Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre - City Hall on 22 April 2014, commencing at 7:00pm.
Dr Maria Neagle
David King
Lesley Harper
Reece Booth
Colin Wallace
Michael Tate
Colin Nightingale
Justin Teague
Cr B Harwood (Acting Mayor)
Crs:
T Ansett
L Ellis
J Farrell
K Fisher
M Heagney
J Irvine
E Kontelj
S Kontelj
R Macdonald
R Nelson
A Richards
D Frost (Acting Chief Executive Officer)
M Kelly (Acting General Manager Corporate Services)
J Van Slageren (Acting General Manager Economic Development, Planning and Tourism)
G Van Driel (General Manager City Services)
K Pritchard (Acting General Manager Community Services
P Jane (Acting General Manager Projects, Recreation and Central Geelong)
R Bourke (Co-ordinator Governance & Legal Services)
D Chiller (Co ordinator Communication and Marketing)
A Paterson (EO - Mayor)
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.
Cr D Lyons (Mayor)
Cr Irvine moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -
That Leave of Absence be granted to Cr D Lyons from 2 – 20 June 2014.
Carried.
Cr Farrell moved, Cr Ansett seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 8 April 2014 be confirmed and signed.
Carried.
Cr S Kontelj declared an Indirect Interest in Agenda Item 1 – Hamlyn Reserve Mobile Phone Antenna in that his niece owns a property across the road from the tower and signed a petition opposing the tower.
Cr E Kontelj declared an Indirect Interest in Agenda Item 1 – Hamlyn Reserve Mobile Phone Antenna in that one of the interested parties in this matter has a close association with the company Cr Kontelj is employed with.
Cr E Kontelj declared an Indirect Interest by a Conflicting Duty in Agenda Item 4 – Armstrong Creek Town Centre Precinct Structure Plan in that one of the interested parties in this matter has a close association with the company Cr Kontelj is employed with.
Cr Heagney declared an Indirect Financial Interest in Agenda Item 15 – Avalon Airport Agreement in that Cr Heagney’s company QA Electrical is undertaking work at Avalon.
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.
Dr Maria Neagle asked the following in relation to the Hamlyn Reserve Mobile Phone Antenna:
Are you aware that the community continues to be steadfastly opposed to the proposed Telstra tower development in Hamlyn Park Reserve?
Are Councillors aware that in following due process, community representatives attended a VCAT hearing on 17 March at which time VCAT upheld their decision to issue a planning permit to Telstra?
Are you aware that as a community group we have prepared an 11 page objectors submission in response to the public submission process that was delivered to the Mayor and Councillors?
Finally, are Councillors aware that the community sincerely appreciates the opportunity you have given us to share our position with the Mayor and Councillors, through the public submission process?
Cr Harwood responded that the questions would be addressed during debate of the item later this evening and added the comments are noted by Council officers and Councillors. He also congratulated the group for the respectful way in which they conducted themselves during the process.
David King presented the following questions on behalf of R & C Johnson in relation to Amendment C267 – Armstrong Creek Town Centre Precinct Structure Plan and Development Contributions Plan:
Are Councillors aware that recommendations 14 and 15 on page 70 are not in accordance with that of the Independent Panel’s recommendations?
Are Councillors aware that clarification was sought from the Independent Panel and that the clarification received from Planning Panels Victoria is not contained in the officer’s report in tonight’s agenda?
Are Councillors aware that this intersection is designed to cater for around 29,000 vmpd whilst the land owner will only generate approximately 2000-3000 vmpd from their development once fully completed?
Are Councillors aware that roads with traffic volumes in excess of 7000 vmpd are defined in Clause 56 of the Planning Scheme as Arterial Roads; and as such would normally be a fully funded DCP? This intersection has an estimated 29,000 vmpd).
Are Councillors aware that this intersection is on the boundary of two separate precincts and will carry the greatest volume of traffic into the ACTC but the construction is the responsibility of just one landowner in one precinct?
Are Councillors aware that the cost burden of this intersection on one landowner is unjust, inequitable and puts this land owner at a disadvantage over other land owners in the town centre, and as such, is inconsistent with the objectives of planning as stated in the Planning and Environment Act 1987?
Cr Harwood responded the questions would be taken on notice for a written response. As the item is listed for discussion later this evening some of these issues will be addressed at that time.
Lesley Harper asked:
Council minutes for the April 8 meeting stated that “Cr Harwood and Cr Heagney presented petitions from residents asking Council to revise the C300 zoning for the whole of Belmont that is proposed to be zoned Residential Growth Zone 2 and General Residential Zone 2 - to instead be zoned Neighbourhood Residential Zone 2 to match the proposed zoning for Newtown Hill and Drumcondra." This is inaccurate as the petition presented by Geelong's Western Resident Action Group to Councillor Heagney specifically requested NRZ2 for Geelong West, rather than the current RGZ2 and GRZ1 classifications, and included over a thousand signatures. Will Council please ensure that the Minutes be altered to include the correct information?
Cr Harwood took the question on notice.
Reece Booth outlined several heritage/tourism related projects which he viewed would be beneficial to the City.
Cr Harwood took the comments on notice for a written response.
Colin Wallace asked the following:
Bearing in mind that Engineering Services is within City Services, was Dean Frost, who is not an engineer, the General Manager of City Services or the Acting General Manager of City Services during the period from April 2009 to February 2010?
Cr Harwood took the question on notice.
Michael Tate asked the following questions in relation to Amendment C300:
The first part of our questions are to Cr S Kontelj – could you please detail the specific mis-information and scaremongering you refer to in your letter?
Are you accusing our group Geelong’s Western Residents Action Group as the source of this supposed mis-information and scaremongering?
As the bulk of these letters were circulated in Geelong West, and more specifically in the heritage overlay areas of Geelong West, an area which is not even your ward, did you have Cr Heagney’s endorsement to undertake this mailer?
If so, why is Cr Heagney not mentioned anywhere in this letter, and why is she not a co-signatory?
If not why was this letter circulated in another Councillor’s ward?
To Council, does the City of Greater Geelong support and endorse this letter and its content from Cr S Kontelj?
Finally, can I ask why Crs Heagney, E Kontelj, S Kontelj and Harwood have not even acknowledged the request to meet with the Geelong’s Western Residents Action Group which was emailed to them on 25 March? That would have been a more appropriate forum to have a discussion about any concerns that the Council has, rather than to adopt the approach that has been taken here?
Cr S Kontelj responded he would take the questions on notice and added he was not aware of any request to meet, however was more than happy to meet regarding this issue.
Cr Heagney responded that she too was unaware of the 25 March emailed request, but was also happy to meet.
Cr Heagney added that the photo that is being used was superimposed, the building is not an accurate representation of what can happen under C300.
Cr Harwood advised Councillors are restricted as to what they can say and are awaiting the Panel submission at the moment and report to come to Council for reading and more discussion.
Cr E Kontelj also apologised, but did not recall receiving any email. He also would be happy to meet.
Colin Nightingale asked the following in relation to Amendment C300:
Cr Heagney, at the Council meeting on 9 April, whilst presenting GWRAG’s petition, you stated that our supporting materials and petition were misleading. We believe our information was correct. Under the revised RGZ2, three storey dwellings at a height of 10.5 metres are possible, even probable. Under GRZ1, three storey dwellings with flat roofs are possible, as the 9 metre height is not mandated and so could be raised with a Council permit, if necessary. As per Cr Kontelj’s letter, he clearly states that: “by moving to the General Residential Zone in these areas we are effectively maintaining the status quo and to a certain degree are applying a more conservative zone than the existing Residential 1 zone. Medium density developments (units, townhouses, apartments) are already permissible in the Residential 1 zone provided they meet the requirements of Rescode and other planning controls (e.g. heritage overlays). The three storey units on Villamanta Street in Geelong West are an example of the type of density of development that can already occur under the current residential zone.
This is of little solace to residents living under a heritage overlay on the other side of Villamanta Street, as their architectural context has been almost totally destroyed.
This would be different under NRZ2, where the 8 metre height maximum is mandated, and tighter controls are in place.
Moreover the three storey apartments in the photograph are in Brownbill Ward at 50 Eastern Beach Road. There are two heritage places to the city side of the apartments at 48 and 46. On the Botanical Gardens side, there is a heritage structure at numbers 52 and 54 and two Heritage Places at number 56. These buildings/structure are heritage places in the City Fringe Heritage Area.
So, there is no guarantee that this situation will not occur throughout Geelong West under RGZ2 or GRZ1, whereby three storey apartments/town houses are erected in Heritage Overlay areas.
My question to Crs Heagney and Kontelj is, “In the light of this information, will you retract your statements that GWRAG’s information was misleading for people signing our petition and GWRAG is involved in an act of scaremongering?”
Cr Heagney responded that the pictures are not the ones she was referring to and was not prepared to retract the statement.
Justin Teague asked:
Consultation – regarding sale of Ocean Grove Netball Reserve – what can Council do to ensure consultation measures are adequate?
Given limited availability of flat, usable, open parkland in Ocean Grove, forsaking economic rationale, what reasoning does Council have for selling this rare Environmental Good in the town?
How are reasons for sale validated by the entire community when consultation has been inadequate?
Cr Farrell responded that consultation has been through Council, the Panel is yet to form their decision to allow the rezone. A report will come back to Council for further discussion.
Cr Farrell added that Council has fulfilled all statutory requirements around consultation.
Cr Heagney presented a petition containing 164 signatures from residents in relation to C300 Zoning of Geelong West and Manifold Heights.
Cr S Kontelj declared an Indirect Interest in Agenda Item 1 – Hamlyn Reserve Mobile Phone Antenna in that his niece owns a property across the road from the tower and signed a petition opposing the tower and left the meeting room at 7.40pm prior to discussion.
Cr E Kontelj declared an Indirect Interest in Agenda Item 1 – Hamlyn Reserve Mobile Phone Antenna in that one of the interested parties in this matter has a close association with the company Cr Kontelj is employed with and left the meeting room at 7.40pm prior to discussion.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
