Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre - City Hall on 12 November 2013, commencing at 7:00pm.
David Pavia
Judith Brooks
Maria Neagle
Sally Poehland
Reece Booth
Cr B Harwood (Acting Mayor)
Crs:
T Ansett
J Farrell
K Fisher
M Heagney
J Irvine
S Kontelj
R Macdonald
R Nelson
A Richards
S Griffin (Chief Executive Officer)
M Kelly (Acting General Manager Corporate Services)
P Bettess (General Manager Economic Development, Planning and Tourism)
B Gaudion (Acting 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 (Co-ordinator Governance)
D Chiller (Co-ordinator Communication and Marketing)
The Acting Mayor declared the meeting open at 7:00pm.
The Acting 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:
L Ellis
E Kontelj
Cr S Kontelj moved, Cr Nelson seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 22 October 2013 be confirmed and signed.
Carried.
Cr Ansett declared an Indirect Interest by Close Association in Agenda Item 2 – C265 Flood Overlays in Portarlington East, Corio, Newcomb and Whittington – Consideration of Panel Report and Adoption in that he has relations in the flood prone area.
Cr Heagney declared an Indirect Interest by Close Association in Agenda Item 2 – C265 Flood Overlays in Portarlington East, Corio, Newcomb and Whittington – Consideration of Panel Report and Adoption in that her parents in-law own a property in the Portarlington area being considered.
Cr Heagney declared a Direct Interest in Agenda Item 10 – Plaques and Memorial Policy in that she is a member of the Board of the Geelong Cemeteries Trust.
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.
David Pavia asked the following:
A landfill has operated in Fyansford since 1989 when it was granted a 10 year permit by the shire of Bannockburn. When the permit was due for renewal in 2000, protracted negotiations occurred between COGG, the Land Fill operators and the residents of Fyansford who had raised a number of concerns about the Landfill operations. At Council’s meeting in October 24 2004, Council directed the Planning department to issue a five year extension to the Landfill permit provided a number of strict conditions were met and if conditions were not met with in a specific time-frame, the permit was to be cancelled. It has recently come to the residents’ attention that the planning department never issued the permit as directed by Council and has allowed the landfill operation to operate without a valid planning permit for the past 10 years.
What will Council do to ensure that it meets its statutory obligations to protect residents from uncontrolled activities and what steps will be taken to identify the failure to carry out the directive of the 2004 Council?
Peter Bettess responded that Council is currently investigating the 2004 decision. Council will be taking up issues of compliance during a meeting scheduled with the site Manager this Friday, and indicated Council will be in contact when the investigation process concludes.
Cr Farrell asked if there was a permit or not.
Peter Bettess responded that as he was not in Council’s employ during 2004, he would need to make further investigations.
Judith Brooks asked that given Barwon Heads doesn’t have one pedestrian crossing will Council undertake immediate discussions with the relevant Council officers regarding solutions, however temporary, to pedestrian safety before the coming crowds and traffic gather for the holiday season?
Cr Richards responded that Bridge Road and Golf Links Road are the responsibility of VicRoads and Council has no say. We have asked VicRoads to improve safety in Hitchcock Avenue but without success – but will continue to raise the issue.
Can Council reassure the Barwon Heads community that building a new community asset, a kindergarten, in the Barwon Heads Village Park which is now designated as a Bush Fire Prone Area, is still the best option for Barwon Heads? Are Councillors still fully confident, in the light of recent warnings on climate change, that the Bush Fire Attack Level of 12.5 for the building is adequate for the safety of children?
Are Councillors aware that Australia has had more bush fires in the last 13 years than the whole half of the last century?
Cr Richards advised these questions were responded to during the Barwon Heads Association’s Meeting in July. Council is confident that it meets the requirements in relation to the Kindergarten’s construction, and is happy to release details of the Bush Fire Assessment.
Richard Littlewood asked why won’t Council do anything about cars parked illegally in Thompson Street and Culbin Avenue, Belmont. I am concerned cars on nature-strip and footpath near the corner of Thompson and Mt Pleasant Roads are going to cause an accident because of the school opposite, despite sending photos to By-law officers with registration numbers and many complaints on phone, I am continually fobbed off with excuses. Also sign on nature-strip outside Sip Café is a hazard to motorists?
Jenny McMahon responded she was aware of the situation and had received a lot of complaints. Five officers have recently attended the site and cars have been legally parked. She indicated that contact will be made tomorrow to arrange a meeting on-site.
Maria Neagle addressed Council as follows in relation to the proposed telecommunication tower at Hamlyn Park Recreational Reserve:
Are you aware that the community is still very worried about the proposed telecommunications tower being put in Hamlyn Park Recreational Reserve?
Are you aware that members of this community are attending a VCAT Practice Day hearing this Friday, 15 November 2013?
Are you aware that the grounds of our VCAT submission include the following key arguments:
Firstly, a issue of amenity: The key factors underlying the amenity argument include the effect on the ambience of the recreational reserve and the fact that the location of this tower will directly interrupt the existing walking and bike track, and will effectively obstruct the existing connection between the Vines Road Redevelopment Project incorporating Western Height College with Hamlyn Park Recreational Reserve?
Are you aware that both of these features of the existing reserve were identified as of very high importance within the guiding master plan compiled for Council by Capacity Consulting and adopted by Council in September 2010?
As you aware that we are mounting a public health argument which is our second key ground for objection?
Finally, are you aware that at the VCAT practice hearing we will be asking Telstra to provide us with reasons why the alternative sites within the grid that they have investigated for such a tower are in fact worse for the community than the Hamlyn Park Recreational Reserve, such that they have deemed them to be inappropriate?
Cr Harwood responded that the issue has been discussed at length and Council has received many emails, however there is also a process to follow.
We have to wait and see what happens at VCAT and let discussions take place and submissions heard. Council grasps what you are saying, but also recognizes that the applicant has the right to pursue this application and we have a right to respect that.
Cr Eddy Kontelj has been working very hard in relation to this issue.
Councillors cannot express a view, but we do understand, and we also understand about the natural process currently taking place.
Cr Ansett added the issue is very frustrating, especially when VCAT over-rides us as the elected members.
Sally Poehland provided Council with a presentation outlining their concerns with the Portarlington East C265 S.B.O. in 100 Year Flooding pertaining to 40 The Esplanade, Portarlington, and asked Councillors to give them a fair and impartial consideration of their submission. Their in-going aim was to have their property declared flood free. If this is not possible, would Council at least give our home and garage an exemption from 1 in 100 year event flooding?
Cr Harwood indicated that consideration of the report may be deferred.
Council is well aware of the issue and both Peter Bettess and Cr Ellis have met on-site inspecting the property.
Peter Bettess added Council has spent a lot of time on this issue and has a duty of care to provide guidelines and advice in relation to flood prone areas.
Reece Booth asked what is being done to promote Heritage in Geelong?
Cr Ansett responded that Council would welcome any energy around Heritage in Geelong. Council has the Heritage Centre in the City and the Botanical Gardens, but realise we need to do more. Cr Ansett indicated he would make contact with Mr Booth to discuss further.
Nil.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
