Council Minutes - Section A: Procedural Matters - 11 December 2012

Council's practice is to provide a separate document on its website setting out questions and responses including any more detailed written responses which may be provided subsequent to the meeting.

Paul Secen asked the following questions in relation to Amendment C243:

1. The proponents of C243 are relying solely on the evidence of Ecology and Heritage Partners engaged by the City of Greater Geelong. Does Council have any other reports to substantiate the finding of Ecology and Heritage Partners?

   Peter Bettess responded that mapping of the grassland is being carried out by the Department of Sustainability that maps the grassland and classifies the situation. Report of ecology is looking at more detail of this classification. The study is where the grasslands exist and it exists in north of the industrial estate, shown in map attached to report.

   Jeff Wall responded the question would be taken on notice.

2. When did Council first start to purchase land in the NCE and what was the last figure paid (and date) for a block of land in the NCE? A senior strategic planner submitted (to the hearing panel) that Council would consider an amendment to zone the NCE to Public Conservation and Resource Zone at a time when all the land was in public ownership. Why and how much is Council currently offering landowners in order to acquire private land for conservation purposes? What is the intention of Council in regards to this land should it fail to convince all landowners to forfeit their land?

   Jeff Wall responded that the future of the land is that it cannot be built on and is a voluntary purchase not compulsory. The land is subject to planning requirements and it would be restricted for that purpose.

   Peter Bettess responded that the land is covered by grasslands protected under Federal legislation and requires approval to remove or disturb those grasslands.

3. Does Council have a copy of the ‘more appropriately scaled plan (or plans) into the NVPP that identifies the area of significant vegetation and property boundaries in both the GREP and NCE areas’ as recommended by the panel?

   Peter Bettess responded that Council does have such a plan, but would take the question on notice.

4. Being that the glassland is within a bushfire zone, and that grassland fires are the biggest threat this season (as reported by Council), will bushfire prevention measures affect the conservation values of the NCE?

   Gary Van Driel responded that slashing some of that area is not detrimental, in fact fire protection works actually enhance the area. Works are subject to negotiation with the Municipal Fire Protection Officers.

Anne Brackley addressed Council as follows:

In community meetings during June and August this year more than 200 people came together to discuss issues that they faced because of the proposed town boundary changes to Drysdale.

During the meetings the council officers spoke of the growth of Ocean Grove and compared that growth and the town boundary changes to Ocean Grove in Drysdale and its necessary boundary changes.

Cr Macdonald at the opening of the new shelter at Clifton Springs Tennis Club the other evening also referred to the current growth in Drysdale area.

How does the Council reconcile these words but resolves to reduce the size of the Drysdale township, our residents don’t understand these contradictory words and action.

What can be done to ensure that the words Council says aligns with the actions the Council takes?

Jeff Wall responded that the growth in Drysdale has been quite significant and Council needs to consider and make decisions for the future. There have been different views and I believe Council has taken on board those views. The proposal is currently out for exhibition with regard to areas 3 & 4 and people have the opportunity through this process to raise their views/comments.

Cr Macdonald added there are two different issues – boundary review and the development of Drysdale as part of the area growth plan.

Colin Wallace asked:

1. As part of the Ropeworks Planning Permit, the permit holder/owner was to provide Council with $100,000 for post-development traffic mitigation works and Council was to provide the permit holder/owner with half-yearly summaries for up to five years of investigations/works undertaken and associated costs. The Ropeworks development, called Pakington Strand, opened in November 2008.

   In relation to this, would the Mayor and other Councillors note that, when in 2011 my wife and I requested copies of these half-yearly summaries from Council, we were told that no half-yearly summaries had been provided to the permit holder/owner, with no explanation and no undertaking to do something about it, even though two and a half years, that is five periods of half a year, had gone by since the opening and I ask, why did this evident breech of the Ropeworks Planning Permit on Council’s part occur?

   The Mayor noted the first part of the question.

   Peter Bettess indicated he would have to check the details, but believed it was done with the consent of the permit holder, in that reports from Council were not required as all works were performed to their satisfaction.

[Back to Top]

Petitions

Nil.

[Back to Top]

Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports 1-8

• Copyright CoGG 2012
• Contacts
• Disclaimer
• Privacy
• Last Update: 20 June 2013