Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Sheet1 - South Gippsland Shire Council


									                                                          Sustainability Str
Ref Submitter                 Organisation   received
 1 Wilma Western, Leongatha   Leongatha       1/18/2011

 2 Shirley Westaway, Foster   Foster         1/22/2011

 3 Julia Lomas, GSHS          GSHS           1/31/2011
4 Ashley Hall     DSE   3/1/2011

5 Meg Parkinson   VFF   2/28/2011
6 Gil & Meredith Freeman   Grow Lightly            2/28/2011

7 Lillian Brittain         Leongatha               2/28/2011
                           Horticultural Society

8 Michelle Merange         Uniting Care            2/23/2011
9 Kate Ferguson            Walkerville             2/23/2011

10 Greg Hunt               SECCCA                   2/28/2011

11 Greg Hatt               Gippsland Ports         2/28/2011
12 Paul Norton     Leongatha North   2/28/2011
13 Melanie Smith   Gipps Dairy        3/1/2011
14 Steve Finlay   3/8/2011
                  Sustainability Strategy Submissions and Actions
Detail Summary of submission content
With regard to Council‟s aim of adopting cost-effective renewable energy strategies, one assumes the installation of
inexpensive switches to cut stand−by energy, and the purchase of green energy as compared with the installation of
solar panels on certain council buildings would be examined on their merits.
Concerned that the funding of a 'sustainable living guide' to be linked to council's website is not another attempt to
reinvent the wheel as there are surely already several of these available from state or national organisations.
Concerned about the difficulty in getting household items repaired in this disposable society – the whole shire has
about two businesses currently providing repairs to washing machines,
refrigerators, ovens, etc. More of these businesses should be encouraged − they could be as
significant to sustainability as the 'new green' businesses that have trendier appeal. Accessibility of apprenticeships
and local TAFE courses are relevant to these strategies.

Hopefully new rural planning and settlement strategies will curtail ad hoc residential development ,of which there has
already been too much in this shire, and so− called farm zone tourist development ( mostly short stay
accommodation ) which would be more sustainably located in townships.
Section 3 on a sustainable economy makes the point that 'there are major opportunities for distributed renewable
energy systems'. The reference to increased Shire income from sustainable agriculture and processing is puzzling
unless it refers to new processing plants which would increase rate income.
The peak oil section claims that brown coal dust "biomass" could substitute for fossil fuel− and mineral− based
fertilisers. It should be noted that they rely on misinterpretation of the impacts of peak oil and a lack of understanding
of all the nutrients required by crops and pasture plants and supplemented by modem fertilisers.
Only about 5% of the global consumption of natural gas is due to the production of nitrogenous fertilisers. Detailed
advice on optimum conditions and timing of application, cost−effectiveness etc of various types of nitrogenous
The references to 'biofertilisers' and the use of brown coal as fertiliser
fertilisers is available from GippsDairy and experienced farm subsititute for conventional
mineral− based fertilisers are of questionable validity. It is truly ironic that a sustainability strategy based largely on
reducing GHG emissions should advocate certain questionable 'agricultural advantages' hawked by associates of the
would− be coal entrepreneurs.

In the final section of the strategy, one action listed is the formation of a West Gippsland branch of the Public
Transport Users' Association. I took part in a workshop organised by the shire , and was in the group discussing this.
We could not understand the advantage to South Gippsland of being in a West Gippsland group given the huge
disparity in provision of public transport between the two regions. The public transport we have should be better
monitored and promoted, and the case for rail should be realistically promoted with backup from high volume freight
Submission not relevant to startegy. She has concerns about tree growing to large and being a danger to houses
around the Stockyard creek area.
Strategies: 1.5.2, 2.1.7 – if Council‟s objective is to promote an increase in walking & cycling then adequate &
appropriate infrastructure should be a major consideration (not just focusing on public transport options) and 6.1.5
The 3 strategies listed are intrinsically connected & relate to the principals of „Active by Design‟ when planning,
reviewing the MSS plus requires a whole of Council focus on investment into community infrastructure for improving
walking & cycling pathways. The Shire could improve its focus on securing funds (internal & external) for walking &
cycling pathways to improve community infrastructure and ultimately improve community capacity and health
Strategies: 2.1.11 – specifically community and home gardens, 2.1.12 – specifically community kitchens &
community meals and 2.1.13 – link with PCP & Health promotion agencies. These 3 strategies are a mixture of
Health Promotion outcomes. It should be integral to have PCP Health Promotion and Health Promotion Partner
Agencies involved in these strategies as “Partners”. The Dept of Health already funds agencies to deliver health
promotion strategies & programs identical to those outlined in your plan. The focus should be on minimizing the
duplication of existing service delivery & fostering cooperation between agencies where possible to achieve
Strategy: 1.2.2 This could potentially have a cost implication directly to Gippsland Southern Health Service and other
agencies as procuring food & other produce is a carefully considered and high cost exercise. Has this been factored
as requiring discussion with the relevant agencies?
The strategy makes a good start but is full of parenthood statements without any real discussion or concrete ideas as
to how the objectives will be achieved. There needs to be greater acknowledgement of the need for benchmarking
and the establishment of Key Performance Indicators; as well as discussion as to why the various initiatives are to be
undertaken – ie what will they achieve, who will they benefit and how will we get there.
The strategy does not mention or reference in any way the indigenous community or the importance of cultural
heritage to South Gippsland
In the tables outlining the key Strategies, projects and programs, the strategy would benefit from the inclusion of an
extra column that flags the potential benefits – ie why has this initiative been included in the Sustainability Strategy
and who could reasonably expect to benefit from its success.
The Strategy places significant expectations and burdens on agencies and organisations outside the South
Gippsland Shire Council. While there is an acknowledgement of this fact, there should be greater clarity around what
the Shire is prepared to act on without any external funding being made available.
Referencing – the strategy includes an extensive bibliography (appendix 3), but it unclear throughout the body of the
document which information (statistic etc) is being sourced from which reference document

• Page 7, Initiative 1 – needs to make reference to benchmarking – ie a reduction in 20% from what figure? The year
of 2021 is not consistent with 2020 which is used in the vision and 1.1.3 (page 11)
• Page 8 & 9 – The planning process does not appear to include any sort of feedback loop. While there is some
discussion around the Sustainability Team developing an Action Plan containing KPI, there is no indication as to how
this feeds back into the strategy, allowing for its review. There is also no indication of whether the Action Plan, or any
review of the Sustainability Strategy will be subject to a community engagement process.
• Page 10, 4th paragraph – Is sustainability a destination?• Page 10, Opportunities – under the first dot point change
looked to viewed, and under the fifth dot point change environmental to environmentally.
• Page 11, 1.1.5 – it is unclear as to what is meant by (net gain) renewable energy strategies.
• Page 15, 1.5.6 – the wording and intent is unclear.
• Page 16, 1st paragraph – from where are the statistics relating to volunteering and the continued growth of the
Shire, derived
• Page 20, 1st paragraph – what is the reference that supports the claim that we are the „early stages of a major
growth wave?‟
• Page 20 – headings are required for the columns of text under „Global sustainability transition drivers.‟
• Page 20, Opportunities – why does the development of Barry Beach Port represent an opportunity and not a
• Page 24, Challenges – explain why and how lifestyle farmers place pressure on high quality agricultural lands.
• Page 26, 1st paragraph – who identified management of weeds as one of the highest priority challenges for the
• Page 29, 4th paragraph – to whom or what is the Shire more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change?
• Page 29, Peak Oil – need to include a reference for the information being cited. Also, need to include „there are‟

Page 4. 3 line- What is meant by tall tree forest- maybe just say forests or refer to them as their classification
Page 5. first 4 lines too wordy saying the same thing twice.
Page 9. 2nd line- Are you talking about the community and the shire- needs better clarification
Page 13. Suggestion- Plastic bag free town- maybe Tidal river ( iconic)
Page 18. 2.1.7- link into the “fit for life” program
2.1.11- investigate the use of a council park to become a community garden and or orchard- maybe get new people,
less fortunate or migrants to take up the community gardens
Page 24- Another challenge is to revitalise land care groups. Opportunity- Engagement of City people out into the
country- Farm stay, or have a “Sister Suburb”- based upon the sister cities but with real opportunities to get them out
Page 25. 4.1.2- No mention of the welfare of the animals that is talked about.
Executive summary: The original principles are listed. The second round priciples have now been agreed and the
community should be aware of these
Pg. 10 end of second paragraph. The document needs to make it clear that the survey was not a statistcally valid
survey and was filled in by people who self-selected not who were randomly choosen.
1.3.5 Add at end: Cost of EPA regulations to be considered.
Add 1.3.9 Investigate the use of all resources entering the waste stream, particularly at SGSC Transfer Stations, for
use in agriculture (e.g. potential for biochar), fuel production (e.g. biofuels), and recycled materials (glass, metal, ...)
and a potential partner in this is the EICo-op
Add 2.1.17 Investigate the establishment of electric vehicle charging stations in public car parking areas, in our main
population centres: e.g. Korumburra, Leongatha, Meeniyan, Fish Creek, Foster and Mirboo North. Partner is EICo-op
Add 4.1.5 Investigate and promote the alternatives in fuel use for agriculture (e.g. electric drive) as a way of dealing
with increasing fuel/energy costs – partner EI Co-op
Add a Challenge in the 2 section (Building Resilient etc) - Caring for the needs of the at-home elderly in transport,
food , health care and energy
Throughout the Strategy much more than equal billing is given to climate change, sea level rises and peak energy
than to people. There is no plan for population growth
Council is using climate change and energy which we have little hope of influence to avoid dealing with long-term
development issues, which are an actual Council responsibility. If ever there was a time to make a move on
population and development issues, it is in this Strategy right here and now.
One constructive change would be an amendment allowing a one-time excision for a second home on agricultural
properties. This could help retain young people and thus encourage more generations of farmers to stay on the land.
It is my sense that there would be more interest from the general public if the Strategy loudly discussed requirements
for new subdivisions, as opposed to so strenuously touting 'Transition Towns'
Sloppy presentation
Pg. 6 The list of partners would be headed by Landcare, not the Gippsland Climate Change Network. Who are they?
Alsop the SGSDA seems to be a mighty important partner, cropping up throughout the Strategy. Who are they?
The ultimate Strategy must include full information about these small special interest groups: their credentials and
those of the people who lead them. A lot of flakes thrive in the fringes of forward-looking organisations. Council
must make it clear that all their partners are sound and credible.
Important though it is, the South Gippsland Shire Council has no-one who justifies an 'Executive Summary'. This
concept was created for tycoons like Rupert Murdoch. What has been produced is an 'Introduction'
This introduction is not well written, and the same applies to the Vision and most of the text sections.
Vision should be: South Gippsland aims to be a leader in the successful transition to a sustainable low carbon
economy and society through a series of collaborative actions, with partnerships between sectors and organistaions,
and built on the baser of twenty-eight strong and resilient communities.
Sustainable leaders program for young people and the community. This would be a great oppourtunity for young
people to be involved in positive change and sustainability
Pg. 20 Sustainable Economy. Change the oppourtunities about barry Beach to: Lobbying against the Barry Beach
port development. Reasons being: This facility will further facilitate fossil fuel use: oil extraction & potentially coal
exports, for private profit. Use & maintenance of the port threatens Corner Inlet environment & Ramsar Wetland.
Insert the following Strategies: 3.1.10 Develop canoe/k ayak paddling “trail” (2 – 3 days?) along Tarwin River, from
Meeniyan to Tarwin Lower, (with small basic campsites only accessible by boat)
3.1.11 Advocate for bicycles to be carried by Vline bus services, to facilitate patronage of Rail Trail by visitors to
South Gippsland & the associated sustainable tourism benefits, as well as to facilitate sustainable travel behaviour of
3.1.12 Give greater role to Koonwarra (Victoria's 1st Waste Wise Town) as model of a sustainable community, and
maximise on its existing reputation/profile
Reasons: The only other formal paddling trails in Victoria are on the Murray & Glenelg Rivers. Fantastic opportunity
for Shire to host/promote increasingly popular nature-based recreation with close proximity to Melb.
5.1.16 Provide greater opportunities for funding to wildlife carers/shelters. Very little support is available to carers
(who finance their own shelters), with stiff competition for DSE grants & limiting application criteria for Shire's
Some grammatical changes required.
Pg. 5 Suggests removing detailed description of consultation process and rewording with shorter generalised
comment. Eg … a broadly representative process that elicited a comprehensive expression of community views….
Pg. 10 Opportunities need to be reworded to bring in common language. Some other minor grammatical/ wording
Pg. 22 Remove or reword CSA has a 2.6 economic…… it is currently a statement not an opportunity. Some other
minor rewording of opportunities.
General comment that Implmentation / Actions table to have second column heading renamed as they are not really
"strategies". Perhaps an alternative name could be Strategic Actions???
Pg. 29 Asks why we are more vulnerable to impacts of climate change. Compared with what?? Some other minor
Consideration and reference be made to sustainable port and waterway development linking with your Councils
economic development objectives e.g. 1.2.1 Sustainable Transport Connections
Unsure what his comments mean please read attached document
There is no scientific evidence to support the implication in the draft strategy that alternative farming methods are
better than the best practice and traditional fertiliser methods used by most Gippsland dairy farmers.
GippsDairy would like to see a further clear distinction made in the final document between the effect of using
traditional fertilisers on the environment according to best practice, and the potential problems associated with
sourcing the materials to produce these fertilisers into the future. They are two distinct issues under the general
Further , the dairy industry remains the major economic contributor to the local economy. Any strategy introduced
that rewards/encourages the use of alternative agricultural practices, at the expense of current best practice, will
have a negative impact on the viability of many farm businesses and a negative flow on effect on the local economy;
this income and production impact is very unlikely to be covered by any increased “green” tourism or the use of
We encourage the Shire to commission some economic modelling by reputable independent experts, to quantify the
impact on production levels and profitability of the use of compost and alternative biological fertilisers on commercial
scale dairy farms (and other agricultural enterprises) before making this a major platform of change within the
The South Gippsland Climate Change Network, the South Gippsland Local Food Network, the South Gippsland
Sustainable Development Alliance and the Gippsland Sustainable Agricultural Network have prominence in several
areas of the document, as organisations with whom the Shire will liaise and assist in promoting. Given that they are
an intrinsic part of the Strategy, the Shire needs to ensure that the organisations to which it is linked are credible and
representative of all Shire residents. They cannot be small interest groups with wide ranging influence. It is important
that the strategy is not seen to be a small select group of people telling the majority that they know what is best for
In “Our Vision”: “...being a global leader in sustainable agricultural systems for temperate climates...” needs defining.
GippsDairy would argue that best practice modern dairy farming is a sustainable agricultural system.
In “Executive Summary”: “...A full taxonomy of best practice was developed based on benchmarking of best practice
of 20 other Councils...” (P.5) This is very wordy and what does it really mean? What were the key areas of best
practice? How many of these councils were rural? Should agricultural industries or the DPIV be involved in identifying
best practice? They have worked on it for decades and have lots of helpful information.
“Farmers could typically grow crops currently grown in the Murray Darling Basin, which is being affected by climate
change...” Details are needed about what crops and what land type. What would the crops replace? Do we actually
have the same growing environment? GippsDairy is happy to share its fact sheets developed with Dairy Australia,
CSIRO, and the Bureau of Meteorology detailing how climate change is affecting different growing regions in
Community Supported Agriculture “...has a 2.6 economic multiplier according to the New Economic Foundation...”
Who is the New Economic Foundation? Need details about the underpinning theories of the calculation to show how
the figure was derived. For instance, is it simply a multiplier of $10,000 or $100,000?
“Sustainable economy”: This is a fundamental objective of the strategy and yet remains undefined. When one reads
a statement such as “we need to ensure we do not get stuck in a less profitable and more resource and energy
intensive and less efficient economy” there needs to be clear definition of the terms profitable, energy intensive, and
CSA ...”provides generally more nutritious food” (P.22) This is a contentious statement without scientific basis and
“...Rural Strategy to protect high value agricultural lands and to facilitate development of tourist business in
appropriate areas in rural parts of the Shire...”P14. This seems a strange mix of strategies in one sentence. Should
the promotion of tourism in rural areas be removed and included as a separate strategy? As it is, it suggests a lack of
understanding about the complexity and contentiousness of the issue of “protecting high value agricultural land”.
Given that it is such an important issue to the landowners/dairy farmers in the Shire, GippsDairy also feels that it
Given the importance of agriculture to the Shire economy, it should be better represented in the section “Sustainable
Economy”. The “Strategies” section as part of this major topic only refers to “value adding” of agricultural products.
There is a separate section called “sustainable agriculture” further on but it receives the same amount of page space
as “community supported sustainable agriculture”. There seems to be imbalance.
P20. “...Escalating energy costs affecting viability of business and agriculture...” Modelling of future potential energy
costs has not indicated at this stage that it will affect the viability of agricultural businesses.
The inclusion of the “multiplier effect for Community Supported Agriculture”. (P 22). It is suggested that this be
removed or the multiplier effect for traditional agriculture also be included.
P24 of the document lists under „Opportunities‟ - “Opportunities for tree and soil carbon sequestration.” This is
misleading as research indicates that there is little opportunity to improve soil carbon levels in South Gippsland
further as the fertile and high producing soils are already at near maximum soil carbon content. Our cool climate
favours the retention of organic matter and the majority of dairy farms retain perennial pastures, which result in
increased soil organic carbon levels. GippsDairy can provide supporting evidence of this if required.
P 24: An opportunity to be included may be “Continue to promote industry recognised best management practices
and business management skills within the agricultural sector.”
P 29: The negative effects of climate change have been highlighted but current DPI/CSIRO modelling has suggested
that winter pasture growth rates may be higher and summer pasture growth rates lower - it is not all negative for
agriculture. This could be included as an opportunity.
GippsDairy suggests that prior to, or simultaneously with, the launch of a final document, all collaborative partners,
together with the media and Shire Councillors, have a forum to clearly explain what the strategy means and does not
mean. This may avoid miscommunication and alienation of some sectors of the community.
Little value in it for we ratepayers
Don't need to be a leader in this field (state and federal government already spending millions)
If adopted will cost a million dollars a year
ons and Actions
         Actions to address submission   Approval   Document Link
                                                    SD 11 676 Shire Sustainability Strategy -
                                                    Submission and Comment - Wilma Western

                                                    RE Sustainability Strategy Exhibition - Submissions
                                                    Julia Lomas Coments.htm
Ashley Hall DSE.htm

Meg Parkinson VFF.msg
Gil and Meredith Freeman.htm

Lillian Brittain.msg

Michelle Merange Uniting Care Comments.htm
Kate Ferguson.htm

Greg Hunt SECCCA.pdf

Gippsland Ports SD 11 2242.pdf
Paul Norton SD 11 2299.pdf
Skye please add link

To top