Friends
of Nillumbik asked Council: Friends of Nillumbik is concerned by abuses of the 10/30 rule where the Shire's rules on vegetation clearance can be circumvented by claiming 10/30 for reasons unrelated to bushfire risk or in inappropriate cases such as near buildings not used for accommodation. A test case mounted by Council has found the law unwilling to convict. To help avoid illegal clearing in the first place, would Council consider ensuring that employees of local tree removal companies are aware of their responsibilities and fully understand the Shire's rules and the limitations on clearing under the 10/30 rule, by using an informal education program or other strategy? Ransce Salan, General Manager Environment and Planning, responded: Council actively campaigned for changes to these provisions and following a Council resolution of November 2010 correspondence was sent to the Minister for Planning expressing Council’s concerns. Officers do explain the provisions when questions are raised by applicants and contractors or when officers go onto sites to investigate complaints. Council has also prepared a number of flyers in relation to vegetation removal and will continue to work with both applicants and contractors to ensure that their responsibilities in relation to the 10/30 rule are understood. Friends of Nillumbik asked Council: A supporter has requested that Friends of Nillumbik put the following question. On March 31 2008 Jenny Macklin, the Federal Member for Jagajaga, said, “The Rudd Labour Government will be honouring our election commitments, including the commitment to support the establishment of a childcare centre in Hurstbridge”. This statement is in line with her statements during the 2007 election. However, all references to funding in the answers to questions at the Community Forum state that “Funding......is for the new Hurstbridge Family Centre and is for a single site integrated centre”. This suggests that the Federal Government, at some stage after March 31 2008, must have changed the criteria for the promised funding to something along the lines of “the funding is now to be for a new Hurstbridge Family Centre which is to be a single site integrated centre”. Friends of Nillumbik ask when, how and why did the Federal Government inform Council that the commitment made by Jenny Macklin was to be changed and in fact expanded? Clem Gillings, General Manager Community and Leisure, responded: Funding and project completion expectations that apply to this project require that an available site be identified within a specified timeframe, and that a suitable concept plan be developed with community and stakeholder input. That is the process currently being undertaken and informed by a large and representative community and stakeholder advisory group. Friends of Nillumbik asked Council: If Council were unable to find the required funding to bridge the "Hurstbridge Hub" shortfall gap, would Council consider asking the State and Federal Governments to reconsider and amend the criteria for the funding from “...single site integrated centre” to “...integrated centre on two related sites within the same precinct”? Clem Gillings, General Manager Community and Leisure, responded: Council regards the provision of quality early years and family support facilities to be amongst their highest priorities and is committed to the commissioning of a cost effective design appropriate to the site and then identifying a responsible funding strategy to see the project delivered. Council’s Early Years Strategy identifies integrated service provision as the preferred approach for future facilities provision in Nillumbik. Friends of Nillumbik asked Council: Based on answers to questions raised at the Community Forum, it appears that both the State and Federal Governments have linked the funding to “A single site integrated Family Centre”. On the other hand, Pam Regan of the Murdoch Institute has stated at community meetings that it does not have to be a single site and that “...the hub could be a walking hub within the precinct”. It is clear that a single site will cost significantly more than a 'walking hub'. It is also clear that the creation of the single site will cause significant disruption. Given the extra expense and the disruption, we would expect that there would have been a cost/benefit analysis, and that such an analysis would demonstrate conclusively that the single site model would provide incomparable benefits over the walking hub model, sufficient to justify the extra expense. Has Council conducted such an analysis, and has Council been able to place a monetary value on the benefits which will flow from the single site model? Clem Gillings, General Manager Community and Leisure, responded: Site availability issues and Council and State Government endorsed policy positions on future early years infrastructure design and provision are the influencing factors in the decision to proceed with a single site integrated concept development. A number of respected research papers confirm the advantages to children and families of integrated service sites, and such benefits are measured in many ways beyond simply monetary values. |