Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre - City Hall on 13 May 2014, commencing at 7:00pm.
Michael Loughnan
David Pavia
Vicki Perrett
Evan Hardie
Justin Teague
Anthony Aitken
Mik Aidt
Alan Manson
Lyn Manson
Janet Danielak
David King
Daniel Cowdell
Geoff Kenyon
Emma Einsiedel
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
D Frost (Acting 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
P Jane Acting (General Manager Projects, Recreation and Central Geelong)
J Brown (Manager Administration and Governance)
P Jamieson (Manager Community Development)
R Anderson (Co-ordinator Urban Growth Area Planning)
K Fulton (Acting Manager Financial Services)
A Della Monica (Co-ordinator Corporate Strategy)
J Merlo (Senior Media Officer)
D Chiller (Co ordinator Communication and Marketing)
A Paterson (EO – Mayor)
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 Ansett moved, Cr Ellis seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 22 April 2014 be confirmed and signed.
Carried.
Cr E Kontelj declared an Indirect Interest in Amendment C267 – Armstrong Creek Town Centre Precinct Structure Plan – Approval, in that one of the parties associated with the Development has a close association with his employer company.
Cr Stretch Kontelj declared an Indirect Interest in City Plan 2013-2017 (2014-2015 Update) in that his wife is a member of the Board of GPAC.
Cr Heagney declared an Indirect Interest in City Plan 2013-2017 (2014-2015 Update) in that she is an independent member of the Board of GPAC.
Cr Eddy Kontelj declared an Indirect Interest in City Plan 2013-2017 (2014-2015 Update) in that his sister-in-law is a member of the Board of GPAC.
Cr Farrell declared an Indirect Interest in the Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) Membership in that she works as a contractor for the VLGA.
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.
Michael Loughnan asked where new traffic lights are placed at intersections connecting new subdivisions to main roads would you please require the provision of left turn slip lanes which do not activate the light sequence? Is the barrier to this coming from developer resistance based on cost?
Gary Van Driel responded the signalisation of a new intersection is to ensure an appropriate level of safety and mobility for all road users. The lane configuration of a signalised intersection is based upon traffic assessments and future modelling. This assessment takes into consideration current and future traffic volumes and turning requirements to optimise intersection safety and capacity. Australian Standards and Austroads guidelines are used in the development of intersection layouts and signal phasing.
A further written response will be forwarded.
David Pavia asked the following questions in relation to the Fyansford Landfill site:
Given that Council has allowed a demolition facility to operate without appropriate permits on the Fyansford Landfill site for more than a year, what action will Council take in future to ensure that the Fyansford landfill site is operated in an appropriate manner and what enforceable safeguards will be developed to ensure that the landfill site cease operations in a timely manner and is rehabilitated in an appropriate manner?
Will Council attempt to define the existing usage rights of the site (including hours of operation, allowable activities on the site and final site contour) to provide some certainty to residents and clarity to a future purchaser of the site?
Will Council use the opportunity that the proposed sale of the site offers, to reassert some sort of control over the site which was lost through the inaction of the planning department subsequent to the 2004 directive to issue a 5 year planning permit?
Peter Bettess responded that the questions would be taken on notice for a written response, but added Council has taken action against the operator.
Vicki Perrett asked questions regarding Council’s Community Concepts Program:
When Council moved away from its ward allocation scheme, the public were informed that the Community Concepts program is a new initiative to seek community input to the City’s annual budget process.
As the peak sustainability group in Geelong, Geelong Sustainability Group was excited about the opportunity to make a submission for support for two of their major projects: the Sustainable Geelong directory and the co ordination of Sustainable House Day for the Geelong region.
Both these projects aligned closely with the strategic objectives in the 2013-2017 City Plan under community wellbeing, growing our economy and especially those under the Sustainable Built and Natural Environment. However, since lodging our submissions in January this year we have not received any follow up communication from Council.
Can Cr Lyons please explain the process Council adopted to analyse and prioritise the 207 submissions? The number of successful submissions? What further communications (if any) the nominated contact for unsuccessful submissions will receive and when?
Dean Frost responded that Council received 207 Community Concept submissions from our Community consultation. Those concepts were prioritised by Councillors and then referred to the budget deliberations. The Budget is being presented this evening and will be available for viewing from tomorrow. Once the Budget is formally adopted all community groups will receive notification.
The Budget document will go out on public exhibition until 10 June inviting written submissions from the public.
Evan Hardie asked the following questions in relation to Amendment C299:
Does Council agree that:
The recommendations made nine years ago in the Bellarine Recreation and Leisure Needs Study 2005 to sell this land in order to contribute to the proposed Shell Road Reserve development are still relevant, and especially when that study urged that both annual and five yearly reviews should be conducted to re-assess current needs from community consensus.
The broad survey conducted across the whole of the Bellarine by random telephone calls and other questionnaires still remains accurate and relevant to this specific eastern half of “Old Ocean Grove’s“ future needs.
That only short term financial capital advantages with a short term budget time frame have been driving this attitude of intention to sell this land.
The above survey conducted “out of reach” of this neighbourhood in question at that time nine years ago was potentially misleading to the Independent Panel Hearing.
That “Old Ocean Grove’s” future needs of Informed Open Space, as distinct from the nearby active and structured sporting facilities have been under estimated
That in this regard, the guidelines put forward re open space requirements in the Ocean Grove Sporting infrastructure Plan 2010 – sub heading: Recreation Facility Design Trends, Page 29, were not adequately appreciated by the Independent Panel Report
Alternative funding methods or possible future grants may be found to prevent the loss of this unique and highly suitably placed open space.
In consideration of Council’s Strategic Plan of Expenditure in next year’s budget, where it proposes to spend $800,000 on relocating the Ocean Grove Neighbourhood Centre to an existing Council building at the Shell Road complex (a renovator’s delight), would Council also consider the same possible good fortune for the Karingal Organisation to renovate an existing home to suit their needs, with a very similar proposed budget of between $800,000 and $1,000,000, at a suitable location somewhere on the Bellarine instead of specifically on Council’s current open space land (the old netball courts), which is a prime recreational space in Ocean Grove, and which is possibly too expensive a location for Karingal?
The above questions will be responded to in writing.
Justin Teague asked that in view of all the established developments of Ocean Grove (discluding Kingston Estate) having approximately 5% (according to my qualified, approximated estimates) flat, unreserved, passive public open space, does rezoning and sale of the Ocean Grove Netball Courts meet the City of Greater Geelong aspiration to provide 10% of township space to public open space, and, with 8 hectares of the developing Kingston Estate being slated for public open space, what proportion of the overall development does this area provide public open space for community use, and is the amount of public open space in Kingston Estate consistent with that of Ocean Grove ‘proper’?
Cr Farrell responded that she does not agree with the 5%, and added she was happy to discuss the matter further with Mr Teague.
Paul Jane added Council is currently reviewing the Public Open Space Strategy.
The question will be responded to in writing.
Anthony Aitken directed his questions to Cr Lyons:
It has recently been reported that Cr Lyons has employed his third Mayoral Secretary since his election in November 2013. Can Cr Lyons confirm that the first Mayoral Secretary who had performed the role successfully for 2-1/2 years went on stress leave while working for Cr Lyons?
Dean Frost responded that Council does not make comments on individual staffing matters.
Mr Frost, Acting CEO, can you publicly advise what programs the City of Greater Geelong has in place to protect Council staff (especially women) from bullying, harassment and intimidation in the workplace?
Dean Frost advised Council has in place an extensive training program that has been rolled out throughout the organisation in relation to Bullying and Harassment.
Council’s Contact Officer Network provides employees with information regarding issues relating to discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment and bullying and a range of options to deal with such a situation.
Contact Officers are appointed across a broad range of the Council's workplaces. The names and contact details for each Contact Officer are prominently displayed at each workplace.
Mik Aidt directed his question to the Mayor: It looks like fracking operations could begin in our region from next year, when the state moratorium on fracking runs out. You stated during the mayoral election period that you oppose unconventional gas mining and fracking. At the time, I was happy to hear that, but I wonder why we don’t hear anything from you on this topic. So I’d like to ask you: If you still are against unconventional gas mining and fracking in our region, what action you are planning regarding the drilling licences in the region to Lakes Oil under the Exploration Permit 163? If you have changed your mind since the days of your election campaign and no longer are against fracking, then would you kindly provide us with the new data that you have found reassuring with regards to health and safety to date?
The Mayor responded that he hasn’t been asked the question, but his original personal view remains unchanged.
Cr Richards added throughout his time he also hasn’t been asked the question. Comments regarding fracking were received through the exhibition process of the Environmental Management Strategy, which is due to be presented back to Council June or early July and will consider this matter.
Alan Manson directed his question to Cr Richards:
What discussion has the City of Greater Geelong had to date in relation to fracking and the possible effects PEP 163 might have within the municipality?
Would Council consider joining Moyne and other Councils in opposing fracking from being permitted within its municipality? If so, could you please explain how Council might engage in this.
The Mayor left the meeting room at 7:50pm
Cr Richards responded fracking would be addressed within the Environmental Management Strategy due back to Council June or early July.
The Mayor re-entered the meeting room at 7:52pm
Lyn Manson also directed her questions to Cr Richards:
I would like to know what understanding you have about the environmental dangers that come with this form of mining, and in particular the damage it would have on our community aquifer, the air quality and the drinking water?
I would like you to explain your reasons why you support or oppose unconventional coal seam gas mining?
Cr Richards reiterated the questions would be addressed in the Environmental Management Strategy document when it comes back to Council in June/July. The report being presented to Council at this time will be available through Council’s website on the Friday prior to the meeting, allowing sufficient time to prepare further questions to Councillors.
Cr Richards added he personally opposes fracking.
Janet Danielak addressed Council regarding speed restrictions allocated to roads in the City of Greater Geelong:
Who decides the speed limit and who decides if speed signs are put up?
Why are some roads signed and others not?
Gary Van Driel took the question on notice for a written response.
Why do parking infringement officers target the parking area outside Centrelink?
When waiting in Centrelink it is guess work how long you will have to wait to be seen by an officer. Sometimes the two hour restricted parking is insufficient time and if your interview happens to be in progress when your parking meter expires what are you supposed to do – leave the meeting and feed the meter?
Jenny McMahon responded that parking infringement officers do not particularly target Centrelink or the Gordon. The areas were patrolled to ensure accessibility and turnover. In terms of Centrelink there is longer term parking available on the opposite side of the road.
Why do electricity providers, ambulance, possibly ticketmaster, ticketec, the Potato Shed, GPAC etc offer concessions to Health Care Card holders yet the CoGG do not offer concessions on rates and/or leisure activities, i.e. gym membership or swim cards?
I am talking about sickness allowance card holders who are no longer able to work due to ill health?
Michael Kelly responded that it was not Council’s Policy to offer such concessions for this card holder type.
David King asked the following in relation to Armstrong Creek Town Centre C267:
Is Council aware that its own consulting traffic engineers originally recommended that the whole intersection of Boundary Road and Connector Road A be constructed as a DCP item? Furthermore, Council’s expert traffic engineer for the Armstrong Creek West DCP made the same recommendation to the panel.
Is Council aware that Mr Terry Montebello a partner at Maddocks Lawyers, representing the City of Greater Geelong made a closing submission to the panel which included the following statement: Mr Johnson – Intersection costs and Woolworth’s Main Street: 27 “The matter does not really impact on Council. But it does impact on other land owners given that all costs in this DCP are apportioned to this DCP. Council’s concerns are to keeping DCP’s fairly consistent in terms of the principles, dealing with like issues in a like way and not favouring one land owner in a part of the ACTC over another land owner in another part: 28 Recommendations on this aspect either way will inevitably have precedential impacts”.
Is Council aware that Mr Peter Bettess in his written response dated 9 May 2014 to our letter to all Councillors dated 6 May 2014 has indicated that Horseshoe Bend Road contains four fully funded DCP intersections on the basis that Horseshoe Bend Road is a future VicRoads arterial road? There is no evidence of this. Our discussions yesterday with Mr William Tieppo VicRoads Manager Program Development South Western Victoria confirmed that VicRoads has not agreed to this occurring. This was confirmed this morning with VicRoads Mr Brendan Grace who is the Senior Statutory Planning Officer for South Western Victoria. He and William Tieppo also indicated during conversation that they would expect some time in the future that Boundary Road could be considered a candidate for arterial road status linking the Surf Coast Highway and the Barwon Heads Road.
Is Council aware that the two intersections in the Armstrong Creek west precinct referred to in Mr Bettess’ letter described above do not provide any connection into an adjoining Armstrong Creek precinct. These simply intersect with the Ring Road.
Is Council aware that the revised recommendation in today’s agenda fails to refer to a petition containing over 300 signatures supporting this intersection being a fully funded DCP item?
Is Council aware that despite two written reports, two briefings and two letters from Peter Bettess there is not one example of an intersection between two precincts with similar vehicle movements being dealt with in the same manner as this intersection? All of the examples provided to date have been distinguished and do not support Council’s submission to the Panel that it wants to keep “DCP’s fairly consistent in terms of the principles, dealing with like issues in a like way”.
Is Council aware that the Panel considered Council’s position on the precedential value, it also considered many of the examples referred to in Mr Bettess’ letter but still recommended on fairness grounds that the intersection should be a fully funded DCP item.
Cr Richards responded Councillors have been well briefed and are well informed regarding the Amendment.
Daniel Cowdell representing the Geelong Sustainability Group addressed Council as follows in regard to Nature Strip Gardens:
I’m sure the Mayor and Councillors are well aware of the East Geelong resident, who was issued with a Notice to Comply, and the following outcry of public support for verge gardens that occurred. Nature Strip Gardens have many benefits to both residents and Council, which I would be more than willing to discuss with Council.
The Geelong Sustainability Group has written to Council twice: Firstly to the Mayor and Councillors, outlining the benefits of verge gardens and welcoming the opportunity to discuss the matter further. Secondly, Geelong Sustainability Group and Geelong Organic Gardeners two of Geelong’s biggest community groups have aligned in a joint letter to Dean Frost, Acting CEO of the City of Greater Geelong regarding this issue, requesting both community consultation and details for the review of laws. It disappoints me to say both emails have received no response to date.
Gary Van Driel responded that a letter of response has today been signed and distributed outlining the issues raised in relation to Nature Strip Gardens. The letter advises Council is undertaking a review of its General Local Law 2005 and the Nature Strip Guidelines form part of that Local Law. A community consultation plan forms part of the project. The draft local law will also be subject to exhibition, enabling the public an opportunity to engage in the process.
Geoff Kenyon submitted a series of statements in relation to Armstrong Creek which were taken on notice for a written response within seven days.
Emma Einsiedel (who is representing a number of landowners within the Horseshoe Bend Precinct), addressed Council as follows:
Are Mayor and Councillors aware:
Of the intersection known as Boundary Road and Connector A on the northern edge of the New Town Centre?
That this connector A is not proposed to be fully funded by the Armstrong Creek Town Centre DCP as per the recommendation of the independent panel report?
That if this intersection is not constructed in a reasonable time frame it will have a dramatic effect on the development and traffic flow of the Horseshoe Bend precinct and greater area?
That this Connector A Road and Boundary Road intersection was designed to cater for in excess of 50,000 vehicle movements per day. That is, according to documents I have attached here – the northern leg is to be designed to 6650 VMPD, the eastern leg to 14000 VMPD, the southern leg to 15950 VMPD and the western leg 13700 VMPD, which is a total of 50300 vehicle movements per day.
That the state planning policy at clause 56.06 sets out that if a road is to carry more than 7000 vehicle movements per day it is deemed to be an arterial road and as such needs to be designed in accordance with the relevant roads authority requirements, which is VicRoads?
That discussions with VicRoads have identified Boundary Road as a likely arterial road providing a linkage from Torquay Road to Barwon Heads Road and also Connector A, providing a linkage to the proposed Ringroad extension?
That there are a number of landowners within the Horseshoe Bend precinct that actively support the inclusion of this intersection in the relevant DCP’s, namely the ACTC DCP and the Horseshoe Bend precinct DCP?
That the current Council recommendation is not to support the funding of this Connector A as part of the Armstrong Creek or Horseshoe Bend precinct DCP?
That the current Council recommendation is that the entire funding of this connector is to be borne by a single landowner?
That an estimate of the cost to build this connector is in excess of $3.8m?
That this value is in excess of the Development Contribution that would be payable by the single landowner it recommends be responsible for this connector?
Concerned about the impost it would have on a single landowner if the cost of this Connector Road A is not shared via a DCP amongst all of those that will benefit from the construction of this intersection?
Given the above details, I would like to say that on behalf of the landowners that I represent within the Horseshoe Bend precinct, that these landowners support the inclusion of this intersection in the relevant Armstrong Creek Town Centre and Horseshoe Bend precinct DCP’s.
I would like to reinforce the landowners position by saying the landowners are concerned that putting the impost of funding this Connector A on one landowner will have the effect of impeding a timely development of the Horseshoe Bend precinct and that, accordingly these landowners actively support the cost of this intersection being included in the Horseshoe Bend precinct DCP. These landowners believe that the Horseshoe Bend precinct will benefit from this Connector A intersection for many years to come.
Cr Heagney stated Councillors were well briefed on the matter and this will be debated this evening.
Cr Heagney presented a petition on behalf of R & C Johnson in support of Amendment C267 Connector Road A and Boundary Road Intersection.
Cr Fisher presented the Mayor with a memento provided by students of Lombok in relation to the Geelong Sister Schools 2014 Program.
Cr Stretch Kontelj advised the Mayor and Councillors of the recent passing of former Councillor, Therese Pape.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
