WEDNESDAY’S Southern Grampians Shire Council (SGSC) meeting laboured at length through a planning permit application with one councillor taking issue with the potential for a risky precedent to be set concerning funding for major projects.

The application for the proposed mental health service centre at 122-124 Lonsdale Street was presented by SGSC Wellbeing, Planning and Regulation director, Rory Neeson, detailing the $5 million facility comprising “six consulting rooms, office spaces, back of house areas, a sensory garden and a parking lot with access by St. Mary’s Lane”.

The laneway became a point of contention during the ensuing discussion, after Mr Neeson explained the council-owned road would need considerable work for the application to go ahead, and council would be entering into a 50/50 arrangement with the state-funded health service to fund the estimated $200,000 required, with their share capped at $100,000.

“The applicant has communicated to council that the cost of the upgraded laneway may prohibit the project from proceeding due to budgetary constraints,” Mr Neeson said.

“To help facilitate the development and recognising that this laneway will help provide benefits for future developments in this area of town, council has prepared an option for council in the payment condition.”

However, councillor, Bruach Colliton raised a series of questions in relation to the funding.

“Have we ever financially contributed to conditions of a planning permit before?” he asked.

Mr Neeson said this hadn’t happened in his time (eight months) in the position.

“But I would say that across Victoria or the councils I was previously at, there definitely has been contribution by the council recognising that whether it’s economic benefits or social benefits that does provide, so I can’t answer for (prior to) my time here, but it is something that does occur,” he said.

A few minutes later, Cr Colliton still took issue with the nature of the funding.

“Just for the interest of those listening - the applicant is a state-funded public health service and the project is over $5 million, yet they’re refusing to pay $200,000 for part of the conditions of their permit - is that the gist of it?” he asked.

Mr Neeson affirmed, “you are correct in making those statements”.

Councillor, Katrina Rainsford defended the project as something “our community has been desperate for many, many years” and added the money was “a very small contribution from the ratepayers of our shire to get this service up and running”.

“Not only in terms of the social and health benefits of having local access to mental health services, six days a week - as indicated in the application - there’s also the economic benefit, because people will come from elsewhere to access these services,” she said.

Cr Colliton said there should have been a more thorough investigation into other avenues such as an activation grant and ensured “the State Government, who is going to be responsible for this project, who is funding the rest of it, actually pays for it”.

“It is a classic case of the State Government cost shifting to local government - they do it again and again and again,” he said.

“We get left holding the baby, while they sit down there in Melbourne and say, ‘we can’t afford this, but we’ll spend all this other money elsewhere.’ They can afford it, and they should pay for it.

“It’s not that the project should not go ahead - (we) absolutely, desperately need the project for Southern Grampians, I endorse the project 100 per cent. But it’s a simple case of who should fund the project.”

Cr Colliton was adamant about his point - “between the five million for Cox Street and the five million for this, that the State Government simply can’t find $100,000 for a road in between - I think that’s crazy” and lamented the effect on the council’s budget.

“We’re now forced with another development by the State Government that we’re going to pay for,” he said.

“I think it’s crazy and we’ve got to put a stop to it.

“It’s not about the project and you can’t use that emotional argument to justify why we should actually pay for this.”

Councillor, Mary-Ann Brown concluded the discussion by pointing out the project may in fact already have other secondary sources other than the State Government and said the applicant may have already “exhausted all those possibilities to get to this point in time” and the project should not be subjected to further delays.

“I don’t necessarily support the precedent, but in this circumstance, I think there are a number of factors of why we should be supporting this project,” she said.

The permit application motion was passed with only Cr Colliton voting against (mayor, David Robertson was absent due to illness and councillor, Albert Calvano had a conflict of interest).