Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre - City Hall on 8 April 2014, commencing at 7:00pm.
Evan Hardie
Tara Iacaella
Colin Wallace
Cr D Lyons (Mayor)
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
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
D Frost (General Manager Projects, Recreation and Central Geelong)
L Quinn (Manager Family Services)
A Grant (Property Advisor)
R Bourke (Co-ordinator Governance)
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.
Nil.
Cr Harwood moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 25 March 2014 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.
Philip and Louise King asked for confirmation that as identified in Planning Practice Note 78 (Applying the Residential Zones) that one of the principles in applying the Neighbourhood Residential Zone is a residential area with Heritage Overlay (large heritage precinct)?
Peter Bettess responded that he can confirm that is one of the principles, but only one of many principles.
Victoria Strachan asked the following:
The Barwon Heads Arts Council has 300 members and is a very active community group with a full calendar of events. We have applied for $30,000 through the Community Concepts Program to undertake a feasibility study for a community arts hub. This hub will not be a performance space. It will be for exhibitions, creative education workshops and will provide space for artists to come together. We are excited to have recently been offered two historic boat sheds that were once located on the Barwon River. We want to relocate these boat sheds to the Council owned land next to the Barwon Heads Community Garden. We then intend to restore and modernise these sheds as part of our hub. We need this planning money through Community Concepts in order to lobby the Bellarine State Candidates for a capital works contribution towards this fantastic community project. Time is of the essence. Could you clarify the assessment process for Community Concepts and the status of this process given the draft budget is due next month?
Cr Richards responded that Council appreciates the work of the Barwon Heads Arts Council in Barwon Heads and the wider Bellarine area. In relation to the Community Concepts Program, Council is working through these as part of a very tight budget which will be presented to Council in May. Cr Richards added he is very optimistic about it and Council looks forward to working with the Barwon Heads Arts Council.
Vicki Baensch asked why was Newtown west of Shannon Avenue not included in the Heritage Review given that the area exhibits the same built form, character and heritage as other recognised heritage areas of Newtown?
Cr S Kontelj responded that a Notice of Motion is coming to Council this evening which will address that particular anomaly.
Christine Brooks asked her question in relation to the performance space building proposed for Ocean Park.
In January of this year, Council advised that the business case predicts the performance space building will run at a loss for several years before it reaches a break-even point.
The report before Council tonight states that if Council releases the $200,000 contribution to the building, it will be required to enter into a funding agreement with Ocean Grove Park Association which will include milestones and payment schedules. The report does not state who will approve this agreement.
The members of Ocean Grove Park Association have not voted for this building and they have not been informed of any prospect of a funding agreement.
Will the members be allowed to vote on this funding agreement, which has the potential to cause financial ruin if the milestones and payment schedules are not met?
Cr Farrell responded there is some confusion. The funding agreement around the construction of the Performance Space, i.e. meeting milestones is in relation to stages of construction. In regard to the ongoing maintenance and running of the performance space that has been the subject of quite a detailed business case. Your reference to ongoing recurrent costs is not the responsibility of Council. The responsibility lies with the Committee of Management.
Gail Macrae asked:
I’m sure Council is aware that the construction of a Performance Space in Ocean Grove Park is currently a divisive issue. Many residents believe the Park to be owned and managed by the City of Greater Geelong. Others are unaware of the current proposal for a $1 million Performance Space, and still others are under the impression that the proposal refers to the original modest structure initiated in the 90’s. The elderly, holiday-home owners and residents of the new estate areas of Ocean Grove are particularly unlikely to be aware of the issue. With Trust for Nature and the Park Association also being big players, it is hard for residents to find current, factual information on all aspects of the issue, future ownership being of particular concern. Would Council please consider mailing to all 3,226 residents an information sheet addressing the facts, history and processes, and a questionnaire, which informed residents would be better equipped to answer?
Cr Farrell responded that the Ocean Grove Voice has been running a full page information sheet on the issue over several months. Cr Farrell added it is not up to Council to put out information, but the responsibility of the Ocean Grove Park Committee and Trust for Nature as project managers. Information has also been displayed at the local Bendigo Bank.
Peter Field asked the following in relation to Ocean Grove Park and Performance Space:
Would Council:
defer a vote on the issue and freeze funding until an environmental impact study has been conducted?
arrange for a Council officer to attend an on-site meeting, planned for later this month, with a Trust for Nature representative?
Cr Farrell responded there are a couple of points – we already have two events in the Park. Also, I am aware of another event starting Saturday. Trust for Nature and Council are very protective of the vegetation surrounding the Park. Council officers have already been on-site preparing a report on the trees. Regarding the environmental impact study – it is not a requirement in so far as the planning permit is concerned.
Angie Gallagher asked:
Kingston Park in Ocean Grove is 12.5 hectares in total, 6.5 hectres under conservation, 7 hectres where the rotary market is held. Ocean Grove Park is 2.45 hectares. I commend Council for recently putting a noise (music) overlay on Kingston Park in order to protect the nearly 6 or 7 dwellings and the nearby industrial estate. This forced the music festival planned for Kingston Park this Saturday to be shifted to the National Trust Heritage Ocean Grove Park. My question is what will Council to do protect the people in hundreds of nearby dwellings from the noise of this 12 hour music festival?
Jenny McMahon responded it was not a noise overlay, but rather a state government policy that stipulates the level of noise. The same policy applies in Ocean Grove Park.
Cr Farrell added that when the Ocean Grove Summer Festival first started in The Terrace, that location was not ideal. Kingston Park was discussed at the time so too was Ocean Grove Park. The same stipulations regarding EPA apply to the Park as they do to every other Park.
Four hundred and seventy flyers were distributed to residents in relation to the Summer Festival and noise tests were carried out to ensure EPA compliance.
Peter Linaker commented on Ocean Grove Park :
Are Councillors aware that my involvement is some 20 years ago, when I called the first meeting on the future of the Park?
Do Councillors realize the recommendation on the agenda this evening can be well received in Ocean Grove, that control of the site by the City of Greater Geelong is no longer a condition of the proposed entertainment complex?
The Mayor acknowledged Mr Linaker’s comments.
Joan Lindros stated the Geelong Environment Council (GEC) has a policy that no part of a public parkland should be alienated for development. A number of years ago GEC and many community members worked hard for a considerable time to protect and acquire Ingamell’s Park from any development or building on it. If the proposal for a performance centre goes ahead will Council replace the space of parkland lost, if so where. This is a people’s park, worked for, maintained and much loved – what everyone thought was for long term protection from development. Once this happens, what next?
Cr Farrell responded that everyone living in Ocean Grove has an opinion in relation to alternate areas.
The Performance Space is taking up only 1% of the park and there’s been no formal recommendation whether that will be replaced.
Colin Wallace asked:
In the course of the correspondence between CEO Stephen Griffin and my wife and me – Mary and Colin Wallace, initiated by Mr Griffin in his letter to us dated 8th January 2010 and ending with his letter to us dated 24th March 2011 with the letters in the intervening period itemised in our letter to Mr Griffin dated 14th March 2011, it is clear we would not want Manager of Customer Service and Councillor Support Tim McDonald at the meeting we had requested with Mayor Keith Fagg and Councillor Michelle Heagney scheduled for 3rd December 2012, yet just after Mayor Fagg and Cr Heagney greeted us, Tim McDonald appeared, ready to accompany them into the meeting with us but, upon it being clear that, even though we had requested the meeting, we would not enter the meeting room if Mr McDonald was to be there, Mayor Fagg was kind enough to ask Mr McDonald not to join us and the meeting went ahead without him, so, particularly in light of the correspondence mentioned between CEO Stephen Griffin and ourselves, I am asking, was Tim McDonald there under the authority of the CEO, Stephen Griffin?
The Mayor took the question on notice for a written response.
Georgina Alford asked in regard to C300, particularly in regard to Cr Ansett’s comment at the last meeting, why are Councillors making decisions about medium density planning, based on what the state planning minister may or may not decide, rather than consulting with their residents, who elected them, and championing their wishes to the state government?
Peter Bettess responded that the process Council is going through is amending the Panning Scheme.
The State Planning Minister’s dead line is 1 July this year – if Council doesn’t respond the Minister will apply the zoning. Council is going through a public process, which other Councils haven’t. The public exhibition process was accompanied by publications through the internet, newspapers and a letter drop.
Trish Jardine asked:
Given approximately 50% of Council revenue, roughly $160ml, comes from the ratepayers Councillor’s represent; and given almost everyone of the 2000 ratepayers who signed the C300 petition stated they knew nothing about Council’s plans for these changes, can I ask how much of ratepayer’s money is Council spending on lawyers and ‘expert advice’ to fight the wishes the ratepayers they are supposed to represent?
Cr Ansett responded that each Councillor has not had the opportunity to say what they think prior to the panel hearing. Council has chosen to take this issue out into the community to provide the opportunity for public input.
Michael Tate asked in regard to G21, of which the City of Greater Geelong is a signatory, the document outlines extensive planning for future in fill population growth. It mentions the City precinct and the West Fyans Street precinct as appropriate and ample for this; it does not say anything about Geelong West, Manifold Heights, Newtown and Belmont being appropriate areas for proposed medium and high density planning. There is also the Western Wedge Proposal, which, whilst flawed, has merit.
Why has Council ignored its own future planning documents in proposing C300 with or without amendments?
Peter Bettess responded Council has not ignored planning documents.
Nil.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
