Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre - City Hall on23 July 2013, commencing at 7:00pm.
Peter Linaker
Colin 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* (7:15pm)
S Griffin (Chief Executive Officer)
J Wall (General Manager Corporate Services)
P Bettess (General Manager Economic Development, Planning and Tourism)
R Thomas (Acting General Manager City Services)
J McMahon (General Manager Community Services)
D Frost (General Manager Projects, Recreation and Central Geelong)
R Bourke (Governance Co ordinator)
D Chiller (Co-ordinator Communication and Marketing)
The Mayor declared the meeting open at 7:05pm.
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 Macdonald moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded –
That Leave of Absence be granted to Cr Ansett from 24 July to 5 August 2013, inclusive, Cr Fagg from 3 August to 9 August 2013, inclusive and Cr Heagney from 9 August to 25 August 2013, inclusive.
Carried.
Cr Ansett moved, Cr Irvine seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 9 July 2013 be confirmed and signed.
Carried.
Cr Fagg declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Item 1 - Amendment C268 and Permit 337/2012 – Masters Store and Business Park Bacchus Marsh Road, Corio – Adoption, in that he is a director of one of the companies which lodged a submission.
Cr E Kontelj declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Item 1 - Amendment C268 and Permit 337/2012 – Masters Store and Business Park Bacchus Marsh Road, Corio – Adoption, in that he owns greater than $10,000 worth of Woolworths shares and his wife is employed by Woolworths.
Peter Linaker asked the following questions in relation to the Covenant of Old Ocean Grove referred to in Council report of 26 March 2013:
Can I have a copy of the legal report referred to?
The Chief Executive Officer advised he would respond in writing as he would need to investigate whether or not the document is privileged.
Have all title-holders of Old Ocean Grove been contacted?
Cr Farrell responded that a letter was sent out to all property owners in the area and that she had personally received the correspondence.
In the report the General Manager Economic Development, Planning and Tourism states “there are no beneficiaries”. When he says, “The OG covenant does not identify any benefited land”, does he mean that all the 2499 other properties of the 1887 subdivision (more than 100 pages) should be registered with each covenant, on the title? On every one of them? (In 150 years of the Torrens Title we do not do that!)
Peter Bettess responded that for a Covenant to be valid there are a number of technical requirements. Two of the requirements include identifying the land burdened and the land benefited by the Covenant. This Covenant does not identify the land benefiting.
Are Councillors aware of the recent 2010 Law Reform Commission final report on “Easements and Covenants”, totally contrary in this very matter to what the CoGG is doing?
Peter Bettess advised he is aware of the report and will respond to the question in writing.
Is this absurdity and consequences evident to Councillors?
Cr Fagg noted the comment.
Colin Wallace asked:
a) Would the Mayor and other Councillors as well as readers of the Minutes of tonight’s Council Meeting note that, in regard to Item 6 under Section B – Reports, Council Meeting Procedures Local Law at the last Council Meeting, 9th July 2013, for which I was present, the only two Councillors who spoke prior to the vote were Governance portfolio holder Mayor Fagg, when moving the motion and Deputy Mayor Harwood, when seconding it, that the motion was carried with no dissenting voices and that, out of this, all I was able to glean of what was said about Public Question Time was the Mayor mentioning issues around Public Question Time which he did not specify or explain at all and him lumping changes in the Public Question Time section with the other changes and calling them minor but saying nothing more about them, meaning that this was the sum of what Councillors present had to say to the public present about changes to Public Question Time?
The Mayor noted the comment.
b) Would all Councillors note that I disagree with the Mayor, believing the changes are not minor and that, overall, they significantly enhance the opportunity to gag members of the public asking legitimate questions?
The Mayor noted the comment.
I refer Councillors to the concerns I raised in just the second Ordinary Meeting of this Council, on 27th November 2012, in my questions which were as recorded in the Minutes and from which I did not depart at all as I read them out.
Would Councillors note my belief it is self-evident that if a question can be answered at the meeting it should be, that there will be occasions when it is legitimate to take a question on notice for a subsequent written response and that, even though a bona fide effort is made, it may be an answer is not possible and there may legitimately be a response which is not an answer, and it is on this basis that I have approached and participated in Public Question Time?
Cr Fagg noted the comments and added the Local Law document will be available for public comment in the near future.
Would Councillors note my belief that these things were also accounted for in any reasonable interpretation of 4.12(1) – the clause I said on 27th November 2012 I believed was under threat and that, even though the clause has remained reasonably intact in the Local law of 2013, the opportunity to hobble it, just as I feared and predicted, is provided in changes to the Public Question Time section the Mayor would say nothing about except that they were minor?
Cr Fagg noted the comment.
Mr Mayor, near the end of the meeting my wife and I had with you and Cr Heagney at City Hall on 3rd December 2012, I gave you some documents I had written. I have not heard anything about them since, so I am asking you, what happened to them?
The Mayor responded he has the documents in his office and has looked at them, but that was some time ago.
* Cr Richards entered the meeting room at 7:15pm
Cr Nelson presented a petition from residents within the Highview Estate, asking that consideration be made in regard to the possible construction of a footpath along Barrabool Road, Highton, connecting the entrance of the estate to the existing pedestrian access that begins at Scenic Road.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
