Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre - City Hall on28 May 2013, commencing at 7:00pm.
Margaret Huber
Joan Clarke
Jose Lopez
Stephen Juhasz
Colin Wallace
Mary Wallace
Robyn O’Dale (written response requested)
Cr K Fagg (Chair)
Crs:
T Ansett
L Ellis
J Farrell
K Fisher
B Harwood
M Heagney
J Irvine
R Macdonald
R Nelson
A Richards* (7:15pm)
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)
D Chiller (Coordinator Communication and Marketing)
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.
Councillors:
E Kontelj
S Kontelj
Cr Ellis moved, Cr Irvine seconded -
That Leave of Absence be granted to Cr Ron Nelson from 2 June to 8 July 2013, inclusive.
Carried.
Cr Nelson moved, Cr Harwood seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 14 May 2013 be confirmed and signed.
Carried.
Nil.
Question Time is an opportunity for questions to be addressed to Council and while the minutes record the general content, they do not purport to be a transcript of what was said by individuals. Likewise Councillor or Officer verbal responses are in summary form only. Views expressed may not be the views of Council.
Council's practice is to provide a separate document on its website setting out questions and responses including any more detailed written responses which may be provided subsequent to the meeting.
The following questions were asked in relation to the Proposed Storage and Blending of Chemicals at 1-39 Roseneath Street, North Geelong – Planning Permit 147/2011:
Margaret Huber
Do the Councillors deem appropriate for a facility to store and blend toxic, corrosive and flammable substances in such close proximity to residential and service areas?
How is it acceptable for the proposed development to precede without the required buffer zone requirements?
If such an area already exists and meets with current legislative requirements, how is it appropriate to store chemicals in an area which is close to residential and service areas? Why are the Council not recommending this area to the applicant?
Peter Bettess, General Manager Economic Development, Planning and Tourism, responded that the site is located within an industrial zone. The applicant is quite entitled to apply for a permit and Council must consider any permit before it. The permit, as part of the planning process, is referred to the relevant agencies including EPA, WorkSafe and the CPA for their feedback.
Council did not make any recommendations regarding this area. The site is industrial and it comes down to the nature of the chemicals and chemicals that do require buffer distance. The permit process is designed to assess these issues.
Joan Clarke
My husband and I have recently retired into Slevin Street. What guarantee to the ratepayers for devaluation of our property if this ‘mini refinery’ should go ahead? Rumours are we have already lost 50% of value?
Has Council and the planning department forgotten their duty of care to the community of Geelong?
Has and will the planning department consider all the people of Geelong and its environment in regards to the effects of these substances, should there be a spill accident, fire or other incident?
Peter Bettess responded that the application will receive full and proper consideration, including that of the relevant authorities and a full planning process.
Mr Bettess added that advertising of the application concluded on 17 May and Council can consider any objections until it makes its decision.
Council has received 107 submissions and has tentatively booked a planning information session, where panels and other people meet with residents and explain the planning process which is set down for Friday 14 June at 4.00pm. Council is waiting reply from the EPA and other authorities at this stage. Cr Eddy Kontelj has called the application in to a planning committee. That planning committee is tentatively scheduled for 16 July.
The Mayor responded that Council will take into account as part of consideration of the process.
* Cr Richards entered the meeting room at 7:15pm
Jose Lopez
Why does this facility need to be opened again after all these years?
Why do we have to have chemical facilities so close to residential and businesses?
Peter Bettess responded that these issues will be discussed as part of the planning process, including whether this site is appropriate.
Stephen Juhasz
Is the Council aware of the leak and subsequent fire with toxic smoke of a similar facility last Friday in Brazil?
The Mayor noted the comment.
If so, how can Council even consider placing such a facility in a residential area regardless of the arbitrary light industrial zoning?
The Mayor responded that this question will form part of the full planning process in considering the application. The applicant has a right to make application for a permit.
If the Council do not give this a green light does the Council commit to representing the wishes of ratepayers if the applicant appeals this matter to VCAT?
Peter Bettess responded, certainly, if Council refuses the permit and the applicant appeals, Council would defend its position.
Colin Wallace asked the following question:
Mr Mayor, at the meeting my wife Mary and I had with you on 4th March 2013, at which you were accompanied by Cr Heagney, you said you would check whether anything had been given to Woolworths regarding the works paid for out of the $100,000 mentioned in Condition 7 of the Ropeworks Planning Permit. At our next meeting with you on 4th April 2013, at which you were again accompanied by Cr Heagney, you told us that nothing had been given to Woolworths but that in the meantime, that is between 4th March 2013 and 4th April 2013, you had asked Peter Bettess to write to Woolworths about the matter and include with his letter the table contained in the letter to me dated 4th April 2011 signed by Kevin Battye, Co-ordinator Asset and Traffic Management. Seeing we have heard nothing about this since, I am asking you, Mr Mayor, has there been a reply from Woolworths?
Peter Bettess responded that Woolworths are no longer a party. The site was originally owned by Fabcot, but was subsequently purchased by an entity controlled by Charter Hall. Advice has been sought to confirm which entity we should be writing to and once this is ascertained a letter will be forwarded, but as yet we have not corresponded.
The Mayor responded he is aware it has changed hands but didn’t know the new owner.
Mary Wallace asked:
In light of the fact that there are two versions of a table purportedly detailing the works paid for out of the $100,000 mentioned in Condition 7 of the Ropeworks Planning Permit, both in letters signed by Kevin Battye, Co-ordinator Asset and Traffic Management, I am asking what is Council’s view on why there are these two versions in which there are significant differences from one to the other in the descriptions?
The Mayor responded that his understanding was one item had the GST incorrectly included. Although the item is described differently, it is consistent to the works carried out on each of the invoices.
In the letter to Peter Bettess dated 16th March 2011 signed by my husband Colin Wallace on behalf of both of us, we requested the dates during which works were undertaken that were paid for out of the $100,000 mentioned in Condition 7 of the Ropeworks Planning Permit. In the table contained in the letter to my husband dated 4th April 2011 and signed by Kevin Battye, Co-ordinator Asset and Traffic Management, there is a column headed simply ‘Date’ and I am asking, does this mean dates the works described were undertaken or does it mean something else and, if so, what?
The Mayor responded he could not answer specifically but would take the question on notice.
The description in the invoice from Surbo Holdings that my husband and I were given as part of Council’s response to our Freedom of Information request of 31st Match 2011 says: ‘Remove trees and make new footpath with fence First St as per quote’, with the amount being $30,000. Seeing we were given the invoice but were not given the quote, I am asking for a copy of the quote if it exists.
The Mayor took the question on notice.
A further question in relation to Planning Permit 147/2011, submitted by Robyn O’Dale, was tabled for a written response.
Cr Richards presented a petition containing over 300 signatures requesting the provision of a pedestrian crossing in Torquay Road, Grovedale in the area between Peter and Perrett Streets.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
