Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 14 August 2012

Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Common Seal

Reports tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday date held at City Hall, Little Malop Street in Geelong.

1. Barwon Heads Early Learning Centre – Submissions Review Panel

2. G21 Regional Growth Plan Update – Phase 4: Final Regional Growth Plan

3. Kingston Park Ocean Grove Master Plan and Management Plan

4. Mt Brandon Landscape Plan

5. O’Briens Road, Lara – Road Construction SRC317 – Finalisation of Scheme

6. Grovedale Station and Armstrong Creek Bus Planning Update

7. Amendment C272 – Review of the City of Greater Geelong Advertising Sign Guidelines

8. Amendment C268 and Planning Permit 337/2012 – Proposed Masters Home Improvement Store, Bacchus Marsh Road, Corio

9. Amendment C264 and Planning Permit 240/2012 Apco Service Station 58- 66 Portarlington Road, Newcomb

10. Review of Council Policy – Children’s Services

11. Sale of Properties – Consideration of Submission

12. SRV Community Facility Funding Program 2013/14 Major Facilities Category

13. Consideration of Tender Submissions for Tender T1200190 Drainage Works, Wyndham Street to Collins Street, Drysdale Main Drain

14. Simonds Stadium (Confidential)

1. Barwon Heads Early Learning Centre – Submissions Review Panel

Summary

• The Barwon Heads Early Learning Centre Submissions Review Panel was convened on Monday 9 July 2012 to hear submissions regarding the Barwon Heads Early Learning Centre development proposed for Village Park Barwon Heads.

• The panel (Advisory Committee) consisted of Crs Granger (Chairperson), Abley, Farrell, Fisher, Macdonald, and Richards.

• The panel (Advisory Committee) operated in accordance with the “Barwon Heads Early Learning Centre Submissions Review Panel – Committee Terms of Reference” as were adopted at Councils 12 June 2012 meeting.

• The Submissions Review Panel (Advisory Committee) heard presentations from 29 people. Respondents spoke both in favour of, and against the proposed development.

• The panel was unanimous in its recommendation to support the development of the Early Learning Centre on the proposed site.

Cr Richards moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -

That Council:

1. agree to the development of an Early Learning Centre on the Geelong Road – Village Park site;

2. require that the project design respond to issues relating to passive surveillance, traffic management, and the landscaped parkland interface.

Carried.

Report

Background

The proposed development of the Barwon Heads Early Learning Centre was subject to community consultation during the month of March, 2012. At the conclusion of the consultation period a total of 791 submissions were received. Following a review of the submissions received this number was then reduced to 731 as several members of the community submitted multiple submissions.

Multiple submissions received from a single person have been consolidated as a single submission. Of the 731 submissions, 70% (or 508) supported the proposed site and 30% (or 223) raised concern over the location.

At its meeting of 12 June 2012 Council resolved to formalise an advisory committee of council to deal with the mediation and submissions review process related to the proposed location of the Barwon Heads Early Learning Centre in Village Park.

When Council formalised its advisory committee a ‘Terms of Reference’ was also adopted for the committee. The terms of reference required that the advisory committee of council make a recommendation on the proposal to utilise the Geelong Road – Village Park site for an early learning centre.

The Barwon Heads Early Learning Centre Submissions Review Panel convened on Monday 9 July 2012. Presentations were made by 29 people with respondents speaking both in favour of, and against the proposal.

Discussion

Council’s procedure for Open Space Development provides a two step process for the management of submissions.

The first step involves a mediation process to attempt to address concerns and have submissions (objections) withdrawn. Should mediation not resolve the concern, it is referred to a Submissions Review Panel, who upon hearing submissions, make a recommendation to Council.

Due to the very high number of submissions received, both for and against this proposal, it was very difficult to deal with these in a timely manner.

To address this issue, the Sport and Recreation department wrote to all individuals who made a submission and advised them of their option to be heard by the Advisory Committee of Council and/or attend a mediation session.

One respondent chose the mediation process and a session was held on Tuesday 3rd July 2012. This session proceeded amicably with the applicant confirming that most of the concerns raised, had or were already being considered. Most of those who objected to the siting of the facility on Village Park elected not to pursue mediation and instead chose to speak at the Submissions Review Panel.

The Barwon Heads Early Learning Centre Submission Review Panel was convened on Monday 9 July 2012 to hear submissions regarding the Barwon Heads Early Learning Centre development proposed for Village Park Barwon Heads.

The panel (Advisory Committee) consisted of Councillors Granger (Chairperson), Abley, Farrell, Fisher, Macdonald and Richards.

The panel heard presentations from 29 people. Presentations were made both in support of and against the proposal. The key themes of the objections presented included:

• The value of the passive open space and losing the site to development;

• Surveillance issues created with the development;

• Impact on park users;

• Traffic implications of the development.

The Submissions Review panel, having heard the above submissions and having considered those that were provided in writing, unanimously supported the development of the Barwon Heads Early Learning Centre at the Geelong Road, Village Park site. In providing its support for the development the panel also recommended that the following issues be addressed in the design process:

• Passive Surveillance;

• Traffic management;

• Sympathetic design interface to the parkland.

Environmental Implications

Environmental aspects associated with the use of the proposed site have been considered and would be managed as part of the project.

Financial Implications

This project is currently funded through budget allocations in 2012/13 and 2013/14.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

Council has followed its Approval Procedure for Open Space Development Projects. An advisory committee of council was formed by resolution on 12 June 2012. This committee heard respondents who wanted to speak to their submissions. This report is now being presented in accordance with the terms of reference developed for the advisory committee of council.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officer preparing this report or involved with the project has declared a conflict of interest. Council’s General Manager Community Services has declared a conflict of interest in relation to a previously identified site option. Her involvement in the project has remained focused on service provision requirements.

Risk Assessment

This project is being managed in accordance with the necessary risk procedures.

Social Considerations

The decision to support the location of the Barwon Heads Early Learning Centre on Village Park represents a compromise between the acknowledged value of open space in the community and the communities need to develop an early learning centre. This compromise was required after other options such as the Barwon Heads School site were found not to be viable.

Communication

Council have conducted an extensive notification and advertising process and this is evidenced by the size of the response. All respondents will be advised of Council’s decision.

2. G21 Regional Growth Plan Update – Phase 4: Final Regional Growth Plan

Summary

• A final G21 Regional Growth Plan has been prepared for adoption by the five G21 councils. The final Growth Plan, associated Background Report and Engagement Report has been developed following three stages of community engagement;

• The last engagement stage was on the draft Regional Growth Plan. The engagement process was completed in May 2012 and included six ‘open House’ drop in information sessions held around the region and online surveys, forums and polls;

• While there were broad levels of support for the draft Plan, consultation feedback, surveys and written submissions identified a range of suggested improvements.

• The key themes emerging included:

• the timing, priority and boundaries of the Further Investigation Areas;

• identification of additional growth areas;

• the case for growth – should be more aspirational or alternatively strongly questioned;

• environmental and economic considerations;

• infrastructure capacity and improvements particularly public transport;

• These submissions have been considered along with project partner issues in developing the final Regional Growth Plan and have resulted in a number of key changes;

• The key elements of the final G21 Regional Growth Plan include:

• A revised context section providing a greater understanding of the regions significant connections and linkages, environment and economy and clarifying
  growth activity;

• Revised mapping – context maps, urban Geelong map, asset maps;

• A revised assets analysis;

• Minor changes to the Principles for Growth;

• Clarification of major settlement breaks and reinforcing the role of all settlement boundaries as breaks;

• Further clarification and direction around Further Investigation Areas and sequencing and short, medium and long term timeframes;

• A revised Delivery and Implementation Section.

• The final Regional Growth Plan is being considered for adoption by each of the G21 Councils before being forwarded to the Minister for Planning for consideration and approval and then implementation into planning schemes;

• The report recommends that the Regional Growth Plan be adopted as presented and forwarded to the Minister requesting approval and preparation of a planning scheme amendment;

• The report also recommends that the next project phase of developing an Implementation phase be supported.

Cr Macdonald moved, Cr Abley seconded -

That Council:

1. adopt the G21 Regional Growth Plan as endorsed by the G21 Regional Growth Plan Project Steering Group;

2. request the Minister for Planning to approve the G21 Regional Growth Plan as adopted and consult with G21 Councils on implementation into planning schemes;

3. support the development of a G21 Regional Growth Plan - Implementation Plan in partnership with the G21 councils and state government.

Cr Richards left the meeting room at 8:53pm

Cr Richards re-entered the meeting room at 8:55pm

Carried.

Report

Background

The G21 Regional Growth Plan (RGP) is one of eight growth plans being developed across the State.

The primary purpose of the Plan is to provide a regional level land use and settlement planning framework that responds to anticipated growth to 2050.

The G21 RGP project is a G21 Planning and Services Pillar project and has been managed by the G21 RGP Project Steering Group (PSG), a partnership of senior officers from G21, G21 councils, the Department of Planning and Community Development (primary project funders) and other State Departments and Agencies including Barwon Water, Corangamite CMA and the Committee for Geelong. A Technical Reference Group, Project Team, Engagement Team and project management team has ensured that the project has been delivered to the agreed timelines.

An update of the project progress was provided to G21 Councils in February/March 2012 before the release of the draft RGP.

The final G21 RGP has been developed over four project phases and three engagement stages as shown on the following timeline diagram:

The G21 RGP project has now completed Phase 4 with the unanimous endorsement of the final RGP, the Background Report and Engagement Report by the Project Steering Group on the 9th July 2012 following consideration and assessment of submissions and project partner responses. The final package of materials includes a final G21 Regional Growth Plan, Background Report and Engagement Report.

Discussion

Developing the Growth Plan The Growth Plan aims to provide a strategic land use and settlement framework linking the G21 Region Plan vision, objectives and directions with a state wide planning. The Plan does this in the context that the regions population is growing at a steady rate (1.6%) and on current growth trends likely to reach 500,000 by 2050 from a base of around 294,000 (ABS 2011). Major infrastructure investment is likely to stimulate higher growth activity. As we grow it is essential that our resources are adequately managed and our infrastructure planned to respond to growth in a way that is sustainable, efficient and cost effective.

Growing the region will support a stronger and more robust economy and attract a diverse community. If planned for well, it will provide more access to employment and retail, social, community, sporting, entertainment and cultural services and facilities. The challenge for the G21 region is to evolve as a self-sustaining region that uses existing infrastructure and land more efficiently.

The G21 Regional Growth Plan provides direction for this growth by identifying:

• opportunities for managing the future growth of population, employment and housing;

• opportunities for supporting regional level infrastructure, providing an essential contribution to the long-term sustainability of the region.

The final RGP provides a framework that can accommodate a population of 500,000 (an additional 210,000 people) at current projections and also has the capacity to respond to more vigorous population growth rates and cater for a larger population (i.e beyond 500,000). Central to the Plan is that release of new growth areas needs to be considered in the context of infrastructure capacity and priorities and linked to regular monitoring of land supply to ensure sufficient and appropriate land supply exists.

The final RGP has been built around an understanding of:

• the important role our region plays and its linkages within and connections to Melbourne and other regions. The Plan seeks to strengthen these linkages and where necessary improve connections;

• the challenges of growth including providing necessary infrastructure and services, climate change, maintaining our environment and liveability, skills development, provision of jobs and housing choice. The Plan identifies the need to provide land and infrastructure to provide the necessary 80,000 additional jobs required;

• the principles which should underpin planning for the region. Nine principles have been developed to shape the Plan (see below);

• the ‘givens’ – areas vulnerable to risk such fire, flood, coastal inundation and erosion or requiring buffers or protection such as sensitive natural environments and major infrastructure assets. The Plan directs growth away from areas of high risk and identifies the need to build resilience in our major public land assets;

• our significant assets including natural and earth resources, our environment, cultural heritage, tourist trails and routes, agricultural land, transport infrastructure, coasts and waterways etc which underpin our competitive advantages. The Plan looks to protect significant areas from the impacts of growth while building on existing transport infrastructure and resource opportunities;

• our competitive advantages – the regional strengths and assets around which a sustainable economy can be built and to provide the necessary variety of jobs. The Plan has been informed by projects such as the draft G21Economic Development Strategy and builds on these;

• the role and interrelationships with other projects, strategies and studies. The Plan builds on or is consistent with strategies and projects such as the Regional Rail Link, Princes Highway duplication and Geelong Ring Road, the Metropolitan Strategy and the Great South Coast and Central Highlands RGP’s, the CCMA’s Regional Catchment Strategy, Barwon Water’s Water Plan, the Victorian Coastal Strategy, G21 pillar and priority projects, Vision II etc;

• existing planned growth. The Plan reinforces and builds on existing Council approved Structure Plans and Urban Growth Strategies;

• Community feedback through three stages of consultation.

Principles for Growth

The RGP is underpinned by nine growth principles which were developed and refined over three stages of engagement and have been well supported:

1. Optimise infrastructure and consolidate

2. Diversity, knowledge & innovation

3. Unique & connected communities

4. Protect, restore & enhance our unique environment

5. Food, water & energy security

6. Live, work & participate locally

7. Build our economy

8. Accessible Transport Choices

9. Balanced, Consistent & Collaborative Approach

Planned and incremental growth

Through local planning strategies, the G21 councils have mapped out 20-30 years supply of zoned and strategically identified residential and employment land. This land will allow the region to grow over time and accommodate a further 128,000 people. This is consistent with unpublished data (DPCD) which suggests that the City of Greater Geelong has a zoned lot supply of around 12-15 years and identified supply of around 17 years. Analysis of additional infill uptake particularly in the City of Greater Geelong suggests that over a 20 to 30 year timeframe a further 82,000 can be accommodated. This equates to a total population of around 500,000 and suggests that no additional urban expansion beyond that already mapped out is likely to be required in the short term unless in response to major growth or land supply inequities.

The Regional Growth Plan

The key elements of the growth framework include (refer Settlement and Employment Directions and Major Infrastructure Directions maps included in Appendix 2-1):

• Accepting and building on the planned growth picture already identified through Council Structure Plans;

• Focusing on the identified growth nodes and district towns across the region providing key services and facilities to surrounding areas. This builds on existing infrastructure including road and rail networks and proposed transport projects, provides for more sustainable centres including stronger local employment options and reduced travel to work. This also shifts the growth pressures off smaller coastal settlements to preserve character and identity;

• Reinforcing the importance of Central Geelong as a vibrant and active regional city and Victoria’s second city. A strong successful City is critical to the region and to broadening skills and innovation by building on existing cultural, health and education strengths;

• Targeted infill areas for medium to high density living including Central Geelong, West Fyans Structure Plan Precinct and Corio – Norlane. This will support better utilisation and improvement of infrastructure and services including public transport and maintaining a focus on urban regeneration priorities. It will also assist in developing a broader range of housing choices to meet changing household types;

• In the longer term (post 10-20 years) additional growth proposed in Colac and Winchelsea above the proposed planned growth. This will help to share some of the benefits of growth across the region, strengthen employment/investment opportunities and address localised issues – loss of youth, areas of disadvantage etc;

• Identification of two further investigation areas to the north and west of the Geelong Ring Road for possible development beyond planned growth. These areas provide the capacity to respond to longer term growth needs or if projected growth rates increase significantly. The Plan identifies a process for considering the planning of these areas linked to an Infrastructure Plan;

• The importance of planning for employment growth with population growth including strengthening existing employment nodes and identifying new areas for employment close to transport networks and major population centres;

• Ensuring boundaries of towns are clear and breaks between settlements are managed carefully;

• Identification of the major infrastructure required to support a region of 500,000 and beyond, including transport and road networks and corridors;

• An infrastructure/land development sequencing which prioritises existing and identified planned urban areas, district towns and identified growth node towns ahead of Further Investigation Areas which are not required within at least the next 10 years under either a base growth (1.5%) or higher growth (2.5%) rate;

• An implementation strategy including the development of an Implementation Plan focusing on developing an Infrastructure Plan for regional infrastructure; investigation of identified Further Investigation Areas, investigation of urban regeneration projects and incentives and land supply monitoring;

• Further work is also identified to address issues relating to a larger region including building resilience into public lands, coastal adaptation planning and ensuring integration with other planning strategies and projects. Ongoing commitment to a range of G21 pillar projects will be particularly important as the region grows particularly those related to the environment, recreation, health and wellbeing, affordable housing to name a few. The RGP sets a planning framework around settlements and major land use around which these projects can be developed.

Consultation and engagement

Throughout the three stages of engagement over 250 people participated in workshops, world cafes and open houses around the region with around 250 surveys or made written submissions Those involved in the engagement activities represented a cross section of interests, issues and sectors and geographical areas. The majority of contributors identified themselves as community members with the remainder comprising business owners, local interest group representatives, developers and government.

Throughout the development of the Growth Plan a range of stakeholders have been directly engaged to assist in the gathering of data, identify major issues and opportunities and to identify other key strategies or projects under consideration or development. A summary of the engagement activities, survey feedback and submissions is contained in the G21 Regional Growth Plan Engagement Report July 2012 which will be released with the adopted RGP.

The key engagement stages were:

• Stage 1 September and October 2011 Targeted stakeholder workshops in Geelong and Colac focused on identifying the challenges associated with growth in the region; identifying principles and developing a range of scenarios for growth.

  Participants included representatives from state and local government, a range of authorities and agencies, business and industry groups, environment groups, development industry representatives, resident groups and other community based groups.

• Stage 2 November/December 2011 Focused on receiving feedback on the identified growth challenges, principles for growth and three possible growth scenarios for. The six week engagement period included 5 workshops and 30 listening posts located around the region, static displays, surveys, polls and an online forum. Over 240 people contributed to Stage 2 Engagement through participation in the workshops, completing surveys and providing written submissions. The responses were reported in the previous project briefing and included on the project website.

• Stage 3 April/May 2012 Focused on receiving feedback about the draft RGP, including what people liked, what needed improvement and overall satisfaction with it. The 6 week period included six ‘Open House’ drop in information sessions around the region in addition to static displays, surveys, polls and an online forum. During this period over 1500 brochures and feedback forms were distributed to community members and groups, business and industry representatives and other stakeholders. Around 200 people contributed to this stage of engagement through participation in the information sessions and completing surveys (134) and providing written submissions (61). These are discussed below.

Response to the Draft Plan

An analysis of survey responses indicated that a high proportion of contributors thought that the draft Growth Plan RGP met the principles for growth ‘very well’ or ‘mostly’ and that they were ‘very’ or ‘mostly’ satisfied with the draft RGP.

The surveys also suggested that the elements of the draft Growth Plan people liked related to provision of greater certainty; identification of important infrastructure; mapped growth locations and focus on infill; preservation of rural characteristics and unique communities; and that it reflects collaboration between state and local government.

The primary areas of draft Growth Plan requiring improvement as identified in the surveys related to providing for greater protection of assets and green breaks; more defined and immediate planning for infrastructure particularly road infrastructure and more diverse and sustainable public transport options; better analysis and setting of sustainability targets; and a range of mapping improvement suggestions. The survey themes are summarised in Appendix 2-2.

The written submissions are summarised in more detail along with more expansive responses in Appendix 2-3. The key themes to emerge include (in addition to those above):

• the timing, priority and boundaries of the Further Investigation Areas. These submissions essentially sought to remove any priority between the two areas and to allow the market to determine timing. Some of these submissions were supported by further supply analysis and argued the link to providing affordability. Other submissions sought to expand the identified areas;

• the case for growth – should be either more aspirational (higher growth rates aspired to) or alternatively strongly questioned growth from an environmental and social sustainability perspective;

• identification of additional growth areas. This included nomination of additional sites at Portarlington (Pt Richards Road) and Torquay (Spring Creek, North Torquay);

• environmental - a greater focus on the environment including more specific environmental planning directions and sustainability targets, identified projects and greater recognition of cultural heritage and coastal/marine values, adequacy of water resources;

• economic considerations -
  a greater focus on the economy and jobs including tourism and Rural Zone challenges, buffer protection for major industry/resource assets;

• Infrastructure improvements particularly sustainable public transport options, bike networks and town by passes;

• Other – acknowledgement of Little River and Bellarine 2050 work etc.

All surveys and submissions were collated, summarised and assessed. Responses were developed and considered by the Project Steering Committee in the context of the primary purpose and role of the Growth Plan and its principles as well as existing local and state planning policy and legislation. Where possible many submission issues were addressed in full or in part through direct document changes however a number of submission issues were unable to be addressed. The feedback received resulted in a range of enhancements and revisions to the draft Growth Plan which are included in the final G21 Regional Growth Plan.

The more significant changes include:

• A revised context section providing a greater understanding of the regions significant connections and linkages, environment and economy and clarifying growth activity;

• Revised mapping – context maps, urban Geelong map, asset maps;

• A revised assets analysis;

• Minor changes to the Principles for Growth;

• Clarification of major settlement breaks and reinforcing the role of all settlement boundaries as breaks;

• Further clarification and direction around Further Investigation Areas and sequencing and associated changes to short, medium and long term timeframes allowing more flexibility linked to the sequencing of planned growth and land supply monitoring;

• A revised Delivery and Implementation Section.

A briefing on the final draft to project partner mayors and councillors, CEO’s, Board Chairs and the Project Steering Group in July identified a range of further enhancements including:

• Context and linkages mapping – inclusion of linkages to Glenelg Highway and identification of the Marine Discovery Centre, reference to state policy relating to coastal inundation planning, greater reference to Background Report content including importance of social infrastructure and sustainability;

• Greater articulation of the role of the Plan and link to other critical projects responding to growth challenges relating to the environment, community and economy;

• Reinforce role and importance of agriculture and protection of opportunities for intensive agriculture and other production opportunities;

• Reinforce role of activity centres in district towns such as Leopold.

Requested changes not supported include:

• Fundamental changes to settlement and employment growth directions including role of Further Investigation Areas;

• Identification of other additional growth areas;

• Substantive changes to sustainability/environmental directions beyond the further work identified and the ongoing G21 pillar projects and by other agencies;

• Changes to the growth forecasts and rates of growth or assumptions around growth.

The RGP is primarily a land use and settlement framework to guide regional infrastructure priorities and local level planning. It is recognised that there are direct and indirect impacts of growth on the broader environment. The supporting material for the plan otherwise referred to as the ‘givens’ includes extensive consideration to environmental issues around sensitive and threatened environments, areas vulnerable to fire, flood and coastal inundation etc to ensure these areas are protected from the direct impacts of further growth.

The RGP acknowledges that more people will visit and recreate within the region as we grow resulting in indirect impacts on the environment. The RGP can’t directly address all these issues, however it provides a framework for a range of further work to take place which will examine a range of risks and challenges associated with growth including the environment, catchments and coastal areas, affordability, economic transition and skills, health and wellbeing.

An extensive array of projects and strategies are under development which will help to address some of these challenges including G21 pillar and priority projects, local Council environmental strategies, CMA Regional Catchment Strategies, Victorian Strategy for Healthy Rivers, Estuaries and Wetlands, Barwon Water - Water Plan, Coastal Action Plans and Foreshore Management Plans, South West Landscape Assessment etc. The RGP specifically identifies as further work further coastal adaptation analysis along the coast and supporting the development of a public land strategy.

Next Steps

Following consideration of the RGP by each of the G21 Councils the Plan will be provided to the Minister for Planning for consideration and approval and planning scheme implementation. The final process for scheme implementation has not been determined however it is anticipated that pending the approval of the Metropolitan Strategy and the other seven RGP’s that an interim step will be to reference the RGP in the State Planning Policy Framework. This will ensure the Plan provides a framework for more local level planning.

The development of the Implementation Plan is considered a major priority and it is proposed that existing project funding be used to develop the implementation plan over the next 12 – 14 months using the existing project governance model under the auspices of G21. This project will focus on:

• developing a Infrastructure Plan looking at the timing and delivery responsibilities for key regional level infrastructure to support and manage growth;

• planning for and sequencing of Further Investigation Areas linked to the Infrastructure Plan and a land monitoring process;

• investigating urban regeneration and existing planned greenfield site development barriers and incentives.

Environmental Implications

The RGP has been developed based on a sound understanding of a range of environmental constraints and data mapping sets, policy and legislative provisions and development of linked growth principles. Key agencies such as the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority and DSE are project partners and have provided input and peer review content and overview. Advice and feedback has been sought from a range of other agencies and organisations including major coastal committees of management, Coastal Boards, Traditional owner groups etc.

Financial Implications

The project is funded by the G21 Councils and state government. The project has been completed within budget. Remaining project funds will cover the Implementation Plan development over the 2012-13 financial year.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The project work is consistent with existing state and local planning policies. The Growth Plan implementation directions have identified measures to give the Plan strategic and statutory weight.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

Officers involved in developing the report have no direct or indirect interests.

Risk Assessment

A risk and issues log has been maintained during the project. A project governance structure and engagement plan has been developed to manage and respond to project risks.

Social Considerations

The development of growth principles and directions has been based on the detailed examination of available data on areas of social disadvantage, health and wellbeing, housing affordability and community infrastructure. Key agencies such as the DPCD are project partners, while other agencies including DEECD, Department of Health, Department of Housing, Deakin and the Gordon, Barwon and Colac Area Health have been engaged in the project data collection and workshops. A range of other groups and agencies representing youth, multicultural, cultural heritage, tourism and business groups, community and resident groups etc have been engaged directly or invited to participate.

Communication

A robust and detailed Communications and Engagement Strategy has been developed and run for the project. Communication and engagement activities have been identified in the report and attachments. The final RGP has been developed with a high level of project partner support and ownership.

APPENDIX 1 - SETTLEMENT AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ANDMAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE DIRECTIONS MAPS

APPENDIX 2 - SURVEY THEMES

Excerpt from G21 Regional Growth Plan Engagement report:

1. What people liked about the draft Growth Plan

   People responding to the survey were asked what they liked about the draft Growth Plan. Main themes put forward by the 59 people who responded to this question are shown below. Note that positive statements made by the 46 people who provided ‘other comments’ via the survey, along with other comments made at the 6 Open Houses and via the online forum are included.

   Key Theme – What respondents liked about the draft Growth Plan…	Brief Description/Main factors mentioned
   Growth or management of growth is in right places (10)	Limits growth in Torquay/Jan Juc; Torquay growth area to north only; Increases growth in Colac and Winchelsea; like that Barwon Heads not designated for growth; development has been planned - discreet areas of industrial, residential areas; like that Colac and Winchelsea are recognised growth areas; Like the growth in Winchelsea; Good that Spring Ck is not included; Support redevelopment in Moriac; Lara rural living at its best leave the 5 acre blocks alone, let Lara have lifestyle options; diversity of localities is good; impressed with the designated growth areas; respects to variety of communities and settlements already in the region – unique small settlements not threatened; that Birregurra is not a major growth area; no industry between Little River and Lara
   Infrastructure provision is essential for growth (10)	Transport needs, strategic investment in infrastructure, sequencing, roads, revitalisation of the port; support heavy rail; provision of better transport systems; reassuring because it is a move away from unhindered growth without good infrastructure/resources; Princes Hwy corridor – increase frequency and timing of trains; purchase Pt Wilson to expand Port activities; Avalon has so much potential for development, need to expand accommodation to support Avalon
   Draft Growth Plan provides certainty for people going forward (9)	It gives an indication of where future growth is most likely to occur and therefore some certainty for people in the region; areas for future growth have been made clear; looking at the overall picture and planning for the future; vision reflects what everyone hopes for; Everyone will know where we are heading into the future – in the past it has been obvious that only a ‘privy’ group of business people and investors have been made aware of where we are heading, and they have been able to take advantage of this situation; good planning foresight; logical approach to long term planning
   Retention of rural characteristics (inc farming) and unique communities across the region (for aesthetics, livelihood & food security) (9)	Preserving the rural characteristics of regional centres between Geelong and Melbourne; Greenbelts between Torquay and Geelong and in Lara; preserving town boundaries, keeping/increasing farming land; Glad the draft plan is not just focussed on employment and growth at the expense of farming land; Like separate towns; the intention to keep farming alive and expanded
   Growth Plan reflects collaboration between state & local governments and balances the interests of all sectors (8)	That the 5 councils have worked together to ensure better planning; incorporates all sectors (business, activists, government) doesn’t favour one; consolidates the 5 shires into one plan enabling state government to give greater focus to the region; drawing the interests of all not just one area; glad it is not just focussed on population growth/residential
   Infill is necessary (but don’t replicate Melbourne) (7)	Infill development in Geelong; that it’s not completely about high density – why replicate Melbourne; prefer infill rather than sprawl; build the capacity of inner and northern suburbs for economic and residential development; brownfield development is vital to N Geelong revitalisation; Need consolidation to prevent urban sprawl (very important); higher density housing; revitalise city centre especially Moorabool and Ryrie Streets
   Draft Growth Plan is easy to read and understand (4)	Clear and easy to understand; all of the main points have been covered, it is easy to follow; well explained
   Protection of the environment (4)	Protection of natural assets, building new linkages between them
   Broad opportunities for employmentacross the region (2)	Business/employment precincts in Waurn Ponds; focus on jobs diversity; glad it is not focused on population growth and employment
   General positive comments (7)	The economic development strategy was outstanding – the ‘open for business’ approach allows investors and business leaders to prick they ears up and at least consider options; agree that towns such as Moriac with low density residential lifestyle options will experience modest growth; identification of critical projects and future studies; like the 8th principle; if we are growing this is all good; transport options on the right track; like that it covers the entire region in one plan; will help to attract investment

   
   

   General comments about the Growth Plan process:

   Appreciation of the opportunity to contribute and that this input is reflected in the draft plan (13)

   The opportunity to have my opinion taken into consideration; the plan is very reflective of the consultation that has occurred, drawing in the interests of all not one area; wondering if there will be ongoing opportunity for community input; appreciate that the project has been so open to public input, thank you for coming to Lara; appreciate the OH - it enables people’s opinions to be heard and have the plan explained; helpful to know what is planned for the region; Great to see the process is on time; Compliments to all for the degree of availability for discussion and depth of discussion on some difficult subjects. Very welcome opportunity to talk




2. What people didn’t like about the draft Growth Plan

   The survey asked respondents to identify ways in which the draft Growth Plan could be improved. Fifty people responded to this question; the main themes suggested for improvement are shown below. Note that negative statements made by the 46 people who provided ‘other comments’ via the survey, along with other comments made at the 6 Open Houses and via the online forum are included.
   

   Key Theme – What could be improved in the draft Growth Plan	Brief Description of concerns
   Need better protection of natural assets and greenfield/buffer areas (20)	Don’t use word ‘development’ next to ‘natural assets’ – protect and enhance only; greater protection of local environmental assets e.g. You Yangs, Serendip; better recognition of important environmental & tourism potential; brown and grey field development should be included to protect greenfield resources; Don’t like the separation zigzag between Lara and Little River – could it be light industrial? Be clearer about what can happen here; need significant buffer between N Geelong & W Melbourne; Need an appropriate buffer between future growth to the south west of Melbourne and north Geelong but ensure planning legislation enshrines this – otherwise urban sprawl and congestion will result; Town boundaries and open space areas must be retained; higher density living is imperative to protect green belts/agricultural land; protect significant new corridors around bypass and don’t let it be totally built out (Geelong Ring Road); Stop promoting region as coastal centric – provide greater recognition of other environmental and tourism assets; protect significant views, wetlands, grasslands; provide wildlife corridor between You Yangs and Serendip; Need specific guidelines for buffer zones; could include principles/guidelines for urban/rural interface; need zoning and dialogue
   Improve planning for road infrastructure (12)	Anglesea roundabout – first stopping point now that that the ring road goes through; better roads; better access needed from Ocean Grove towards Bellarine Hwy; more focus on future demands re road access (inc to Melb); vehicle bypassing of Geelong may need to be 3 lanes when Armstrong Creek fully developed; bypass Colac required; locations for truck stops; possible congestion on ring road/Princes Hwy; Bacchus Marsh Rd Missing; retain Ring Road vista
   Need more diverse and sustainable public transport options (10)	Incorporate more emphasis on sustainable transport, prioritising walking, cycling and public transport; specifically integrating and implementing an on-road Principal Bicycle Network into the planning scheme; Preserve a corridor that would allow rail transport to Torquay; More focus on public transport demands for the future; tramway from the peninsula across to Fyansford and Lara to Torquay; Last box (pg 52) re: increase capacity of rail is ambiguous. Is this about getting people off the train at Lara and then onto buses to go elsewhere? Portarlington Safe Harbour; more frequent trips on public transport; trains not useful for those working in outer Melb suburbs; Link up of bike trails around Forrest/Birregurra/Colac and Beech trail
   Essential infrastructure and services need to be planned now (10)	Make infrastructure improvements a priority; need to plan now for the infrastructure to support the planned growth; have the infrastructure in place before increasing growth eg. public transport, better roads, better facilities (water/farming/energy); more detail on the services that are going to be provided eg. shopping, child care, health etc; put infrastructure in the growth areas; need to provide infrastructure to support the growing population – trains are already standing room, the road is bottlenecked and water in unavailable in drought years; support new health services in the region (eg. Epworth hospital), need more health services for the population, need more parking around railway stations to encourage use; infrastructure provision needs to be fair and equitable across region – smaller rural settlements and those targeted for ‘modest growth’ can’t miss out; Sustainable transport options should not be a ‘bolt on’ after thoughts as it has been in our region – we must acknowledge the significant problems that currently exist and plan to address them
   Improve maps (9)	Improved maps showing regions that surround the G21 and their influence; the brochure should show the identified areas in more detail – larger diagrams – too hard to read; keys not correct on some maps and confusing; better colour differentiation on maps, Bacchus Marsh Rd Missing; colours on maps makes it hard to interpret on computers; Little River needs to be shown; map is misleading the scale makes the settlement break look huge
   Need better analysis and targets re sustainability, carbon emissions, climate change, water security (8)	Set some sustainability targets – currently G21 only responds to growth – there is no imperial evidence which shows whether our region can support a growing population from a community, environmental, cultural and economic perspective; No analysis on how this plan will support carbon emission reduction targets; scrap Growth Plan and take note of environmental indicators which are telling us that we are consuming the planet’s resources faster than it can be sustained; no explanation as to how the growth/infrastructure will be sustainable (e.g. policies re use of materials, opportunities for sustainable businesses); no mention of climate change impacts; What about water resources?
   Align growth areas with existing infrastructure (5)	New developments where there is little or no infrastructure needs to be stopped; question Bellarine Peninsula towns (eg Drysdale, Clifton Springs) being identified for growth – currently not enough infrastructure to support summer peaks; Geelong should be larger; use what is already zoned to create new employment precincts eg. don’t need to rezone new areas for intermodal use area around Avalon
   Plan for emerging agricultural practices (4)	Include sections where intensive agriculture might go – where future investment will identify those developments; encourage intensive agriculture in Thompson Valley; local produce is vital, farmers markets/ organic farming should be encouraged (is a growth market); need to enable more than one house on farming land to redress rural township decline, need opportunity to expand farms to increase productivity
   Need commitment from state and federal decision makers (4)	Have the state government as a stakeholder and pin them down; continue to lobby the state and federal governments; Hard to get political commitment ($) to implement, can’t leave it to the market – would be just greenfield sprawl. Sceptical given government’s preference for Melbourne docks over Corio Bay for on& offloading cars, and their desire to ‘balance the budget’; plan needs financial commitment.
   Need to see the action (4)	Concerned that things won’t happen, it’s all good to plan but need action; actions are light on; need the next stage of detail; the principles need to be practiced; still many unknowns
   Want more emphasis on the needs of society (4)	Less on the needs of developers; move it along quicker – urban renewal needs to happen much more quickly – blight on Geelong; Plan needs to provide specific strategies relating to wellbeing and liveability; worried that Colac growth will be only from Corio overflow – how do we attract diversity of people and industries?
   Need more detail re employment sources and opportunities (3)	Explain where the growth in employment in Torquay/Jan Juc area is supposed to come from (surf industry contracting not expanding); Loss of manufacturing areas (eg. Ford and Alcoa) and subsequent employment are skimmed over; show where industrial employment areas will be in the future – want to stay working in the area – what sorts of work will there be?
   Need more detail about Settlement and Growth Directions (3)	Need to prioritise the Settlement & Growth directions & assign timelines; no detail as to how S&D directions will be implemented; don’t understand how Colac Otway Shire can push for development of investigative areas without adequate time being given for infill development; The investigation area in North needs to extend further north; don’t like that I can’t sell my land;
   Need more detail re industrial areas (3)	Want to know what is planned for the industrial sector – Growth Plan not specific enough; light industrial should go north of Lara; not enough land for industrial use – or if there is it is not clear – need to ensure sufficient land is set aside
   Consider and highlight neighbouring regional issues (2)	How the plan should respond to the peri-urban area land use issues around Melbourne; Show regions that surround the G21 and their influence
   Don’t assume that population growth is ‘Aspirational’ (2)	Many in region don’t aspire to exponential population growth; There will be paradigm shift due to peak oil, economic upheaval
   Address environmental impacts of changing land uses (1)	Contaminated land when industries leave (e.g. Ford, Alcoa) needs to be addressed in the planning of new areas
   Need to engage people in the future (1)	Challenges section could have included and highlighted the need to develop more community governance models that meaningfully engage a greater diversity of people.
   Ensure affordable Housing (1)	To have some means of ensuring that a proportion of housing is affordable both as purchase and social housing.
   Encourage more connected communities (1)	Connection between communities needs to be better encouraged
   Acknowledge traditional owners (1)	Need to acknowledge the traditional owners/country in the plan – leads to missing the story about the environment and cultural tourism
   Avoid high density (1)	Against 20/hectare development

   
   

   General comments, including those of less strategic detail included:

   Key Theme – What could be improved in the draft Growth Plan	Brief Description of Concerns
   General (15)	Should have done ‘backcasting’ – dream, imagine rather than forecasting; infrastructure in Lara is inadequate; should acquire Point Wilson pier to complement port activities, bypass Melbourne; Lara/Avalon area unique – interstate rail, major highway, airport, port , Pt Wilson; COGG needs to be more lenient with parking around the Geelong Hospital – more free parks and long term spaces for visitors and family; parking fines too high; want to cut my Lovely Banks 5 acre block in 2 x 2.5 acres; Areas that are prone to bushfires and flooding should not be developed; statement re role of structure planning could be strengthened to add that the desire to channel growth to the major growth areas, does not preclude consideration of modestly increasing settlement boundaries for smaller townships outside of the major population and employment growth precincts; It needs to be easy for people to develop land; the authorities need to be helpful rather than make it difficult; Food will need to be imported into the region; need more detail about assumptions re confirmed growth and its implications socially, environmentally, economically; expand Geelong Yacht Club marina; eco accommodation near airport; Lara speedway is hardly an appropriate greeting – more needs to be done to smarten up this access to Geelong and remove eyesores.
   More detail sought regarding issues around Lara (12)	Want to know what is happening with the intermodal; Updates to be supplied to Lara bodies or direct to Lara residences and businesses of the CBD development of the shopping and services; There should be an intermodal in Lara, supermarket in Lara should be in the west, shopping centre in Lara needed; don’t want the land use change imposed on in Lara ; Council needs to better inform the Lara community about local/town planning – don’t want it imposed upon us; enforcement of tonnage limits on Lara roads; enforce trucks using Bacchus Marsh Rd no to cut through Lara; Don’t like separation between Lara and Little River – is this space free for the intermodal
   General comments re document style (2)	The language could be plainer with more examples for people to relate to; needs to be innovative, futuristic, incorporating successes in other areas.

   
   

   Comments relating to the Growth Plan process included:

   Key Theme – What could be improved in the draft Growth Plan

   Brief Description of Concerns

   Engagement opportunities were too limited (8)

   More people to participate – hard to get community to engage; could have known about it earlier; very limited advertising within the community and one session – not good enough; The process has been rushed and there is no reason why – community consultation not widely communicated and I can only think it is so the community is not aware of the drastic changes with infrastructure – more detail before re: exact locations and timelines; run engagement for youth; need to employ a better tactic for next community consultation stage; present to secondary schools – what this means for them get their input

   
   

3. Kingston Park Ocean Grove Master Plan and Management Plan

Summary

• The purpose of this Report is to inform Council of the preparation of the draft Kingston Park Ocean Grove Master Plan and Management Plan (2012) for the Kingston Park Reserve in Ocean Grove and allow the draft Plan to be displayed for public comment for six weeks prior to formal endorsement.

• The intent of the draft Kingston Park Ocean Grove Master Plan and Management Plan (2012) is to prepare an integrated master plan and management plan for the site, to guide future management of both the conservation reserve area and the recreational facilities within the Park.

• An internal working group was established with representatives from Parks and Support Services, City Services, Fire Management, Sport and Recreation and Environment and Natural Resources to guide the preparation of the draft plan and ensure that key outcomes and recommendations from existing background documents were included.

• A detailed community consultation process involving the distribution of an information leaflet and questionnaire, a community workshop, and notices and information in the local media informed the preparation of the Master and Management Plan sections of the report.

• The draft plan contains (Refer to Attachment 3-1):

• Kingston Park Ocean Grove Master Plan and Management Plan (draft)

• Summary Report Community Consultation Outcomes

• Existing Conditions Plan

• Existing Vegetation Communities Plan

• Draft Master Plan

• Draft Management Plan

Cr Doull moved, Cr Farrell seconded -

That Council:

1. notes the draft Kingston Park Ocean Grove Master Plan and Management Plan (2012).

2. supports the release of the draft Kingston Park Ocean Grove Master Plan and Management Plan (2012) for public exhibition and comment for a six week period.

Cr Macdonald left the meeting room at 9:13pm

Cr Macdonald re-entered the meeting room at 9:15pm

Carried.

Report

Background

Kingston Park is a 12.5 ha reserve, owned by the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG), located to the north-east corner of the intersection of Grubb Road and Shell Road in Ocean Grove. The park is bounded by Adco Grove and Coolamon Close to the north, residential properties directly adjoining the park to the west, south and north-east corner, and the Geelong Revival Centre Camp to the east. The Ocean Grove CFA and The Mex restaurant are also located to the south-west corner of the park.

The Park is used by the local community and organisations for passive recreation and activities, and provides facilities including a playground, a picnic shelter and BBQ area, a public toilet block, a cottage housing the Girl Guides of Victoria, and a network of informal walking tracks in the 6.5ha conservation area located in the eastern section of the park.

The cottage located at the southern end of the open grass field is owned and operated by the Girl Guides Association of Victoria and the site is leased from the CoGG.

The Rotary Club of Ocean Grove has a licence agreement with Council to operate a summer community craft market in Kingston Park on the first Sunday of each month from October until Easter of the following year.

The Park features a population of Bellarine Yellow Gums, which are listed as 'endangered' in Victoria according to 'Rare or Threatened Vascular Plants in Victoria - 2000' (DSE 2003) and listed as 'threatened' under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. The Park also contains one of the few near intact endangered vegetation communities ‘EVC 175 Grassy Woodland’ in the Otway plains bioregion left on the Bellarine.

Strategic planing for the Park is shared between Sport and Recreation on the west side, and Environment and Natural Resources Unit on the east side.

The need for this plan arose from on-going fire management issues raised by a number of residents, mostly on the southern boundary of the reserve combined with a need to provide a more integrated and planned approach for the management of both the conservation reserve area and the recreational facilities. Key elements of the project include:

• Mapping the existing vegetation on the site.

• Liaising with CoGG Environment and Natural Resources, Sport and Recreation, Parks and Support Services, Fire Management and City Services Officers.

• Consulting with the local residents adjoining the reserve and other local community stakeholders groups.

• Preparing a Draft Master Plan addressing the following:

• Vegetation management, pedestrian access and the interface between bushland areas and adjoining private property.

• Vehicle access, car parking and pedestrian paths/safety.

• Management and provision of active and passive recreation areas and facilities.

• Management of other community events such as the Ocean Grove Craft Market.

• An internal working group was established with representatives from Parks and Support Services, City Services, Fire Management, Sport and Recreation and Environment and Natural Resources to guide the preparation of the draft plan and ensure that key outcomes and recommendation from existing background documents were included.

• Key outcomes and recommendations from existing background documents were used to inform the development of the plan. These included:

• Biodiversity Strategy, City of Greater Geelong, 2003

• Ocean Grove Structure Plan, City of Greater Geelong, 2007

• Ocean Grove Sporting Infrastructure Plan, Insight Leisure Planning, PJ O’Reilly & Associated, 2010

• The Vegetation of Kingston Park Conservation Area – Assessment of Conservation Significance, Mark Trengove Ecological Services, 2012

• Draft City of Greater Geelong Municipal Fire Management Plan, October 2011-2014

• Ocean Grove To

• wnship Protection Plan, CFA, 2011

• Domestic Animal Management Plan, City of Greater Geelong,2008

A community consultation process was conducted as part of the research and analysis phase of this project. An information leaflet and questionnaire was prepared to seek feedback from the local community to inform preparation of the Kingston Park Master Plan. The questionnaire was designed to identify existing use of the Park, key values, issues and opportunities to be considered in preparation of the master plan. 1181 information leaflet/questionnaires were letter box dropped to residents in the local area and another 50 copies were provided to both the Ocean Grove Customer Service Centre and the Bellarine Aquatic Centre in late September 2011. Additional information leaflet/questionnaires were also available at the community workshop held on the 12/10/2011 at the Ocean Grove CFA and from the City’s Environment and Natural Resource Unit team members working on site through October 2011. Notices were placed in the Bellarine Times 4/10/11 and Ocean Grove The Voice on 5/10/11. A total of 95 questionnaires were completed and returned along with four detailed written responses by closing date of 21/10/2011.

Discussion

The draft Kingston Park Ocean Grove Master Plan and Management Plan (2012) has been developed in close consultation with existing site users and community stakeholders. The draft plan seeks to address the key objectives for the project including ongoing protection of key environmental and cultural heritage values and the staged improvement of passive and active recreational facilities.

The draft plan contains (Refer to Attachment 3-1):

• Kingston Park Ocean Grove Master Plan and Management Plan (draft)

• Summary Report Community Consultation Outcomes

• Existing Conditions Plan

• Existing Vegetation Communities Plan

• Draft Master Plan

• Draft Management Plan

The Park has been divided into a four zones and sub-zones defined by common management aims/objectives (refer Attachment 1: Draft Management Plan). The four management zones and sub-zones are as follows:

Zone 1: Bellarine Yellow Gum Conservation Areas

Zone 2: Fenced Grassy Woodland Conservation Area

• Zone 2A Natural Remnant Grassy Woodland

• Zone 2B Primary Fire Break Zone

• Zone 2C Secondary Buffer Zone

Zone 3: Parkland Areas

• Zone 3A Scattered Woodland

• Zone 3B Primary Fire Break Zone

• Zone 3C Drainage Channel:

• Zone 3D Future Revegetation Areas

Zone 4: Recreation Areas

• Zone 4A Adco Grove picnic area, car park and playground area

• Zone 4B Guide Hall

• Zone 4C Open grass area

The following is a summary of the overall management objectives for the park:

• Protect and enhance the remnant vegetation including the population of Bellarine Yellow Gums and the existing conservation area and undertake staged restoration works where required to increase biodiversity and habitat corridor value while maintaining required fire breaks and views from adjoining properties for security.

• Maintain existing dog on lead in the conservation area and investigate dogs off lead area in the open grass area of the park.

• Upgrade existing regulatory signage and investigate provision of new interpretation signage.

• Protect and enhance the conservation area while improving and maintaining the required fire breaks from adjoining properties.

• Improve passive recreation areas and facilities, including installation of additional seats.

• Review vehicle access and the existing car parking areas and investigate removal of unused car parks and revegetation

• Improve pedestrian circulation and safety in the park.

• Investigate applying PCRZ (Public Conservation and Resource Zone) zoning to existing conservation areas within the Park.

Environmental Implications

Kingston Park contains a thriving population of Bellarine Yellow Gums Eucalyptus leucoxylon ssp. bellarinensis located inside the fenced conservation zone and scattered around the Park. These trees are protected under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and the healthy and naturally regenerating population at Kingston Park has been assessed as of National significance. The Park also contains in excess of 6.5 hectares of remnant Grassy Woodland (Ecological Vegetation Community 175). This vegetation is listed as significant, as most naturally occurring remnants on the Bellarine Peninsula have been cleared. Both of these significant biodiversity assets will continue to be managed by the Environment and Natural Resources Unit, including ongoing removal of exotic weeds and aggressive natives such as Sweet Pittosporum and Tea Tree, followed by carefully planned ecological burning to promote groundlayer biodiversity values and reduce fuel loads.

The Assessment of Conversation Significance Report (Mark Trengrove 2012) commissioned by the City of Greater Geelong concluded that the conservation area on the eastern side of Kingston Park and the recorded areas of scattered remnant vegetation in the western side of the park have the following conservation values:

• State conservation significance for the occurrence of Bellarine Yellow Gum that it is listed as 'Endangered' within Victoria and is listed for protection under the Victorian Flora and Guarantee Act (1998) (DSE).

• Endangered vegetation community 'EVC 175 Grassy woodland' in the Otway plains bioregion (DSE).

• Very High Conservation Significance vegetation (Habitat Hectare Assessment/DSE).

• National botanical significance for it population of Bellarine Yellow Gum (CoGG Biodiversity Plan).

• Regional significance for its Grassy Woodland vegetation (CoGG Biodiversity Plan).

• Populations of Black Bristle-rush and the Drooping Sheoke which is of Regional Conservation Significance.

• High (State) zoological significance for its habitat values, that includes fallen timber, mature trees with hollows and a shrub layer (CoGG Biodiversity Plan).

The draft plan has no direct implications on energy use and green house emissions other than in the infrastructure installation stages.

Any re-vegetation will be undertaken with indigenous species as they are best suited to the local conditions, requiring minimal watering particularly once established.

A key component of implementation of the draft plan will be to Buy with the Environment in Mind a part of the City’s EcoChallenge initiative.

Financial Implications

An overview of the indicative capital costs and recommended implementation framework (i.e. priorities) for each of the key improvements actions identified is listed in Table 1. Details about of the implementation and costing against each action can be found in Attachment 3-1 Implementation Schedule.

Total works are estimated at $382,700. In the 2012-2013 Council Business Plan an allocation of $30,000 has been made to implement some actions in the passive recreation area. Key actions identified for the fire break zones in Zone 2 and Zone 3 can be undertaken as part of normal work.

The priorities are as follows:

• Mandatory (i.e. required by legislation or regulation)

• Critical (i.e. risk mitigation or safety)

• High

• Medium

• Low

• Ongoing

Table One: Indicative Capital Costs and Implementation Framework.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The rare and threatened Bellarine Yellow Gum Eucalyptus leucoxylon ssp. bellarinensis is found mostly scattered in the western area of Kingston Park, with a few clusters identified in the fenced conservation area in the east of the park. These trees are protected under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.

The Plan recognises that all community members have equal rights to participate in and enjoy the benefits of public open space. The development of the Plan has considered and incorporated solutions to facilitate and encourage access for all wherever possible.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council staff engaged in development of this draft plan has a direct or indirect interest in the development of the draft Kingston Park Master Plan and Management Plan (2012).

Risk Assessment

The area of remnant bushland may be subject to wildfire. The Park also requires ongoing use of fire to promote regeneration and enhance biodiversity values. To minimise risk adjoining properties and the CoGG in close consultation with the CFA will continue to maintain designated buffer zones along private property boundaries and will continue to liaise closely with residents regarding fire risk in the park. By maintaining the area in a manner that befits the vegetation community, the dual goal of minimising fuel is also achieved. Weed growth and inappropriate fire regimes increase the risk of developing high fuel loads. By working towards optimal biodiversity outcomes, fuel is kept to a minimum whilst still providing the best possible ecosystem services.

Implementation of the actions in the Plan will reduce the potential for damage to the environmental and cultural values of the site through inappropriate access and works. Appropriate risk management measures will be put into place when implementing the Plan. Management of risk will also be considered during any design and construction phase.

Social Considerations

The implementation of the draft Kingston Park Ocean Grove Master Plan and Management Plan (2012) will provide a direct social benefit via the improvement of passive recreation areas and facilities, including installation of additional seats, improved pedestrian circulation and safety in the Park. Indirect social benefits will be derived from improved environmental conditions for the conservation of biodiversity and habitat values within the Park.

Communication

A community consultation process was conducted as part of the research and analysis phase of this project. An information leaflet and questionnaire was prepared to seek feedback from the local community to inform preparation of the draft Kingston Park Master Plan and Management Plan. The questionnaire was designed to identify existing use of the Park, key values, issues and opportunities to be considered in preparation of the Master Plan. 1181 information leaflet/questionnaires were letter box dropped to residents in the local area and another 50 copies were provided to both the Ocean Grove Customer Service Centre and the Bellarine Aquatic Centre in late September 2011. Additional information leaflet/questionnaires were also available at the Community Workshop held on 12/10/2011 at the Ocean Grove CFA and from the City’s Environment and Natural Resource Unit team members working on site through October 2011. Notices were placed in the Bellarine Times on 4/10/11 and Ocean Grove The Voice 5/10/11. A total of 95 questionnaires were completed and returned along with 4 detailed written responses by closing date of 21/10/2011 (See Attachment 1: Summary Report Community Consultation Outcomes).

The draft plan and report will be displayed for public comment for six weeks. Those that attended the Community Workshop will be provided with a copy of the draft plan. Feedback received will be reviewed and used to inform amendments and changes to the Draft Plan and Implementation Priorities where appropriate.

4. Mt Brandon Landscape Plan

Summary

• The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the development of the draft Mt Brandon Landscape Plan (2012) and allow the draft Plan to be released for public exhibition and comment prior to formal endorsement.

• The intent of the draft Mt Brandon Landscape Plan (2012) is to co-ordinate the staged development of future recreational infrastructure such as paths, bridges, platforms, picnic areas, public toilets, playgrounds, seating and car parking. The draft Plan will also guide ongoing weed control and revegetation works, within the Mt Brandon and Wandana precincts of the Barwon and Moorabool River Reserves Masterplan and Management Plan (2006).

• The draft Mt Brandon Landscape Plan (2012) has been prepared in accordance with the overall intent of the Barwon and Moorabool River Reserves Masterplan and Management Plan (2006).

• The area referred to as Mt Brandon, includes Mt Brandon and Wandana, which were transferred to Council as public open space in 2009 and 2010. The surrounding private land is undergoing significant urban development (please refer to Attachment 1 for the map of the Mt Brandon Landscape Plan Study Area).

Cr Doull moved, Cr Nelson seconded -

That Council:

1. notes the draft Mt Brandon Landscape Plan (2012);

2. supports the release of the draft Mt Brandon Landscape Plan (2012) for public exhibition and comment for a four week period.

Cr Fisher left the meeting room at 9.26pm

Cr Fisher re-entered the meeting room at 9:28pm

Carried.

Report

Background

The Environment and Natural Resources Unit of the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) is responsible for managing the Barwon and Moorabool River Reserves (BMRR) between the Queens Park Bridge and the Geelong Ring Road. The draft Mt Brandon Landscape Plan has been prepared in consultation with the Barwon and Moorabool River Reserves Advisory Committee (BMRRAC). The BMRRAC and the Friends of Buckley Falls (FoBF) provide the CoGG with advice and support around the management of the reserves.

The BMRRAC consists of the following:

• Environment & Sustainability Portfolio Councillor

• Environment and Natural Resources Unit (Executive Officer)

• One representative from the Parks and Support Services

• One representative from the Sport and Recreation

• One representative from the Department of Sustainability and
  Environment

• One representative from the Corangamite Catchment
  Management Authority

• One representative from Parks Victoria

• One representative from the Moltoni Corporation Pty Ltd

• One representative from the Friends of Buckley Falls

• One representative from the Geelong Environment Council

• One representative from the Geelong Field Naturalists Club

• Two community representatives

• One representative from Heritage Victoria

• One representative from the Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation (currently
  vacant)

• One representative from the Wathaurong Aboriginal Cooperative.

In 2006 Council endorsed the Barwon and Moorabool River Reserves Master Plan and Management Plan (BMRRMMP). The Plan identified a system of public open space reserves that extend on both sides the Barwon River from the Geelong Ring Road to the existing Queens Park Bridge, and public land along the Moorabool River at Fyansford to the confluence with the Barwon River. The Plan included future open space areas that had not yet been transferred to Council, including the areas known as Mt Brandon and Wandana.

Within this system of reserves are significant natural and constructed features. These include Buckley Falls and the lookout which offers expansive views of the Barwon River, Baums Weir, a popular fishing location, and the linked trail network which is popular for walking and cycling.

The area attracts many visitors and the visitation rate is increasing as the surrounding area changes from rural / industrial to residential. Now that homes are being built and occupied in the adjoining area, public use and expectations of the facilities, such as path networks in the public open space at Mt Brandon and Wandana is high and will continue to increase.

The draft Mt Brandon Landscape Plan (2012) provides a more detailed plan to coordinate the implementation of on-ground actions in accordance with the intent of the BMRRMMP, specifically in the areas known as Mt Brandon and Wandana, which were transferred to Council in 2009 and 2010. These actions include restoration works, car parking, picnic facilities, a playground, flat grassed informal recreation areas and toilet facilities to complement other facilities along the Barwon River.

Discussion

The intent of the draft Mt Brandon Landscape Plan (2012) (see attached report) is to coordinate the staged development of future recreational infrastructure such as paths, bridges, platforms, picnic areas, public toilets, playgrounds, seating and car parking with ongoing weed control and revegetation works. The draft Mt Brandon Landscape Plan (2012) has been prepared in accordance with the overall intent of the Barwon and Moorabool River Reserves Masterplan and Management Plan (2006) and more recently completed Council and Friends of Buckley Falls (FoBF) projects.

Included with the draft Plan is the staged implementation schedule and indicative capital costs for the works identified in the draft Plan. The total costs of all the works proposed in the draft Plan is estimated at $2,763,450 (when preparing budgets a contingency costs of 10% will be included) and is broken down into six stages as indicated in Table One. Funding support from federal, state and regional funding bodies, such as the Barwon River Parklands Project will be sought to support the implementation of the Plan. The Barwon River Parklands Project has already provided approximately $180,000 towards project implementation.

Table One: Mt Brandon Landscape Plan Indicative Costs

As works will be staged over many years the intent is to confirm the footprint and layout of infrastructure to enable progressive development of the site while retaining sufficient space for integrated future development. This will help the Barwon and Moorabool River Reserves Advisory Committee guide works and activities at Mt Brandon and Wandana.

The Friends of Buckley Falls (FoBF) are an extremely active community group. They have regular working bees and undertake many revegetation and rehabilitation projects within the BMRR with funding assistance from Council. This work is overseen by the Barwon and Moorabool River Reserves Advisory Committee which was recognised in the 2011 Keep Australia Beautiful Victoria Sustainable Cities and Clean Beaches Awards by being awarded winners in the category of Sustainable Cities Community Government Partnership. It is envisaged that the FoBF will play a significant role in
implementing many of the restoration actions identified in the draft Plan.

A copy of the draft Plan, and the staged implementation schedule and indicative capital costs for the works identified in the landscape plan are attached (see Appendix 1 and Appendix 2). The total costs of the all the works proposed in the landscape lan is estimated at $2,763,450 and is broken down into six stages. Also included are approximate annual maintenance costs after each stage has been delivered.

The costs at each stage are prioritised as indicated in the Table 2 below.

Environmental Implications

The study area covered by the draft Plan contains biodiversity sites recognised in the City’s Biodiversity Strategy and is also part of the larger network of designated Primary Biodiversity Zones. National and state significant flora and fauna make up the diverse range of biodiversity to be found in the area.

A major threat to these values is weed invasion. The draft Plan provides clear direction for an ongoing staged program of works which co-ordinates weed control and revegetation activities, within the Mt Brandon and Wandana precincts. Such a program will significantly contribute to the protection and enhancement the biodiversity values in the area.

The increasing public access may impact on existing and future habitat values. The Plan provides direction for establishing sealed shared tracks to maximise links along the river and for low impact unsealed walking paths. The draft Plan also provides direction for the layout of infrastructure to enable progressive development of the site while retaining sufficient space for integrated future development while minimising impacts on environmental and habitat values.

The draft Plan will indicate proposed revegetation zones and priorities with species lists in accordance with the Ecological Vegetation Community benchmarks. All revegetation will be undertaken with the use of locally sourced indigenous species.

The draft Plan has no direct implications on energy use and green house emissions other than in the infrastructure construction stages. Implementation will have positive indirect implications by providing shared trail links to the existing Barwon River Shared Trail network for cyclists to commute to and from home and school/work, and potential carbon offset via the revegetation program.

Design of infrastructure e.g. toilets will utilise best practice energy and water efficiency design options. Re-vegetation will be undertaken with indigenous species as they are best suited to the local conditions, requiring minimal watering particularly once established.

A key component of implementation of the Plan will be to Buy with the Environment in Mind a part of the City’s EcoChallenge initiative.

Implementation of the staged program of works which coordinates weed control and revegetation activities proposed in the draft Plan will also have beneficial impacts on the environmental values within the reserve.

Financial Implications

The draft Plan proposes activities to be implemented as part of a six stage program, the timing of which will be dependant on funding availability from a range of sources. The full implementation of the actions listed in the draft Plan will cost approximately $2.7million. It is expected that opportunities for co-contribution from federal, state and regional funding sources will be available and sourced during all stages of implementation of the draft Plan.

Parks Victoria have already provided $180,000 towards the Mandatory Activities in Stage 1 of the draft Mt Brandon Landscape Plan.

A prioritised breakdown of costs at each stage is provided below.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The draft Mt Brandon Landscape Plan (2012) recognises that all community members have equal rights to participate in and enjoy the benefits of public open space. The development of the draft Plan has considered and incorporated solutions to facilitate and encourage access for all wherever possible.

The completed draft design will be used as the basis for preparation of an 'Activity Statement' which will describe in detail the proposed works and construction methods to enable preparation of an archaeological brief and to enable confirmation of the details of the Cultural Heritage Management Plan if required.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council staff engaged in development of this plan have a direct or indirect interest in the development of the draft Mt Brandon Landscape Plan (2012).

Risk Assessment

The draft Mt Brandon Landscape Plan (2012) provides for the coordinated, staged development of future recreational infrastructure such as paths, bridges, platforms, picnic areas, public toilets, playgrounds, seating and car parking and ongoing weed control and revegetation works.

Implementation of the draft Plan will reduce the potential for damage to the environmental and cultural values of the study areas through inappropriate access and development of the areas which have known environmental and culturally significant values.

Appropriate risk management measures will be put into place when implementing the draft Plan. The completed draft design will be used to enable preparation of archaeological brief and to enable confirmation of the details of the Cultural Heritage Management Plan if required. Management of risk will also be considered during the design and construction phase.

Social Considerations

The implementation of the draft Mt Brandon Landscape Plan (2012) will provide a direct social benefit via the development of walking path links in new areas of public open space and provision of family friendly recreational facilities improving the recreational and social experiences of visitors to this reserve.

Indirect social benefits will be derived from improved environmental conditions for the conservation of biodiversity and habitat values within the reserve.

Protection of European and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage sites is a key consideration in the development of the draft Plan.

Communication

The development of the draft Plan has involved consultation with Council staff and the Barwon and Moorabool River Reserves Advisory Committee including a site inspection and a follow up meeting to review the draft Plan.

If Council approves the draft Mt Brandon Landscape Plan (2012) to be released for public exhibition and comment prior to formal endorsement. The consultation tasks will include:

• the use of local media to promote the opportunity for public comment on the draft Plan

• a mail out to all adjoining residents • availability of the draft Plan viewing at council Customer Service Centres and the City’s web site.

5. O’Briens Road, Lara – Road Construction SRC317 – Finalisation of Scheme

Summary

• This report relates to the finalisation of a Special Charge Scheme for road and drainage construction for O’Briens Road, Lara between the Geelong-Bacchus Marsh Road and McManus Road as shown on the plan – Appendix 5-3.

• This project is a sub-project of the Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct (GREP) Project and is seen as an important starting point for the development of the GREP.

• The scheme has been administered in accordance with the special rate and charge provisions of the Local Government Act along with Council’s special rates and charges policy.

• The report seeks a resolution by Council to ‘vary’ the special charge for the works to finalise the O’Briens Road, Lara, Special Charge Scheme. The process is shown in Attachment 5-1 – Process Chart.

• The project involved the construction of O’Briens Road as well as main drainage.

• Works relating to the special charge scheme component have now been completed and it is appropriate for Council to finalise the scheme.

• Based on actual and some estimated costs the total project cost is $7,402,822 compared with the original estimate of $8,406,948. Property owner charges were estimated at $1,046,957. The actual charge to property owners is $696,235.

• The project has been subsidised to the value of $2 million by the State Government.

Cr Richards moved, Cr Granger seconded -

That Council having declared a special charge on 13 July 2010 for the purposes of defraying the expenses in relation to the construction of road works and main drainage for O’Briens Road, Lara (Appendix 5-3 – Plan) in accordance with Section 163 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) resolves that:

1. the special charges as declared be varied in accordance with actual costs incurred on the project as required by Section 166 of the Act as shown in Schedule A – Appendix 5-1;

2. the General Manager of Corporate Services is authorised to levy and recover the special charges by sending notices to the persons who are liable to pay in accordance with Section 166 of the Act and the Regulations;

3. in accordance with Section 172, the rate of interest which is payable on the special charges which have not been paid by the specified date is set at Council’s overdraft rate, reviewed every three months (provided that it shall not exceed the rate fixed by the Governor in Council by Order for the purposes of Section 172 2A in which case the rate of interest shall be the maximum fate fixed by the Governor in Council by Order for the purposes of the Section). The interest is to be calculated from the date the special charge is due, with a six months interest free period, providing those persons who choose to pay by instalments adhere to their repayment plan.

Cr Doull left the meeting room at 9:32pm

Carried.

Background

This report relates to the finalisation of a special charge scheme for road, main drainage and watermain construction for O’Briens Road between Bacchus Marsh Road and McManus Road, Lara. The road services part of the Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct (GREP). The GREP area is shown on the plan below and O’Briens Road shown of the locality plan Appendix 5-3. The overall project which includes the special charge scheme works involved the following aspects:

• Construction of O’Briens Road over its full length;

• Provision of street drainage;

• Provision of a main drain located in O’Briens Road to service the properties on the north side;

• Provision of a drainage detention basin which was a separate project, into which the main drain discharges;

• Upgrading the intersection of Bacchus Marsh Road and O’Briens Road;

• Upgrading the intersection, by provision of a roundabout at McManus Road and O’Briens Road;

• Provision of additional infrastructure such as telecommunications conduits and a 2m wide footpath; and

• Street lighting and ancillary works.

All works relating to the special charge scheme have been completed. This enables Council to finalise the special charge scheme. The construction of O’Briens Road and drainage has enabled the subdivision of three blocks by Council. One block has recently been sold.

Discussion

As construction of the special charge scheme component is now completed, the scheme can be finalised by Council. Table A – Appendix 5-1 below shows the financial arrangements as the scheme was prepared and declared by Council.

Table B below indicates the actual costs of the remaining components which are currently under construction. Table B – Appendix 5-1 indicates the cost to Council. This is made up of the cost associated with its own property of $695,639 and contribution to various aspects of the project at $4,010,948. The cost of provision of land for item 5 and 7 in the table is $1,875,135 and is not a cash item as Council already owns the land.

The following table indicates in summary form and relevant only to the special charge scheme components and the RIDF grant, how the split was estimated and the final allocation was made.

The key issue is that the ratio of the actual cost to the RIDF allocation in no instance was less than, and in two cases in excess of, the original proposal.

Item 3 shows a considerable increase in actual cost compared with estimated cost. The reason for this is that at the time of preparation of the scheme a certain level of construction for the O’Briens Road and Bacchus Marsh Road was envisaged. In subsequent discussions and negotiations with VicRoads, a higher level of works was ultimately required. The increase in expenditure on this item is more than compensated for by the decreased expenditure on other items. As indicated the proportional allocation of RIDF funds to this project both at estimate and actual, are similar.

Property owners and Council as property owner, enjoy a considerable cost reduction. This is essentially due to the size of the project and economies of scale. The same contractor constructed the detention basin as well as the roadworks and underground drainage.

Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications including sustainability, energy use, water use or alternative material use, in Council’s decision to finalise this scheme. The process is an administrative matter only.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with Council proceeding to finalise the scheme. Property owners will be advised of the cost adjustment.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The scheme has been administered in accordance with the special rate and charge provisions of the Local Government Act as well as Council’s Special Rates and charges Policy. There are no issues regarding the Human Rights Charter.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council Officer involved with this process has any direct or indirect interest in the properties.

Risk Assessment

There are no risk assessment issues in Council proceeding to finalise the scheme.

Social Considerations

There are no social considerations associated with Council proceeding to finalise the scheme.

Communication

Communication with property owners has taken place during the course of the project. Owners will be advised of Council’s decision and the final cost.

6. Grovedale Station and Armstrong Creek Bus Planning Update

Summary

• This report is in response to a Council resolution on 24 July 2012 to provide a detailed update on the proposed Grovedale Station and the Bus Network Planning for the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area.

Cr Richards moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -

That Council notes the report.

Carried.

Report

Background

Council at its meeting on the 24 July 2012 noted an update report on the progress of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth area and its various Precinct Structure Plans, subdivision developments and general infrastructure projects.

At the meeting the Council resolved to request a more detailed report of on proposed Waurn Pond / Armstrong Creek West Railway Station and Bus Network Planning.

Discussion

Waurn Ponds / Armstrong Creek West Railway Station Planning

The Waurn Pond / Armstrong Creek Station was identified during the development of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan as a critical piece of public transport infrastructure to service the existing growth community of Waurn Ponds, Grovedale and Highton, along with the new Armstrong Creek community.

The station was then further elevated regarding its needs, scope and indicative cost as part of the Armstrong Creek Integrated Infrastructure Delivery Plan (ACIIDP) adopted by Council in February 2009, which followed with its inclusion in the Labour Government’s Victoria Transport Plan 2010 under the Geelong Transport Package for programmed works beyond 2017.

As part of the Liberal Governments pre-election commitment to the 2010 State Election, the station was confirmed for the delivery during the 2011 – 2014 term of Government.

Since this time extensive work has been carried out in developing an urban design framework as a initial step to advance detailed planning for the new station at Waurn Ponds. The preliminary urban design framework details a stage delivery of at grade car parking for an initial 200 car spaces on the north side and minor station facilities and ultimate delivery of approximately 2,580 car spaces and a local activity centre within the station precinct (predominately south of railway line).

Vic Roads and the Department of Transport have secured land to the south of the station site (Armstrong Creek side), and have a public acquisition overlay over land to the north of the station site to provide for the proposed initial car parking and related station facilities (Appendix 6-1).

The landowner of the Northern side of the railway line has applied for a residential subdivision of the land included in the Public Acquisition Overlay.

The Department of Transport has advised Council that they do not wish to exercise the entirety of the acquisition overlay and will restrict the purchase to a portion of land to provide for a total of 380 car parking spaces on the north of the railway line (noting, the 1st stages of construction only include 200 spaces).

One of the challenges working through the urban design framework and ultimate detailed design for the station will be the stage delivery of access under or over the railway line to provide accessibility from the Armstrong Creek side. Advice to date indicated that the initial station offer will be via the north side (Rossack Drive) of the railway line.

To illustrate the changing in car parking during the life of the stations planning, the below table details the approximate number of car parking space on the north and south side of the station as part of the three key phases of the stations planning.

Indicative Car parking Space at Waurn Ponds / Armstrong Creek West Station Proposed by Department of Transport / Public Transport Victoria Overtime

* C213 and C232 were Planning Scheme Amendments for the Railway Station Public Acquisition Overlay on the north and south side of the railway line, respectively.

A challenge in managing the staged delivery of such a significant piece of public transport infrastructure is the pressure it can place on local infrastructure and amenity awaiting the delivery of further stages (eg: additional car parking and station facilities), particularly when the new station will be the first station on the Geelong-Melbourne rail service.

Armstrong Creek Bus Network Planning

Public Transport Victoria (PTV) is undertaking second phase planning for the bus network to service Armstrong Creek in its ultimate form, with the major challenge in providing initial services being limited connections between stages/precinct of Armstrong Creek development.

PTV is currently preparing a Bus Planning Study for the growth area that determines the most practical and optimum bus routes as well as some of the service staging.

It has always been a strong vision of the Armstrong Creek growth area to ensure that planning is done for the early provision of bus service. This allows for the early establishment of behaviour for the new community and to ensure the community has the appropriate level of accessibility to these critical services.

Bus network planning, including the standard of roads and indicative location of bus stops, already form part of the Precinct Structure Plans within the growth area however the Bus Planning Study aims to identify the proposed bus routes for the growth area along with the constraints and opportunities that are faced in having these services realised.

Early discussion with PTV reflect the growth area will be primarily services via the existing Barwon Heads Road and Surf Coast Highway bus services, with local services eventually being established once a local catchments has been established, funding is available and key roads are delivered that enable the orderly and efficient delivery of bus services.

Officers are continuing to work with Public Transport Victoria in relation to both these projects.

Environmental Implications

There are no major environmental implications as result of this report, however it is acknowledged that any delay in the provision of new bus or rail services into the Armstrong Creek growth area will impact the take-up of these services and any ability to change user behaviour.

Financial Implications

The current proposal for the new Stage 1 - Waurn Ponds station could potential require the augmentation of local streets via signage, pavement line marking or footpath works to manage any local car parking concerns and general accessibility to the station for local residents. These works not identified in the current budget or any forward works program.

If the Council was to refuse the subdivision application on the grounds that the land covered by the Public Acquisition Overlay is required for the station, the Council would be liable for compensation for the land in excess of the Department of Transport’s specification.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The specific implications of projects reported on in this update report will be dealt with on a project by project basis.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

There are no offers of interest to report in relation to this project update.

Risk Assessment

There is a potential risk of community impact resulting from the proposed station due to increased parking demand on local residential streets.

Social Considerations

The planning and preliminary design for the new station has considered the need for a safe, well connected and attractive facility that meets the needs of the existing Waurn Ponds community as well as the new Armstrong Creek community. The stations proposed a high quality underpass of the railway line to facilitate all hour’s access between the two communities, however this facility is not proposed until later stages in the stations development.

Communication

There is no explicit communication program required as a result of this update, with any consultation from Public Transport Victoria likely to take place early in 2013.

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 and left the meeting room prior to discussion at 9:37pm.

7. Amendment C272 – Review of the City of Greater Geelong Advertising
Sign Guidelines

Summary

• The City has undertaken a review of the City of Greater Geelong Advertising Sign Guidelines 1997.

• The Guidelines aim to assist planning officers when considering planning permit applications for advertising signage and are an incorporated document in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

• The other assessment tool for advertising sign applications is Clause 52.05 of the Planning Scheme. This clause sets out the application requirements and decision guidelines for assessing signage applications. It was updated by the State Government in 2008 and this has prompted the need to review the City’s Guidelines.

• The new Advertising Sign Guidelines - 2012 was developed to assist the assessment of planning permit applications for advertising signage.

• An amendment to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme is required to give effect to the new Guidelines. Amendment C272 will remove the 1997 Guidelines as an incorporated document and introduce the 2012 Guidelines as a reference document.

• Other required administrative changes to the Planning Scheme include amending the list of Incorporated Documents and changes to the relevant Local Policies and the Municipal Strategic Statement to delete reference to the 1997 Guidelines and to insert reference to the 2012 Guidelines.

• It is recommended that Council request authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare an amendment to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme to include the City of Greater Geelong Advertising Sign Guidelines 2012 as a reference document in the planning scheme and that council resolve to exhibit the amendment included at Appendix 7-1.

Cr Macdonald moved, Cr Harwood seconded -

That Council defer consideration of the report.

Cr Doull re-entered the meeting room at 9:37pm.

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 and left the meeting room prior to discussion at 9:37pm

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 and left the meeting room prior to discussion at 9:37pm

8. Amendment C268 and Planning Permit 337/2012 – Proposed Masters
Home Improvement Store, Bacchus Marsh Road, Corio

Summary

• A combined Planning Scheme Amendment and Planning Permit application has been made by planning consultants Urbis on behalf of Hydrox Nominees Pty Ltd to enable the development of a Masters Home Improvement Store on the east side of Bacchus Marsh Rd abutting the Geelong Ring Road at Corio.

• The site is part of a larger Residential 1 zoned property with a street address of Browallia Drive, Corio.

• Masters is a joint venture between Woolworths Limited and Lowes Companies Incorporated.

• The Masters concept is best described as a large format Home Improvement store with a typical floor area of approximately 13,000 square metres consisting of Trade Supplies, Restricted Retail, Landscape Gardening Supplies with associated car parking.

• The amendment seeks to rezone an area of approximately 5.81 ha from Residential 1 zone to Business 3 zone and to amend the Retail Activity Centre Hierarchy in Clause 21.07-8 of the planning scheme to include the site as a “Homemaker Precinct”.

• The planning permit application seeks approval to use the land for a Restricted Retail Premises, Trade Supplies, Landscape Garden Supplies and Food and Drink Premises. Approval is also sought for the associated buildings and works, signage, partial waiver of parking requirements and to create access to a Road Zone Category 1.

• The recently adopted Corio Norlane Structure Plan provides strategic support for rezoning this land to the Business 4 zone.
  

• Access to the Masters store is proposed at a new signalised intersection on Bacchus Marsh Road. This intersection will also provide controlled access to the future Business 3 zone land to the south of Masters’ site.

• Initial comments on the proposal have been sought from internal and external

  Key technical issues to be resolved include: securing road access to the adjoining property from the new intersection; design of the interface with residential zoned land to the east; management of noise impacts on existing and future residents; and pedestrian and cycling connections.

• The site is zoned Residential 1 but is not currently appropriate for residential development because of the potential impact the abattoir operations might have on the amenity of residents.

• The site is well positioned to accommodate commercial development that would benefit from exposure to Bacchus Marsh Road and proximity to the Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct, as well as providing a buffer to residential land to the east. The proposal will utilise land that is not being used to its potential at a key entrance to Geelong and provide much needed new development and jobs for Corio.

• The Corio Masters store is expected to have positive economic impacts including local investment in the order of $13 million and the creation of approximately 176 local ongoing jobs, plus another 109 jobs through the multiplier effect. 100 direct and 88 indirect local construction-related jobs will also be supported during the centre’s development phase.

• From a planning policy perspective the site is not part of an existing activity centre or homemaker precinct under Council’s adopted Retail Activity Centre Hierarchy at Clause 21.07 of the scheme. It has been assessed as an “out of centre” proposal and found to meet the relevant tests.

• It is considered that this proposal will result in an overall net community benefit and is recommended for support.

• Conditions on the planning permit relating to building design, landscaping, delivery times etc will ensure that impact on the local residential amenity is reduced to acceptable levels.

• It is recommended the Planning Scheme Amendment and accompanying permit be exhibited subject to the receipt of Ministerial authorisation.

Cr Macdonald moved, Cr Granger seconded -

That Council:

1. Resolves to support the preparation and exhibition of Amendment C268 to
   the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme to:

• Rezone part of the land at Browallia Drive, Corio from Residential 1 zone to Business 4 zone;

• Delete Design and Development Overlay 14 from the land to be rezoned; and

• Amend the Retail Activity Centre Hierarchy in Clause 21.07-8 of the planning scheme to include the site as a homemaker precinct.

2. Agrees to consider the application for a planning permit for the use and development concurrently with the Amendment in accordance with Section 96A of the Planning and Environment Act.

3. Resolves to prepare and exhibit a draft planning permit 337/2012 with the Amendment, subject to resolution of the detail of the permit documentation as outlined in this report; and

4. Requests the Minister for Planning authorise the preparation of Amendment C268 and Planning Permit 337/2012.

Carried.

Report

Background

A combined Planning Scheme Amendment/Planning Permit application has been made by planning consultants Urbis on behalf of Hydrox Nominees Pty Ltd to enable the development of a Masters Home Improvement Store at Bacchus Marsh Rd, Corio.

The site is described in the Urbis planning application as follows:

“The subject site is located on the east side of Bacchus Marsh Road with a northern boundary to the Geelong Ring Road in Corio, and is approximately 10km from the Geelong City Centre. The site is relatively flat with a slight fall towards Bacchus Marsh Road. The site does not feature any buildings and is currently used for agricultural purposes (cropping). The site contains only exotic vegetation with no native species present.

The site is part of a wider parcel of land with the balance of the land to the east indicated for a future residential subdivision and development.

The subject site has a total area of approximately 120,920 sqm with the Masters component comprising 58,150 sqm. The balance of the land (62,770 sqm) is identified for future residential development. There are no restrictions on title except for a 2m wide drainage easement (E-4) extending across the site’s eastern boundary.”

The site is part of a larger Residential 1 zoned property with a street address of Browallia Drive, Corio. Appendix 8-1 shows the location including existing zoning. Appendix 8-2 is an aerial photo. The site is also affected by Design and Development Overlay (DDO14), Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO 4), and the Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO 3).

Masters is a joint venture between Woolworths Limited and Lowes Companies Incorporated.

The Masters concept can be best described as a large format Home Improvement store with a typical floor area of approximately 13,000 square metres consisting of Trade Supplies, Restricted Retail, Landscape Gardening Supplies with associated car parking. An image of the front of a typical Masters store is in Appendix 8-3.

The amendment seeks to rezone an area of approximately 5.81 ha from Residential 1 zone to Business 3 zone and to amend the Retail Activity Centre Hierarchy in Clause 21.07-8 of the planning scheme to include the Masters site as a homemaker precinct.

The planning permit application seeks approval to use the land for a Restricted Retail Premises, Trade Supplies, Landscape Garden Supplies and Food and Drink Premises. Approval is also sought for the associated buildings and works, signage, partial waiver of parking requirements and to create access to a Road Zone Category 1.

The application has been accompanied by comprehensive architectural and landscape plans of the proposed development and all necessary technical reports (planning, traffic, economic impact assessment, drainage and acoustic) which have been assessed by all relevant internal Council units. The site plans, elevations and landscape plans for the proposed development are in Appendix 8-4.

The proposed development plans indicate:

• A Woolworths Masters store with 13,701 square metres of gross floor area.

• Four restricted retail premises totalling 4,770 square metres of leasable floor area. The tenancies range from 1,120 to 1,400 square metres in size.

• A total of 487 car spaces (381 associated with Masters and 106 associated with the individual restricted retail tenancies).

Discussion

The site is vacant land located directly opposite the abattoir and is currently zoned Residential 1 Zone. This land is not appropriate for residential development because of the potential impact the abattoir operations might have on the amenity of residents. A buffer of 500m is generally applied to the abattoir. The site is well positioned to accommodate commercial development that would benefit from exposure to Bacchus Marsh Road and proximity to the Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct, as well as providing a buffer to residential land to the east. The major issues to be addressed in the consideration of this application include:

• Strategic basis including the Corio Norlane Structure Plan;

• Retail policies and economic impact;

• Building design and interface with surroundings;

• Noise and amenity issues

• Drainage and flooding

• Sewerage and water supply

• Road access and signalised intersection

• Pedestrian and cycling access

• Environmental issues

Strategic Basis - Corio Norlane Structure Plan

The recently adopted Corio Norlane Structure Plan provides strategic support for rezoning this land to the Business 4 zone for a new homemaker precinct.

Applying the Business 4 Zone is considered appropriate to support the Masters proposal. Land to the south of the precinct is a preferred location for an office/commercial park and the Structure Plan recommends this area be rezoned to Business 3.

Council has previously supported the Business 3 rezoning for the adjoining land (owned by Reachy Pty Ltd) under Amendment C166 which was abandoned by the Minister for Planning.

The Structure Plan retains the balance of the land not identified for business use in the Residential 1 zone. This land is directly east and south east of the Masters’ site and can be developed for residential if the abattoir relocates or it can be demonstrated that new residents will not be impacted by emissions from the abattoir.

The ‘Abattoir and Surrounds Concept Plan’ from page 21 of the Structure Plan (Appendix 8-5) shows the preferred locations for new road connections and the limit of the abattoir emissions buffer. The plan also recognises that in the event of the relocation of the abattoir, the abattoir site is ideally suited for future urban uses.

During the informal consultation process for the Corio Norlane Structure Plan submissions were received on the proposal to rezone this area to Business 3 Zone (now changed to part Business 4 and part Business 3). This resulted in an objecting submission from Fagg Bros Pty Ltd. According to Faggs the proposed rezoning is not justifiable on strategic planning grounds and should be abandoned. Supporting submissions were received from the two landowners directly affected – TGM for L Bisinella Developments (current owner of the proposed Master’s store site) and Reachy Pty Ltd (owner of land to the south earmarked for Business 3 zoning for a business park).

In response to the Fagg Bros Pty Ltd submission, Council commissioned consultants Urban Enterprise to prepare an economic and strategic assessment of the proposed business precinct. The assessment confirms the market capacity for establishing the precinct and general accordance with the Geelong Retail Strategy.

Retail policies and economic impact

The Greater Geelong Planning Scheme has two key clauses relevant to new retail applications. Both clauses are derived from Council’s 2006 Retail Strategy.

Clause 22.03 “Assessment Criteria for Retail Planning Applications” details information to be provided in seeking planning approval for retail developments including an Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) for retail developments above 2,000m2 and out of centre developments.

The proposed Master’s store is an “out of centre” development meaning it is not located in an existing activity centre or homemaker precinct shown in Clause 21.07 of the scheme. Clause 22.03 requires such applications to demonstrate why the out of centre location is necessary. This is to be achieved through a “sequential test” which demonstrates why the proposal:

• Cannot be accommodated in an existing activity centre, or failing that,

• Cannot be accommodated on an edge of centre location (which has a functional relationship with an activity centre) or, failing that,

• Cannot be accommodated in the nominated homemaker precincts.

• An out-of-centre proposal should then demonstrate that the location is consistent with urban context of the surrounding area, including potential impacts of the proposed development on local character and amenity.

Economic consultants, DeepEnd have responded to the above issues as part of the Master’s applications, as follows:

“As defined in the Retail Strategy, the Corio catchment contains three homemaker precincts, one community centre, one sub-regional centre and three neighbourhood centres. It is immediately apparent that no suitable land exists within or on an edge of centre location.

…..A sequential test has been undertaken to explore whether suitable land for a Masters store exists within the precincts. From an examination of the zoning and aerial views and supplemented by site visits and other enquiries, we can confirm that there are no suitably sized vacant sites.

There are two sites which could be suitable but are currently occupied or subject to adverse planning findings. The first of these is the current Bunnings store in Corio and adjoining vacant land on School Road (total site area of 2.947 hectares). However, we have been advised that the site will accommodate a truck sales and servicing dealership following the relocation of Bunnings to Norlane in 2012.

The second site is the Hometown site on the eastern side of the Princess Highway in North Geelong. At 15.1 hectares, this could have accommodated a Masters store but the abandonment of Amendment C98 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme has firmly ‘closed the door’ on this site being suitable for Masters.

The site of the proposed MHICC (Masters Home Improvement Centre Corio) is then considered appropriate despite its out-of-centre location. It is flat and well positioned at the interchange of two major roads in a location where residential use is not possible because of the required buffer to the abattoir on the opposite side of Bacchus Marsh Road. Development of the site for industrial purposes, the only potential alternative, would not be appropriate given the proximity to residential uses and Council’s desire for such used to be directed into the Heales Road precinct on the northern side of the Bypass (Deep End Services Pty Ltd, Jan 2012, Masters Home Improvement Centre Corio - Need and Economic Impact Assessment ).”

A previous attempt by Masters to have a portion of the former Geelong Golf Course rezoned was unsuccessful. The amendment (C231) was not supported by Council or an Independent Advisory Committee and was refused by the Minister for Planning in October 2010. Masters have been investigating sites in the northern suburbs since that time.

Council officers agree that there is a lack of suitable land for a 13,500 metres homemaker store in existing activity centres or homemakers precincts in the northern suburbs of Geelong.

It is proposed that Council (as part of Amendment C268) recognise the Bacchus Marsh Rd, Corio site as a new homemaker precinct. This will be reflected as a new homemaker centre in the Retail Activity Centre Hierarchy Map and Table at Clause 21.07-8 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme (see Appendix 8-6).

Building Design and Interface with surroundings

The rear of the Masters Store will back onto future residential area to the east. This interface was not adequately treated in the original plans accompanying the application. No landscaping was shown and the noise and acoustic report recommends a 6 metre high acoustic fence be constructed on the boundary. This is primarily due to noise from trucks accessing the rear service road, loading and unloading.

The 6 metre height of the acoustic wall is excessive and will impact on the visual amenity of the adjoining residential area.

The DPCD’s Interim Design Guidelines for Large Format Retail Premises (2007) include an objective (1.3) to integrate the built form of Large Format Retail Premises into the surrounding context. The relevant Design Standard DS1.3.4 is “Minimise amenity issues associated with servicing of these developments by design measures such as locating loading bays and site storage and access points for waste collection away from public spaces, streets and residential areas. Use buffer areas with appropriate landscaping to reduce visual impacts on adjoining sensitive uses”.

Options for treatment of this interface have been investigated with Master’s consultants. It appears the best outcome is to lower the height of the acoustic wall to 3 metres with tree planting on the residential (east) side the wall (see draft plan in Appendix 8-7). A peer review of the original Acoustic Report by another consulting company has confirmed that a 3 metre high wall is adequate for acoustic purposes.

Council officers will ensure an appropriate buffer treatment is put in place along the residential boundary. Noise and amenity issues Council officers have reviewed the proposal in relation to amenity impacts. Noise is the main issue with the residents backing onto the delivery area. The first main comment is the proposal for deliveries to be made from 6am to 10pm which is one hour too early against the EPA Noise Guideline 1254. This guideline has been developed to protect amenity and human health aspects with noise disturbance and should be followed very closely. If it is proposed to deviate then there must be some other very clear means of compliance (non-audible in habitable room).

Council officers consider the last paragraph in section 5.2 of the Environmental Noise Assessment is not entirely accurate in that trucks do have to comply with N-1 but on roads they have no time restrictions. This was put in to control the noise from delivery on private property and specifically not public roads during driving. Therefore the time restriction of 7am should apply. A condition stating the following should be included.

“Where a residential area will be impacted by noise from deliveries, then deliveries should be inaudible in a habitable room of any residential premises (regardless of whether any door or window giving access to the room is open) outside the hours contained in the schedule.

Schedule: Deliveries to shops, supermarkets & service stations

7 am — 10 pm Monday to Saturday

9 am — 10 pm Sundays and public holidays

Note: All ancillary motors or trucks should be turned off.”

It has also been suggested that delivery hours should be limited (eg. 8am to 8pm) and “Trucks idling” signage could be used to limit unnecessary noise.

Council officers consider that ideally the delivery dock should be enclosed. In relation to the acoustic barriers the heights should be designed to protect the future housing and not wait until they are constructed. As a condition a follow up assessment must be done to show compliance with SEPP N-1 and the NIRV. This will ensure that full protection of the residents occurs.

Permit conditions to address noise will be finalised prior to exhibition in consultation with the proponent.

Drainage and Flooding

Engineering advice indicates the site has a three metre fall to the south west at generally regular grades, cross boundary flows must be considered in a stormwater management plan. It is recommended that the development meet or exceed current best practice objectives for stormwater quality, and re-use.

The conceptual design of treatment features is generally satisfactory, with bio-retention basins sized to meet best practice pollutant removal targets. Specific changes to the proposal requested by the Engineering department include:

• Update of Storm Water Management Plan to prevent an increase in downstream flood levels, based on Council not undertaking upgrade works to the Plantation Road basin in the near future;

• Cross section of floodway channel must be modified to reflect IDM requirements;

• Discussion of cross boundary flows.

Sewerage and Water Supply

Barwon Water does not object to the granting of a planning permit subject to ten conditions being met prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance. The conditions relate to general subdivision conditions and the creation of easements, installation of services, new customer payments and sewerage provisions. The ten conditions requested by Barwon Water will be included in the draft conditions.

Road access and signalised intersection

Access to the Masters store is proposed at a new signalised intersection on Bacchus Marsh Road. This intersection will also provide controlled access to the MC Herd Abattoir and future Business 3 zone land to the south of Masters’ site.

A single point of access is a requirement of the Corio Norlane Structure Plan (see Appendix 8-5).

VicRoads is supportive of the proposed access arrangements subject to approval of a functional layout plan. VicRoads has provided a list of eleven draft planning permit conditions which will be included in the draft conditions.

Council officers held a meeting on 16 May 2012 with VicRoads, Masters, Reachy Pty Ltd and L.Bisinella Developments to discuss road access. VicRoads has a strong position that only one signalised intersection will be permitted between the Ring Road and Plantation Road. This means that the intersection that Masters are proposing must also serve the future Business 3 zone land to the south (the Reachy land).

Direct access to the arterial road is prevented by Water Supply and Plantation reserves, vested in Barwon Water and Council respectively. The application should be amended to include subdivision, including creation/removal of the reserves.

Pedestrian and Cycling Access

The existing concrete ‘path’ on the east side of Bacchus Marsh Road has limited functionality as a footpath as it is narrowed considerably by the presence of a crash barrier. Additionally the road embankment has a grade of approximately 1 in 7 which does not comply with DDA requirements for accessibility. It may be more appropriate to have all pedestrian access via the signalised intersection and this will be investigated prior to exhibition.

Environmental issues

The vegetation and net gain assessment found that there are no indigenous plant species on the site therefore there are no net gain implications and no implications under the Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO4). There are few environmental constraints associated with the site. Specific arrangements are required to ensure stormwater quality measures will be maintained in perpetuity by the owner/ operator; the on-going maintenance of the site landscaping and the provision of rubbish bins throughout the proposed development.

Accompanying Permit PP1527/2010

As outlined in this report, it is proposed that a draft permit be prepared to enable use and development of the homemaker centre. The permit would be exhibited with the Amendment pursuant to Section 96A of the Planning and Environment Act.

Environmental Implications

The proposed development is not expected to result in any adverse environmental impacts because the subject land is substantially vacant and contains no significant vegetation.

Financial Implications

Approval of the proposed development is unlikely to result in any financial implications for Council.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The amendment is broadly consistent with the State Planning Policy Framework. In particular:

Clause 14 - achieves settlement objectives by ensuring a sufficient supply for commercial land uses

Clause 17 - improves employment and economic activities in a location that is readily accessible to the community in accordance with.

The amendment is broadly consistent with the Local Planning Policy Framework, including:

Clause 21.04 – Municipal Framework Plan - depicts the subject site as being located in the existing urban area.

Clause 21.06 – Settlement and Housing - identifies that there is an environmental, economic and social imperative to reduce urban sprawl and improve accessibility to urban services, principally by consolidating urban development around places of activity and public transport infrastructure.

Clause 21.07 – Economic Development and Employment – includes the City of Greater Geelong Retail Activity Centre Hierarchy to articulate the role and function fulfilled by centres of different sizes. The retail hierarchy supports the primacy of Central Geelong as the focus of retail activity in the region. A key objective of this clause is to ensure that all major retail developments, and out of centre developments, provide a clear net community benefit. In the case of out of centre developments, applications must demonstrate that there will be no adverse impacts on the operation of the retail activity centres hierarchy.

Clause 22.03 – Assessment Criteria for Retail Planning Applications - this policy applies where a planning scheme amendment or planning permit application proposes new or expanded provision of retail floor space within the municipality. The policy requires that issues of retail demand, retail supply, escape spending, impact on existing retail facilities, net community benefit, and design and location be addressed in all retail development proposals.

The objectives of this clause include:

• To ensure that applications for new centres establish the retail need for such use and development and demonstrate that there are no adverse impacts on the operation of the retail activity centres hierarchy.

• To ensure that applications involving a planning scheme amendment in or adjoining existing activity centres clearly establish a retail need for such use and development and demonstrate that there are no adverse impacts on the operation of the retail activity centres hierarchy.

• To ensure that all major retail use and development provide clear net community benefit.

• To allow / guide consideration of applications involving an increase in an identified floor space cap, in order to accommodate the changing retail trends and retail demands.

The economic assessment submitted with the application and Council’s independent assessment indicate the proposal can proceed without major impact on existing centres.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

In accordance with Sec 80 (c) of the Local Government Act, Peter Bettess General Manager, Economic Development, Planning & Tourism declares an indirect financial interest in that he owns Woolworths and Wesfarmers shares.

Risk Assessment

Processing of this Amendment is considered to be a low level risk for Council.

Social Considerations

It is considered the Amendment will result in an overall net community benefit by improving accessibility to homemaker and hardware goods and services for the local community, increasing retail choice and competition and providing the opportunity for employment in the local area. Impacts on existing and future residents in the Residential 1 zoned land to the east and south east will need to be carefully managed. Issues such as building design, interface treatments and noise are discussed earlier in this report and can be managed by planning permit conditions.

Communication

It is proposed that this Amendment and accompanying permit be exhibited in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act to provide the opportunity for full public comment (and potentially referral to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning). Exhibition is subject to the Minister’s authorisation.

Appendix 1 – Existing zoning and surrounding area

Appendix 2 – Aerial photo of site and surrounding area

Appendix 3 - Example of Typical Masters Store Front

Appendix 4 – Proposed Site Plan, Elevations and Landscape Plan – Masters Store

Appendix 5 – Concept Plan from Corio Norlane Structure Plan

Appendix 6 – Proposed new Clause 21.07 Retail Activity Centre Hierarchy (new Homemaker Precinct is no. 34)

Appendix 7 – Possible treatment of interface with future residential lots

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 and left the meeting room prior to discussion at 9:41pm

Crs Abley and Harwood re-entered the meeting room at 9:42pm

9. Amendment C264 and Planning Permit 240/2012 Apco Service Station 58-
66 Portarlington Road, Newcomb

Summary

• The purpose of this report is to seek Council support for a combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit for land at 58 – 66 Portarlington Rd, Newcomb.

• The planning scheme amendment will:

• Re-zone land from Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) to Mixed Use Zone (MUZ), and

• Apply a cap of 500 square metres to the use of ‘Shop’ on this land in the schedule to the MUZ.

• The planning permit will allow the construction of a new service station, with associated café, drive-thru coffee facilities and shop, in accordance with endorsed plans.

• 58 and 60 Portarlington Rd are each currently occupied by a single dwelling.

• 62 – 66 Portarlington Rd is currently occupied by an APCO petrol station.

• The site is located on the south side of Portarlington Rd, between Brayshay Rd to the west and Wilsons Rd to the east.

• The surrounding properties in Brayshay Rd and Wilsons Rd to the west, south and east of the subject site are developed and used for residential purposes, consistent with the zoning of the land.

• The application was accompanied by an Explanatory Report and plans for the proposed redevelopment of the site.

• The proposed rezoning does not conflict with relevant State or Council planning policy.

• The Report recommends that Council support the exhibition of the proposed planning scheme amendment and planning permit.

Cr Macdonald moved, Cr Granger seconded -

That Council resolve to:

1. support Amendment C264 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and Planning Permit 240/2012; and

2. request that the Minister for Planning authorise the preparation and exhibition of Amendment

Carried.

Report

Background

This application seeks a combined planning permit and rezoning pursuant to Section 96A of the Planning & Environment Act as follows:

• The rezoning of land situated at 58 – 66 Portarlington Rd, Newcomb from Residential 1 to Mixed Use zone and the application of a maximum floor area of 500 m2 for the use of shop on the subject land; and
  

• A planning permit for the use of part of the land being rezoned at 58 – 66 Portarlington Rd Newcomb, for a service station with associated café, drive – through coffee facilities and associated shop.

The area subject to the rezoning application and its surrounds are shown on Appendix 9-1.

Appendix 9-2 shows the current zoning of the land.

The application has been submitted by Roy Costa & Associates, Planning Consultants, on behalf of RW & MM Anderson Nominees Pty Ltd, the owners of all the property.

Discussion

The subject land is situated at 58 – 66 Portarlington Rd Newcomb. The land is located on the south side of Portarlington Rd, between Brayshay Rd to the east and Wilsons Rd to the west.

The adjoining properties to the south and the properties on the opposite sides of Brayshay and Wilsons Roads are located in the Residential 1 zone.

The land at 62-66 Portarlington Rd is comprised of a long established petrol station. The properties at 58 – 60 Portarlington Rd are each occupied by a single dwelling.

All of the land affected by this amendment together with adjoining properties in Brayshay Rd and Wilsons Rd, have been designated as flood prone under the Building Act and are subject to Amendment C265, which proposes to apply the Special Building Overlay (SBO) to the land.

Proposed Use and Development

The permit application, which proposes the construction of a new service station, would require the demolition of the existing service station that has been located at this site for in excess of 15 years. The application also seeks to expand the site to include Nos. 58 and 60 Portarlington Road, each of which until recently contained a dwelling.

A single-storey building is proposed to the west of the site (on the land at Nos. 58 and 60 Portarlington Road), with a canopy extending eastwards to cover the bowsers. In addition to the petrol station, the application seeks a permit for an ancillary shop and café, and a drive-thru coffee shop.

The existing land is currently zoned Residential 1, as is the land at Nos. 58 and 60 Portarlington Road. A service station is a section 2 use (permit required) in the Residential 1 Zone provided the site does not exceed 3000 square metres in area. The current proposal would result in the overall site exceeding the 3000 square metres specified in the Residential 1 zone and, as such, could not be carried out unless the site is rezoned./

The proposed rezoning of the land to Mixed Use would facilitate a planning permit being issued to provide for the expansion and development of the site. It is proposed to specify a limit of 500 square metres on the floor area of the site that can be used as a shop in the Schedule to the Mixed Use zone.

Permit Triggers

A planning permit is required for the development and use of the site, and for the associated signage and alteration of an access.

Whilst part of the site has been used as a service station, ‘service station’ use is not nested in the Planing Scheme. As such, in addition to a permit being required for the development of the land (including the redevelopment of the original service station site), a permit is required to use the land at 58 and 60 Portarlington Road for the purposes proposed.

A permit would also be required for signage; the submitted plans currently only provide detail of the APCO signage.

In terms of access, whilst the existing crossovers to Portarlington Road (Road Zone, Category 1) would be used, the western access would need to be upgraded. The proposed alteration of the access requires a planning permit.

Assessment of Permit Application

Subject to the proposed rezoning of the land being considered acceptable, the key considerations in this case relate to the traffic and access implications of the proposal, the potential impact on the character and amenities of the area, and the appropriateness of the uses proposed.

The application has been referred externally to VicRoads and the EPA, and internally to the Council’s Traffic, Engineering Services and Environmental Health Units. At the time of drafting this report, comments had been received from VicRoads and Engineering Services. No objections were raised to the proposed use and development subject to conditions being imposed on any permit issued. These conditions will be included in the draft permit.

The other referral responses are still awaited.

Whilst the proposal would increase the facilities available at the site, it is considered that this would be consistent with current community expectations relating to service provision at petrol stations. Given the referral responses from VicRoads and Engineering Services, it is considered that the traffic and access implications of the proposal should be acceptable (subject to no material objections being raised by Council’s Traffic Unit). It is considered that any potential amenity impacts could be addressed through requirements for landscaping and acoustic fencing, if considered appropriate by the Council’s Environmental Health Unit. Any potential contamination/remediation issues should be covered by the EPA although, given the fact that the service station use would continue at the site, it is not anticipated that significant issues should arise.

It is considered that the proposal would expand an existing use and should not materially increase the impact on adjoining properties or the road network, subject to appropriate conditions being imposed on any permit.

Appendix 9-3 is a site plan showing the lay-out of the proposed redevelopment of the site.

Appendix 9-4 shows the proposed floor plan of the shop, while Appendix 9-5 shows the elevations of the proposed redevelopment.

Strategic Assessment

The applicant’s consultant has undertaken an assessment of the State and Council planning policies, below, which are applicable to the consideration of this application and which has the support of Council officers.

State Planning Policy Framework

The Amendment is supportive of the following State Planning Policies:

15.01-1 Urban design

This policy seeks for redevelopment to contribute to improving safety and choice; which is what this amendment will achieve by enabling the redevelopment of the existing Petrol Filling Station and improve vehicle movement on the site.

15.01-4 Design for safety

This policy seeks to improve community safety; which this amendment will achieve by redesigning the existing Petrol Filling Station to contribute to providing a more friendly
design and safety for users.

17.01-1 Business

This amendment supports this policy by providing a more friendly design to meet the surrounding community needs and benefit in relation to accessibility.

Local Planning Policy Framework

The amendment also supports the following aspect of the Local Planning Policy Framework.

The amendment supports the vision at Clause 21.07 Economic Development by supporting the ongoing future development of existing facilities that service the needs of a particular area.

Environmental Implications

No adverse environmental implications have been identified as a result of the re-zoning and redevelopment of the subject land. The proposed re-development will enable the use of landscaping on the site boundary to improve the interface with adjoining Residential 1 properties.

Financial Implications

No adverse financial implications have been identified as arising from the re-zoning and redevelopment of the subject land.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The rezoning and redevelopment of the land will not have any legal, statutory or policy implications for Council.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officers involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.

Risk Assessment

Neither the Amendment nor the planning permit is expected to result in the creation of risk to Council or the community.

Social Considerations

The re-zoning and redevelopment will enable the petrol station to continue to meet the needs of motorists in a manner consistent with current community expectations.

Communication

As part of the Amendment exhibition process adjoining owners and occupiers will be notified and will have the opportunity to make submissions and to appear before an independent planning panel.

Appendix 9-1 - Subject land and surround

Appendix 9-2 - Current zoning

Appendix 9-3 - Proposed Site Plan

Appendix 9-4 - Proposed Floor Plan

Appendix 9-5 - Proposed Elevations

10. Review of Council Policy - Children's Services

Summary

• Policies are developed to provide guidance for the various services and functions provided by Council.

• The following policy has been updated to include changes to State and Federal legislation related policies.

• Children’s Services

• Approved Council policies are made available to the public through Council’s internet site.

Cr Fisher moved, Cr Granger seconded -

That Council endorses the Children’s Services Policy.

Carried.

Report

Background

Council policies are developed to clearly articulate Council’s intent and preferred method of operation. Policies are reviewed regularly to ensure that they remain relevant with current government legislation and policy.

Discussion

The recommended changes to the Children’s Services Policy do not change the intent of the previous policy:

• Updating the “Purpose” and “References” to reflect new and changed government legislation and policies.

• Amended definition.

• Updating language and rewording to “Council Policy” section. In particular, sub-sections related to “Facility Development and Management” and “Costing and Pricing”.

A further review of this policy will be undertaken in 2013. The Municipal Early Years Plan (MEYP) is currently under review for updating. The final MEYP may impact on this policy and therefore further changes may be needed to the policy once it is adopted.

Environmental Implications

There are no environmental considerations in the review of this policy.

Financial Implications

The policy provides Council with direction for the effective management and control of its resources, however there is no impact on budget.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The policy has been developed with reference to relevant legislation and will enable Council to more effectively meet compliance requirements.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officer had a direct or indirect interest in the development of this report.

Risk Assessment

Clearly articulated policies provide Council with a consistent and publicly declared attitude to specific topics. This will assist in reducing the risk and negative consequences to Council that may occur through inconsistent decision making, actions or practices.

Social Considerations

Social considerations have been taken into account in the development of Council policies.

Communication

The adopted policy will be available on Council’s internet site.

• Children's Services Policy

11. Sale of Properties Consideration of Submission

Summary

• This report considers a submission received relating to the sale of Council land in Peacock Avenue Norlane West, Bellbird Avenue Norlane, and Dudley Parade and Hopetoun Street St Leonards.

• The proposed land sales were advertised in both Geelong Independent and Advertiser in March 2012 and one submission was received.

• The submission from Mr John Wilson objecting to the land sales covered a wide range of issues which are summarised in the body of this report.

• The Submissions Hearing Panel met on 3 July 2012 and heard the submission.

• The Panel recommends that the Council proceed to sell the land subject to the appropriate conditions, and that the submitter be notified of the Council’s decision.

Cr Harwood moved, Cr Granger seconded -

That Council in relation to the proposed sale of land situated at 39 Peacock Avenue Norlane, 14 Bellbird Avenue Norlane, and 31 Dudley Parade and 1 Hopetoun Street St Leonards, (“the Land”) having given public notice of its intention to sell the Land and having heard and considered all submissions received, resolves that:

1. the Land be sold at prices being no less than the certified valuations obtained and on other appropriate terms and conditions;

2. the General Manager – Corporate Services be authorised execute the Contracts of Sale;

3. the Transfers of Land be signed and sealed; and

4. all persons making a submission be informed of the Council’s decision, the reasons for the decision being contained in the report.

Cr Doull left the meeting room at 9:51pm

Cr Doull re-entered the meeting room at 9:52pm

Carried.

Report

Background

The report refers to the following proposed land sales:

1. Sale of 5,206m2 of land at 39 Peacock Avenue, Norlane West to the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD). This sale forms part of a land exchange with Council purchasing a similar sized parcel from DEECD in Gerbera Avenue, Norlane for a family services hub.

2. Sale of 14 Bellbird Avenue, Norlane.

3. Sale of 31 Dudley Street and 1 Hopetoun Street, St Leonards as resolved by Council on 28 February 2012. Council approved the sale of the above land parcels (“the land”) at its meeting on 28 February 2012.

On the 9 and 10 March 2012 notice of intention to sell the land was given in the Geelong Independent and Advertiser under s189 of the Local Government Act, inviting submissions.

Discussion

One submission was received from Mr John Wilson the main points of which are summarised below. It is noted that Mr Wilson’s written submissions are extensive and varied.

The Submissions Hearing Panel met on Tuesday 3 July 2012 to hear and consider the submission. The Panel consisted of Crs Harwood Chairperson), Fisher and Abley. The Panel recommends that the sale of the land proceeds and provides the following responses to the main points raised by Mr John Wilson in his submission.

1. Legal Submissions including:

   • Council has no standing under the Commonwealth Constitution.

   • Consistency of other laws with the Commonwealth Constitution.

   • Council has no authority to sell public assets including Crown land.

   • The consequences of action being taken in higher courts of actions the community considers unlawful.

   The submission statement that local government authorities do not have anystanding under the Commonwealth Constitution and is not relevant to this matter. They are properly created under the State Constitution and the Local Government Act 1989 (“the Act”) gives Councils the power to sell land.

   The State is enabled to make laws under the Commonwealth Constitution and the Act is properly made by the State under its own constitution.

   The land proposed to be sold is Council freehold land and not Crown land.

   Providing the Council’s actions are consistent with the Act and other enabling legislation there are no consequences for the Council or individuals.

2. Land may be required for other Council purposes.

   • Population of northern suburbs increasing.

   • Northern Suburbs Development Policy under preparation.

   • Sales do not consider future needs.

   • Loss of assets.

   • Destination of revenue from sales.

   • Residents near Peacock Avenue will lose open space.

   Prior to selling any land its need for future Council purposes is considered. While the land at Peacock Avenue is currently used for a park, the growing educational requirements within the school catchments justify the sale of the park for expansion of the school. Reference to the Northern Suburbs Development Policy is assumed to be a reference to the Corio Norlane Structure Plan which is under development. The consultation version of that Plan identifies the potential for the land in Peacock Avenue used for educational purposes.

   The other properties being sold have not been used for Council purposes for some time and do not have any reasonable prospect of being required in the foreseeable future.

   The creation and disposal of asset of all kinds is a natural function of local government charged with providing services to ratepayers.

   Revenue from the sale of assets is general revenue which fund service provision andasset creation as determined through the normal budget process.

3. Sale of the Land.

   • Why should Council pay the difference of value in the proposed exchange
     of land.

   • Inappropriate advertising of land sales.

   • The advertisements did not say that land was to be exchanged.

   The submission refers to the estimated difference in the value of the land that is to be exchanged between the DEECD and the Council where Council will pay the difference due to its purchase being of higher value.

   Council buys and sells land having regard to certified valuations as required by s189 of the Act. While Council is enabled to sell land to the Crown and other authorities for nil consideration under s191 of the Act, in most cases transfers of land between governments and authorities are carried out having regard to valuations which establishes a consistent and appropriate basis for land transfers and protects the ratepayer’s financial interests.

   The notices to sell land appeared in the City News Section of the Geelong Independent and the Advertiser on 9 and 10 March 2012 in accordance with sections 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act.

   The notice in relation to the Peacock Avenue land explained that the Council was to purchase land in Gerbera Avenue from the DEECD.

4. Provision of education facilities in the northern suburbs of Geelong.

   • Amalgamation of colleges.

   • Nelson Park Special School.

   • Flinders Peak site.

   • Understanding the needs of the disabled.

   • Industry training.

   • Other submissions relating to the provision of education services.

   While these submissions are not related to the proposed sale of the Land they were noted by the Submissions Hearing Panel. The Panel also noted that the sale of the Peacock Avenue land will assist in providing improved educational services to the local community.

5. Other matters:

• Failure to deliver a responsible Tree Policy.

• Council bias to industry, commerce and developers.

• Poor transport policies.

• The need for a hospital in the northern suburbs.

• Danger from chemicals, fire and explosions and heavy transport issues.

• Council governance issues.

• Numerous other submissions relating to resource allocation and management, employment, land management, consultation, projects in other locations and previous asset sales.

These matters are not related to the proposed sale of the Land and were noted by the Submissions Hearing Panel.

Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications associated with the recommendations of this report.

An environmental site assessment for the land to be purchased in Gerbera Avenue, Norlane has been obtained and indicates that the land is suitable for its intended use as a family hub.

Financial Implications

All sales of the Land will be undertaken at prices not less that the certified valuations obtained in accordance with s189 of the Act.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

Public notice of the sale of the Land was given in the Geelong Independent and Advertiser on 9 and 10 March 2012 in accordance with section 189 and the submission was heard by the Submissions Hearing Panel on 3 July 2012 in accordance with 223 of the Local Government Act.

Once considered by the Council the submitter will be notified as required by s223 of the Local Government Act.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officers, consultants or contractors involved in the sale or purchase of the land have a direct or indirect interest in the land or its sale or purchase.

Risk Assessment

The risks involved in the purchase and sale of the land are not significant and can be managed by following standard procedures.

Social Considerations

The exchange of land with the DEECD will facilitate the development of education and family services facilities in the Norlane area that will provide community benefit and reflect the respective strategies of both the Council and the DEECD.

Communication

Public notice of Council’s intention to sell the Land has been published.

12. SRV Community Facility Funding Program 2013/14 Major Facilities Category

Summary

• Sport and Recreation Victoria (SRV) funding programs provide a significant opportunity for Council to secure much needed funding for sport and recreation projects in the municipality.

• This report outlines a number of projects considered by the Sport and Recreation Department for possible funding under the Major Facilities category within the SRV Community Facility Funding Program. The details of a number of projects which are eligible to the funding program are presented in this report. Consideration regarding the preferred project for submission to SRV is provided.

• The Major Facilities grant program allows Councils to submit one application. This report outlines a number of projects considered for the grant program and determines the most suitable project based on Master Plans and other relevant information.

Cr E Kontelj moved, Cr Granger seconded -

That Council:

1. endorse the development of a submission for Stead Park Hockey – Second Synthetic Hockey Pitch under Sport and Recreation Victoria’s Community Facility Funding Program - Major Facilities category for expenditure in the 2013/14 financial year;

2. refer the required Council contribution to the 2013/14 budget process for consideration.

Cr Farrell left the meeting room at 9:54pm

Carried.

Report

Background

Each year the State Government Department for Planning and Community Development - Sport and Recreation Victoria (SRV) make funds available through a number of grant programs. Generally, these funding programs encourage:

• better planning of sport and recreation facilities;

• innovative sport and recreation facilities;

• accessible, inclusive, high-quality & sustainable sport and recreation facilities;

• increasing communities’ access to leisure opportunities; and

• strengthening communities through sport and recreation participation

The Major Facilities Grant Program encourages the development of new multi-purpose facilities that cater for a range of activities and user groups. The Major Facilities category also concentrates on the development of regional facilities.

A number of potential projects exist for funding consideration under the Major Facility Category; however the City of Greater Geelong can only submit one (1) application per annual funding round. This submission can either be for the Major Facilities program or the Better Pools program. This funding round in addition to Major Facilities also includes the Better and Seasonal Pools Renewal categories.

In determining which application to put forward, consideration has been given to the projects ability to benefit the community, the adjudication criteria and the funding commitments required.

Discussion

This report relates specifically to the recommended projects for possible funding under the Community Facility Funding Program - Major Facilities category. In determining the recommended projects for submission under this category, the SRV funding guidelines and criteria, and the likelihood of success have been considered.

The SRV criteria include:

** Major Facilities projects must allocate a minimum of 20 per cent of the grant amount to components that will improve energy or water efficiency and environmental sustainability. This should be demonstrated with a specific Environmental Sustainable Design budget in your application.

At the time of the release of the grant guidelines, there were no aquatic projects costed and prepared to proceed with this program.

This report refers to recommendations for Council to submit a project to the Major Facilities Category of the Community Facilities Funding Program. This funding category focuses on the following type of developments:

Multi-purpose Facility Development: the development of new or upgrading and/or redeveloping of existing multi-purpose facilities that cater for a range of activities and user groups. Examples include new or redeveloped stadiums or development of multi-sport precincts.

Single-purpose Regional Facility Development: the development of single purpose regional facilities, which usually include:

• has a catchment of more than one municipality;

• attracts users who are likely to travel some distance to participate;

• is identified as regionally significant;

• provides facilities for regional or representative training and competition.

Priority will be given to projects with a demonstrated regional or sub-regional benefit.

The program provides grants of up to $650,000 for the development of the aforementioned project types. The funding ratio for this funding program is SRV $1:$2 CoGG. Projects must have an estimated project cost of greater than $500,000 to be eligible, with applications closing 22 August 2012.

Council’s Sport and Recreation Department have investigated, and are aware, through liaison with community groups and strategic planning, potential projects that fit within this funding category.

The Sport and Recreation department also thoroughly reviewed the library of master plans to determine the most suitable projects that align with the funding criteria. These projects are detailed later in this report. Council is required to determine priorities for this category.

Projects for other categories of SRV’s Community Facility Funding Program (such as the Minor Facilities and Planning categories) will be presented to Council in a report at a later date. The Major Facilities category is being considered separately due to the critical timeline imposed by the due date for submissions.

A brief description of each project is outlined below:

Option 1: Stead Park Hockey – Second Synthetic Hockey Pitch

The City currently has one synthetic hockey pitch, located at Stead Park. A second synthetic hockey pitch is required to meet the growth in participation in hockey and to provide a regional centre for hockey in Geelong.

The development of this pitch will mean the Geelong Hockey Association can grow its member base, specifically in the older adult and youth category. This project will enable the association to meet the current demand for the sport as well as provide facilities for the expected growth into the future.

The Stead Park Master Plan (2010) and G21 Regional Sport & Recreation Infrastructure Strategy (2006) support the installation of a second synthetic hockey pitch at Stead Park. The estimated project cost is $1,876,000.

This project meets the criteria as being a Single-purpose Regional Facility Development and is noted in Councils 10 year plan. This project will have a catchment of more than one municipality, attracting users who are likely to travel some distance to participate. The proposal will provide facilities for regional and representative training and competition.

Option 2: Lara Recreation Reserve Soccer Pavilion

The development of a multi-use soccer, cricket, football field at the Northern end of Lara Recreation Reserve has necessitated the development of change facilities for local sporting clubs and community groups that use the new playing field. The new field was constructed in the 2011/12 financial year. SRV provided a funding contribution to the construction of the new field, therefore this project may be less likely to be supported with additional funding at this stage.

The estimated project cost is $1,500,000. This project meets the criteria as being a Multi-purpose Facility Development. Lara Recreation reserve is a local level facility and the project will involve the development of new multi-purpose facilities that cater for a range of activities and user groups.

Option 3: Shell Road Reserve Pavilion

The Shell Road Reserve Master Plan has highlighted the development of a multipurpose pavilion to support local sport & recreation and community use. The development of new clubroom facilities at Shell Road Reserve will provide change, social and administrative facilities for a number of sporting clubs.

This project includes electrical upgrades, landscaping and demolition of the existing portable buildings.

Should Council apply for funds for this project through the Major Facilities category, a significant financial shortfall will remain. Estimated project cost - $4,000,000. This project meets the criteria as being a Multi-purpose Facility Development.

The project is noted in Councils 10 year plan.

Shell Road Reserve is a local level reserve and the project will involve the development of new multi-purpose facilities that will cater for a range of activities and user groups.

Option 4: Drysdale Sports Precinct (Grubb Road) – Regional Sports Facility

A Drysdale Sports Precinct Master Plan highlights priorities for development on undeveloped land at the corner of Andersons Road and Grubb Road, Drysdale (adjacent to the Potato Shed).

This project meets the criteria as being a Multi-purpose Facility Development. Drysdale Sports Precinct will become a sub-regional multi-facility precinct that will host a range of sport and recreation options for the community.

There is an urgent need to provide additional junior facilities on the Bellarine to support population and participation growth. As detailed design work is being undertaken, it is recommended that this project be submitted for consideration in future rounds. Estimated project cost is $2,000,000. This project is noted in councils 10 year plan.

Option 5: Anakie Recreation Reserve Clubrooms

Plans have been developed for the redevelopment of the football clubrooms at Anakie Recreation Reserve. Significant works are needed to bring the clubrooms up to the standard that is included in the design.

This project meets the criteria as being a Multi-purpose Facility Development. Anakie Recreation Reserve is considered a local level facility and the project will involve the redevelopment of multi-purpose facilities that cater for a range of activities and user groups. This project will provide significant local benefit to the Anakie community, but limited regional benefit. The estimated project cost is $1,200,000.

Grant amounts and Council contributions have been calculated to attract the maximum possible funding while meeting the required funding ratio of SRV $1:$2 local.

Preferred Application

Applications to SRV need to be supported by well documented feasibility assessments and detailed concept plans. It is considered that extensive investigation and preplanning has been undertaken for the following project to be best placed for funding under this grant program. The final grant submission will be refined to ensure a higher chance at funding success.

Environmental Implications

There are no foreseeable environmental implications associated with this report, however projects that include environmentally sustainable design initiatives are highly regarded during the assessment process. In preparation for the grant submission an Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) Report has been commissioned and identifies the ESD initiatives that will be investigated for potential inclusion in the detailed design of the second pitch for the Geelong Regional Hockey Centre Upgrade (Stead Park). The initiatives are broadly categorised into the following areas: water, energy and materials. The recommended initiatives include; water re-use, LED lighting and a recycled rubber shock pad.

Financial Implications

There are no immediate financial implications associated with adopting these recommendations. If the submission is successful, Council will need to make a commitment to the project in the 2013/14 financial year which would be determined from the associated business case via the budgetary process. As this project is not currently in Council’s long term financial plan, a review of the document would be required to accommodate this project. The proposed Council investment is estimated at $1,001,000.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

There are no legislative or legal ramifications associated with the adoption of this report.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officers or contractors involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.

Risk Assessment

There are no immediate risks associated with this report. A component of the application for the project may entail relevant risk management matters pertaining to the project.

Social Considerations

Participation in sport and recreational activities has long been recognised as an important contributor to community health and well being. Benefits of physical exercise and recreation are well documented and include improved health and fitness, development of social skills, increased community connectedness and enhanced selfesteem. Thus an application for SRV funding for any community recreation project has significant social benefits. Without the development of a second Hockey pitch within Stead Park a section of the community will miss out on the opportunity to participate in the sport. It is recognised that the current facilities do not meet the needs of the community.

Communication

The Community Facility Funding Program 2013/14 guidelines were released by SRV on Thursday 12 July, 2012. Applications are due on Wednesday 22 August, 2012. Discussions have been held with the regional office of Sport and Recreation Victoria and the proposed project is considered the most appropriate for submission to SRV. Council Officers will work closely with local clubs and associations to develop the final grant submissions to SRV.

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 and left the meeting room prior to discussion at 9:55pm for the evening.

13. Consideration of Tender Submissions for Tender No. T1200190 Drainage Works, Wyndham Street to Collins Street, Drysdale Main Drain

Summary

• Council has sought tenders for the construction of a main drain that for the majority of its length is to be located under roads within Clifton Springs Road, Carolanne Drive and Wyndham Street in central Drysdale.

• Part of this project requires construction of a 1500mm diameter drain 7 metres deep in Hancock Street within the shopping centre with commercial buildings extending to the frontages of this street. The works generally include main drains ranging from 900mm to 1500mm and ancillary drains ranging from 300mm to 750mm diameter. Associated works include pits/access chambers, an overflow/outlet structure, side entry structures/pits, kerb and channel/kerbing, median and road surfacing reinstatement, restoration of grassed areas and general work site and affect area reinstatement.

• Council advised all contractors at tender advertisement stage that it would allow sand bedding and haunching of pipes for trench backfill under the pavement

• A total of eight (8) companies have provided tender submissions for the construction of these works.

• Jaydo Construction Pty Ltd were identified as the shortlisted tenderer. Price / task analysis due diligence was undertaken to ensure that Jaydo Construction Pty Ltd fully understood the brief and project outputs. The shortlisted tenderer was interviewed and provided further clarifications to ensure the panel were satisfied that the brief would be delivered. Panel members assessed the various tasks / outputs and associated costings and were satisfied that the recommended tenderer could deliver within the nominated tendererd price.

• Following a detailed evaluation of each of the submissions it is considered that the tender submission of Jaydo Construction Pty Ltd is preferred.

Cr Richards moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -

That Council:

1. accept the tender submission from Jaydo Construction Pty Ltd for Tender No T1200190 – Drainage Works, Wyndham Street to Collins Street, Drysdale Main Drain for the fixed lump sum of $2,406,061.00 exclusive of GST;

2. sign and seal the contract documents.

Cr Farrell re-entered the meeting room at 9:55pm

Carried.

Report

Background

Tenders for the Drainage Works, Wyndham Street to Collins Street, Drysdale Main Drain were invited via public advertisement in the Geelong Advertiser and The Age on Saturday 19 May, 2012.

At the close of tenders on Thursday 14 June, 2012 the following tender submissions were received:

All tenders have been submitted exclusive of GST.

Discussion

The tender submissions associated with this service were evaluated by a panel consisting of:

Stage One – Mandatory Criteria

Mandatory requirements apply to this Tender.

Each of the submissions did respond to the other mandatory requirements set down in the Tender documents. The mandatory requirements included attendance at a site inspection and the requirement of tenderers to demonstrate significant previous experience.

Significant previous experience included completion of drainage projects that were in excess of $1million. Council were satisfied that all tenderers should progress to the evaluation of comparative criteria.

Winslow Constructions Pty Ltd and Entracon Civil Pty Ltd both submitted a conforming and non-conforming alternative offer. The evaluation panel considered the proposed alternate pipe jacking options but deemed them to be non-conforming. As both companies submitted conforming offers, Council were able to consider the alternative offers.

Jaydo Construction Pty Ltd submitted two (2) separate conforming offers. Jaydo took up the opportunity to submit an offer that it would allow sand bedding and haunching of pipes for trench backfill under the pavement. Council has reviewed both offers and deemed them both acceptable to Council requirements.

Stage Two –Comparative Criteria

Tender submissions were assessed based on the respondent’s performance or tender response in the following areas:

At the conclusion of the evaluation the tenderers were ranked in the following order in accordance with the above criteria:

Jaydo Constructions Pty Ltd are a well known major drainage contractor and have demonstrated a thorough appreciation of the requirements of the project and have proposed methodologies that will provide Council with the required outcomes. Jaydo Constructions Pty Ltd are very capable and have extensive past experience in the construction of main drains. They are well known to COGG and have proven to be an excellent contractor. Jaydo Construction Pty Ltd has the necessary staff and equipment to satisfy the requirements of these works. They were identified as providing Council with the lowest overall price and achieved the highest comparative criteria score.

Jaydo Constructions Pty Ltd complied with the OH&S requirements of the tender.

Environmental Implications

Any environmental implications associated with this contract will arise from the execution of this works. It is considered that these are the responsibility of the Contractor and will be managed through the contract documentation.

Financial Implications

The funding for this project will be drawn from a budget allocation of $2,500,000.00 in the Budget Code C02317.82

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The requirements of Section 186 of the Local Government Act have been complied with for this tender. There are no other policy, legal or statutory implications associated with this tender process.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officers or contractors involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.

Risk Assessment

There are not considered to be any risks associated with the acceptance of this tender that cannot be managed through the contract conditions.

Social Considerations

There are no social implications that will arise from the acceptance of this tender.

Communication

There are no communication issues associated with the acceptance of this tender.

Councils representative will liaise with affected community groups.

14. Simonds Stadium

Cr Harwood moved, Cr Nelson seconded - That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (h) of the Local Government Act 1989, this report be considered at the conclusion of all other business, at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.

Carried.

Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Common Seal

• Copyright CoGG 2012
• Contacts
• Disclaimer
• Privacy
• Last Update: 29 July 2013