The following questions were addressed to the above meeting. Some questions were adequately responded to at the meeting, however others required a more detailed response in writing.
This document includes both verbal and written responses. In this instance, no written responses were provided as issues were adequately addressed at the meeting.
Evan Hardie submitted a series of questions in relation to Amendment C299. As Mr Hardie was not present the questions were tabled for a written response.
Tara Iacaella asked the following questions in relation to Amendment C290 Public Acquisition Overlay: Patullos/Elcho/O’Hallorans Road Intersection, Lara:
Why the acquisition of so much of our land is sought? Why has not more been done to investigate the viable alternatives that exist, as identified by the independent traffic management consultants? The intersection could be redesigned or moved further east.
Why is the burden of providing the land resting almost solely on 180 Patullos Road, Lara? Why can it not be spread more equitably across the three landowners impacted? We note that the cost of acquisition of land across the road is more than 10 times greater than the cost of acquisition of our land (due to that land being re-zoned residential). We hope that the decision to disrupt our li8ves to such an extent is not driven largely by costs. That would be completely unfair and unjust.
If the acquisition must go ahead, why can we not retain ownership of the bulk of the land (the space within the ‘triangle’)?
Peter Bettess responded that the report before Council tonight is recommending submissions be referred to an Independent Panel who will consider the issues that have been raised.
Colin Wallace asked:
Mr Mayor, the night after the 26th November 2013 Council Meeting where I learned that the Paul Jamieson who accompanied Mayor Keith Fagg to the Premier’s office when Mayor Fagg told the Premier he intended to resign was not the then acting CEO of the City of Greater Geelong, I informed the Premier of what I had just learned and in response the Premier informed me by letter that later the same day as he made the error he corrected it in the house, which is something I did not know until I received the Premier’s letter with the relevant page of Hansard enclosed on 15th January, and I am asking you, Mr Mayor, were you aware the Premier had made the correction in the house?
The Mayor responded he was not aware and was not Mayor at the time.
The Minutes of the 26th November 2013 Council Meeting are misleading in that CEO Stephen Griffin when responding to my question on the night was not forthcoming as to whether there was a Paul Jamieson who worked for Council which is the reason my wife a little later during the same Question Time asked if there was a Paul Jamieson working for Council and it was in responding to her the CEO said yes there was a Paul Jamieson working for Council so I am asking why Councillors confirmed the Minutes when part of them – the response to my question – was misleading?
Stephen Griffin responded that the answers on the night were correct and in his opinion were not misleading.
The Mayor added the CEO’s response that the Paul Jamieson referred to is not the Paul Jamieson employed by this Council is correct.
On the night, CEO Stephen Griffin’s response to my question at the 10th December 2013 Council Meeting was clear and unambiguous but referred to the matter I raised only in general terms, avoiding any reference to the specific instance I had raised which was in relation to the previous meeting, yet the Minutes write-up of Mr Griffin’s response is unclear and ambiguous, encouraging the reader to erroneously think that Mr Griffin did respond to the specific instance I raised and to erroneously think he contradicted me, so my question is, why did Councillors confirm the Minutes when part of them – the response to my question – was misleading?
The Mayor responded that as far as he is concerned the response was not misleading and the Minutes were confirmed by the Council because it was clear to all Councillors.
