Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre - City Hall on 25 February 2014, commencing at 7:00pm.
Georgina Alford
Helen Lyth
Jamie Baensch
Philip and Louise King
Anne Morrell
Joe Crosbie
Tim Boyd
Geoff Kenyon
Mary Wallace
Cr D Lyons (Mayor)
Crs:
T Ansett
L Ellis
J Farrell
K Fisher
B Harwood
M Heagney
E Kontelj
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)
G Van Driel (General Manager City Services)
J McMahon (General Manager Community Services)
S Cavanagh (Acting General Manager Projects, Recreation and Central Geelong)
R Bourke (Co-ordinator Governance)
J Merlo (Senior Media Officer)
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:
J Irvine (Leave of Absence)
Cr E Kontelj moved, Cr Ellis seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 11 February 2014 be confirmed and signed.
Carried.
Cr Fisher declared a Direct Interest in Agenda Item 2 - Amendment C300 – Implementation of New Residential Zones – Consideration of Submissions in that she is a signature to a petition in relation to the matter.
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.
Georgina Alford asked the following in relation to Amendment C300:
In relation to the item regarding the C300 New Residential Zoning Amendment could Council please amend submitter 2 so that it reads Margaret and Georgina Alford, rather than just Margaret Alford?
The Chief Executive Officer advised that Council would adjust the Appendix, which is now reflected in this Minute document.
Could Council please explain why parts of Geelong West such as Lawton Avenue have not been considered in the same way as this area of Newtown? I would like Council to explain how the distinction has been made based on the definitions of the C300 Proposed Zones and the Local Planning Policies. Could Council please respond to this question in writing?
What do these proposed changes mean in practical terms? How will they be applied? In relation to the setback being behind the roof ridge-line of heritage buildings – which heritage buildings does this refer to? Does it mean the heritage buildings on either side of the property, the street or the heritage area in general? It is not clear and I would appreciate Council explaining the application of these proposed “Design Objectives” to me. I would appreciate Council responding to this question in writing?
Peter Bettess responded the decision tonight is not final, just a step towards having those points addressed. A response will be forwarded in writing.
Helen Lyth asked the following:
Portland, Oregon, with a population of over ½ million currently has over 6% of workers commuting by bicycle. Portland’s projected target for 2030 is that ¼ of all trips within the city will be made by bicycle. With the annual Australian bike count happening next Tuesday morning, CoGG will have current data on cyclist numbers in our municipality. Does the City of Greater Geelong have a per capita target for cycling? If so, what is it? What is the projected date for 5% of all trips of less than 10 kilometres to be made by bicycle?
Cr Andy Richards indicated he would respond to the questions in writing, however agreed Portland, Oregon is a fantastic City, but does not believe Geelong is quite there yet. He added that Council is working with Bike Safe to improve the bicycle network throughout the City.
Cr Heagney added the recent Central Geelong Transport Links Study by VicRoads and the Department of Transport identified a road usage hierarchy.
Jamie Baensch asked:
From 2006 to 2011 the CoGG has grown at a steady 0.9% pa -
What is the population growth target for CoGG?
The G21 aspirational population target is 500,000 for 2050 – what is the data to support this target?
Peter Bettess responded that he believes the figure to be around 1.3%. Council uses a couple of different sources, ABS for projections and also ID for forecasts. These can be viewed via Council’s website.
The Mayor suggested Mr Baensch make an appointment with a Council Officer to address these issues in more detail.
Philip and Louise King asked:
As Geelong is a commuter hub of Melbourne, with huge demand for rail access, why is so little growth zone proposed around the South Geelong, Marshall and the proposed Grovedale stations? Given that there is the option to designate a growth zone of either 400 or 800 metre radius around activity centres depending on whether they are small or large, why was an 800 metre radius not designation around these stations?
Peter Bettess advised 400 has been chosen based primarily around convenience. This issue is something which could be raised with the Panel.
There appears to be no impact assessment of the proposed zoning on, e.g. transport access (especially rail), infrastructure, traffic, parking, safety, aged care and public housing. What impact assessments were done, against what underlying strategies/plans and with what results?
Peter Bettess responded there is no impact assessment as such and referred to the Implementation Plan in the ‘Background’ of the report which addresses the types of facilities that are needed to support the growth.
Only three small areas have been nominated as Neighbourhood Residential Zones, with almost all of Geelong being classified as General Residential or Growth zones. So why has CoGG chosen to apply the state guidelines so brutally given that Geelong is only about 1/20 the size of Melbourne? Is Council determined to reduce all of Geelong to the lowest common denominator, rather than promoting suburban character and diversity?
Peter Bettess responded that what we are trying to do is tie up Geelong’s future housing needs. The Panel will either agree or advise us otherwise.
Anne Morrell asked if Council was aware that the previous panel report Amendment C129 June 2008, outlined significant deficiencies in Council’s approach to managing development within the heritage overlay areas page 76 and 77 of the report made the observation that “ignoring overlays in the identification of these areas can only be described as incompetent” and recommended “amending the strategies in the MSS to clarify expectation around the level of development appropriate in IHD areas” and “support low scale medium density development in all residential areas consistent with character of these areas”. How does Council propose to address the concern raised by the panel which is still relevant with this new proposal?
Peter Bettess responded that the panel did not say the Council is incompetent and suggested the preamble to the report be read. This Council is going through a full public process.
Joe Crosbie asked:
The Belmont Heights subdivision has a majority of single dwelling covenants attached to the lots – why has the planning department applied the residential growth zone when due to the covenant mandating a single dwelling it is not possible to increase density?
Peter Bettess responded that in the case of areas where there are covenants the covenant will govern what can happen on those sites unless the covenants are removed. The point we are at is the opportunity to make a submission and that should be a matter to be raised.
Tim Boyd asked if Council is aware it has proposed one of the highest uses of Residential Growth Zones when compared to other municipalities who have already implemented these zones. What is the reason for this?
Peter Bettess responded that the zones are applied in line with the Housing Diversity Strategy. The other Councils have handled in a much more lenient way, but they are not approved and remain as just proposals.
Geoff Kenyon presented a series of statements in relation to Agenda Item 10 – Revocation of Flood Prone Area Designation of New Lots at Mount Duneed.
A response to these issues will be provided in writing.
The Mayor also indicated the issues would be discussed during debate of the item.
Mary Wallace asked:
Does Council consider that Section 7f of the Ropeworks Planning Permit has been satisfied?
Peter Bettess responded, “yes”.
If the answer to Question 1 is yes, on which date was Section 7f of the Ropeworks Planning Permit signed off?
The Chief Executive Officer responded questions in relation to the Ropeworks has been discussed extensively, and as advised in recent correspondence, this matter will not be discussed further.
Peter Bettess provided Mrs Wallace with a copy of correspondence in relation to Section 7f.
Cr Fisher presented a petition from residents objecting to the Amendment C300 Reformed Residential Zone RGZ in the Corio area.
Cr Harwood presented a petition from residents requesting Council to revise the Amendment C300 zoning for the area within Belmont Height Covenant area.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
