Mitchell Shire Council Endorses Landscape Assessment Study with Last-Minute Amendments Aimed at Placating Farmer Concerns

 Note: This report is based on observations and notes taken during the meeting; please see the disclaimer at the end for more details as well as a link to Council’s video recording which has just become available.

On August 19, 2024, Mitchell Shire Council voted to endorse the Landscape Assessment Study (LAS or Study), which sets the framework for introducing new Significant Landscape Overlays (SLOs). These overlays will impose additional permit requirements on 58,000 acres of farmland. The endorsement was passed subject to several last-minute amendments read out verbally, including modifications to native vegetation provisions, exemptions for farm sheds, balancing rural amenity with agricultural objectives, additional consultation to include specific farming-aligned groups, and the introduction of an impact assessment. Despite these eleventh-hour concessions, which were introduced without direct consultation, significant concerns remain about whether these conditions will be implemented effectively, given the flawed nature of the process and the resulting three volumes of the LAS. While four councillors voted to endorse the Study with these conditions, three councillors voted against the motion, with two expressing serious concerns about endorsing the LAS without fully implementing the key new amendments.

Meeting Overview

Twenty-four Protect Our Farms members and supporters gathered outside Council chambers, wearing green caps reading “Protect Our Farms” and holding placards with messages like “Poorly Designed SLOs Destroy Farming Livelihoods” and “Mitchell Council: Protect Our Farms.” Shortly before 7:00 PM, the group entered the chamber together and filled the gallery.

Just before 8:00 PM, the meeting moved to Item 9.1: Endorsement of the Landscape Assessment Study. Cr. Chisholm excused himself from the room due to a conflict of interest, as he owns land affected by a proposed SLO.

Key Proceedings

The recommended motion from the council papers was:

THAT Council:

1. Endorse the Landscape Assessment Study Volumes 1-3 (Attachments 1-3).
2. Proceed with preparing the statutory documentation to implement the Landscape Assessment Study Volumes 1-3 into the Mitchell Planning Scheme via a future Planning Scheme Amendment.
3. Write to all stakeholders and interested parties with a project update and acknowledge their contribution to the preparation of the Landscape Assessment Study Volumes 1-3.

Instead of moving the motion as presented, Cr. Fiona Stevens introduced two alternate motions, both lengthy. She explained that one was to endorse the LAS with a range of “subject to” conditions, and the other was to defer the decision until those same new conditions were addressed.

The new conditions were read out, and Cr. Stevens also spoke in support of them. It was challenging to differentiate between the new conditions and her commentary, but based on the notes taken by Protect Our Farms members, the new conditions attached to the endorsement include:

• Native Vegetation Exemptions: Modifying the SLO’s native vegetation provisions to cross-reference exemptions for regrowth as outlined in Clause 52.17 of the Mitchell Planning Scheme.
• Agricultural Buildings: Introducing a permit exemption for sheds directly related to agricultural activities to avoid Council dictating shed sizes.
• Benchmarking Building Controls: Aligning building controls with those in other areas, though it is unclear how this relates to the permit exemption referenced.
• Balancing Rural Amenity and Agriculture: Amending the SLO objectives clause to recognise rural amenity and the vital role of agriculture.
• Impact Study: Initiating an impact study to better understand how these changes would affect farmers.
• Broadened Consultation: Engaging with groups such as Landcare and the VFF that have strong links to farmers.

There was no paper copy of Cr. Stevens’ lengthy alternate motion available, leaving those in the gallery to rely on verbal summaries. 

5:52pm 20/8/24: One of our members has taken screenshots from Council’s video of the meeting showing the amended motion as it was displayed on the livestream. A link is provided below. We are yet to be provided with the wording in a format that is easier to review and analyse.

Outcome of the Vote

After a lengthy debate, the motion to endorse the LAS with conditions passed 4-3. Cr. Cornish, Cr. Lowe, and Cr. Eldridge voted against the motion, expressing strong concerns about moving forward without fully resolving key issues. Cr. Lowe warned that endorsing the study ahead of the new conditions being addressed could create a “hostage to fortune” situation and added that councillors owed it to everyone to sort out the issues before endorsing. Cr. Stevens argued that endorsement was the faster route, as deferral would add time to the process and require new councillors to be brought up to speed. Cr. Stevens, Cr. Sanderson, Cr. Clark, and Cr. Goble voted to endorse the study subject to Cr. Stevens’ amendments.

Immediate Reactions

The result represents a small step forward for affected farmers. While Council finally made some important amendments after months of pressure, they did so unilaterally without directly engaging with us or seeking input on the amendments.

The amendments seem to address concerns highlighted by Protect Our Farms during our August 15 presentation to more than 50 people at Glenaroua Landcare. The presentation was recorded and has been viewed more than 2,000 times since being released on our website and Facebook page. However, every concern raised in that presentation had already been documented to Council’s planning staff multiple times, both in writing and verbally, yet was disregarded until significant public pressure mounted. Even now, Council has responded primarily to issues that have received recent public attention, ignoring others raised in earlier submissions.

Despite Protect Our Farms’ genuine desire to work with Council, clearly articulated during the Glenaroua Landcare presentation, there has been no outreach or collaboration. Instead, Council made last-minute amendments to the motion based solely on what they deemed necessary, contradicting weeks of their own statements “assuring” farmers they should not be concerned. Council then pushed through the endorsement—effectively rubber-stamping in advance whatever actions may be taken to implement the new amendments.

At one point, there was even confusion among councillors about what they were voting on and what it meant, highlighting the problematic nature of endorsing something subject to such extensive and convoluted amendments.

Analysis and Initial Thoughts

While the amendments are a significant first step, the process leaves much to be desired. Council has taken a band-aid approach by addressing only the most publicised concerns without genuinely engaging with those most affected. It remains to be seen whether Council is truly open to working with a grassroots community group like Protect Our Farms or simply trying to placate the issue and move it along. Given the endorsement, there is a risk that these amendments to the LAS recommendations (including the SLOs) could be implemented superficially without real accountability.

Public statements by Council over the past three weeks have consistently minimised farmers’ concerns. The lack of direct consultation leading up to the meeting further erodes trust. While the multiple apologies and admissions from Cr. Goble on Thursday evening that the process was mishandled were welcomed by many members, the backdrop of broken trust makes it difficult to gauge whether these efforts are genuine or simply election positioning.

What Happens Next

While we are yet to review the video of the meeting and the wording of the motion that was passed, our understanding is that Council endorsed the planning team to start a new process of engagement and make necessary changes before preparing the statutory documentation to implement the Landscape Assessment Study—subject to the new amendments—into the Mitchell Planning Scheme via a future Planning Scheme Amendment. We expect this process to take approximately two years in total and for there to be multiple opportunities for the voices of those most affected by the proposed SLOs to be heard.

We will be contacting Council’s team directly to request that they work and engage with us on these matters. We will closely monitor the process to ensure the promised amendments are implemented thoroughly and that farmers are not subjected to further bureaucratic hurdles. Moving forward, Protect Our Farms is organised and ready to work with Council to secure fair outcomes for farmers, as well as to hold Council accountable at every step.

The 11th-hour changes to the endorsement highlight the power of a united community. The constant pressure applied by Protect Our Farms members and supporters made a difference, forcing Council to make these concessions. Several councillors referenced the ongoing stream of emails and phone calls they had been receiving from concerned community members. Well done to all our members and supporters for voicing your concerns. Thank you!

Last night was just the beginning. The campaign will continue to demand fair treatment and real consultation for those who will be most impacted by the proposed SLOs.