Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre - City Hall on14 August 2012, commencing at 7:00pm.
Daryl Thomas
Heather Wellington
Lyn George
Ian Kelly
Colin Wallace
Mary Wallace
Heather Vincent
Warren Jackson
Karyn Howie
Anissa Yttrup
Judith Brooks
Dr Ruth Lee
Marg Pocock
Eliza Leake
Michael Gaffney
Jeffrey Waite
Cr J Mitchell (Chair)
Crs:
B Abley
J Doull
J Farrell
K Fisher
C Granger
B Harwood
E Kontelj
S Kontelj* (7125pm)
R Macdonald
R Nelson
A Richards
D Frost (Acting Chief Executive Officer)
J Wall (General Manager Corporate Services)
P Bettess (General Manager Economic Development, Planning and Tourism)
G Van Driel (General Manager City Services)
J McMahon (General Manager Community Services)
P Jamieson (Manager Projects Community Development)
J Brown (Manager Administration and Governance)
R Bourke (Governance Co ordinator)
J Merlo (Coordinator Communication and Marketing)
The Mayor declared the meeting open at 7:00pm.
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 Fisher seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 24 July 2012 be confirmed and signed.
Carried.
Cr Abley declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Item 8 – Amendment C268 and Planning Permit 337/2012 – Proposed Masters Home Improvement Store, Bacchus Marsh Road, in that she is the Number 1 Ticket Holder and committee member within the Geelong Rugby Union Football Club, which is the major tenant of Council and DEECD owned/operated properties at the former Flinders Peak Secondary College and adjacent playing fields. Cr Abley’s husband also holds an honorary position on the Management Committee; secondly, her employer owns a small property bordering on to Broderick Road within the proposed designated Structure Plan area.
Cr Harwood declared an Indirect Interest in Agenda Item 8 - Amendment C268 and Planning Permit 337/2012 – Proposed Masters Home Improvement Store, Bacchus Marsh Road, in that he has had a business relationship with M C Herd – neighbouring property – while not current may recommence in the future.
Cr E Kontelj declared an Indirect Interest by Close Association in Agenda Item 13, Tender T1200190 – in that the tenderers are customers of his employer.
Cr Richards declared an Indirect Interest by a Conflicting Duty in Agenda Item 9, Amendment C264 Apco Service Station, 58-66 Portarlington Road, Newcomb in that the applicant is a potential sponsor and Cr Richards is President of the Geelong Harness Racing Club.
Cr Richards declared an Indirect Interest by a Conflicting Duty in Agenda Item 7, Amendment C272 – Review of the City of Greater Geelong Advertising Sign Guidelines in that he is President of the Geelong Harness Racing Club which is potentially seeking to change its current planning permits re Advertising Signage.
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.
The following questions were asked in relation to the Proposed Storage and Blending of Chemicals at 1-39 Roseneath Street, North Geelong – Planning Permit 147/2011:
Daryl Thomas asked:
Is Cr Macdonald aware of the extra 10-12 truck loads of earth that was moved from another site to the sports oval at Alkara and Mill Road. Residents need to know was this material tested coming from another site before being moved. This extra soil material was sieved on-site extracting other materials from it?
Dean Frost, Acting Chief Executive Officer, responded that he was not aware of the specifics of the soil being referred to but the usual practice is to sift out stone particles in the soil. He indicated he would follow up with a written response.
Cr Granger, why is engineering department assessing soils at the sporting facility site at Alkara Avenue and Mill Road, Lara for any issues, surely this information on soil testing should have been addressed before any sort of removal or excavation had begun. Is there a concern about soil issues within this department, if so, residents need to be kept up to speed with this issue?
Dean Frost responded the materials used on sporting reserves are appropriate and that the sifting is to remove small stone particles.
Heather Wellington asked questions in relation to the Geelong Motocross Club:
On 24 July 2012 I asked Council whether it considered it ethical for the City of Greater Geelong to:
Close a motocross facility in its own municipality because of the public health effects of noise;
Relocate the problem into the Barrabool community, and
Then wipe its hands of that problem.
I received a response from the Mayor but unfortunately that response failed to answer my question about the ethics of the City’s actions – it simply restated that the Geelong Motocross Club wanted to go to Barrabool and that in the end the Club prevailed and got what it wanted.
The response also stated that all alleged noise issues at Barrabool are now the problem of the Surf Coast Shire, confirming our understanding that the City of Greater Geelong has not yet recognised the need to take appropriate responsibility for its actions. Again, we question the ethics of this approach.
We are, however, grateful for your advice that the CEO will meet with us when he returns from leave. We trust that some time for reflection will enable a more balanced approach to this difficult problem. Since I asked those questions, more information has come to light. My questions are now as follows:
Are the Mayor, Councillors and Officers aware that:
Surf Coast Shire has declared in writing that it is satisfied that a noise nuisance exists under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (the Act);
Surf Coast Shire has a legal duty to remedy as far as it reasonably possible that nuisance;
Motorcycling Australia has been issued with an infringement notice;
The noise nuisance occurring at Barrabool is arguable worse than the situation at Breakwater that led to the City of Greater Geelong closing the motocross facility there; and
On any objective view, it is likely to be practically impossible to address the noise nuisance occurring at Barrabool, other than by ceasing use completely or severely restricting use.
Dean Frost responded he was not aware of the information and that was not unusual given the issues raised are a Surfcoast responsibility.
Does the CoGG recognise that it has a duty (legal, ethical or otherwise) to reconsider its decision to support the relocation of the Geelong Motocross Club to Barrabool and to allocate substantial public funds to development of that site as a major regional centre, when the viability of the Barrabool facility even as a low key, club-based facility is now in serious doubt?
Dean Frost responded that Geelong Motocross Club does not need this Council’s permission to locate at McAdam Park. The Club preferred to move to McAdam Park – it was their choice. He also advised that Council had not allocated funds to McAdam Park, but that it had resolved to defer consideration of any funding request to the Motocross Club until all outstanding planning issues were resolved.
Lyn George asked that given McAdam Park is clearly proving itself not to be usable for a motocross track given community complaints (and with Surf Coast Shire having recently issued its own Improvement Notice on Motorcycling Australia as it is satisfied that a noise nuisance exists at McAdam Park under the Health and Well Being Act) isn’t it time the City of Greater Geelong went back to its own Geelong Relocation Report and re-assess such sites in that report that were given relatively high rankings and some of which are owned by the City of Greater Geelong such as 130 Heales Road, Lara, Stockton Street, Corio and Sandy Creek Road, Little River as well as Geelong Motor Sports complex (55 Beach Road, Lara), which we know has plans to greatly increase its size and application?
Dean Frost responded that in the lead up with the closure of the Breakwater site an extensive review of 25 possible sites within the Geelong Municipality was carried out and that only one was considered viable – Dandos Road, Avalon. Council proceeded with work to get that site approved and developed, however through this process the Geelong Motocross Club advised Council it preferred the Barrabool Hills Facility. Accordingly, Council ceased work on Dandos Road, and we have been subsequently advised that the Airport is no longer supportive of having the facility at the end of its runway – so it is now considered unviable. I don’t believe revisiting other sites will lead to different outcomes or assessments with regard to their viability.
* Cr S Kontelj entered the meeting room at 7:15pm
Ian Kelly addressed Council as follows:
In Councils 2007 review of 25 possible motocross sites it stated only one site was viable – Dandos Road, Avalon.
The 2007 review identified significant flaws in the Barrabool site being protracted planning issues and disharmony between the two motocross clubs.
With the passing of time these significant issues have proved to be true. Further, the business case which was the basis for all State and local government funding has been disowned by Motorcycling Australia.
The City of Greater Geelong Sport Recreation and Open Space policy aims to provide for the long term recreation and sporting needs of an active and healthy community.
There is no long term security at McAdam Park, Motorcycling Australia can sell it in seven years time and keep the $1.37ml provided by taxpayers and motorbike riders will again have nowhere to ride.
Another Sport and Recreation policy aims to create places that are fit for purpose, useable, and where people want to be with benefits for the community clearly defined.
McAdam Park is clearly not fit for purpose as:
80% of the track is less than 500 metres from neighbouring residences contrary to local planning laws;
Motorcycling is prohibited in a farming zone (the only reason it is allowed is because of the existing use right);
The track is built across designated waterways and is causing significant erosion;
It has now been declared by Surfcoast Shire as causing a noise nuisance;
There have been well over 100 objections from neighbours; and
The track itself is not compliant with Motorcycling Australia’s own specifications for major events.
Does this prove that Council’s original decision to not support the Barrabool site was the correct one and will Council now reassess the subsequent decision?
Dean Frost indicated that answers to questions earlier covered some of the issues raised. In short, Council worked long and hard to examine the Dandos Road proposal. GMCC rejected the proposal, and preferred to relocate to McAdam Park.
Council resolutions in summary state we are supportive of the club moving to McAdam Park given the lack of viable alternatives, but that we will be taking no further action in terms of funding until planning matters are resolved.
Colin Wallace asked:
My first two questions do not apply to Crs Eddy Kontelj or Ron Nelson who had not taken office yet or Cr Cameron Granger who was on Leave of Absence on 28th July 2009, but I hope they will take an interest nevertheless.
Other Councillors, were you aware when you followed Mayor John Mitchell in walking out of the chamber during my participation in Question Time on 28th July 2009 that it was immediately after the point when the Mayor would have recognised, in response to a demand from him mentioning respect, that I had quoted back to him the disrespectful thing he had said to me in a phone call on 5th June that year and that he would have been well aware that I was quoting what he had said to me because, just the day before the Council Meeting, 27th July, was the date of the Mayor’s response to a letter of mine to him in which I quoted the disrespectful thing he had said to me in the phone call?
Were the same Councillors aware that, essentially, you followed Mayor Mitchell out of the chamber because he would not face up to the prospect that officers connected with Council’s improper conduct concerning First Street, Geelong West, with their collaborators among the Councillors, had set him up to believe that I had in May 2009 rung up because there was only one No Standing sign in place in a section of Pakington Street, Geelong West and I thought there should have been more, hence discrediting me by representing me as a nitpicker with nothing better to do that find fault with Council, instead of telling him the truth, which was that I had rung up because the installation of a right turn lane in Pakington Street into Pakington Strand had meant that the space occupied by parked cars on the west side of Pakington Street was now in the only lane for northbound traffic but the signs allowing parking there had not been removed – an extremely hazardous situation?
Would all Councillors take note that Peter Begg mentioned the 28th July 2009 walk-out from the Council Chamber at the end of his feature in the Geelong Advertiser on 1st August 2009 titled ‘The great steak sanger debate: Did the City make a meal of it?’ and in doing so he did not contact me – though he had rung me out of the blue three months before so he knew how to contact me if he wanted to – but instead he used the smokescreen that was in the draft Minutes of the day before which suggested that the blame for the walk-out lay with me rather than where it belonged – with the Mayor, and he also conveyed the idea that whatever I had done, it must have been more intimidating than having the large number of unionists supporting Peter Anderson and Mick Van Beek in the chamber, thus further serving to character-assassinate me?
The Mayor noted the comments.
Mary Wallace asked:
At the 26th June 2012 Council Meeting I asked who, just a couple of hours prior to the meeting and after that day’s post, had put in my letter box Council’s written response, which was signed by Mr Van Driel, to questions I asked at the 12th June 2012 Council Meeting and the CEO, Stephen Griffin responded straight after I asked the question, “It was hand-delivered”. – and I want to know why the fact that the CEO knew on the night, 26th June 2012, that this letter from Mr Van Driel had been hand-delivered to my letterbox at my home was omitted from the Minutes?
The Mayor took the question on notice.
At the 12th June 2012 Council Meeting I asked for a document that shows when after April 2011 the TGSIs at both sides of the southern end of First Street, Geelong West were put in and I received, in the letter which was hand-delivered to our home on 26th June 2012, emails which were created after I asked the question. Will you give me the proper document or documents, such as the contractor’s invoice, to show the date of installation?
Dean Frost responded if the documents can be located they will be forwarded to you.
Heather Vincent asked if Council can continue to make changes to the Barwon Heads Village Park Master Plan (similar to its most recent change which is to build a kindergarten) without proper and thorough consultation with stakeholders and the community and if so does Council believe this arrangement is fair to the Barwon Heads Community?
Dean Frost responded that in terms of our consultation we generally seek information as we develop the Master Plan, consulting with a variety of people. Once the decision was made that the school site was not viable, Council worked through many options prior to determining that the site in Village Park was the preferred location.
Council has consulted widely in relation to the Master Plan. The draft document being released for public comment for four weeks and received 242 submissions.
The proposed development of the kindergarten in the Village Park has also been subject to wide consultation and received 731 submissions.
Warren Jackson asked with regards to the Barwon Heads Early Learning Centre, in ruling out the school site as an option: What was the process? Who was involved?
Were any studies performed? If so, by who? With relation to the State funding, were guidelines for the Integrated Children’s Centre Grant (2011/2012) considered? If not, why? Is there a formal document which captures this process and the results and provides a recommendation to look elsewhere? If so, is this accessible to the general public?
Dean Frost responded that Council’s position is that the school was the preferred site.
In consultation with the school a sub-committee was established. This included school representatives, officers from the City of Greater Geelong, DEECD and a member of the Futures Committee.
Over approximately a 12 month period this group reviewed four options to locate the facility on the site. Works completed included concept design/traffic reports.
The committee concluded, for a range of reasons, including isolation for Maternal Child Health staff, dislocation of school site, congestion and traffic/parking impacts, that the site was not viable. This was also endorsed by the School Council who are responsible for the school site.
Your question made reference to state guidelines for integrated childrens centres.
This was considered and concluded the options did not lend themselves to integration.
Council resolved in January 2012 that given the school site was not an option, and following a review of alternative sites that the proposed site in Village Park is preferred. There is a range of material on Council’s website in relation to the school site.
Karyn Howie asked would Council tonight consider deferring the decision for Agenda Item 1 on the following grounds: a) strong community concern about the unnecessary loss of our parkland? b) the clear shift in the town to developing an educational hub on the vacant at 5 acres at the back of the primary school. c) an out of date assessment of the primary school site as there is now a road into the primary school?
The Mayor responded the questions would be addressed during debate of the item. Council is aware of the importance of parkland and as a Council will make a decision based on facts, and that is what we will be doing tonight.
Anissa Yttrup asked if Councillors are aware of the enormous community support that there is for this kindergarten to be built and for its location to be in the Village Park between the tennis club and the second oval? The community consultation process you ran showed you that this location was supported by over 70% of people who made a submission, and there were many. Our community desperately needs this facility, we all know that. Other possible site have already been investigated and ruled out. Further investigation of these sites only serves to waste valuable time and the cost is that our children miss out on local kinder. This site is the best site for Barwon Heads children. Please make their needs your priority when you make a decision tonight?
The Mayor responded that a decision, based on facts, will hopefully be made this evening.
Judith Brooks asked if Councillors are aware that there is considerable community concern in Barwon Heads about the process which has led us to a divided and troubled town? Why was the Village Park master Plan process interrupted after the first meeting of the sports clubs in September 2011? Why wasn’t there a second broader stakeholders held in October 2011 or November 2011 or December 2011 given that there was to be a radical difference to the park master plan? Why wasn’t the inclusive and thorough 2002 Master Plan followed when there was consideration of putting the football oval in the park?
Dean Frost responded that the Village Park Master Plan was halted once it was determined that it might be a site for the Early Learning Centre. During those months highlighted in the question Council worked through a range of options related to the siting of the facility. This was presented to the 31 January Council Meeting. At the 28 February Council Meeting it was resolved to release the Draft Master Plan for public comment.
Dr Ruth Lee asked is Councillors realised that since July 2011 things have changed at the primary school and the Council’s research is now out of date. This is because the new gym/hall and access driveway have been operating extremely successfully with after school sports and childcare operating until 6pm most nights. It is a community hub and any concerns about isolation are mistaken. Why should the
children of Barwon Heads miss out on the benefits of co-location and a vibrant educational hub? The sharing of facilities, teaching expertise, a generally very stimulating environment for teachers and children? Because the establishment of a separate educational facility in the park will permanently deny them this opportunity. This is of permanent damage to the town.
Dean Frost responded that as stated before the school site was Council’s preferred option for the same reasons as you note, but was ruled out for a whole range of issues. I agree with some of your comments but disagree that our research is out of date because we anticipated the development of the school hall and this is evident by the detail contained within the traffic report as an example.
Marg Pocock asked if Councillors are aware that sports groups in the Barwon Heads Village Park especially the tennis club will be denied future expansion room in a reserve dedicated to sport and recreation? Are Councillors aware that parking for established tenants of the reserve takes precedence over parking reserve for additional uses? That is, it is likely in future that users of the tennis club will not be able to park in their usual area because of the parking for the Early Learning Centre. This will mean an even greater expansion of parking and more permanent use of recreational reserve?
Dean Frost responded that as you are aware the level of planning for this facility is in the concept stage.
If the project is approved on the site then project staff will engage stakeholders to work through the design details to reach an optimal outcome for all.
Eliza Leake asked if Councillors are aware of the proper and extensive process that was conducted in fully investigating the school site as a location for the new Early Learning Centre? This process spanned almost a year and involved all relevant stakeholders. The sub-committee included representation from The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, School Council – parent and teacher representatives, City of Greater Geelong and a representative from the Barwon Heads Kindergarten Futures Committee. This sub-committee considered all feasible options on the school site but all agreed unanimously that the school site was not able to accommodate co-location of a kinder on the current school site. This was then taken back to school council who again unanimously agreed that the school site was not possible. Andrew Katos has since reinforced that the school site is not an option for the new Early Learning Centre and this site will not be re-opened for further consideration. Are Councillors aware of this?
The Mayor responded Councillors are aware.
Michael Gaffney submitted a question in relation to the Barwon Heads Early Learning Centre but was not present at the meeting.
Jeffrey Waite, President Barwon Heads Association, stated his Association has been trying to facilitate and not taking a stand one way or the other, but indicated that the process has divided the town.
The Mayor reiterated that Council will be making their decision based on the facts before them.
Cr Doull presented a petition from residents of Drysdale/Clifton Springs submitting an alternative proposal in relation to possible boundary realignment between Drysdale and Clifton Springs.
Cr Farrell presented a petition from residents of Fyansford opposing the proposed redevelopment of the Fyansford Hotel containing up to 40 pokies machines.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
Copyright CoGG 2012
Last Update: 25 July 2013