Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre - City Hall on13 August 2013, commencing at 7:05pm.
Peter Linaker and Graeme Tribe
Erwin Boermans
David Sterrett
Geoffrey Kenyon
Colin Wallace
Mary Wallace
Cr B Harwood (Acting Mayor)
Crs:
T Ansett
L Ellis
J Farrell
K Fisher
J Irvine
S Kontelj* (7:45pm)
R Macdonald
R Nelson
A Richards
D Frost (Acting 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)
P Jane (Acting General Manager Projects, Recreation and Central Geelong)
J Brown (Manager Administration and Governance)
J Findlay (Media & Communications Officer)
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.
Councillors:
K Fagg (Mayor)
M Heagney
E Kontelj
Cr Richards moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -
That an Extension of Leave of Absence be granted to Cr Fagg (Mayor) from 5 August to 16 August 2013, inclusive.
Carried.
Cr Richards moved, Cr Irvine seconded -
That Leave of Absence be granted to Cr Rod Macdonald from 23 September to 14 October, inclusive.
Carried.
Cr Irvine moved, Cr Fisher seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 23 July 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.
Peter Linaker and Graeme Tribe addressed Council in relation to the Ocean Grove Covenant:
General Manager Economic Development, Planning and Tourism, have you said there are ‘no beneficiaries’ to the Ocean Grove covenant, and thus no persons entitled to object?
Is it also said in the report: ‘Council officers have been advised that it is ‘highly likely’ that the Covenant is invalid in so far as it does not appear to meet the equitable requirements for passing the benefit of a restrictive Covenant. The advice relates to a specific property in the affected area?
Now it is patent that the intent and meaning of a ‘Covenant’ is an agreement between parties, via their land, such as with an authority, or between a vendor and purchaser, or between common purchasers under a common covenant, such is called a ‘scheme’. Are you aware of Gibson’s interpretation on this, VCAT in 2011?
Peter Bettess responded that the Gibson interpretation is irrelevant to the Ocean Grove Covenant as it concerned a matter of interpretation of the benefited land in the covenant. The Ocean Grove covenant does not identify the land benefiting. Objectors to the removal of an Ocean Grove covenant at VCAT will have the status of objectors to the permit, not beneficiaries of the covenant.
Since there are some 2500 abutting properties of old Ocean Grove, with the same covenant – do you still say the mutual relation between these titleholders, and the ‘scheme’ is irrelevant, and still deny the legal proviso ‘unless there is a scheme’ even an ‘implied scheme’ at VCAT?
Peter Bettess responded, ‘Yes, irrelevant’.
Mr Mayor, the ‘entrenched position’ of Council is contrary to that of Property Law and VCAT. It is based upon ‘The covenant is not a covenant’. Does Council realize how this appears as a provocative attack on titleholders in an attempt to show the covenant defenceless and obsolete?
Peter Bettess responded that he could not answer this question without giving a lecture on Property Law. An objector can go to VCAT, it is not necessary to go to Court.
Will then the Council therefore provide our costs to real all this in Court?
This question was not answered on the night.
Erwin Boermans asked the following questions:
National example status, Dennis More’s Leopold project, as lodged for Council on 29 January 2013?
Request for Council support for exclusive development rights for my industrial waste heat exchange, district energy project to future-proof the area, innovate with new infrastructure?
Peter Bettess responded that Council is not able to give exclusive development rights. However, opportunities by households and businesses to reduce energy usage will result through Council’s commitment to a low carbon future and through its Future Proofing Project.
David Sterrett addressed Council as follows:
Council requested in January that a project brief be prepared investigating public access to Port Phillip Bay, adjacent to Leopold. Leopold Angling and Aquatic Club attended a meeting of City planners on 11 February so the City could gain an understanding of community expectations and infrastructure requirements to achieve public access that meets the objectives of the Leopold Angling Club. The Manager Planning Strategy subsequently confirmed by letter that “the review will involve further discussion with your club”. Since that time, apart from emails explaining of delays to the process, the most recent one of which was four months ago, there has been no further contact. My emails of 5 July and 1 August requesting updates remain unanswered. The community expects Council to honour its commitments to its “Values and Behaviours”, to date it has not?
Peter Bettess responded that the City is progressing with this project and as advised to you via email on 1 August 2013 the options will shortly be presented to Council.
Cr Macdonald added that the project has taken a long time and the process has presented a lot of issues. However, it is hopeful a report will be presented to Council shortly. Further discussions will be held with the Leopold Angling and Aquatic Club and residents in the area. Peter Bettess provided a copy of the 1 August 2013 email to Mr Sterrett at the meeting.
Geoffrey Kenyon asked the following in relation to rate charges:
I am to understand the developers are to be charged vacant land rates overall instead of house and land rates as everybody else, when none of these houses are empty and are to my information are being charged rent and agistment. Cash in hand as I have been told?
Jeff Wall, General Manager Corporate Services, responded that rate charges are based on land use and property value. If there was any change to the use of a property then a supplementary valuation would be undertaken.
The question was tabled and a written response will be provided.
Cr Richards advised he would arrange a meeting with an officer to explain the process.
Colin Wallace asked the following:
Would Councillors and readers of the Minutes of tonight’s Council Meeting note that, in reference to my Question 1a) at the last Council Meeting, 23rd July 2013, what Deputy Mayor Harwood said in seconding the Mayor’s motion on 9th July 2013 was that the Mayor had covered the subject well and that is all he said?
The Acting Mayor noted the comment.
Would Councillors and readers of the Minutes of tonight’s Council Meeting note that:
Members of the public used to have unfettered access through Council’s website to the Minutes of Council Meetings going back at least a decade and the Question Time documents for as long as they have been provided, however, since 12th December 2012, access has been only to the Minutes from the start of 2012 and only the most recent Question Time document?
The Acting Mayor noted the comment.
The Council website now says, ‘To access older meeting minutes contact one of our customer service centres,’ which means that any such enquiry can be completely monitored and controlled through the Manager of Customer Services and Councillor Support?
The Acting Mayor noted the comment.
I believe this change and the intended changes this year to the Public Question Time section of the Council Meeting Procedures Local Law are both steps backward for democracy in Geelong?
Mary Wallace asked:
I have been told that Council cannot locate a quote from Surbo Holdings for removing trees and making a new footpath with fence in First Street and my question is, shouldn’t Council have this quote?
The Acting Mayor took the question on notice.
The Surbo Holdings invoice for removing trees and making a new footpath with fence in First Street was directed to officers of the Asset and Traffic Management Unit all of whom, to my knowledge, remains in the Asset and Traffic Management Unit, the Co ordinator of which was then and remains the same. Since the Surbo Holdings invoice was directed to the Co ordinator Asset and Traffic Management and someone within his unit and under his authority, and the Co ordinator Asset and Traffic Management ‘s signature accompanies ‘OK to pay’ on the invoice, my question is how can the Co ordinator Asset and Traffic Management know if the $33,000 including GST on the invoice is the right amount to pay if there is no written quote to refer to?
The Acting Mayor took the question on notice.
The Surbo Holdings invoice for $30,000 or $33,000 including GST is for removing trees and making a new footpath with fence in First Street only; these are works on the east side of First Street, yet the table in the letter to my husband Colin Wallace from the Co ordinator Asset and Traffic Management dated 4th April 2011 says that Surbo Holdings for the same amount of money did works at the southern end of First Street as well as the works on the east side and yet the works at the southern end were not begun until after the date of this Surbo Holdings invoice and my question is, how can this be?.
The Acting Mayor took the question on notice.
Nil.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
