Here is an email sent out to a number of residents by Cr Laurie Smith:
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 4:32 PM
Subject: working / interest groups for the new town plan
I have sent you all this email to advise you that Jordana will send an email asking you if you would like to become involved with a working / interest group surrounding market gardens,agriculture.
Jordana has been and is heavily involved in developing the new Town Plan.
Attendance is not compulsory,this is an opportunity to have input / discussion whilst the plan is on notification and subject to further amendments.
COUNCILLOR FOR DIVISION 7
Assistant Chairperson for Roads & Water Infrastructure Committee
email@example.com I PO Box 3226 Logan City DC Qld 4114
LOGAN: Building Our Communities, Our Businesses and Our Pride
Well, thank God for that! ‘Attendance is not compulsory’! Is he serious? I doubt very much that any Council could make residents compulsorily attend! But this Headmasterish way of communicating is what we’ve come to expect.
Here is my response:
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: working / interest groups for the new town plan
Thankyou Laurie, appreciate that.
But I would like to point out that the residents have made their views on market gardens/agriculture known to Council many times already.
The Planning Dept’s decision on the Harvest Rd Material Change of Use acknowledged what we had to say in no uncertain terms in it’ reasons for refusal.
(Perhaps Jordanna might like to read all the submissions that were written in this case, 58 objections from such a small population really is a significant number. The entire history of this issue, going back 8 long years, and most of the submissions, are all available for anyone to read at safegreenbanknow.wordpress.com)
That’s why it’s so downright odd that Planning has now turned around and allowed two new Thompson Rd farms, even though they will pose exactly the same issues for neighbours as the one on Harvest Rd. And, despite ‘Amendment 1C’ to the BCC still being in discussion, it appears these new farms have been assessed as though 1C is already in effect – that is, no public notification, no DA required, ‘as of right’ use rights granted to anyone calling themselves a ‘farmer’, regardless of whether they follow the State Gov guidelines or not.
The talking has already been done. And done. And done again.
But yes, I will, reluctantly, come to any meetings to say the same things again.
But what I’d really like is for YOU, as our Councillor, to represent the views we’ve already made known.
Now the email from Council’s Planning Department:
Further to Councillor Laurie Smith’s email below, I would like to introduce myself.
I am currently leading a team to develop a new Planning Scheme for the City. The new scheme will provide one scheme for the entire city, rather than 3 (reflecting each of the former Local Government Areas, being Logan, Beaudesert and Gold Coast).
The effect of the new Planning Scheme will mean that Council will have a consistent position across the city (rather than 3) on all issues, including Market Gardens.
We are currently in the process of getting the draft Planning Scheme ready for Public Notification, which is due to commence on 3rd February 2014. Given that Market Gardens is the subject of much debate, we would like the opportunity to present and discuss with you how the new draft Planning Scheme deals with Market Gardens, and receive your feedback.
I do note that a number of you have made various submissions to Council about Market Gardens in the past, however, given that the new scheme deals with Market Gardens in a different manner to previous schemes, we would like to receive your feedback.
As such, we are planning to arrange a meeting in February to discuss this matter. One of the members of my team will be in contact in the next couple of weeks to arrange the meeting date. If you are not interested in being involved in the focus group, could you please let me know and I will remove you from the list.
In the meantime, if you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Jordanna Blanch | Program Leader – Strategic Land Use and Statutory Planning | Strategy and Sustainability Directorate | Logan City Council
Oh, lucky us! We’re being invited to the ‘not compulsory’ meetings because “the new scheme deals with Market Gardens in a different manner to previous schemes … we would like to receive your feedback.” Given the amount of time and effort expended by so many of us over many years, the hundreds of letters written to Council and State Government about this issue, and LCC’s continual attempts to demonise residents for daring to point out (and, shock, horror, FILM and post on YouTube) evidence of farming impacts such as wildlife death, I think it’s about time we were compensated for our time and effort. Reams of submissions already exist in LCC’s files about this matter and residents have made it abundantly clear what issues need to be addressed. Now we have to put in more unpaid hours to help the Planning department properly do their job? What’s a degree in Town Planning worth these days if they can’t read the existing submissions but need to hear it all again? (Here’s a hint, LCC. There are 58 submissions objecting to these businesses operating here on this very website, just go to the homepage and look at the top).
WHY ARE WE BEING ASKED TO ATTEND MORE TIME WASTING MEETINGS OVER THIS MATTER? IT SEEMS WE WILL HAVE TO ATTEND TO TRY TO PROTECT OUR LIFESTYLES AND PROPERTY VALUES FROM A COUNCIL THAT SEEMS DETERMINED TO TURN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD INTO ONE BIG INTENSIVE FARM.
BUT MY QUESTION IS, IF YOU NEED US TO TELL YOU ALL THIS AGAIN, THEN WHERE ARE OUR CONSULTANCY FEES?
OUR TIME IS MONEY TOO, LOGAN CITY COUNCIL!
And here is a letter of support for our position from Logan and Albert Conservation Association:
Thank you Laurie and Liz for your emails.
The Logan and Albert Conservation Association would like to endorse the concerns raised by Liz and we also support her comments about prior discussions and previous objections made by the community in relation to this matter. LACA has also previously been involved in discussions and writing objections inrelation to intensive horticulutre issues, especially in the vicinity of Thompson Rd. LACA is extremely concerned that yet again, the community is being asked to participate in community discussions, when it seems that prior concerns raised by the communtiy and LACA have not been taken seriously.
LACA echoes the concerns raised by Liz, in relation to the two ” new Thompson Rd approvals” – it is appaling that with LCC’s prior knowledge of the concerns raised by the community specifically in the Greenbank area, that LCC has approved these additional approvals without advertising these to the public. How can this be prevented in the future?
LACA’s Vice President, Kathy Faldt has been previously involved in BSC discussions in relation to concerns about intensive agriculture issues ( pre council amlgamations in 2008 ). Kathy has indicated her willingness now to be invovled in 2014 discussions. In the event of Kathy’s absence, I will be most willing to also be involved as the President of the Logan and Albert Conservation Association. LACA hopes that the concerns of the community will be adequately addressed in the future as concerns are expressed by Liz in relation to this matter that have obviously not been resolved to date. LACA has also previously expressed concerns in writing to LCC in relation to the matter of intensive agriculture as well.
Logan and Albert Conservation Association ( LACA)