Farmers’ furore over rates increase – Golden Plains Shire council briefs

ISSUES around rates increases proved to be a recurring topic during last week’s Golden Plains Shire council meeting.

Following a question time submission regarding increasing rate cap for the region, Cr Les Rowe broached the impact on the shire’s farmers during delegates’ reports.

He said many struggling agriculturalists will soon be presenting their grievances to the municipality following a meeting earlier this month.

“I attended a meeting with farmers of the Golden Plains Shire at Barunah Park [Public] Hall who are experiencing council rate bill shock, with some facing increases of up to over 200 per cent,” he said.

“Over 80 residents attended to object to the sharp increases of the rates following the recent State Government revaluation.

“The Golden Plains farmers agreed to develop a plan of action and will be contacting council shortly for a meeting with the CEO and the respective directors in relation to this matter.”

Cr Rowe said Golden Plains Shire’s rates differentiation hasn’t been equitable between residential and farming.

“As far as I’m concerned, this council has failed to use the differential rating power to equalise the rate increases across the different classes of land,” he said.

“Bannockburn residential rates have decreased by about five per cent as we know. An average 30 per cent rate increase is astronomical and incredibly unfair for local farmers.”

 

Strategy support sought

Councillors signed off for the CEO to look at funding to develop the Open Space Strategy following its exclusion from the 2024/25 budget.

The strategy will allow the municipality to include in the Golden Plains Planning Scheme the opportunity to generate extra funds through Public Open Space monetary or land contribution beyond the current five per cent default.

Cr Owen Sharkey spoke against the motion, and said the item didn’t need to come to council in a meeting.

“Any CEO’s job is to continually find budget savings,” he said. “We’re not being told where this $150,000 [to support the strategy] is coming from.

“I do not disagree this strategy is not important. [But] we’re putting the cart before the horse.

“This is up to the officers during the budget process to tell us how important this is. It wasn’t important enough a couple months ago. It was important a number of years ago.

“We shouldn’t need to bring this to a council meeting when we know it was important.”

Acting director of community planning and growth Emma Wheatland said the decision whether to allocate funds from the budget to implement the strategy would be down to council.

“The redirection of funds would only occur where cost of savings have been redirected in the budget,” she said.

“It wouldn’t be redirecting funds without consultation with council however if cost savings were identified in yearly or half-yearly reviews, we’d be looking to use those funds for this strategy as a first priority.”

Cr Gavin Gamble asked for a future report on the topic of other plans put on ice during the budget cycle to be presented to council at a later meeting.

The motion passed with councillors Sharkey, Rowe, and Ian Getsom voting against.

 

Developer-councillor register requested

Cr Gamble brought forward a motion calling for the development of a contact register between developers and councillors to be looked into.

He said it would be a go-to document informing everyone around the chain of contact regarding property development.

“It would provide guidance to councillors, property developers, council officers, and the public as to what are appropriate and inappropriate interactions,” he said.

“This notice of motion is in keeping with high-level recommended best practice and has already been enacted by a significant number of councils.”

Cr Sharkey voted against the motion, and said it mirrored an item brought to council three years ago.

“All you need to do is go back to the agenda for 21 February and you’ll find the report you’re suggesting,” he said.

“This has already come to council where we voted on it unanimously… Now for some reason, we’re asking officers to bring forward a report we’ve already gotten and read.”

Cr Rowe said a future report “is not feasible” given the upcoming council election.

The motion passed with councillors Sharkey, Rowe, and Getsom voting against.

 

Lot amendments asked for

A submission towards the Minister for Planning to approve an amendment to rezone land at Bannockburn’s Ormond Street from farming to residential was passed by council.

Made on behalf of the landowners of 5, 20, 25, and 30 Ormond Street, the amendment would allow for the lots to be subdivided.

Cr Helena Kirby said the additional land would be a boon for the growing town.

“There’s a lack of housing available in Bannockburn,” she said.

“There’s only a supply of four years whereas this would extend it to about eight years until Bannockburn South comes on board and Bannockburn West.

“This is a good initiative from those residents.”

The motion was carried unanimously.