Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre - City Hall on 10 July 2012, commencing at 7:00pm.
Pauline Seitz
Margaret Huber
Peter Jager
Jennifer Bantow
Cr J Mitchell (Chair)
Crs:
B Abley
J Doull
J Farrell
K Fisher
C Granger
B Harwood
E Kontelj
S Kontelj
R Macdonald
R Nelson
A Richards* (7:42pm)
S Griffin (Chief Executive Officer)
J Brown (Acting General Manager Corporate Services)
P Bettess (General Manager Economic Development, Planning and Tourism)
S Cavanagh (Acting General Manager Projects, Recreation and Central Geelong)
G Van Driel (General Manager City Services)
J McMahon (General Manager Community Services)
R Bourke (Governance Co ordinator)
J Merlo ( Senior Media Officer)
The Mayor declared the meeting open at 7:05pm.
The Acting Mayor acknowledged that we are here today on the land of the Wathaurong People and we pay our respects to Aboriginal elders past and present.
Nil.
Cr Abley moved, Cr Harwood seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 26 June 2012 be confirmed and signed.
Carried.
Cr Fisher declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Item 3, Windsor Park Master Plan 2012, in that her residence backs on to Windsor Park.
Cr Farrell declared a Conflict of Interest by Close Association in Agenda Item 2, Planning Permit Application 1587/2011 for 41-79 Curlewis Road, Curlewis in that
the applicant is known to her. Mr Murray employed her son during his carpentry apprenticeship and she worked with him some years ago.
Cr S Kontelj declared a Conflict of Interest by Close Association in Agenda Item 1, Rippleside – Amendment to Planning Permit, in that his sister has purchased a property in Balmoral Crescent, North Geelong.
Cr E Kontelj declared a Conflict of Interest by Close Association in Agenda Item 1, Rippleside – Amendment to Planning Permit, in that his sister has purchased a property in Balmoral Crescent, North Geelong.
The Chief Executive Officer declared an Indirect Interest by a Conflicting Duty in the Notice of Motion relating to Funding Cuts at the Gordon TAFE, in that he is a Member of the Gordon TAFE Board.
Cr Fisher declared an Indirect Interest by Close Association in the Notice of Motion relating to Funding Cuts at the Gordon TAFE, in that she is a student of the Gordon TAFE.
Question Time is an opportunity for questions to be addressed to Council and while the minutes record the general content, they do not purport to be a transcript of what was said by individuals. Likewise Councillor or Officer verbal responses are in summary form only. Views expressed may not be the views of Council.
Council's practice is to provide a separate document on its website setting out questions and responses including any more detailed written responses which may be provided subsequent to the meeting.
Pauline Seitz asked:
Could Council please outline to the residents of Rippleside and of Geelong, the principles of urban planning and civic management which have indulged a developer who has so spectacularly failed to deliver what was promised?
Are these principles to be seen as a precedent for the way Council will approach future planning decisions for the City?
The Mayor responded that he can’t pre-empt what the debate will be about tonight, but indicated the questions will most likely be addressed during the debate.
Peter Bettess responded that we are not talking about urban design principles, but about how the planning law is written. It is up to VCAT to extend that period or request the applicant to obtain another permit.
Margaret Huber asked:
How and when does an application for amendment to plan become a new application and what criteria do you apply when deciding what is an amendment and what is a new application?
Peter Bettess responded that it is not the Council’s decision but rather the decision of VCAT. The applicant has a right to further approach VCAT.
How long do you consider it to be a fair and reasonable time for an applicant to hold a planning permit?
Peter Bettess responded that Council officers are concerned about the extension of time that’s been allowed and will be discussed during debate this evening.
Pam McGrath asked:
As the applicant has had approval to build since 1998 and given the significant material differences in the current application to that approved by VCAT (Permit 647/2004/A) on 28 February 2005, will Councillors give an undertaking that they will support the recommendation of its planning officers that development of the subject site should be subject to a ‘fresh’ application rather than just another amendment that is ‘generally in accordance with’ the existing permit?
The Mayor responded that he can’t pre-empt the debate but questions would be addressed during debate this evening.
The original C2 Amendment was gazetted to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme on 8 March 2001, when the site was zoned a Comprehensive Development Zone.
Is my understanding correct that each time the permit lapses the C2 Amendment also lapses?
In view of Trendcorp’s inability to comply with Amendment C2, would Council give consideration when the permit lapses again early next year to the land being considered for alternative uses?
Peter Bettess responded, ‘no it doesn’t lapse’.
Can Council please explain who will be held accountable for compliance with the requirements of Schedule 2 of the Comprehensive Development Zone, Environment Audit Overlay, Rippleside Urban Design Guidelines and ResCode?
Peter Bettess responded the owner of the land is responsible.
Peter Jager asked:
What action has or will Council take to protect the park patrons, nearly residents and Geelong community from this, as Robert Doyle would describe, ‘bombsite’ similar to the City’s embarrassing and purulent ulcer of the Ritz Flats?
The Chief Executive Officer responded that the issues you have identified in relation to dumping of rubbish, etc will require Council to follow through with Local Laws and the relevant authorities.
Jennifer Bantow asked questions in relation to the 1850’s property at No1 Mercer Place, Geelong:
As I am not familiar with the current Ministerial Interim Preservation Overlay process, could you please be able to let me know what has happened since 12 June in relation to the Minister for Planning being requested by Council to apply an interim preservation overlay on this property until its significance can be assessed?
Has the request to the Minister been processed yet?
How long may the process take until a reply is heard from the Minister’s Office?
If the request is successful then what happens next to determine the significance?
Is the owner advised?
Is there anything the National Trust can do to help?
Peter Bettess responded that as far as he was aware the letter had been processed and he has spoken to the local regional office.
My understanding is there is no application to demolish this property and that the Minister would seek advice from Heritage Victoria.
Cr Granger responded that dependent on the Minister’s advice he would move quickly to lodge a heritage overlay on the property.
Cr S Kontelj presented petition signatures as a result of the City initiating a petition addressed to the Prime Minister of Libya Abdurrahim El-Keib respectfully requesting the immediate sale release of detained Australian lawyer, Melinda Taylor. Ms Taylor has since been released. Cr S Kontelj thanked all those involved in providing support to the petition.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
Copyright CoGG 2012
Last Update: 19 August 2013