Council Minutes - Section A: Procedural Matters - 29 January 2013

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

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre - City Hall on Tuesday 29 January 2013, commencing at 7:00pm.




Present

[Back to Top]

Also present:



[Back to Top]

Opening

The Mayor declared the meeting open at 7:00pm.


Acknowledgements

The Mayor acknowledged that we are here today on the land of the Wathaurong People and we pay our respects to Aboriginal elders past and present.


Apologies


Confirmation of Minutes

Cr Heagney moved, Cr Nelson seconded -

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 11 December 2012 be confirmed and signed.

Carried.


[Back to Top]

Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Cr Fagg (Mayor) declared an Indirect Interest by a Conflicting Duty in Agenda Item 1 – Amendment C254 Leopold Structure Plan – Panel Report and Adoption, in that he made a submission to Council on this matter.

Cr Fagg (Mayor) declared an Indirect Interest by Close Association in Agenda Item 2 – Rippleside – Planning Permit 647/2004/A – Extension of Time, in that he is an adjoining landowner.

Cr S Kontelj declared an Indirect Interest by Close Association in Agenda Item 2 -  Rippleside – Planning Permit 647/2004/A – Extension of Time, in that his sister has an interest in a property in Balmoral Crescent.

Due to gallery disruption the meeting was closed at 7:30pm. The meeting reconvened at 8:15pm


[Back to Top]

Question Time

Question Time is an opportunity for questions to be addressed to Council and while the minutes record the general content, they do not purport to be a transcript of what was said by individuals. Likewise Councillor or Officer verbal responses are in summary form only. Views expressed may not be the views of Council.

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

William Cole asked with reference to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Item 1 on tonight’s agenda.  The Panel Report Amendment C254 on page 40 or 56 the Panel notes that the Leopold Structure Plan (Page 11) comments that …protect this area because of its environmental significance and the potential location of culturally significant sites … “isn’t it true that a significant amount of money has been expended in investigating this point?  There were a couple of small areas identified in the initial survey by Terra Culture.  These were later resolved with no impediments to the development.  Permission was sought and granted to disturb the registered sites and the Wathaurong aboriginal co-operative have in fact sent a letter of support to Mr More?

Peter Bettess, General Manager Economic Development, Planning and Tourism responded that the question would be addressed during debate of the item.


Helen Lyth asked questions in relation to Rippleside:

Trendcorp has already sought and received two extensions for Planning Permit 647/2004.  This proposal is only the latest in a series of schemes proposed by Trendcorp starting with the original scheme approved in 1998, but never realised.  Is there any realistic expectation that a further extension will result in the timely completion of building on the site and an expedition of the building of the shared path and other public facilities?  This Rippleside site is absolute coastal land, reclaimed from sand flats in the 1950’s as a shipyard.  Given that the only acceptable reasons for alienation of coastal land from the public are for maritime industry and port uses, national security, industrial security and environmental preservation, and that the site is no longer required for port uses, when is the public likely to have access to the proposed shared path through the site?

Peter Bettess responded that there is nothing Council can do at the moment to provide access through the land while it is privately owned.


Margaret Huber asked the following in relation to Rippleside:

Today is 29 January.  Tomorrow at midnight the Comprehensive development zone for Rippleside Quay lapses.  A sunset clause states that the CDZ2 will lapse if development has not commenced in accordance with any permit issue for such development by January 2013. 

  1. What happens to the zoning of the old ship yard sit if the CDZ2 lapses?

  2. Does it revert back to being zoned for industrial port usage?

  3. Does the applicant need to re-apply for re-zoning?

  4. Please explain how can a planning permit be valid if the zoning of the property on which it is to be constructed has expired?


Peter Bettess responded that the CDZ2 doesn’t lapse.  The applicant cannot do anything but act on current period which is set at midnight on 31 January 2013.


Pamela McGrath asked:

You would imagine that the lapsing of the CDZ schedule 2 at midnight tomorrow (30 January 2013) would be of a greater concern to the developer than getting an extension to a permit which does not lapse until 28 February.  However, it has come to my attention that the developer has already applied for an extension to CDZ2 and that this application has been denied at State level?

Peter Bettess responded that the application for the extension of time is for the existing permit. The amendment being considered by VCAT included extensions of time.  

Given the application for extension of the zoning has been denied at State level, why would the responsible authority even consider granting a further permit extension?

Peter Bettess responded that the recommendation before Council to permit extension of time will only be granted if VCAT issues the amendment.  VCAT would have to make their decision by tomorrow night.

What happened in relation to the request for amendment, the Minister in January 2011, said that he would extend on that occasion until tomorrow, but would not use ministerial powers to extend again.  There is some considerable doubt whether VCAT can issue before midnight tomorrow night.


Pauline Seitz provided comments in relation to Rippleside, which did not require a response.


Anne Wyllie asked if Council can explain how the applicant Trendcorp can seek an extension to the 2005 permit for 176 dwellings, commercial facilities and marina, etc by Council as the responsible authority, yet at the same time be seeking an amendment to the permit at VCAT that involves significant changes to that permit?

Peter Bettess responded that the application to Council to extend the existing permit, and the application to VCAT to amend the permit to longer, is for a different form of development.


Pam Hart asked if it is custom and practice for the Responsible Authority to grant seemingly unlimited extensions to permit and if so can Council please identify which other developers have been granted multiple extension to permit on their projects?

Peter Bettess responded that it is quite common place to extend permits.  Provision in the Planning and Environment Act allows for extension.

Peter Carson asked why should this Council extinguish this 600 lot subdivision and in turn extinguish the dreams and aspiration of so many ratepayers that have invested their hard earned money in this very desirable and viable subdivision.  The only restriction from Corio City Council at the time of purchase was that you could not build on the lots immediately advising that when current subdivision were substantially filled, then the NCE subdivision would be serviced and owners could build on their lots.  This was the standard practice at the time.

Peter Bettess responded that attached to the Council agenda item is a copy of the original advertisement for the sale.  That advertisement said that a permit will not be issued for housing on that lot.  From when the land was first sold that has been the process and that has not changed.


Paul Secen addressed Council as follows in relation to the New Corio Estate:

Conservation of land has been a recent roadblock thrown up to thwart the drams of long suffering ratepayers wanting to build on their blocks in the New Corio Estate.  We have been made well aware of the responsibility placed on government bodies to conserve and protect native grasses.  I question why Council would not purchase land elsewhere for such conservation purposes, from a sole farmer for example; rather than destroy the dreams of many ratepayers and extinguish a perfectly viable subdivision?  It is quite offensive that Council officers are offering approx $3,000 per lot after we have been paying rates for decades on this land

Council is still referring to the New Corio Estate as an old and inappropriate subdivision in spite of the fact the NCE satisfies all the requirements for being a very viable and desirable subdivision.  We, the landowners, request that Council remove Amendment C243 as being a complete waste of money and resources and move forward to rezone the NCD subdivision to residential 1?

Peter Bettess indicated this issue will be discussed during debate of the item later in the event.


Horst Pfeifer addressed Council as follows in relation to the Leopold Structure Plan:

Is Council prepared to engage in a truly consultative process with those in the community that now access the bay from those few boating facilities that are available with overcrowded parking space?

Cr Macdonald responded that Council is aware of the interest in this local community in accessing the bay and indicated he would address other matters raised during discussion around the Amendment.


Dennis More asked the following re Amendment C254:

  1. I request reference to urban development be deleted because how can a proper and full investigation take place without considering all options?

  2. What is meant by urban development for example a caravan park is allowed in a residential area.  Is a caravan park therefore urban development?

  3. Why is the brief limited to a predetermined outcome for example no urban development?

  4. There is nothing wrong for a full and proper investigation?

Peter Bettess indicated the issues raised will be discussed during debate of the item.


Joe Cotroneo asked questions in relation to Amendment C243

  1. No response has been received to the letter that was sent on 29 August 2012 to the City of Greater Geelong.  We requested a copy of the supporting document cited in the evidence provided by Mr Mark Stockdale in the panel hearing.  Please provide an update on the status of this request?

Peter Bettess responded the question would be taken on notice for a written  response.

  1. The landowners represented by New Corio Land Owners Group do not consent to the voluntary purchase scheme offered by the CoGG, as the approximate valuation of $4 per sq metre or $3,000 per block is far below its true market value of at lease $40,000 per block as undeveloped agricultural land.  The land was originally subdivided as residential land which would value it at lease $150,000 per block if it were to be rezoned as residential land today?

Jeff Wall responded that based on valuation advice it’s effectively a voluntary scheme. If the owners are not prepared to accept the offer the land will remain in private ownership.

  1. Given that the report considers the NCE land of state conservation significance, any attempt to reserve the land for a public purpose, requires our consent and full and just compensation to the rightful landowners.  We hereby request that the NCE be excluded from Amendment C243 as no vegetation offsets were required.  The current proposal does not provide an equitable return to the New Corio Landowners.

The Mayor responded – no further comment.


Paul Millar – Geelong Rangers asked has Council done ongoing costings for a   stadium for soccer to be built at Armstrong Creek?

Dean Frost, General Manager Projects, Recreation and Central Geelong, responded that the question in relation to ongoing costings would be taken on notice.


Robert Fletcher asked for the purposes of clarification about appropriated monies through federal funding documented in briefs how local government can receive funding of any amount when in the constitution of the Commonwealth states that local government cannot receive federal funding.  For the appropriation of monies provided for the China Super Trade Mission please inform the constituents as to how this benefited the local economy and who paid for it?

The Mayor took the question on notice.

Jeff Wall, General Manager Corporate Services, responded that local government is constituted under the Victorian Constitution Act.

Council has a resolution to support the ALGA and the referendum for that will occur this year.

Cr Farrell added the ALGA withdrew support of constitutional recognition.


Rena Iliades asked questions re MAV and ALGA Membership:

Why are and why is local Council taking direction and implementing policies at the direction of the MAV and ALGA who are a private membership organisation, no different to the RACV, who in all matters have a conflict of interest – driving constitutional recognition of local government.  It would be like RACV consulting motoring bodies about transport, laws, totally inappropriate and it is a matter than should be put to the local people of each district before the submission.  The local people should be asked if their council should make the submission?

Cr Farrell responded the MAV is not a public organisation.  Council doesn’t take    direction, but rather gives direction as members. ALGA is the state association.


Colin Wallace addressed Council as follows:

In relation to my question at the last Council Meeting, 11 December 2012, when Peter Bettess said his understanding was that half-yearly summaries had not been provided because the developer didn’t want them and that the developer was satisfied with how Council was spending the money, Mr Bettess gave no indication that his understanding was incomplete or tentative.

Immediately after Mr Bettess spoke, Mayor Fagg added the developer didn’t want it.  What Mayor Fagg said – a correct interpretation of what he had just heard Mr Bettess say – was not included in the minutes.

The minutes say Peter Bettess indicated he would have to check the details.  He did not say that or anything of the sort.  The inclusion of having to check the details in the Minutes version provides a bridge to a letter to me from Mr Bettess dated 15th January 2013, in which a significantly changed story is given.

The Question Time document, with Mr Bettess’s letter to me in it, did not appear on the Council website till after last Tuesday’s Councillor Briefing, 22nd January, so Councillors did not have this opportunity to independently view the letter or even know of its existence and be able to query Mr Bettess about it at the Councillor Briefing.

Even though my question was addressed to the Mayor and other Councillors, there was no indication on the letter that a copy of it was being forwarded to them.

Mr Bettess’s letter does not in any legitimate way explain away the requirement upon Council to provide the half-yearly summaries mentioned in Section 7 f) of the Ropeworks Planning Permit to the owner/permit holder.

In the light of this, would the Governance portfolio holder, Mayor Fagg, and Cr Stretch Kontelj, who, at the time of his appointment as Deputy Mayor, reportedly put himself forward as an advisor to the Mayor on governance matters during the Mayor’s settling in phase, making mention of his experience as a lawyer and a councillor, attend to the concerns my wife and I have about the use of the $100,000 referred to in Section 7 f) of the Ropeworks Planning Permit.  We are willing to meet with Mayor Fagg and Deputy Mayor Kontelj together and I ask Mayor Fagg and Deputy Mayor Kontelj, whatever advice you take from officers put in your way or other councillors, would you get back to us about it?

The Mayor responded he would provide a written response and arrange a meeting.


Mary Wallace asked since the half-yearly summaries required by Section 7 f) of the Ropeworks Planning Permit to be provided to the owner/permit holder have to be first produced by Council in order to be provided to the owner/permit holder, has Council produced these half-yearly summaries?

Peter Bettess responded he believed the question had been responded to but would take on notice.


David Secen advised he has been a volunteer and board member at the Bell Park Sport Club for over ten years.  Along with North Geelong Soccer Club we cater for the largest percentage of registered players in the region with our numbers increasing annually.  Both our clubs are run by volunteers and provide an invaluable service for the local community and have been doing so for over 100 years.  Why is it that we do not figure in the strategic plan for the region?

Dean Frost responded that Council takes into consideration all providers of a particular sporting activity.  To indicate your Club and the North Geelong Soccer Club do not figure in the structure is not correct.  Council values and considers the contribution of all clubs and players in the region.


Erwin Boermans submitted comments on the Leopold Structure Plan which did not require a response.


Colleen Lincoln asked why was Hancock Street, Drysdale reconstructed after the drainage works with a solid white line and the medium strip not reinstated.

Gary Van Driel, General Manager City Services, responded that he would take the question on notice and added Council is aware of concerns and aware there are a lot of divided opinions.  Council will continue to monitor the street.


Ivan Bereza asked what studies were performed regarding the environmental impact on the Leopold Leisure Park proposal and were there any adverse results?

Peter Bettess responded that he would take the question on notice.


[Back to Top]

Petitions

Nil.


[Back to Top]

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



City of Greater Geelong