Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre - City Hall on 25 September 2012, commencing at 7:00pm.
Lee Atkinson
Jennifer Bantow
Colin Wallace
Mary Wallace
Cr K Fagg (Chair)
Crs:
T Ansett
L Ellis
J Farrell
K Fisher
B Harwood
M Heagney
J Irvine
E Kontelj
S Kontelj
R Macdonald
R Nelson
A Richards
S Griffin (Chief Executive Officer
J Wall (General Manager Corporate Services)
P Bettess (General Manager Economic Development, Planning and Tourism)
G Van Driel (General Manager City Services)
J McMahon (General Manager Community Services)
D Frost (General Manager Projects, Recreation and Central Geelong)
J Brown (Manager Administration and Governance)
R Bourke (Governance Co ordinator)
J Merlo (Senior Media Officer)
The Mayor declared the meeting open at 7:00pm.
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.
Nil
Cr Harwood moved, Cr Ansett seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 26 March 2013 be confirmed and signed.
Carried.
Cr Farrell declared an Indirect Interest in Agenda Item 2 - Amendment C264 – APCO Service Station Rezoning, Portarlington Road, Newcomb – Adoption in that Cr Farrell provides contract services to one of the APCO franchisees.
Cr Heagney declared an indirect Interest in Agenda Item 2 - Amendment C264 – APCO Service Station Rezoning, Portarlington Road, Newcomb – Adoption in that Cr Heagney’s family business is a major service provider to APCO.
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.
Lee Atkinson asked questions in relation to carparking surrounding the Grace McKellar Centre, Ballarat Road:
Have you even considered the healthcare workers that have been forced out of carparks. We have nowhere to go and simply cannot afford $1,000 per year to park?
Proposal seems to benefit residents 100%?
I am of the understanding that if your place of residence has driveway access and garage you do not qualify for a permit.
Two and three hour parking does not benefit us in any shape or form.
The Mayor noted the comments.
Gary Van Driel, General Manager City Services, responded that generally Council would like to gauge the needs of the community and as a result are in the process of liaising with local residents and commercial centres in the affected areas to receive feedback and comments. Council is ultimately working towards finding an equitable solution for all parties.
What about the parking further along towards Telegraph Bridge, this road is taken up everyday on both sides by workers cars and has been since the Day Care Centre opened?
Gary Van Driel took the question on notice, but added there are parking restrictions and time limits and will be the subject of a solution being made which has minimum impact.
Are you leaving anywhere for the McKellar staff to safely park and walk to work? This will become a huge safety issue.
Cr E Kontelj added he felt for the staff, but also felt for residents in that area. No doubt there has been a considerable amount of concern from the residents that live in that area. Significant increase in parking around residences, particularly around Milton Street shopping centre with parking up to 6-8 hours a time and affecting traders in that area. Council is attempting to take some action here to assist traders and residents in that area.
Have Council discussed with Barwon Health the planned changes to street parking?
Cr E Kontelj replied, yes, Council, including myself, has had several meetings with Barwon Health to try and resolve some of the issues.
Why has Council decided to look at erecting permit signs and no stopping signs?
Council hasn’t decided on taking any measures as yet, but more than likely will be providing some assistance in Milton Street before the traders start suffering, particularly in light of the significant increase in cars parking in front of the shops and carpark, which is designed for customers of that shopping strip. Car parking in front of residences is having a negative impact. Complaints have also been received that privately owned blocks of land are being parked on without permission.
A petition containing signatures of some 140 residents was tabled at the last Council Meeting asking for help in resolving this issue.
Cr Richards asked Gary Van Driel if Council is meeting with key stakeholders and workers employed by Grace McKellar to provide for their feedback?
Gary Van Driel responded Council’s aim is fundamentally focussed on securing a solution to the parking issues raised by residents and about assisting the shopping centre by allocating suitable legal parking to enable them to function.
Cr E Kontelj added he would like to be part of the negotiations.
Jennifer Bantow asked questions in relation to the Heritage Festival 2013 and CoGG Outer Areas Heritage Study 2000:
Are all Councillors aware that the annual Heritage Festival is only possible because of a grant from Council through the Community Festivals grants program, and have all Councillors received their copies of the program?
The Mayor advised he understood all Councillors had been distributed the program and details entered into their diaries.
Now that the Lara places have been reviewed could I please ask if Council would consider moving on to another review and look at the Deakin Ward places in the next budget allocation.
Peter Bettess responded that he would have to take the question on notice in terms of the availability of a budget allocation. In relation to the Lara places the cost was $40,000 to provide for that review.
Cr Nelson added he too shares Ms Bantow’s passion and will do everything he can to proceed the 96 heritage places identified in the Deakin Ward.
Colin Wallace asked:
Mr Mayor, did you see with your own eyes what the Ropeworks Section 173 Agreement says about the half-yearly summaries Council was supposed to provide to the permit holder/owner?
The Mayor responded, “yes”.
In September 2010 Woolworths announced it was putting up for sale a portfolio of over 30 of its shopping centres, most anchored by a supermarket, on a long-term lease-back basis. One of those identified was Pakington Strand in Geelong West, the Ropeworks development. It was hoped the transaction would be completed within six months. Since there are apparent implications for the administration of Condition 7f) of the Ropeworks Planning Permit, could Council inform me if Woolworths did sell Pakington Strand to a new owner and confirm one way or another if the current owner is an entity other than Woolworths?
Peter Bettess responded, yes, Woolworths did sell and sold it to Charter Hall or an entity controlled by Charter Hall.
The section 173 agreement between Council and Fabcot includes a clause that a new s173 agreement is to be entered into by any new owner if there are outstanding obligations by Fabcot under the s173 agreement. The council has not entered into a s173 agreement with the new owner. The s173 agreement also provides that it terminates when Fabcot has completed its obligations under the agreement. The Council is investigating whether the agreement with Fabcot has terminated.
Mary Wallace asked:
Concerning Condition 7 of the Ropeworks Planning Permit, where it says Council will provide half-yearly summaries to the permit holder/owner, would the Mayor and other Councillors note that the information that Council has not produced the half-yearly summaries, as distinct from not providing these half-yearly summaries to the permit holder/owner, was not contained in Council’s letter to my husband and me dated 13th May 2011 as claimed by Mr Peter Bettess in his letter to me dated 12th February 2013?
The Mayor noted the comments.
The road safety audit conducted in accordance with Condition 16 of the Ropeworks Planning Permit recommended ‘the installation of a raised pavement in First Street at the intersection with Waratah Street’ stipulating that this raised pavement was to be constructed in the area of the then-existing concrete pavement across First Street, the project manager accepted the recommendation and the Findings and Recommendations section of the audit report was endorsed by Council on 3rd December 2007, yet the raised pavement so described has not been installed, so I am asking if Condition 1 t) of the Ropeworks Planning permit has been satisfied?
Peter Bettess advised he would go back and read Condition 16, but responded he did agree if you read the advisory committee report, in his opinion, actions do not follow through from its recommendations.
Nil.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
