the cl website.”

Mr Bernard: “If you have invested 28 million of ratepayers money that claim they are fossil fuel free and are not … “

Chair of audit committee, Barraclough.

“This report is presented to advise crs on activites and matters the ARIC has reviewed over the past months. Providing Cl with independent oversight and monitoring. Has a majority of independent members external to cl and its operations, including myself. Crs Mayne and Constable represent the cl. In October 2016 the role of the NSW audit office came into effect. Gave the mandate to audit local cls from July 2017. Contracted many existing audit firms to continue working under oversight of auditor-general. Auditor-general maintains responsibility for the audits. 

“I have reviewed the client service plans. The plan ending year June 30 2018 provides important information. During the year, have reviewed and or monitored DPOP, client service plans, draft 2016-17 financial statements, internal audits and external EOI process, Batemans Bay Beach result, SRV and fit for future, investment reports and ICAC reports if any.

“Recommendations from internal audit reports actions are given a time for completion. OUt of 26 recommendations, over half have already been completed with the remainder progressing and within due dates.The next internal audits to be carried out are on governance and capital works. The audits already carried out provide reassurance … that checks and balances are in place.

“SRV – it is pleasing to see the construction phase of the project is almost complete. Transparency in budgets has been recently reviewed and provided reassurance in cl’s transparency.

“Staff have provided with thorough overview of panel system … considers a fair and equitable way for local trades people to access work opportunities through the council.

“Updated regularly on progress of resort, and it is understood that revenue is rising. Very impressed with the resort and productive attitude of new contractor.”

Cr Brown: “It is quite a large role that you are playing. Considering the amount of increased work that you are required to do under this process can you confirm to me that you have enough resources and support to actually look under all the rocks and in the hollow logs? I’m keen to make sure that you are totally comfortable .. .so that community has confidence you are really forensic.”

Mr Barraclough: “ From time to time we ask for things that are not on the agenda and we always get a satisfactory response. We don’t feel as though anything is withheld, we don;t feel handicapped in any way. We are adequately resourced and supplied with information.”

Audit report accepted.

Cr Innes: “Has been brought to my attention we have two previous Crs in attendance – welcome.”

Frank Eden, assistant chair of SHAHSA and member of Narooma Rotary. Speaking on renewable energy options analysis.

“Highlight and support action to mitigate climate change. For example, we run an energy audit scheme, where people can find a way to improve how their house performs, and a bulk buy solar panel scheme. A great deal of money leaves our local economy in payments for energy. Local generators should be considered – it would stop the flow of money out of our area. WOuld like to congratulat cl on meeting emissions target – already a 36 per cent reduction. Encourgae the cl to focus on rediucing transport emissions by moving to electric car fleet as quickly as possible. Pleased the cl is taking analysis of renewable energy options. We recommend the cl shift water pumping from night to day, to take advantage of low cost solar. Report talks about cl built solar farm being economically marginal – recommend collaborate with community or other cls. We are quite prepared to do legwork, marketing and try to find investors. Large scale certificates are very attractively prices at the moment, and time is running out for them.”

Peter Bernard and Cr Innes arguing about whether he can speak again to audit committee on behalf of wife. Cr Innes says Dawn Bernard was down to speak on renewable energy options. Mr Bernard says it was on audit committee. Mr Bernard calls it a “strange mistake”. Cr Innes says item has already been debated and voted on.

Mr Bernard: “Are the public entitled to meet with the audit committee?”

Cr Innes: “No.”

Renewable energy options analysis put to crs.

Cr Mayne: “Would like to acknowledge terrific work cl does in this space. WOuld just like to highlight graph on p63 – forecast for emissions reduction well and truly met and passed. Good news story. We are capturing and flaring the methane from our waste facilities, and it’s a wonderful initiative, really important to continue. Equally though, I’m comfortable to wait and see on this – I don’t want to lock cl in right at the moment to a strategy that may be disadvantageous to us. We’ve got to get it right.”

Cr McGinlay: “My main gratitude is that cl fairly promptly did have a good look at the various options. Particularly gratified to see that we will be keeping an eye on what’ happening in the solar power market. I’m finding it quite optimistic,”

Cr Brown: “Would lke to acknowledge great work of SHAHSA and Narooma Rotary. It’s great to see community orgs playing such and important and integral role. Started with Greenhouse Action Plan, would like to gratefully acknowledge former cr’s. The figures stack up for themselves.”

Motion carried.

Julie Mills on Rural Lands Strategy.

“My husband and I bought in this area because were looking to become investors in sustainable agriculture. Did our research from London, and were attracted to the Eurobodalla because of its values. Appeared to value its forests, estuary and coastline. Farming had not been undertaken in a way that damaged the environment.The pristine nature of estuaries and coastline. Aim was to live in area that adhered to this mantra. Paid for covenant to protect land – can never be subdivided. Was a considerable decision on our part. had fantastic assistance from cl staff on rewilding. Foremost in our thinking of investment was did not want to invest in industries that damaged the environment. Oyster farming was our first investment. For all these reasons we are deeply alarmed at the changes being put forward in the RLS. I have been advised that the changes being proposed in the name of simplification are unlike any in any other shire in the whole state, and will have greater damaging environmental impacts than any actions being undertaken by any shire in the state. The idea that cl will be able to make discretionary decisions … is fundamentally wrong in any democracy. The ecosystem services provided by our forests and coastline are unquantifiable. We thought we had found a location where the majority of the community recognised this philosophy.”

Denied an extension. Boo-ing from gallery. “Outrageous”.

Cr Mayne: “Raised a point bout checks and balance with rezoning – can you clarify?”

Mills: “My understanding is anyone with land .. will be able to take grazing animal down o river flats or build without development approval, which seems wrong.”

Cr Innes: “I would like to ask who you received that particular advice from.”

Mills: “I have been reading the literature that has been coming out – noticed in the agenda items, proposal to change zoning so cattle could be moved down to river sections. I’m a layman. But when I talk to people working at the interface, I was told that what Euro is doing ...”

Cr Tait: “I heard you mention oysters … are you a farmer?”

Mills: “Yes”

Cr Tait: “In Tuross, or Clyde or …..?”

Mills: “Across the board … Tuross, clyde river, from QLD down to SA.”

Cr Constable: “Clarification of who these people are on the interface?”

Mills: “I was first told … went to NSW Greens and asked how different it was, and told far more extensive.”

Cr Tait: “Ms Mills, the corporation you said you are invested in, did they pu in a submission to the RLS or not? They had heaps of time, did they do it or not?”

Mills: “They did.”

Suzanne Grey, RLS.

“I would ask that the council move the RLS, but with amendments I have here. Maintain current 2ha minimum lot size. Since August 14, have been in contact with fisheries, oyster growers, scientists, members of community. Elizabeth ranking asked that I review amendments to RLS and statements from state agencies, drawing on data from my own reports and others. Please find my draft report attached. My draft and final report have also been requested to go to the state planning office, to assist them in the review of the amendments cl has but forward. It is a draft, because given the time I have not been able to review the whole strategy –  i have focused on the areas of greatest concern. Reduction in lot size puts waterways at risk. The community (with the exception of small number of farmers) and state agencies have all requested … protection of natural assets. I would like this strategy to be sorted as quickly as possible. Spoke to the state office, and I believe failure to address key environment protection issues will lead to yet another delay. Was told by state office delay was due to refusal to implement environment protection zones. I have looked at lots adjacent to waterways and made recommendations for minimum lot sizes. Only on 3 out of 50 have I recommended no change – that is my opinion as an expert.

No extension. loud booing.

Cr Mayne: “You referred to yourself as an expert – can I ask what your background is?”

Grey: “Have monitored water quality for the council and state government for over 20 years. Postdoc on water ecosystems. Research focus on pollution and effects on public health. 1000ha adjacent to Tuross River reduced to 100 ha – land on steep slopes, lots of clearing, erosion. Can provide you with my CV if you like.”

Cr Mayne: “Said something to effect that small blocks effects waterways?”

Grey: “Yes – especially rural. Often not connected to sewerage, also when clearing the block. Encourages growth of toxic algae. We have already had problems with toxic algal blooms in Deep Creek Dam. I beleive these sites will lead to increased runoff. We also have high levels of magnanese and iron in our water, which has the potential to affect the pumping of water (cl infratrsucture). This is what oyster farmers are concerned about. I really encourage the cl to think about increasing development in our urban areas, not blocks adjacent to our rivers. The oyster industry is almost 10 million per annum industry, and employs many people. Please vote today, if you are going to put this strategy though, to include my report.”

Cr Tait: “I know you’ve done a lot of work and everything, and if those lot sizes are made to 100ha and people buy them and don’t so anything with them, what you’ve said comes to zero.”

“If rezoned, owners required to make fire safe. So clearing boundaries and fire trails. People are going to want access. Immediately you have new roads and tracks. So when you make this block and make it ten – even just the roads and tracks, there’s heaps of documentation of their effect on waterways.”

Cr Tait: “i don’t want the place destroyed either, but people have the right to live in our shire. You can’t just go and build stuff. DA restrictions are stringent. We’re not going to build whatever, Taj Mahals.”

Grey: “I understand what you’re saying and that you want to rely on the DA process. The issue that I hve is ith the DA process, it has been shown to fail. OOnce it has been rezones, people have the right to do these things – councils have been taken to court and lost. Everybody is now able to clear their land. So that is why the Mossy Point situation is really quite dire. And that subdivision has already been approved. And I’m really asking you to look at that.”

Cr Brown: “You raised an issue that concerns me – as far as I know no potential for lots of Tuross catchement. Can you tell me where that is?”

Grey: “Went through with owner – starts at area 22a – lot size reduced to 40ha, area 23, 25, 25a all rezoned to minimum lot size of 20ha and that was actually recommended by the OEH as not suitable for subdivision or additional dwellings. A minimum lot size of 40ha – if we already have people living out there in unapproved sheds, we need to look after them as well. Area 26 north – two lots of development. Area 26 south. The Tuross upper catchment is what concerns me – what I’ve read out to you is the 100. Area 34 – north and south west of the highway. All blocks were previously deferred matter and all 1000 ha blocked rezoned to 100ha blocks.”

Cr Mayne: “I keep hearing the comment with potential rezoning and development that ome of the proposed development could be 4km from waterways. I know water finds it level, I know oysters are bottom feeders – is 4km a long way?”

Grey: “I’m sorry I’ve come into this very late in the process- the fisheries recommendation is that extensive land clearing within 10km of a waterway is going to affect oysters. I have not looked at it from that perspective – I have looked at the blocks that lie directly adjacent to waterways. It’s such a long distance because water soluble minerals dissolve in the rain. In the shire we have some massive storm events, and that water volume can carry a huge amount of dissolved nutrients, and that shows up in the waterway and leads to closing our oyster leases. In our shallow lakes that kind of nutrient input can cause real problems and kill the whole lake – I have monitored Wallaga Lake, watching a fisherman crying as her drew in his nets full of dead and dying fish. When we checked the bottom sediment layer, shellfish were dead as well.”

Loud applause, cheering.

Jenny Shepherd. LEP.

“I think the LEP has been out there long enough to have these things sorted out and these are just delaying tactics of certain groups. People who have no idea what they’re saying are causing more harm than farmers or anyone else. If you were doing more hazard reduction burning you wouldn’t see the fires that we are getting. Farmers are the ones getting the blame. You want everyone in the suburbs, but there are trees in the suburbs and the fire will be just as dangerous. But it’s alright to build more houses in there and bring in more people who need more food, roads, faciliites, but you don’t want more people on rural lands – who is going to feed them? Most farmers do look after their environment, but a lot of legislation being brought in that mkes it difficult.

Cr Thompson: “Do you feel there has been adequate consulations?”

Shepherd: “Yes I do – this has been going on for years.”

Dr Fiona, RLS.

“Almost seven years ago I represented shire residents from Dignams Creek and 300 across the shire who’s objections to LEP were not addressed. I thank you for your work to address those concerns now. It is easy to complain, and most of us failed to recognise the achievements that have been made. First of all, E3. We understand some are seeking to have it included. Only relates to land zoned as RU1 – designated as agricultural land and used for this purpose for some time., E3 for areas of special environmental value. In Dignams Creek, no support – land has been logged, and much of the regrowth includes species not indigenous to the area. Thes issues were raised in 2011 and 12. Some people would like minimum lot size 1000ha – 10km square. Not practical. In Dignams Creek, seven times larger that lot size. Overlays – we strongly support the exclusion of overlays from LEP. If landowner wants to remove vegetation mus go through various approval processes. IN our property, has prevented us from harvesting timber in area designated for agroforestry. Congratulate cl on vastly improved consultation process. Misinformation distributed and communicated in the media. Trust that prcess will be progressed without further delay, to provide certainty to farmers.”

Applause.

Cr Brown: “Elaborate on certainty for rural land owners?”

Fiona: “It affects them in a number of ways. For many it is a high level of stress. A woman died two years ago, and spent the previous 4 years concerned about what the future of her farm would be. She died suffering from this. We have others who are not able to progess and plan what they are able to do in regards to leaving farms to children. I moved back to my parents farm in 2005. We have set up various crops – it is very difficult to plan for future and make investments without knowiung what is going to occur. 1ha of truffles is approx $30, 000.”

Cr Constable: “Clarification on part of your forestry purchased from agroforestry.”

“My parents bought from Crown Land in 1964, has been logged once. It is not steep land. Any areas adjacent to creeks or steep were un logged. Large trees were left for seed. We can’t re log it now because of the amount of paperwork and the approval process required is so great it’s not worth oging through effort or cost. regardless of LEP, can’t log it and not going to. The implication that there will be clear felling ignores much of state and local government recommendations.”

Applause.

William Brains. RLS.

“Ratepayer north west side of Wagonga inlet, Have been part of RLS process. IN long, drawn out process has cost rate payers vast sums. I’ve lost confidence and trust in our council. My submission – we need a clause included recognising cls responsibility to ensure stability of rural road infrastructure in line with rural; strategy. Need terms of reference to define this so ratepayers can approach cl when they have failed in their responsibilities. Some years ago, ? drive was closed by State Forest Corp without knowledge of cl or general public. I contacted the GM by email and discovered that although they had no knowledge, were in full support of the closure. The road has historic value, tourism value, all mapping tools still show this road as open. Emergency vehicles – including firefighters will continue to try and use this road. Still being used by public over barriers. Should remain open for firefighting access- cl is responsible for death and injury as a result. No road closed signs at one end. Cl has allowed subdivision on six properties in the area of his road, including mine. Are we going to allow these sorts of closures o continue?”

Cr Mayne: “Not aware of that issue – have you brought that to cl’s attention?”

Brains: “Yes – many times.”

Cr Mayne: “will certainly follow up.”

Cr McGinlay: “I recall that the email you sent and that I forwarded and requested a follow up, I understand that you got a follow up but weren’t fully satisfied?”

Brains: “Yes.”

Dr Jeffrey Berry, RLS.

“My area is very different – I don’t have expertise in the local environment. I did move here based on the fact that it was the nature coast. Coming from Melbourne, I was aware of the movement that came into the Melbourne 2020 vision to try and stop the urban sprawl. What they did was to try and support appropriate development, including high rise, that would stop that sprawl. When I looked at the RLS it looked like there was potentially appropriate development that would be supported. Country towns like Moruya could support more development with appropriate infrastructure. I think anyone that bough a block would want to develop it, and I think it is clear from climate science that these things are an issue. Deforestation is an extensive issue in this country – we deforest almost as much as the Amazon. What are going to be seen as having stood for. I would ask that any environmental changes we make at this time protect the nature  and the future. What concerns me is the more we open up to development, we’re handing on a future – most of what we are talking out is really practical, but i have to ask myself about meaning and value, and I have to ask myself, what are we doing here?” “Have been afflicted with the soul of a poet.”

Cr Tait: “Ive got some friends that moved to the Gold Coast and never found any gold.”

Mark Bice. Bodalla farmer, RLS.

“I didn’t come very prepared today, but after listening to the news after the last council meeting, there seemed to be a lot of misinformation happening in the media. Just wanted to say how our rural community is still supporting the strategy. I participated in that process and it was fairly lengthy and thorough. I’d encourage the cl to just get through so we can have certainty for future. Fear over regulation will not allow us to adapt to changing climate we have to deal with.”

Cr Innes: “I’d like to know how deeply you care and consider the natural environment in which you operate, and your views of cl process around the rural lands strategy?”

Bice: “I’ve been farming for 45 years, half that in the Eurobodalla. I’m a fifth generation dairy farmer. Sadly, I think I will probably be the last. It is difficult to get young people back onto the land and I think the RLS is going to give us a bit of certainty in the way we are able to adapt our farming methods. We are very aware of the environment – we live in it and we work with it. We deal with droughts and floods. i think the current drought has brought home to a lot of people the realities of farming. it’s so wide spread it’s very hard to manage – feed is being carted in from as far as WA. We don’t need over regulation. I saw in the last – the E3 zoning that people are referring to today did place a lot of restriction on our ability to use changing farming practices. I think the RLS has brought a bit of common sense back in.”

Cr Brown: “We do need to support our farmers -what do you see from the future and how this LEP can encourage more farming.”

Bice: “There is not a large percentage of agricultural land in this shire but it is very prime. When I first came here there were 13 dairy farms in the shire – now there is about half that. MOstly due to derugulation around 2000. Bodalla largely protected because the quality is so high. It saddens me to see the amount of unused quality land in the area. The easiest way for farming to continue here is to have sympathetic regulation that encourages people to still farm – the biggest threat is hobby farms and lifestyle blocks.”

Cr Brown: “In essence what you see is the RLS will see unproductive land become productive?”

Bice: “I hope so.”

Cr Tait: “you said a drop of 13 to 6 – are you aware that with all the rules and regulations now that we do not produce enough milk in this country for people to drink and that there are planes that run to and from NZ every day?”

Bice: “not sure where you got those figures from, because not correct. QLD does not have enough for it’s consumption – it orders in from NSW. About 40 per cent of national milk production is exported in commodities.”

Brian Kennedy, RLS – Bodalla.

“The reason I am here is I live on ? Creek, northern side of Potato Point Road. ON southern side is RU1A, on mine is E2. Got no way to find out why they have done that. Creek runs into lake which runs into Tuross Lake. On the southern side cl put sewer treatment site, only about 500m from E2. Told they are going to pump during flood time straight from treatment works into lake. Concerns me because cannot get rid of all the microplatics and materials that will go into the lake. If that creek is E2 why aren’t all the creeks running into lakesin Bodalla E2? No one can answer that. I think if you know the right people you don’t have that problem. I’ve been there 25 years, I run a few stock, do RFS training. They put overlays on my property, and in 2017 I brought this up at this meeting. Another bloke brought it up and was passed and fixed in two months. Mine is still going on. People from OEH said there was spotted gum on there, but there is none there – Rob Pollock’s mate got his done in two months and I want to know what has been done with mine?”

Cr Innes: “Think you need to be careful with the allegations you are making. One of the reasons for not including biodiversity overlays is because it was recognised there were errors in mapping. Now can consider on case-by-case issues and seriously look at those issues going forward at a local council level. Would you be willing to continue to try and work with council?”

Kennedy: “Yes.”

Dolton. Former resident. Retired after 25 years on the council.

“Came in to support submission that council allow all facts to be known. Challenge cl staff advice that has mislead crs. Irrefutably proved 1992 Moruya Flood study is in massive error, which the cl is unaware of. 20 page document “classified information”. Being kept in house and only known to a select few, rarely read by crs if at all. Of utmost important to cl and Moruys. Request crs temporarily defer any decisions until conversation between crs and myself. General round table conference would allow cl to be familiar with history of cl probity in this matter, as detailed in my submission. Cl staff’s documented history of systematically covering up the 1992 flood study. Cl’s difficult situation -whether the study is in error or not. Section 232 subsection 2 directs to provide leadership and facilitate communication. Council must adopt flexible and merit-based approach in flood planning. Legal uncertainty. The final opportunity for cl to put right the injustice of unreasonably and unnecessarily sterilised land. Cl will be denying their lawful duty. I have taken the opportunity to have my document bound and printed for crs today. Despite cl staff’s report denying my land a dweling entitlement, with no obvious or justifiable reason, or any reason at all. Why was this omitted from cl report, thereby misleading cl.”

Alan Rees, RLS.

“Want to speak about the proposal – our group asks council to vote against. Council is to be congratulated on meeting emissions target two years early. Eurobodalla is getting on with reducing emissions, while federal government is unable. The Rural Planning Proposal should not be endorsed without fundamental changes. 350 Eurobodalla is concerned at the increasing chaos coming with climate change. Bushfires in winter. Extreme drought. Bleaching corals, rising sea temperatures down the east and west coast of Australia. We need to be planting and growing more forests that we are clearing. We believe land owners should be paid for sequestering carbon. By growing forests they are doing a service to community and the planet. We have provided estimates in our submission. We are almost certainly a net reducer of carbon – but it would be really good to know and see that. The cl in their response to criticism of clearing in the RLS says it’s NSW Govt that controls land clearing – and that is true. But the changes in this plan allow for more clearing to take place. And we see RFS in their submission highlight the need to avoid smaller lots on steeply sloping, remote and forested land. Can’t understand why the cl doesn’t accept their advice.”

Applause.

Mary Rose – RLS

“Mayor Innes and councillors. Unlike 2012 when I wasn’t pleased to be here to address you all, I am hoping that finally today I will be pleased … that we have all arrived at the end of like-for-like zoning. Every other cl in the state achieved this in a timely manner with ease. We bought 10ha just north of Moruya 8 years ago, thikning the zoning would remain rural, as we had horses, chooks. We were hoping for fruit trees, stables, round yards. Most of the hard work was already done for us. It was already zoned rural. The three of us became first time home owners. Imagine how surprised we were when the LEP came out with the zoning of E3. I was not going to have to fight to ride my horse in the front gate and his existing yard and stable. This was not the freedome that my father and his many siblings fought for, and our uncle Eddie died for. This is communisim by stealth I argued at the time. We are happy, to have like for like zoning at last.”

Catherine Maxwell – SHAHSA – RLS.

“In 2018, the council runs another consultation process with a 650 page document. Does the cl take into consideration over 500 submissions? No. They are dismissed and ignored. Most significantly, does the cl take any notice of submissions from state agencies? The RFS wrote to the cl … with concerns in relation to the RLS, detailing potential bushfire risk. The NSW RFS provided detailed comments and attended meetings. The planning remains largely as it was and does not address the RFS concerns. OEH writes with a number of objections to the proposal. I can move on again to Land Services, who state the changes will have a negative impact in agriculture. Does the cl take any notice? No. You ,the mayor, may have heard it all before, but you are still ignoring advice. This is not democracy.”

Cr Mayne: “What would a broad representation look like to you?”

Maxwell: “I think we would need to have experts in the field of biodiversity, water quality, farmers, urban development experts and representatives from state agencies.”

David Grice, RLS.

“Must highlight any RU1 or RU4 land owner would have a conflict of interest. I have asked for advice on whether any crs, their families or associates, are rural land owners. We were also told at the last cl meeting that cl had not accepted advice from govt departments because it was a ‘professional disagreements’. We have professional disagreements with Fisheries, RFS, OEH, DPI, South East Land Services experts. There is a strong trend here, and it is that we have a very disagreeing council. What land planners need to do is accept the advice of specialist experts and incorporate that advice into the planning proposal. What we get instead is that cl has ‘listened to and considered’ but then totally failed to follow that advice. The cl recognises that many parts of the shire are significantly bush fire prone … and cl encourages more developments through heavily forested areas. Cl says only modest number of developments – but each of those could have two or more residents. Obstinate, extreme position. Several agencies have given advice that DA is wrong planning instrument at the wrong stage. Agenices say relying on DA will result in land owners having inappropriate ambitions. Will lead to numerous legal battles. As a result, inappropriate DA’s could be forced through.”

Cr Mayne: “You made a comment about RU1 – what’s your concern? Because as you read it, it could be seen as innocuous. What are you alluding to here?”

Grice: “Land use possibilities have gone from 46 to 84.” (Including sex services.)

Cr Mayne: “And the issue with dealing with these matters at the DA level – I’m interested in your comment about unintended consequences for developers.”

Grice: “The direct submissions from the state agencies say it will give unrealistic expectations – people will get really annoyed with that, and if they’ve got enough money they’ll fight it in legal battles.”

Cr Mayne: “Do you understand how cl does DA’s? Is that your concern, that this will really affect transparency?”

Grice: “As we all know DA’s .. .there can be examples where the controls don’t happen.”

Cr Tait: “You’ve painted a pretty drastic picture about coroner inquiries and things like that. Can you name a person who would but a block and hope it gets burnt down and their family gets burnt to death?”

Grice: “The RFS has to drive through dense, forested area to get to them, and that’s what the RFS is saying.”

Cr Tait: “But everything will be cleared, that’s what you’re all saying.”

Grice: “That’s not what the OEH is saying.”

Kevin McAsh. RLS.

“Cls response to objections raised by DPI Fisheries saying cl will consult with DPI when the proposal is placed in exhibition. My advice from them is they were never consulted, and when they became aware public submission was closing, they wrote an 8-page submission objecting to the proposal. ‘There are 58 businesses in the Eurobodalla … currently turnover of more than 9 million dollars. Makes a significant contribution to local employment and tourism.’ Their summary is they object to the RLS because it is not consistent with DPI Fisheries healthy estuaries for healthy oysters guidelines. The greatest risk is issues that are proposed in the RLS – subdivision of land adjacent to rivers, estuaries and foreshore, on land which is steep or erodeable. While the cl has addressed the issues that are raised by fisheries to a certain extent, you certainly haven’t addressed these issues. I want council to withdraw this proposal and review it with a panel that is truly representative of the local community.”

Cr Mayne: “Are you aware that Department of Fisheries have sought a meeting with council – would you come to the table? Because I want to hear from the experts.”

McAsh: “Sure.”

Chris Jones. RLS.

“Little attention paid to heritage and cultural issues. Made some enquiries about likely prevalence of Aboriginal cultural sites around the shire. A general model said margins of lakes would be sensitive to shell middens. Sandy areas such as beach dunes more likely. Crests of ridges and spurs … will have a relatively high density of archaeological material. Most of this material will be under the ground. Anything more than ten post holes in an area of high sensitivity, there’s pretty much a 100 per cent chance of finding archaeological material.Such sites would be best addressed and protected by E3 zoning. I urge that this planning proposal be set aside until these issues are addressed.”

Applause.

Damien Rogers. RLS.

“We had a petition of 5300 plus in just three weeks opposed to this. So if this is about democracy, it’s already closed. We said no E zones, no overlays on private properties full stop. If you’ve got more than 5000 signatures I’d like to see them. We had public meetings for years, no Greens around. You had ten years to say no, to argue the case, and you just weren’t there. As far as claims that overlays and E zones are necessarym they’re not. Only grazing is without approval and everything else is with approval. The claims made many times that E zones and overlays don’t affect your rights were proved wrong.”

Cr Innes: “Could Iask you not to refer to legal cases and stick to the topic. I would ask you to be very cautious, because if I have a point of order over this, I will have to pull you up and I really want to hear what you have to say.”

Rogers: “There are heaps of down-zonings, forced acquisitions, for example, Carroll College has a forced acquisisiton over it. I spoke the the principal, they had no idea. I asked cl why, and they said you will have to put it in writing. Not good enough. What is the purpose? If they can’t state a purpose, it’s intimidation. Part of the bio-certification land-grab. Broulee can only grow to the west. The highschool has 50 acres of land which they are not using and I think this is intimidation to add that. The crematorium is the same, they didn’t know that either. This is about the LEP it’s what’s going on. I went to your staff yesterday and they confirmed it.”

Cr Innes: “I think some of these subjects are not directly related to this planning proposal. As you understand it is very complex.”

Rogers: “I do. My family shops was downgraded to a caprark and had a forced acquisition put on it, so I know all about the intimidation.”

Keith Dance. RLS.

“There have been many comments regarding the exhibited LEP. To claim the community has not been consulted is garbage. In 2010 State Governement said councils must update LEP’s. First draft put up in 2011. Community against it. Protests from landowners in many shires forced state planning dept to change their template in light of the backlash. In 2012 set up advisory committee. Over the next four years committee managed papers, community meetings, et cetera, culminating in the strategy. Many people gave their input. Passed by council, the minister. Idea that it is threat to biodiversity is nonsense. Cuts unnecessary red tape. The opposition is typical misinformation from those who foist their views on others, aiming to disrupt a process they don’t agree with. Unfortunately they have no regard for those who actually own the land. It is an insult to us who own and protect our land. Cl has responded with correct and evidence passed answers. Incumbent upon you to pass this matter today, send it to the State Govt to be gazetted as soon as possible.”

Cr Thomson: “How long have you been farming in the area?”

Dance: “1965. Consultation has been done right from the word go.”

Cr Brown: “What do you see in relation to potential of development in these areas? How do you see it assisting farmers?”

Dance: “The way the lots were set up  cl staff went through each locality to determine average lot size. If 40ha can look for swelling entitlement. You can’t do it if you don’t live on the block. Encourages peoples to get out on and use those blocks. Our productive land is fairly small, and this lot size does that – it encourages people to live on and work those smaller lots that are sitting there useless. You can do a lot of things on a 40ha block other than broad scale grazing. Look at Bega, people producing organic eggs. The aim was to diversify agricultural production. Environment protection is done by legislation and that is done by the state government.”

Cr Pollock: “There has been blatant insinuation that throughout this process council has ignored submissions put forward … youwere involved virtually from day one, first as a cr and then representing people on the land. Would you like to comment on that assertion that people like the RFS have been ignored?”

Dance: “Rob, that’s nonsense. The things that come out of departments are driven by politics (The original) template was nonsense. The departments all work on the same basis. They put a carte blanche statement over everything, and it doesn’t fit all. It created a furore in this ocuncil and right up and down the eastern seabord. The job of crs and senior staffers is to point out these discrepancies and get it moulded … to ignore the advice, no they’re not, the answers to the department are reasoned and logical answers.”

Applause.

Cheryl Blessington, Narooma, RLS.

“My husband and I own rural land at Narooma. We work full time and live in the area. We approached cl about building on our land in 2009, that our 36 acre property, 8km from Narooma on a cl road, was not suitable for a dwelling. We want to raise a family on our property. We are passionate about self sustainability. We want to produce our own food, and pass these values on to our children. If we couldn’t live on our farm, how could we work there? In 2012 we were considering what to do with our property, whether to move out of the region and seek new opportunities. That is when we heard about the review. We made written submissions and participated in a community based forum in 2014. In good faith, we have waited for and worked with council since 2012. We understood there was a due process to be followed. We believe that process has been followed. It is very upsetting for me and family to see those who are trying to hinder the proposal in its final stages. I want to express my support for the council and getting this proposal implemented. I know there have been concerns ranged about clearing. I don’t believe this is an accurate perception of farmers in the areas – to balance growth with sustainability. One of the first things we did when we purchased our property was to plant trees – we continue to do so to this day. If we were given the opportunity to live on our property, we could do more bush fire mitigation work. We care for the environment. We just want the opportunity to live on our rural property. It’s my submission to you that you vote to have this proposal implemented without further delay.”

Cr Brown: “You have obviously been very patient – do you see yourself as being isolated, or do you have friends family and colleagues who are in the same position?”

Blessington: “Yes we do. I only recently heard about the opposition to the RLS. We thought it was just going through the process. We think there has been due process followed.”

Noel Plumb, NCA, RLS.

“The position of our alliance is this planning proposal should be withdrawn, it should be reviewed, because when we talk to people across the shire they are horrified. We really have to get fair dinkum. The expert agencies have strenuously objected for over three years to what cl has been proposing. I’m a land valuer, and I have an opinion as well, but do I put my opinion up next to an expert scientist? No I don’t. Within the space of a couple of month there are 1100 signatures opposing. The environment defenders office says they must be considered. That’s the first reason we want this withdrawn. The second reason is the whole thing  is essentially a complete and utter muddle. I heard at the last meeting one-for-one – that is simply not the  case. Someone riled up the farming community, they thought they were being dudded – they weren’t. These areas already had an over arching environmental protection. The community has got itself very divided. And what happened to RU2? RU2 would have been a very good solution instead of RU4. As a land valuer I can only come to the conclusion that is to create extra value for somebody.”

No extension.

Plumb: “You will not shut us up mayor, you will not shut us up.”

Cr Thomson: “Do you actually live her?”

Plumb: “I do, I live her part time and when I’m here I can forget about the city.”

Cr Tait: “Do you actually own land covered by this process?”

Plumb: “No, but I would ask the same question of all the councillors here and I happen to know that most of you do.”

Joanna Evans. RLS. Moruya Heads. BnB.

“I am here today to address you with concerns used to guide the development of the RLS. I did not receive a letter when this was going to be put on exhibition, yet rural land owners did. I consider it has favoured rural landowners. Cr Innes ran on a platform of getting rid of E3 zoning. The intent of E3 zoning is to protect and manage areas … under E3, houses are allowed with consent. RU1 zoning allows ‘exensive agriculture and home occupations are allowed without consent’. Ridding the shire of E3 protections is to the advantage of rural property owners at the expense of water quality. The state agencies have clearly pointed these issues out. The process of approval has been flawed. The public exhibition period was much to short. The movement for a deferral was refused despite strong public support. Consultations and briefings were held in confidence. The cl appears to have sent a letter to rural land owners, but not (other operators) or local residents. There is significant conflict of interest between these and other interests. What is this coast without its pristine waterways?”

Amanda Thomson. RLS. 

“Speaking on behalf of my family and rural land owners. Our family have been part of the consultation process since 2012. We’re 4^th generation farmers in our community. We have four primary production businesses in the region. We have 30 years in the essential oil industry, growing, harvesting and exporting. We have over 25 years of organic farming production experience to international standards. We have also worked in conjunction with CSIRO to improve living standards in Vietnam … We have over 20 years of experience of organic livestock production experience. We have 100 per cent focus on wholistic land management. In recent years our family business has diversified into organic production of eggs, poultry and pork. The community has absolutely embraced. Our vision for our community is to have vibrant, sustainable local industries contributing to sustainable food systems. We believe the LEP community consultation process has been thorough, effective and meaningful. We really have had time to express our views – it’s been six years in developing. I do believe the process was inclusive, it has involved a cross section. It was community focused, interactive and engaging. Recommendations were adopted and incorporated into the LEP. Particularly exciting is that the LEP supports the kind of farming that is driving tourism all around the world – small farms. Food trails – consumer driven farming that has a social conscience. Lets move forward with it.”

Cr Tait: “If this goes through you might be able to set up a workshop teaching people what farmers do to look after their land?”

Thomson: “Absolutely. I think there is a bit of a misconception that farmers don’t look after their land – farmers in this region are extremely environmentally conscious. We want our children to have a sustainable future. And I really think this LEP does it for us. The checks and balances are all there – but the opportunities are now immense. And that’s going to be profitable for all of us.”

Cr Innes: “I am going to move the following agenda item: Rural Lands Planning proposal.”

Seconded by Cr Brown.

Cr Mayne: “Move to committee of the whole.”

Carried. In committee of the whole. Cr Nathan has arrived.

Cr Pollock: “Question to director of planning – in proposals outlined, how many blocks would be directly adjacent to waterways?”

Lindsay Usher: “Don’t have exact number off the top of my head, bu the majority of those properties were 4km away.”

Cr Pollock: “Could I have your comment on the statement by a speaker on 100 blocks above the pumping station on the Tuross River. Could that be possible.”

Usher: “There is no subdivision possible in that area.”

Cr Pollock: “Across the shire, what is the potential number of additional lots?”

Usher: “Across the entire shire, potential for 120 lots, and 247 additional dwellings.”

Cr Pollock: “Clearing from steeply wooded slopes – could you explain procedures?”

Usher: “Majority of those areas are already cleared. Where the proposal – in terms of dwellings – there is NSW Govt legislation requirement for that to be assessed. Not LEP that concerns that, state legislation.”

Cr Brown: “A lot of speakers with glaring errors. One person saying cl permitting grazing in environmental areas. Can you explain the process here?”

Usher: “I think those comments were in regard to E2 zone. Number of claims made that Mr Plumb referred to that all E2 lands are available to be grazed. It does not apply to land identified as environmentally sensitive lands, including coastal estuaries, which removes the majority of those areas from grazing.”

Cr Innes: “Are they opened up to grazing, or currently allowed to be grazed?” 

Usher: “One of the issues that came about was wetlands not covered by state legislation – those areas having historically been used for grazing. The exemption was put in there to recognise existing use right.”

Cr McGinlay: “Would like to open debate if I could, because all I can see is Mr Usher putting forward a case in response to a heap of Dorothy Dix’s.”

Cr Polloc: “I believe Cr McGinlay owes an apology for his opening statement, for being accused of asking a series of Dorothy Dix’s that I believe were relevant to this issue.”

Cr Innes: “I am going to ask you to apologise so that we can get on with this.”

Cr McGinlay: “I have no problem apologising. Some of the commentary around grazing land and E2 – I note in the report there is an assumption that the fact that some people will be allowed to continue to graze on the E2, it’s not anticipated this will encourage farmers who do not have those rights to graze on wetlands. I’m not a farmer, but if I see a neighbour who has existing rights, I imagine I might think I can do that too now. So I imagine it would encourage firther grazing on wetlands. That kind of limiting further grazing would be countered by ongoing education and landcare activities – I think that’s a big assumption to make.”

Cr Innes: “What you’re talking about – removing existing use rights is a ;policy issue that should be debated at a state level. Because there has been an enormous amount of goodwill and work done. Until the government are serious about it and willing to put some dollars on the table to assist land owners, I think we will continue to struggle with those issues.”

Cr Mayne: “I think there has been a couple of really important points made today. We keep getting the comment that there is a professional disagreement between the staff of the Eurobodalla and these departments. I think it goes to the heart of why there is a perception in the community –  Jun 28 2018, RFS say they exist to protect life, property and the environment by discouraging incompatible land uses. They say that the planning proposal is not consistent with the above. Considers it should not proceed in its current form. Only in its current form. At the last meeting asked if we could hear from them face to face – all I wanted to do is hear from that peak body. Coming into bushfire season, do I just say, thanks very much? It would have been helpful to have those experts sit in the room. The latest letter we have from fisheries saying could we have another meeting please. I’m trying to discern through the facts – the farmers need to win, the community needs to win, the oyster farmers need to win. I find it very problematic to be asked to vote on this when that letter is siting there.”

Usher: “Not only do my professional planning staff, the independent planning consults, but the department of planning and the minister disagree with the RFS. They have basically said they oppose everything. A lot of these areas are already cleared land. We have views from a number of professional agencies – they are each looking with their own blinkers on. We have to look at all of those issues. There has been no discussion of the social and economic benefits – we have to consider those. We have not had any discussion about submissions we have received advocating for further subdivision.”

Cr Thomson: “This process has taken years. All views have been considered. I think it’s time to move forward.”

Cr Mayne: “My question is one of transparency. What impact does this change in process have in terms of transparency? Once a person starts a DA ball rolling, that cat is out of the bag. We may not even get to hear about it.”

Usher: “From a biodiversity OV, NSW Govt legislation requires application to be supported. No change in process and therefore no change in transparency.”

Cr Innes: “If there was going to be a change, that is a policy issue that should be debated at a state level.”

Cr Pollock: “Allegation made by last speaker that we had to consider every submission made up to and including today, because we did receive a number of pro forma submissions.”

Usher: “We’ve receive approx 300 copies of a form letter. I understand there has been some more this week. I received an email correspondence from Mr Plumb overnight. We consider all submissions receive up until report is finalised – but there were no new issues raised in those submissions. It’s not a vote process. The advice Mr Plumb  has received also confirms that cl must make a decision based on the merits of the issue.”

Cr Constable: “Just want to confirm that those submissions will go to the dept of planning?”

Usher: “Yes.”

Cr Constable: “Just want to clarify that what we do here is under state government legislation. The process is yet to be formalised by the state government. The dept of planning will be overseeing this process.”

Cr Mayne: “We play a significant role. We chose not to have E3. We choose to make significant changes to RU1. All this potential opens up, but I don’t know what it is. It’s not just about enabling farmers to get on with their lives – it’s about changing the landscape of this shire. And when developments occur and things change, people will ask who signed off on that? We mold this, and hand it off to the state. And there is a really significant change here. I think we had some great presentations today and some experts that put some important things on the table – are we meant to just vote, tic, move on? I think we do our community a disservice. We need to sit back and take a little bit more time.”

Cr Innes: “During the last months, has Cr Mayne taken up the opportunity to come and sit with you one on one and put these questions to you?”

Cr Mayne: “Point of order, could you have asked me this myself? Or before the meeting?”

Cr Innes: “You stand here and say ‘I don’t know the answers’, but you have not once taken the opportunity to afford the answers. I think that is extremely remiss of you as a cr not to take some of the opportunities that are offered to you as a cr over and above those in the community.”

Cr Mayne: “I did raise a matter, and I received fairly direct feedback in that meeting that was not encouraging to ask those questions, so I’ve been doing it here where I am elected to – I don;t know what the issue is with me doing my job as an elected cr.”

Cr Innes: “When you have the opportunity in a forum with your fellow crs it is an opportunity for open dialogue, and give them the chance to refute the accusations you have made publicly. And did you answer my question?”

Plumb: “That’s bullying madam mayor.”

Cr Mayne: “In preparation for this morning I did ring Mr Usher to let him know, because I did not want to ;grandstand – I spoke to the director to let him know that I would do that. I conceded that we had a response through the QON – to answer your question – yes madam mayor.”

Cr Constable: “Going to the heart of where Cr Mayne is coming from – it wasn’t looking at one for one zoning., it was like for like. I know that there is some angst associated with an allotment up at Mossy Point. I’m just curious as to what under the 1987 LEP that land has been designated as.”

Usher: “That property is currently zoned 1c with 2 ha lot size. The land which has the high ? values? is proposed to be zoned E2, and the smaller parcel of land would have the development on it. There is already development potential there as it stands.”

Cr Nathan: “Director Usher mentioned the hub – can he give an explanation of the hub and gives an indication of the homework we can do.”

GM: “It is a document sharing system, and a way to communicate great deals if information that crs can read prior to making a decision.”

Cr Nathan: “Is there any way of monitoring whether we read it or not, and how much we read?”

GM: “We could but we do not.”

Cr Tait: “Have you had any correspondence with our oyster farmers?”

Usher: “We had received a submission from the Clyde River oyster growers. I had a conversation with some growers who did not agree with that submission. I offered to have a meeting with the committee, we went through their issues and the proposal as it may impact on the Clyde River catchment. I received a letter from the quality assurance program saying they no longer had any issues,.”

Cr McGinlay: “One of the speakers said it was from 40 something to 80 something uses. One allowed function that interested me was exhibition homes and villages – when you look through a report that says it’s not to inhibit as there may be land adjoining that may be proposed to b rezoned at some point in the future from RU1 to residential. So when we talk about how many new lots we are creating, that';s just right now, and one of the things that concerns me is we are creating more small blocks adjoining residential areas that could lead to expansion in the future.”

Usher: “The purpose of an exhibition house – you have to have a dwelling permit already. Any proposal to allow subdivision in the future would have to go through the same process we are going through now.”

Back into normal council meeting.

Cr Brown: “I’d just like to thank all the people here, watching online and presenters. I would like to allay the fears – all submissions cl gets we all have opportunity to read them. How some clrs act in their role is up to them. We all have our own space – that’s democracy. There have been three seperate mayors and inexcess of 22 different crs sit around this room and make a decision. If anyone in this room disagrees with that decision, I’d encourage them to put their hand up for an opportunity in two years. Any decision made today is made by democratic process by crs acting in the best interests of their whole community.”

Cr Innes: “I am going to start of by recognising the many community members here tofay> I am so very proud of the behaviour and the conduct of members of my community. It has been a very passionate matter for both sides. It is never easy to enter into a debate in a public forum. I am very proud, and I congratulate you. This has been a very long and onerous process. I have absolute confiudence it has been inclusive. I have sat around the table and listened to all sides of the argument. When it is put to us that we are ignorning agencies and their concerns. I have sat at the tbalr for years with heads of departments. I have personally witnessed and engaged in open and frank dialogue with representatives of those agencies, members of the community and membe

very disappointed recently there has been a move to stall this process. A lot of the information has been prevented in a most unfortunate manner. When I hear people say they are getting their information from the greens, it comes as not surprise to me that the misinformation is coming from the greens. I have sat here and listened to you all day, and I ask for the same courtesy but that is not a courtesy that you would afford anyone else. (Mayor an Mr Plumb are shouting at each other). You are a bully Mr Plumb. The tactics that have been engaged in  I find reprehensible. This LEP has been well considered to allow use of farming lands. 75 per cent of our shire is part of national parks and state forest. Current legislation to protect areas continues to exist. This in passing today will hopefully allow landowners some certainty and to move into the future.” 

Carried by all except Mayne and McGinlay – against.