Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 22 July 2014

Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Notice of Motion

Reports tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday date held at City Hall, Little Malop Street in Geelong.


  1. Amendment C300 New Residential Zones – Consideration of Panel Report and Adoption

  2. Amendment C306 – Curletts Road Area, Lara – Rezoning from Rural Living Zone to Low Density Residential Zone

  3. Amendment C282: Geelong Gateway Homemaker precinct, Corio – Adoption

  4. Central Geelong Zoning Provisions Review

  5. Amendment C296 – Simonds Stadium Signage – Consideration of Panel Report and Adoption

  6. Sale of Land Draper and Asbury Streets, Ocean Grove – Consideration of Submissions

  7. G21 Region Public Transport Strategy

  8. Norlane Child and Family Centre

  9. International Communication Project – Supporting People with Communication Disabilities

  10. Financial Assistance Grants – Indexation Freeze

  11. Road Renaming – Western Section of Mandalay Circuit, Armstrong Creek

  12. Road Renaming – Western Section of Boundary Road, Mount Duneed

  13. Sale of Land – 5 Coolidge Street, Corio

  14. The Esplanade, Indented Head – Proposed Footpath and Kerb and Channel Construction SRC338 – Intention to Declare

  15. Bio Science USA Trip Report – November 2013

  16. Consideration of Tender Submissions for Supply and Delivery of Bulk Fuels

  17. New Major Event Opportunity for Geelong (Confidential)

Cr Fisher declared an Indirect Interest by a Conflicting Duty in Agenda Item 1 – Amendment C300 – New Residential Zones – Consideration of Panel Report and Adoption in that Cr Fisher signed a petition against C300 and proposed changes to Corio/Norlane and left the meeting room prior to discussion at 8:12pm.


1. Amendment C300 New Residential Zones – Consideration of Panel Report and Adoption

Portfolio:

Planning – Cr Heagney

Source:

Planning & Tourism – City Development

General Manager:

Peter Bettess

Index Reference:

Application: C300


Purpose

The purpose of this report is to consider the Independent Panel’s report to Planning Scheme Amendment C300 New Residential Zones and the adoption of the Amendment.


Summary

Cr Heagney moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded -

That Council resolves to:

  1. accept the Panel’s recommendations, with the exception of:

    1. Recommendation No. 7 relating to additional wording on building height in the proposed Clause 22.63 Increased Housing Diversity Areas policy (General Objectives);

    2. Recommendation No 1 relating to the application of the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 to the precinct based heritage areas in Belmont;

    3. Recommendation No 3 relating to the application of the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 to the precinct based heritage areas within Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown Increased Housing Diversity Area;

    4. Recommendation No 4 relating to the rezoning of the land south-west of Aberdeen Street, Newtown activity centre to General Residential Zone Schedule 2;

    5. Recommendation 6 to include, in addition to Bell Park, North Geelong and Bell Post Hill in the further work requirement.

  2. evaluate and monitor the implications of the application of the new residential zones in the form outlined in Section 4 of this report.

  3. include North Geelong and Bell Post Hill, in addition to Bell Park in the Table in Appendix 8 to this Council report, to be included in the modified Clause 21.06.

  4. add a new Schedule 3 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to specify a maximum height of 9 metres (the zone default is a maximum of 2 dwellings).

  5. adopt Amendment C300 in the form outlined in Appendix 10 of this report with the following changes:

    1. Geelong West with the changes shown on the attached Map 1;

    2. Newtown – apply the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 2 to the area shown on the attached Map 1;

    3. Belmont – apply the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 2 to the area bounded by Thomson St, Mt Pleasant Rd (south side), Morris St and Roslyn Rd (north side) shown on the attached Map 2.

  6. submit the adopted Amendment with the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval.


Carried.


Background

Amendment C300 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme seeks to implement the State Government’s new set of residential zones, namely the Residential Growth Zone, General Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

The new zones will give more certainty about the type of development that can be expected in any residential area and give Council better tools to identify areas where existing urban character will be protected and areas where appropriate increased urban densities can occur.

As of the 1 July 2014, the State Government removed the Residential 1, 2 and 3 Zones from the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and applied the General Residential Zone via Amendment VC116. The General Residential Zone now affects all residential zoned land with Schedule 1 applying to former Residential 1 and 2 zoned land and Schedule 2 applying to former Residential 3 zoned land. This is an interim measure until Amendment C300 is approved.

On 22 October 2013, Council considered the new residential zones and their application across the municipality. Council officers proposed to apply all three residential zones.

At this meeting, Council resolved to support the preparation and exhibition of Amendment C300, subject to requesting authorisation from the Minister for Planning. Ministerial authorisation was received on 28 October 2013.

The Amendment was exhibited between 14 November and 16 December 2013 with late submissions accepted up to 10 January 2014.

The exhibited amendment proposed to apply the new residential zones as generally outlined below:

Each of the above zones has two or three different schedules. In particular, the General Residential Zone has Schedule 1 which is very similar to the former Residential 1 Zone and Schedule 2 which is similar to the former Residential 3 zone.

In addition to applying the new residential zones and making consequential changes to the Planning Scheme, changes will be made to the Planning Scheme maps to reflect the new commercial zones, which have replaced the former Business Zones 1-5.

A total of 231 submissions were received up to 10 January with 4 submissions received after this date.

Council officers recommended and Council accepted a number of changes to the Amendment in its report to Council on 25 February 2014. These changes included:

Further changes were made to the Amendment by way of a Notice of Motion tabled by Councillor Heagney at Council meeting of 25 March 2014. The Notice of Motion proposed that the parts of Geelong West, Belmont and Newtown that are within precincts covered by heritage overlays and which were to be rezoned Residential Growth Zone should be zoned General Residential Zone Schedule 1 (GRZ1) – the State Government’s standard General Residential Zone. The changes were proposed on a precinct basis and not for individual properties that may be subject to a heritage overlay.

A Notice of Motion was also tabled by Cr S Kontelj on 8 April 2014 supporting a heritage assessment for the Newtown area, west of Shannon Avenue. The Notice of Motion, whilst stimulated by submissions to Amendment C300 for areas south-west of the Aberdeen neighbourhood centre, does not affect the Amendment itself.

Due to the large number of unresolved objecting submissions, at its meeting of 25 February 2014, Council resolved to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel to hear all submissions.


Discussion

The Minister for Planning appointed an Independent Panel on 27 February 2014. A two person Panel, consisting of Con Tsotsoros (Panel Chair) and Michael Kirsch (Member), was appointed.

The Panel notified all submitters to the Amendment about the Panel hearing process and invited parties to attend. The Panel received 23 requests to be heard including a request from Council.

Council appointed a planning lawyer, John Rantino of Maddocks to present Council’s submission with Council officers during the Panel Hearing. An expert witness (town planning), Stuart McGurn of ERM consultants, was also appointed by Council officers to provide an independent expert review of the Amendment at the Hearing.

The Directions Hearing took place on 21 March 2014 and the Panel Hearing commenced on 9 April 2014 and lasted four days until 14 April 2014.

The Panel Hearing was well attended by submitters to the Amendment, including a number of key residents groups.

The Panel’s report was received on 3 June 2014. A full copy of the report is available on Council’s website. The Panel report was released to Councillors on 4 June 2014 and to the general public on 5 June 2014. Hard copies of the report have been left at Council’s Customer Service Desks and a copy of the Panel report executive summary was sent to all submitters.

Council officers also wrote to key residents groups (Belmont Residents Groups, Newtown Action Group, Geelong Western Residents Action Group) inviting them to attend meetings about the Panel report findings and the planning scheme amendment process. These meetings were held during the week commencing 16 June 2014 with approximately 60 residents attending the Geelong West/Newtown meeting.

In Council’s letter to submitters, which enclosed the Panel report executive summary, submitters were also offered an opportunity to meet individually with Council officers to discuss the Panel report and planning scheme amendment process.

The Panel assessed the Amendment and all submissions made during the formal exhibition period, including other matters raised during the course of the Panel Hearing.

The Panel’s report deals with the issues under the following headings:

The Panel’s consolidated recommendations are listed in Appendix 2, including a Council officer response to each recommendation. Detailed discussion will be provided in the Discussion section of this report.

Council officers recommend that all of the Panel’s recommendations be accepted, with the exception of Recommendation 7, which relates to the inclusion of additional wording for building heights in the proposed Clause 22.63 Increased Housing Diversity Areas Policy (General Objectives).

1. COUNCIL’S APPROACH TO APPLYING THE NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONES

The Panel considered the strategic planning framework that exists in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme upon which Council officers proposed to use as a basis to apply the residential zones. The Panel also considered previous planning scheme amendments that implemented the existing strategic planning framework, being Amendment C129, Council’s Reformed Residential Zones Implementation Report (October 2013), and also the State Government’s practice and advisory notes for the new residential zones.

The Panel advises that it is satisfied that Council’s general approach to applying the new zones is consistent with the provisions of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and with State Government guidance about the implementation of the new residential zones, including Practice Note 78- Applying the Residential Zones.

The Panel notes that Council’s town planning expert witness, Mr McGurn, reached similar conclusions in his evidence, about the existing strategic framework within the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme providing a solid foundation for the Amendment consistent with the principles outlined in Practice Note 78.

Panel conclusion:

The Panel concludes that it is satisfied that the broad principles underpinning Amendment C300 are consistent with the existing strategic framework in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and the adopted Housing Diversity Strategy that were introduced through Amendment C129.

Council officer response:

Council officers welcome the Panel’s conclusion. The conclusion confirms that the approach undertaken by officers to implement the new residential zones is appropriate and in accordance with the guidance provided by the State Government.

The existing strategic framework in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme enabled Council to engage in a full blown planning scheme amendment process to openly test the merits of the proposed implementation strategy for the new residential zones. This has resulted in a good planning outcome.

Maps showing the proposed application of the residential zones for adoption are in Appendices 3 and 4.

A breakdown of the total land area across Greater Geelong and the percentage that will go to each new zone is as follows:

Council has been criticised by submitters and resident groups on the amount of Residential Growth Zone being applied. Council has also been criticised by submitters who feel the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 2 (NRZ2) – which is the most restrictive zone – should be applied more broadly throughout the municipality. Comparisons have been made with some Melbourne council’s such as Boroondara and Glen Eira who have applied the NRZ extensively and RGZ sparingly.

Council officers believe that such comparisons are not particularly relevant or helpful as each Council is applying the new zones on the basis of their existing housing policies.

Geelong is a growing city but has not achieved the densities that are already apparent in parts of Melbourne. Geelong is a very large municipality and has in the order of 25 different activity centres (including town centres and suburban shopping centres). Application of the RGZ around these centres and train stations has resulted in the 11.6% of the land area going to RGZ. This is advantageous as it spreads the growth zone evenly across the municipality rather than concentrating on one or two areas.

It is important to understand that whilst the NRZ2 is being applied sparingly (only at Drumcondra and parts of Newtown), the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (GRZ2) has a very similar schedule and is being applied across extensive areas of suburban Geelong and some Bellarine townships which display a “garden character”. The key differences between the NRZ2 and GRZ2 are:

A copy of the Schedules to be adopted are in Appendix 11.

The GRZ2 strikes a balance between allowing for some infill development that is consistent with the garden character of an area without the blunt and overly restrictive controls of the NRZ2.

2. AREA SPECIFIC ISSUES

Belmont

The Panel recognised that the key issue is what zone should be applied to the residential areas in the Belmont Increased Housing Diversity Area (IHDA). In doing so, the Panel considered a number of factors: the IHDA boundary; the Belmont activity centre; the implications of the Heritage Overlay; implications of the Belmont Heights Estate single dwelling covenant; the suitability of the General Residential Zone or the Neighbourhood Residential Zone; infrastructure; and building heights.

Belmont IHDA boundary

The Panel notes that:

“Belmont is currently identified in the Planning Scheme as an IHDA and, as such, is already subject to strategies that seek to maximise opportunities for ‘high density housing in the activity centres’ and ‘medium density housing in residential areas with more intensive development’.” (p. 23).

The Panel advises that it places significant weight on Belmont’s role as a sub-regional centre and its existing designation as an IHDA. The Panel is of the opinion that clearly the residential areas around the activity centre should provide for growth and implicit in this is that they will change. The Panel believes that the selection of residential zones should facilitate this process and is satisfied that the Residential Growth Zone is a suitable default zone.

Belmont Activity Centre

The Panel discusses the issue relating to the activity centre’s two distinct retail areas and the physical nature of the activity centre (i.e. rising topography) and how these impact on walkability. The Panel notes that there were calls for the IHDA boundary to be reduced and associated application of the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2. The Panel does not support these concerns.

Implications of the Heritage Overlay

The Panel agrees with Council’s approach to applying the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 to areas affected by the Heritage Overlay (precinct-based). The Panel advises that there is a potential disconnect between the outcomes sought in the heritage provisions and the application of the Residential Growth Zone and that the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 will provide opportunities for redevelopment, while respecting character and heritage considerations.

Implications of the Belmont Heights Single Dwelling covenant

The Panel advises that strategic planning objectives should be the primary determinant of how the residential zones are applied. The Panel acknowledges that if a covenant has resulted in an identifiable character, particularly one that is recognised and protected by a Heritage Overlay, then that local character should be a factor in applying the zones.

The Panel does not believe that the existence of the covenant should, by itself, be a factor in applying the zones. It agrees with Council that the precinct-based Heritage Overlay areas (including Heritage Overlay No. 1908 that covers most of the covenant area) in the Belmont IHDA should be subject to the General Residential Zone Schedule 1, rather than the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2 (this includes those lots that are also subject to the Belmont Heights Estate covenant.)

The General Residential Zone or the Neighbourhood Residential Zone

The Panel advises that applying the Neighbourhood Residential Zone throughout an IHDA would be problematic given that the zone places significant emphasis on retaining existing character and limiting increased residential development outcomes that are difficult to reconcile with the role of the IHDA.

Although the Panel accepts there might be circumstances where the Neighbourhood Residential Zone is appropriate within an IHDA, it believes that a detailed analysis of the redevelopment capacity of an area (particularly within a Heritage Overlay) would be required in order to identify such areas. In the absence of such an analysis, the Panel is satisfied that the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 is a suitable zone and that it provides a degree of flexibility without the development expectations associated with the Residential Growth Zone.

Infrastructure

The Panel considered submissions about infrastructure issues but determined that it was not presented with any evidence that infrastructure and amenity issues were of such significance that they would fundamentally limit the scope of redevelopment. The Panel notes that Belmont’s designation as an IHDA means that it will continue to develop and that, consequently, infrastructure and amenity issues will need to be addressed as they arise.

Building Heights

The Panel does not support Council’s post-exhibition resolution to apply a mandatory maximum 10.5 metre building height rather than the default 13.5 metre discretionary maximum building height in the Residential Growth Zone. (This issue will be discussed later in this report.)

Panel conclusion:
The Panel concludes that given Belmont is identified in the current Planning Scheme as a sub-regional centre, there is a general presumption that its residential hinterland (the IHDA) will accommodate growth and change. Applying the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2 recognises this and will assist Council in achieving its strategic objectives for this activity centre. The Panel also supports the application of the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 to the existing Heritage Overlay precincts as a reasonable response to the existing built form and character of these areas.

The Panel also acknowledges that further analysis of the IHDA might identify sites or areas that could be suitable for a different zoning approach.

Panel recommendation:

Recommendation 1-

Apply the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 to the precinct-based areas of the Heritage Overlay within the Belmont Increased Housing Diversity Area.

(See Appendix 5)

Council officer response:

Council officers acknowledge and support the Panel’s Recommendation 1, which is in line with Council’s post-exhibition change to the exhibited Amendment on 25 March 2014.

The Belmont IHDA will now comprise residential land affected by the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2 and General Residential Zone Schedule 1. There will be consequential changes to the proposed local planning policy for IHDAs (this will be discussed later in this section).

The Panel’s conclusions relating to the single dwelling covenant are supported. The General Residential Zone Schedule 1 results in a ‘status quo’ outcome for residents affected by heritage overlay precincts and affected by the single dwelling covenant.

The Panel referred to undertaking detailed analysis of the redevelopment capacity of the area (particularly within a Heritage Overlay), in order to justify an alternative zoning approach including the application of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. This issue will be discussed later in this report.

There have been calls by submitters for the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to be applied in Belmont’s heritage areas or even the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 Council officers agree with the Panel’s position that to apply the Neighbourhood Residential Zone in an IHDA would be problematic and would create an ongoing conflict for Council’s Statutory Planning Department in assessing permit applications.

The Neighbourhood Residential Zone limits housing growth whereas the purpose of an IHDA is to stimulate and support housing growth in and around activity centres. For the General Residential Zone Schedule 2, it is typically applied to incremental change areas where growth is not identified and only incremental development is expected to take place. In addition, Schedule 2 to the NRZ and GRZ require larger private open space requirements. Taking these matters into consideration, the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and General Residential Zone Schedule 2 do not complement Council’s existing IHDAs.

Council officers support the Panel’s conclusion that the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 is a reasonable response to the existing built form and character of these area affected by heritage overlay precincts.

Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown

The Panel noted that the key issues for this area related to what zones should be applied and whether the area, or parts of it, should be included within an IHDA. In doing so, the Panel considered a number of factors: the extent of the IHDA; implications of the Heritage Overlay and existing character; the suitability of the General Residential Zone or the Neighbourhood Residential Zone; and building heights.

The extent of the IHDA

The Panel generally supports the basis on which the IHDA boundary was developed.

However, the Panel agrees with submitters that the Aberdeen Street / Shannon Avenue neighbourhood centre should not be included in the IHDA given its limited size and function. The Panel believes that this centre should be treated similarly to the Pakington Street (Newtown) neighbourhood centre.

The Panel advises that if the Aberdeen Street centre (or the Pakington Street centre, Newtown) is redeveloped in the future and assumes an expanded role, Council can revisit this issue and the boundary of the IHDA.

The Panel notes that there will be consequential zoning changes relating to the re-drawing of the IHDA boundary. Specifically, for those areas removed from the IHDA in Newtown and originally proposed to be zoned Residential Growth, it will be necessary to apply an alternative zone.

Implications of the Heritage Overlay and existing character

As with the approach for Belmont, the Panel believes that there is a potential disconnect between the outcomes sought in the heritage provisions and the application of the Residential Growth Zone. The Panel agrees with Council that the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 is a suitable zone for the precinct-based Heritage Overlays in this area. The General Residential Zone Schedule 1 will provide opportunities for redevelopment, while being respectful of character and heritage considerations.

The Panel also supports Council’s proposed changes to the exhibited Amendment to apply the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 to an area south-west of the Aberdeen Street/Shannon Avenue intersection and to apply the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 2 to an area along Aberdeen Street (generally bounded by Pakington, Skene and Cumberland Streets).

The Panel acknowledges that “…replacing the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2 with the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (in the area south-west of the Aberdeen Street/Shannon Avenue intersection) is consistent with its recommendation to remove the Aberdeen Street activity centre from the IHDA and to apply the General Residential Zone Schedule 2.“ (p.32)

The Panel notes Ms Honman’s expert heritage evidence, on behalf of the Newtown Action Group, that the area south-west of the Aberdeen neighbourhood centre warrants ‘a full heritage assessment’ and encourages Council to give consideration to commissioning this work to investigate whether the Heritage Overlay should be applied.

The General Residential Zone or the Neighbourhood Residential Zone

The Panel notes that submitters’ preferred the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

For the same reasons discussed for the Belmont area, the Panel considers that applying the Neighbourhood Residential Zone in an IHDA to be problematic as the IHDA policy seeks to promote housing growth and change and the purpose of the NRZ is to limit housing development and retain existing neighbourhood character.

The Panel notes that some Heritage Overlay areas might warrant the Neighbourhood Residential Zone on the basis that it believes some areas did not demonstrate any realistic redevelopment potential or a practical rationale for applying the Residential Growth Zone.

The Panel believes that a more detailed analysis of the redevelopment capacity of the IHDA is necessary to identify any areas where the Neighbourhood Residential Zone might be appropriate and that this could form part a broader review of the application of the new residential zones. The Panel did not make a specific recommendation in relation to this issue. However, in the interim, the Panel is satisfied that the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 is suitable to apply to the Heritage Overlay precincts.

The Panel notes that the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 will not place these areas under threat (as suggested by submitters) nor has this area experienced significant redevelopment under the existing Residential 1 Zone.

Infrastructure

The Panel accepts the anecdotal submissions about infrastructure issues in the area but it was not presented with any evidence to confirm that these were of such significance that they would fundamentally limit the scope of future development envisaged by Council.

The Panel notes that these are issues that Council will need to monitor and respond to as appropriate.

Building Heights

For the same reasons discussed in the Belmont area, the Panel does not support Council’s post-exhibition resolution to apply a mandatory maximum 10.5 metre building height in the Residential Growth Zone.

Panel conclusions:

The Panel states that this is a complex area that presents a number of planning challenges. The Panel is satisfied that Council’s approach is a considered and reasonable response to the opportunities and characteristics of the area.

The Panel states that it generally supports the approach adopted by Council for this area, particularly the use the Residential Growth Zone as the ‘default’ zone, the 800m walkable catchment around the Pakington Street centre and the application of the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 to the precinct based Heritage Overlays.

The Panel also concludes that the Aberdeen Street neighbourhood centre does not warrant being in the IHDA given its small scale and seemingly limited opportunity for significant growth.

The Panel believes that Council should review the IHDA zones once it has had an opportunity to monitor the performance of the new zones and other provisions introduced by Amendment C300.

Panel recommendations:

Recommendation 2

Redefine the boundaries of the Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown Increased Housing Diversity Area to:

Recommendation 3

Apply the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 to the precinct-based areas of the Heritage Overlay within the Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown Increased Housing Diversity Area.

Recommendation 4

Rezone the land south-west of the Aberdeen Street, Newtown activity centre to General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (Council’s proposed Change 2).

Recommendation 5

Rezone the land on the south side of Aberdeen Street (generally bounded by Pakington, Skene and Cumberland Streets) to Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 2 (Council’s proposed Change 3).

(See Appendices 6 and 7)

Council officer response:

Council officers acknowledge the Panel’s recommendations for the Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown Increased Housing Diversity Area.

The removal of the Aberdeen Street/Shannon Avenue neighbourhood centre from the IHDA boundary, whilst identified as an activity centre in Council’s adopted Retail Strategy, will not significantly impair the strategic planning objectives for the broader IHDA.

Following Recommendation 2, the Panel also refers to the need to reflect the proposed changes to the exhibited zoning for Newtown, in line with Council’s proposed change no. 4 of 25 February 2014. For the purposes of clarity, Council’s proposed change no. 4 related to the proposed zoning change for land south-west of the Aberdeen Street neighbourhood centre from Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2 to General Residential Schedule 2. Council’s change no. 4 also referred to the change of zone for land on the south side of Aberdeen Street from Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2 to Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 2.

The Panel recommends that the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 be applied to precinct-based areas of the Heritage Overlay within the Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown IHDA.

As a consequence of the Panel’s recommendations for the removal of the Aberdeen Street/Shannon Avenue neighbourhood centre and associated catchment, there are a number zoning changes required beyond those mentioned above. These areas include land north-west, north-east and south-east of the Aberdeen Street neighbourhood centre.

Council officers have considered the post-exhibition changes for this area and the Panel’s recommendations and propose the following:

(See Appendix 7)

As a consequence of removing the Residential Growth Zone from the affected areas of Newtown and Manifold Heights, the proposed deletion of Design and Development Overlay 14 will no longer apply.

Council officers acknowledge the Panel’s statement about some areas lacking potential redevelopment capacity. Council officers agree that there will be areas within IHDAs that will not deliver the preferred level of redevelopment/housing growth as sought by the Residential Growth Zone. Nonetheless, Council officers advise the purpose of the IHDA is to support a range of housing types and densities and is not a planning tool that stipulates high growth across the entire IHDA. The General Residential Zone Schedule 1 will result in a ‘status quo’ situation for those areas affected by heritage overlay precincts. As the Panel states, the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 will not place these areas under threat nor has this area experienced significant redevelopment under the existing Residential 1 Zone.

To apply the Neighbourhood Residential Zone on the basis of a lack of potential redevelopment capacity is limited in its justification. In order to consider the application of this zone in this area, particularly to those parts affected by the Heritage Overlay, an evaluation and monitoring exercise, as discussed by the Panel, would be required. This issue will be further discussed later in this report.

Council officers are satisfied that the proposed rezoning for the Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown area is a good planning outcome. The Heritage Overlay will continue to guide new development in parts of these areas.

The Panel’s discussions about encouraging Council to undertake a full heritage assessment for the Newtown area west of Shannon Avenue are noted. Council has committed, by way of Notice of Motion of 8 April 2014, to seeking a budget allocation in the year 2015/2016 to prepare a heritage assessment for this area.

Other Area Specific Issues

The Panel made comments on a number of other area-specific submissions affecting Bell Park, Leopold/Curlewis, East Geelong, Hamlyn Heights, Corio and North Shore.

Appendix 8 provides a table summarising the issue, the Panel’s discussion/conclusions and a Council officer response.

3. RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONE SCHEDULE 2- MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS

This section of the report relates to issues raised by the Panel on building heights in the Belmont and Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown IHDAs. The issue is also of relevance to other areas proposed to be zoned Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2.

The Panel commented on whether the maximum building height in the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2 should be reduced from a discretionary 13.5m (4 storeys) to mandatory 10.5m (3 storeys).

Panel discussion/conclusion:

The Panel believes that for the IHDAs to serve their intended purpose, the Residential Growth Zone is an appropriate default zone, including the discretionary maximum height of 13.5m.

The Panel believes that applying a 10.5m mandatory maximum height is “a significant departure from what was exhibited and the change has not been supported by an adequate level of analysis and strategic justification.”

The Panel states that Council should proceed with the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2 as exhibited (discretionary maximum 13.5 metres building height). It also believes that Council should review the IHDA zones once it has had an opportunity to monitor their performance and that of the other provisions introduced by Amendment C300. The review should include an assessment of the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2 height provisions.

Council officer response:

Notwithstanding the Panel’s extensive discussion about building heights in Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2 areas, it did not make a specific recommendation for the retention of the discretionary 13.5 metre maximum building height.

Council officers do not agree with the Panel’s statement that the change to the exhibited Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2 and associated building heights is a significant departure. Councils must be able to make changes to an exhibited amendment on the basis of its consideration of submissions. This is a fundamental part of the planning scheme amendment process and in this instance, is considered a reasonable response to issues raised by submitters.

In a report to Council on 25 February 2014, Council officers recommended that a mandatory maximum building height of 10.5 metres (3 storeys) be included in Schedule 2 to the Residential Growth Zone (Urban areas). Council officers recommended this change on the basis that achieving increased densities in and around activity centres does not solely rely on increased building height, albeit, it is a important factor. It was considered that including a mandatory maximum building height would still give purpose to the Residential Growth Zone and allow for increased density in areas of predominantly single and double storey streetscapes.

Importantly, Residential Growth Zone Schedule 1 areas (located around the edges of the Central Geelong and West Fyans-Fyans Street Key Development Areas) would retain a discretionary maximum building height of 13.5 metres. This is an important consideration as these areas are fundamentally supportive of high density residential development and in time will yield residential development of this nature, supportive of the Residential Growth Zone objectives.

The revised 10.5 mandatory maximum building height also reflected an appreciation of the established urban character in these areas, the heritage areas and the likelihood of 4 storey developments or higher being built.

For the reasons mentioned above, Council officers do not agree with the Panel’s advice on the issue and recommend that Schedule 2 to the Residential Growth Zone include a mandatory maximum building height of 10.5 metres, as per the Council resolution of 25 February 2014.

4. MONITORING OF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONES

As part of the Panel’s consideration of the suitability of the zones for the Belmont and Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown IHDAs, it also considered the benefit of monitoring the new zones to determine their effectiveness, suitability and capability of the affected areas to deliver redevelopment opportunities.

This report has already summarised and provided a Council officer response to the Panel’s discussions and conclusions about the suitability of the General Residential Zone or the Neighbourhood Residential for the Belmont and Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown IHDAs. However, it is important to consider the implications of the Panel’s conclusions about monitoring.

For the Belmont and Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown IHDAs, the Panel considers that as part of a broader review (monitoring) of the new residential zones, Council should undertake a detailed analysis of the redevelopment capacity of these areas, particularly those affected by a Heritage Overlay precinct. This would assist in determining the suitability of the areas for an alternative zoning approach, such as the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

The Panel did not make a specific recommendation about its conclusions for the broader review (monitoring) of the new zones.

Council officer response:

Council officers acknowledge the Panel’s discussions about the suitability of the proposed zones, in particular for the Belmont and Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown IHDAs. Whilst the Panel did not make a specific recommendation about the monitoring of the new residential zones, it is clear that they consider it to be an important issue in terms of the transition from the existing zones to the new zones and also, to determine the effectiveness of the new zones in delivering the provisions of the existing strategic planning framework.

Council officers consider that a short-term review of the application of the new zones is unlikely to yield any significant findings. From the time a planning permit is submitted to Council, the granting of permission and the commencement and completion of development, it is unlikely that Council will see a great change in the built environment of these areas in the short-term.

A review timeframe of four years from the gazettal of the new residential zones into the Planning Scheme is considered appropriate. This timeframe would also generally align with the release of new Census data, which would enable Council officers to research statistics in terms of population and dwellings. (The new Census will be published in 2016).

An evaluation and monitoring of the new residential zones could take a similar approach to that adopted for the Increased Housing Diversity Areas Study as part of Amendment C300. Further elements/criteria could be added to the evaluation process, if necessary at that time. This would allow for a transparent process using a number of set criteria to determine the level of change in these areas. Evaluation and monitoring could include a review of planning permits granted, built form analysis- building height, massing etc., completed development, streetscape character, and the effectiveness of the Zone provisions and local policies in assessing new development.

5. SITE SPECIFIC ISSUES

The Panel considered a number of site-specific issues that were raised during the exhibition of the amendment. They related to the following:

Appendix 9 considers these site-specific issues and provides a Council officer response to each issue.

6. OTHER SUBMISSIONS AND ISSUES

The Panel also discussed a number of other submissions to the Amendment. These included the following:

Clause 21.06 Settlement and Housing

The Panel considered the issue to be whether the exhibited Clause 21.06 should be modified, being the deletion of existing references to the Residential Character Study: Character Precinct Brochures. The Panel also noted Council’s post-exhibition change to Clause 21.06 relating to adding a further work requirement to review the incremental change areas identified in the Housing Diversity Strategy to consider the application of the General Residential Zone Schedule 2.

Panel discussion/conclusion:

The Panel notes that most of the changes to Clause 21.06 are consequential resulting from the introduction of the new residential zones.

The Panel supports Council’s deletion of the reference to the Character Brochures given their limited statutory weight and limited relevance.

The Panel supports Council’s intention to review whether the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 should be applied to the ‘incremental change areas’ identified in the Housing Diversity Strategy that were proposed for the General Residential Zone Schedule 1.

Panel recommendation:

Recommendation 6

Modify Clause 21.06 (Settlement and Housing) to add a further work requirement to review whether the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 should be applied to the ‘incremental change areas’ identified in the Housing Diversity Strategy (Council’s proposed change 5).

Council officer response:

Council officers support the Panel’s recommendation in line with Council’s post-exhibition changes to the Amendment of 25 February 2014.

Clause 22.63 Increased Housing Diversity Policy

The Panel considered the issue to be whether the exhibited Clause 22.63 should be modified.

Panel discussion/conclusion:

The Panel believes that the post-exhibition changes to the local planning policy have improved and helped address concerns in submissions about development in IHDAs.

The Panel believes that the first and second ‘general’ Design Objectives be replaced with versions faithful to the original versions included in the LPP relating to discretionary maximum building height of 13.5 metres.

The Panel is satisfied that applying the revised provisions in Clause 22.63 in combination with the General Residential Zone and the Heritage Overlay gives adequate recognition to protecting heritage areas in the IHDAs.

Panel recommendation:

Recommendation 7-

Adopt Council’s revised Clause 22.63 (Increased Housing Diversity Areas) (Document 54) subject to replacing the first and second ‘general’ Design Objectives under ‘built form’ with:

Council officer response:

This report has previously discussed the Panel recommendations in relation to building heights in the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2. Council officers recommend that a mandatory maximum building height of 10.5 metres be included in the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2.

Consequently, the Panel’s recommendations for the proposed Clause 22.63 are not supported. Council officers propose to adopt the local planning policy version presented to the Panel on the last day of the Hearing (See Appendix 10).

Consultation

The Panel commented on whether there was adequate consultation around the Amendment.

Panel discussion/conclusion:

The Panel acknowledged the concerns of submitters about the nature and extent of Council’s consultation around the Amendment, but is satisfied that the statutory notification of the Amendment was consistent with the provisions of the Act. The Panel is also satisfied that the Council’s ‘non statutory’ consultation reflected “a genuine intent to inform and involve the community.”

While direct notification to all landowners might have assuaged some of the submitter’s concerns, the Panel noted Council’s advice about the time and cost constraints that led it to adopt a less targeted approach.

The Panel also noted that the consultation strategy resulted in over 200 submissions that raised a comprehensive range of issues. While direct notification might have attracted more submissions, it is not clear that any additional submissions would have raised any further issues.

Council officer response:

The Panel’s discussion/conclusion about consultation is welcomed. Consultation was a key issue raised by submitters to the amendment. Council officers presented on this issue at the Panel Hearing and clearly demonstrated that a genuine attempt had been made to notify residents about the amendment. Council officers also note the Panel’s consideration that 200 plus submissions received to the amendment raised a comprehensive range of issues and that it was not clear that if direct notification had been undertaken, that any additional issues would have been raised in submissions.


Environmental Implications

This report has positive environmental implications in relation to encouraging more sustainable urban form with medium density housing being located near activity centres, town centres and train stations. The new zones provide for greater clarity in relation to the policy difference for various residential areas, which will provide for better outcomes in terms of directing and managing appropriate levels of residential development in respective areas.


Financial Implications

This report does not result in any additional financial implications for Council.

Current approved budget will cover costs associated with this planning scheme amendment.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The recommendations of this report comply with State Planning Policy in relation to the State Government’s Practice Note for applying the new residential zones and processing planning scheme amendments. All submissions to Amendment C300 have been considered by Council and have been before an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning.


Alignment to City Plan

The recommendations of this report are consistent with City Plan, in relation to promoting a sustainable built environment, sustainable land use and development, increased public transport use, liveable neighbourhoods, quality urban design and built environment and the conservation of historic buildings.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

There is no direct or indirect officer conflict.


Risk Assessment

There are risks associated with Council not resolving a position to request the Minister for Planning to approve the adopted Amendment. It is important that the timescales associated with processing this planning scheme amendment are retained. This will ensure the full suite of new residential zones is implemented as soon as possible to best reflect the local planning conditions for Geelong’s residential areas. .


Social Considerations

The potential outcome of Amendment C300 will provide for managed residential growth in the municipality. Increased density and infill housing is directed to areas that are well serviced and provide good opportunities to meet the demands for smaller households. Incremental change areas provide a balance between a mix of housing stock while maintaining the garden character of identified areas. A range of housing is important to provide for the different housing needs in our community.


Human Rights Charter

The Amendment will not impact on the basic right, freedoms and responsibilities as set out in the Charter. Planning legislation ensures an open community consultation process occurs enabling the public to freely express their view. The appointment of an Independent panel to hear all submissions to C300 provided submitters with a further platform to present their concerns about the Amendment.


Consultation and Communication

The Panel hearing allowed submitters to present their concerns before an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning. Council officers have met with key residents groups post-receipt of the Panel report and have also afforded an opportunity to meet with individual submitters. The consultation and communication adopted for Amendment C300 was considered appropriate by the Panel.


Appendix 1 C300 Panel report- Executive Summary and Panel recommendations

C300 Panel report- Executive Summary and Panel recommendations -Page 1 of 56 pages - Executive Summary
C300 Panel report- Executive Summary and Panel recommendations -Page 2 of 56 pages - Executive Summary
C300 Panel report- Executive Summary and Panel recommendations -Page 3 of 56 pages - Executive Summary

Appendix 2 Consolidated Panel recommendations and Council officer response

Consolidated Panel recommendations and Council officer response - part 1
Consolidated Panel recommendations and Council officer response - part 2

Appendix 3 Municipal-wide Residential zones- adoption

Reformed Residential Zone Implementation for adoption C300

Appendix 4 Urban and Coastal Residential Zones- adoption

Reformed Residential Zone Implementation for adoption C300
Reformed Residential Zone Implementation for adoption C300 - Bellarine Peninsula

Appendix 5 Belmont IHDA Residential zones- adoption

Reformed Residential Zone Implementation for adoption C300 - Belmont

Appendix 6 Proposed Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown IHDA- adoption

Key development and increased housing diversity areas - July 2014

Appendix 7 Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown Residential zones – adoption

Reformed Residential Zone Implementation for adoption C300 - Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown

Appendix 8 Consolidated Area-specific issues

Consolidated Area-specific issues - page 1
Consolidated Area-specific issues - page 2

Appendix 9 Consolidated Site specific issues

Consolidated Site specific issues - page 1
Consolidated Site specific issues - page 2

Appendix 10 Amendment documents- Adoption

See separate attachment


Cr Fisher re-entered the meeting room at 9:00pm

Cr Farrell moved, Cr Heagney seconded –

That the Notice of Motion in relation to Seam Gas Extraction (Fracking) be brought forward for consideration.


Carried.


Notice of Motion – Cr Andy Richards

Council to take public submissions on Coal Seam Gas Extraction.

As part of Council’s Environment Management strategy process, council has received community feedback in regard to concerns around the practice of Coal Seam Gas Extraction, and in particular the practice of hydraulic fracturing or "fracking".

These concerns are as follows:

That fracking operations are horrendously dangerous to the environment and affect all aspects of community life, such as:

Council is currently completing its Environmental Management Strategy which is due to come to Council shortly. The issue of Coal Seam Gas Extraction and in particular fracking forms part of the Environmental Management Strategy, and Council should take public submissions on this issue.

Cr Richards moved, Cr Harwood seconded –

That Council take public submissions regarding the issue of Coal Seam Gas Extraction and in particular fracking, for a period of one month commencing 23 July 2014, and that a submission report be presented to Council as part of the Environmental Management Strategy report, by the end of September 2014.


Amendment

Cr Fisher moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded -

That Council commence a 30 day process to educate Council on ‘Fracking’ followed by Council taking public submissions regarding the issue of Coal Seam Gas Extraction and in particular ‘Fracking’, for a period of one month commencing August 2014, and that a submission report be presented to Council as part of the Environmental Management Strategy report, by the end of September 2014.

Cr S Kontelj moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded –

That consideration of the Notice of Motion be deferred.

Lost.

The amendment was put and carried.

The amendment became the motion

The motion was put and carried. 


[Back to List]

2. Amendment C306 Curletts Road Area, Lara - Rezoning from Rural Living Zone to Low Density Residential Zone

Portfolio:

Planning - Cr Heagney

Source:

Planning and Tourism - Strategic Implementation

General Manager:

Peter Bettess

Index Reference:

Amendment C306

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to consider Amendment C306 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme to rezone land in the Curletts Road area, Lara, from Rural Living Zone to Low Density Residential Zone.


Summary

Cr Heagney moved, Cr Ansett seconded -

That Council, having considered the Amendment, resolves to:

  1. support the preparation and exhibition of Amendment C306 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme as described below:

    1. rezone the affected land in the Curletts Road area from Rural Living Zone to Low Density Residential Zone, as per Appendix 4 of this report;

    2. apply the Design and Development Overlay to the land to be rezoned, as per Appendix 5 of this report.

  2. request the Minister for Planning to authorise the preparation and exhibition of Amendment C306 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.


Carried.


Background

Amendment C306 proposes to rezone land in the Curletts Road area of Lara from Rural Living Zone to Low Density Residential Zone and apply the Design and Development Overlay to the land to be rezoned.

The Amendment has been prepared by TGM Group on behalf of multiple landowners in the Curletts Road area. TGM submitted the application to Council in November 2013.

As a consequence of the State Government’s reforms to the Low Density Residential Zone, land can be subdivided to 2,000 sq.m where connected to the reticulated sewerage network. Council’s can prepare schedules to the Zone prescribing a minimum lot size. A schedule to the LDRZ is in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme restricting these areas to 0.4ha. This is an interim measure. A separate planning scheme amendment process (Amendment C309) is currently underway to introduce two new schedules (Schedule 1 and Schedule 2) to the LDRZ, which will identify LDRZ areas to be subdivided at either a minimum 0.4ha or 0.2ha respectively. Once the Amendment C309 has been approved, the subject land will be zoned Low Density Residential Zone Schedule 1.

The subject land, as outlined in Appendix 1, is in the Rural Living Zone and is approximately 31ha in area. For the most part, existing lots contain a residential dwelling and associated outbuildings.

A number of lots are affected by two zones, being the Rural Living Zone and the Urban Flood Zone. These properties are generally located at the eastern and southern extent of the subject land (See Appendix 2).

The subject land is not affected by any planning overlays.

Part of the subject land is designated flood prone (See Appendix 3).

The broader site context is generally rural living zone land but also includes conventional residential land to the south-east and south-west.

Council officers have been engaged in extensive pre-application discussions with TGM. This involved detailed discussions between Council’s Strategic planners, Engineers and the proponent. During this time, Council officers recommended a simple but logical approach to rezoning the land from Rural Living Zone to Low Density Residential Zone. This approach considered that typical LDRZ requirements would be difficult to achieve on the basis of the existing rural residential subdivision of the land and level of multiple landownership.

The rezoning application is supported by:

The Amendment was referred to a number of Council departments and external bodies for initial comments. This led to the request for further information from the proponent, being a preliminary cultural heritage assessment and vegetation assessment.


Discussion

This section of the report will discuss the key issues that must be assessed in the consideration of the Amendment.

Strategic justification

Principal justification for the Amendment is found at Clause 21.13 Lara of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

Clause 21.13 seeks to ensure an adequate supply of appropriately zoned and located residential land. This is to be achieved by supporting the development of areas identified for rezoning to Low Density Residential in accordance with the Structure Plan map included in the clause. The Curletts Road area is identified on the Structure Plan map as ‘Retain rural residential character (Low density residential)’- See Appendix 6.

The adopted Lara Structure Plan April 2011 provides a discussion about areas identified as future low density residential development. The Structure Plan states:

‘Locations that are currently zoned Rural Living where the physical or environmental constraints are such that conventional residential development is not possible, but for which there is some capacity to better utilise the land, have been considered in this Structure Plan for inclusion in the Low Density Residential Zone.’

For the Curletts Road area (area west of Serendip Creek), the Structure Plan states:

‘The Curletts Road area is also considered appropriate for the Low Density Residential Zone. Flooding and drainage constraints mean conventional residential development may be problematic in this area. Drainage and flooding will have to be addressed as part of any rezoning proposal.

It is recommended that the area be rezoned from Rural Living to Low Density Residential with an accompanying Development Plan Overlay or approved subdivision layout.’

The Policy section of this report provides an overview of relevant sections of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme to the assessment of this rezoning application.

The Lara Structure Plan identifies a larger area of land than that proposed in the rezoning application and as proposed by Council officers (See Appendix 6). The Amendment excludes properties that front Windermere Road opposite the Serendip Sanctuary. (See Appendix 4 Proposed Zoning). The northern rezoning boundary is justified on the basis of the proximity of these properties to the sanctuary and the potential for adverse impacts of low density residential development on the environmental values of the sanctuary. This effectively leaves a Rural Living Zone setback of some 100 metres between the sanctuary and the proposed land for low density residential rezoning.

Curletts Road Area- Indicative Subdivision Layout

The rezoning application is supported by an indicative subdivision layout (See Appendix 7). TGM prepared the plan to provide an idea of how individual landowners wish to subdivide their land and the extent to which each existing lot could be subdivided for those landowners that have not expressed a desire to be part of the process.

While this is a useful exercise, Council officers consider a less intensive subdivision of the area is required and that the principles outlined during pre-exhibition discussions (for example, avoidance of battle-axe lots and minimising vehicle access points and sharing of access arrangements, where possible) warrant further consideration at the subdivision permit stage. This can be achieved through the use of a schedule to the Design and Development Overlay.

Cultural Heritage

Aboriginal Heritage

Part of the subject land is in an area of cultural heritage sensitivity due to the proximity to Hovells Creek.

A Cultural Heritage Management Plan is not required for the rezoning of the land but may be triggered where sites are located within 200 metres of Hovells Creek and seek to subdivide to 3 lots or more. The determination of the requirement for a CHMP is legislated by the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007.

Historical Heritage

The cultural heritage assessment concludes that there are no European heritage sites within the study area. However, there is low potential for European heritage to survive. The report recommends that a historical heritage survey be undertaken prior to subdivision and development.

Vegetation

The vegetation assessment states that the area contains relatively degraded native vegetation that are assessed as “degraded treeless’ vegetation. The subject land also contains vegetation that is entirely exotic.

The site is rated as having negligible to local significance for biodiversity.

The vegetation assessment concludes that there are no significant limitations to this study.

Land Capability Assessment

The land capability assessment (LCA) considered the proposed subdivision layout as outlined in Appendix 7. The LCA confirms that sustainable on-site wastewater management systems can be built to meet the needs of the new lots created.

It is expected for those sites which were not included in the original assessment, that these will adopt a similar approach to that proposed in the LCA for wastewater disposal treatment, subject to further investigations.

Drainage and Flooding

The subject land is partly affected by the 1 in 100 flood event (1% Annual Exceedance Probability) and consequently, is designated as flood prone under the Building Regulations. Appendix 3 confirms the extent of the designated flood prone land.

For those areas outside the designated flood prone land, it is considered that they can be drained to either the road reserve or existing easements.

For those areas affected by the flood prone designation, it is unlikely that these lots will be subdivided for residential purposes unless they can satisfy a number of requirements. The draft schedule to the Design and Development Overlay (Appendix 8) outlines these requirements and they include that a site must be capable of providing a building envelope and wastewater disposal envelope outside the 1% AEP and that a stormwater management plan be provide to ensure acceptable drainage arrangements without any off-site impact.

Design and Development Overlay

The Lara Structure Plan recommends that a development plan overlay or approved subdivision plan be implemented for this area. Council officers consider that the Design and Development Overlay (DDO) is a better tool to ensure appropriate subdivision of the area. Given the level of fragmented landownership and the technical workings of a development plan overlay, the DDO is a better tool in so far as prescribing a set of design guidelines that can be assessed against individual subdivision permit applications.

Council does not seek to control development in this area beyond that which is triggered by the Low Density Residential Zone. The DDO schedule design guidelines will ensure the retention of the rural-edge feel of the area and guide future subdivision to fit with the existing infrastructure set-up and constraints. This can be achieved by avoiding the use of battleaxe lots, minimising the number of vehicle access points to the road network, and ensuring that areas affected by drainage and flooding constraints satisfy specific subdivision design requirements.

A copy of the draft Design and Development Overlay is included in Appendix 8.

The Amendment is considered justified under the provisions of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. It is recommended that the Amendment be exhibited and that Council considers any submissions to the Amendment thereafter.


Environmental Implications

The intensification of residential land use on the subject land is considered a good environmental outcome in so far as using existing under-utilised rural living land close to existing services.

The Amendment does contain some native vegetation but not to an extent that would preclude the rezoning and subdivision of the affected land.

Part of the affected land is designated flood prone under the Building Regulations 2006. The effect of this comes into force where a landowner seeks to obtain a building permit. In planning terms, Council officers have sought to deal with this matter by way of implementing design requirements to be considered through the assessment of a permit application for subdivision.

The exclusion of properties along Windermere Road opposite the Serendip Sanctuary generally aligns with the principal of creating a setback between the sanctuary and increased residential use of land to the south.

There are no other notable environmental implications.


Financial Implications

There are no notable financial implications involved in the processing of the planning scheme amendment.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The Amendment complies with the provisions of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

Clause 11 Settlement states that Planning is to facilitate sustainable development that takes full advantage of existing settlement patterns. The Amendment takes advantage of existing settlement patterns in so far as using existing rural living zoned land for increased residential development in the form of low density development proximate to existing services.

The Amendment supports the objectives and strategies of Clause 15 Urban Design in so far as creating urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity.

The Amendment supports the objectives and strategies of Clause 19.03 Stormwater in so far as ensuring that future subdivision of the land adopts a sustainable approach to managing stormwater from the site through the incorporation of water-sensitive urban design techniques to reduce run-off and peak flows and integrate stormwater treatment into the landscape.

The Amendment is consistent with the LPPF, including the following policies:

Clause 21.05-7 Flooding- ensures the future subdivision of the land does not impact the function of flood prone land.

Clause 21.06-2 Urban growth- ensures development occurs within designated settlement boundaries.

Clause 21.06-3 Urban consolidation- provides for the consolidation of existing urban areas in a managed way and to encourage an appropriate range of development densities.

Clause 21.08-5 Accessibility- ensures access to existing facilities for all members of the community.

Clause 21.13 Lara- in so far as implementing the Directions of the Lara Structure Plan which supports the rezoning of the subject land from Rural Living Zone to Low Density Residential Zone. The rezoning will retain the rural living character of the area by utilising the Low Density Residential Zone Schedule 1 and will increase residential density in this location providing good access to existing services.


Alignment to City Plan

The report aligns with the City Plan’s strategic direction Sustainable Built and Natural Environment. This direction seeks to protect and enhance natural ecosystems and to encourage sustainable design and reduced resource consumption. Specific priorities of the strategic direction included: Enhance and protect natural areas and ecosystems (including waterways); Advocate for and promote sustainable design and development (including the assistance of the planning system).


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council officers involved in the proposed rezoning application have a direct or indirect interest in matters contained in this report.


Risk Assessment

There are no notable risks that would inhibit the use of the land for low density residential purposes.

It is noted that the land is currently identified as Bushfire Prone. However, the land is not affected by the Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO). The Minister for Planning has determined that specific areas are designated bushfire prone areas for the purposes of the building control system.


Social Considerations

There are no foreseeable negative implications arising from the rezoning of the subject land.

The rezoning will allow for further subdivision of the subject land for residential purposes. Given the proximity of the subject land to Lara Town Centre, the rezoning will facilitate better access to existing services.


Human Rights Charter

The Amendment will not impact on any basic rights, freedoms, and responsibilities as set out in the Charter. Planning legislation ensures an open community consultation process occurs enabling people to freely express their views and if necessary, obtain a fair hearing before an Independent Planning Panel.


Consultation and Communication

Consultation will form part of the exhibition of the planning scheme amendment. The next step in the amendment process will be to request the Minister for Planning to authorise the preparation and exhibition of the amendment. The amendment will be exhibited for a minimum 30 days and this will allow formal submissions to be made to the Amendment. The notice of exhibition for Amendment C306 will be published in local newspapers and proximate landowners will be notified. Consultation with relevant referral authorities will also be undertaken during the exhibition of the Amendment.


Appendix 1 Site aerial plan

Site aerial plan

Appendix 2 Existing Zoning plan

Existing Zoning plan

Appendix 3 Designated Flood Prone land

Designated Flood Prone land

Appendix 4 Proposed Zoning plan

Proposed Zoning plan

Appendix 5 Proposed Design and Development Overlay

Proposed Design and Development Overlay

Appendix 6 Adopted Lara Structure Plan Map

Adopted Lara Structure Plan Map

Appendix 7 Curletts Road area- Indicative Plan Subdivision layout

Curletts Road area- Indicative Plan Subdivision layout

Appendix 8 Draft Schedule to the Design and Development Overlay


Cr Heagney declared an Indirect Financial Interest in Agenda Item 3 – Amendment C282 – Geelong Gateway Homemaker precinct, Corio – Adoption in that a client of Cr Heagney’s family business is the owner of a property in the area involved and left the meeting prior to discussion at 9:13pm.


[Back to List]

3. Amendment C282: Geelong Gateway Homemaker precinct, Corio – Adoption

Portfolio:

Planning - Cr Heagney

Source:

Planning and Tourism - Strategic Implementation

General Manager:

Peter Bettess

Index Reference:

Amendment C282

Purpose

This report acknowledges submissions to Amendment C282 and recommends adoption of the Amendment.


Summary

Cr Macdonald moved, Cr Harwood seconded -

That Council resolves to:

  1. adopt Amendment C282 in the form as outlined in Appendix 1 of this report; and

  2. submit the adopted Amendment with the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval.


Carried.


Background

In October 2013 CBRE Town Planning acting on behalf of Kervale Investments Pty Ltd lodged Amendment C282 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. The Amendment seeks to rezone all the land known as the Geelong Gateway Homemaker Precinct to the Commercial 2 Zone.

Kervale Investments Pty Ltd is the owner of land located at 470-510 Princes Highway, Corio. The applicant has requested that the rezoning be applied to all properties that form the homemaker precinct. The precinct is partly in the Industrial 1 Zone and partly in the Industrial 3 Zone and developed with a mix of bulky goods retailing and commercial services and industrial uses.

The land to which the rezoning applies is shown in the aerial map at Appendix 2.

A profile of the Geelong Gateway Homemaker Precinct is shown in the following table:

Property Address

Land Use

Zone

470-510 Princes Hwy, Corio 3214

Bulky Goods Retailing

IN3Z

452-458 Princes Hwy, Corio 3214

Vacant

IN3Z

446-450 Princes Hwy, Corio 3214

Service Station

IN3Z

420-444 Princes Hwy, Corio 3214

Bulky Goods Retailing

IN1Z

17-73 Railway Avenue, Corio 3214

Gas Works

IN1Z

2 School Road, Corio 3214

Motor Vehicle Sales

IN1Z

4-50 School Road, Corio 3214

Motor Vehicle Sales

IN1Z

17-19 School Road, Corio 3214

Vacant

IN1Z

21-29 School Road, Corio 3214

Vacant

IN1Z

70 School Road, Corio 3214

Warehouse/Showroom

IN1Z

It is noted that an isolated Barwon Water utility installation is located on Railway Avenue within the homemaker precinct. The land area is 73 square metres and zoned Public Use Zone 1. This site does not form part of Amendment C282.

Council resolved under delegation on 28 March 2014 to place the Amendment on exhibition.


Discussion

The subject land currently provides for a variety of uses – the majority being bulky goods retailing and commercial services. These include Harvey Norman, Fantastic Furniture, BCF, Derrimut Gymnasiums, Winter & Taylor Isuzu Trucks, Ultra Tune and a Caltex Service Station. There is a current planning permit application for a United Service Station at 452-458 Princes Highway.

These uses are better suited to the Commercial 2 Zone, the purpose of which includes:

“To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To encourage commercial areas for offices, appropriate manufacturing and industries, bulky goods retailing, other retail uses, and associated business and commercial services.”

Part of the subject land is owned by SPI Networks (Gas) Pty Ltd and used for gas processing and distribution. This use is not inconsistent with the purpose of the Commercial 2 Zone.

Minister’s Direction No.1 requires that in the preparation of an amendment which has the effect of allowing (whether or not subject to the grant of a permit) potentially contaminated land to be used for a sensitive use, a planning authority must satisfy itself that the environmental conditions of that land are or will be suitable for the sensitive use.

Rezoning industrial land to the Commercial 2 Zone requires consideration of potentially contaminated land. The application of the Environmental Audit Overlay will ensure contamination issues are addressed should a permit be sought for a sensitive use allowable in the zone.

Exhibition of Amendment C282 took place between 7 May 2014 and 9 June 2014 with notices in local newspapers and the Government Gazette. Notice of the Amendment was sent to relevant Ministers under the Planning and Environment Act and to surrounding residents and nearby commercial land owners.

All landowners and occupiers within the Geelong Gateway Homemaker Precinct were directly notified.

Submissions were received from VicRoads, Barwon Water, the Environment Protection Authority and Earth Resources Regulation Victoria. None of these agencies objected to the Amendment. Because there are no objecting submissions, the Amendment does not need to be heard by an Independent Planning Panel.

Council is now able to adopt the Amendment and forward it to the Minister for Planning seeking approval.


Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications as a result of the Amendment. Any potentially contaminated land issues would be addressed at such time that a ‘sensitive use’ is proposed.


Financial Implications

There are no financial implications for the Council.

No impact to budget.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

Amendment C282 is consistent with Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement.

The Amendment seeks to change the City of Greater Geelong Retail Activity Centre Hierarchy contained in Clause 21.07-8 to include the site as a Homemaker Precinct in place of a ‘Proposed Homemaker Precinct’.

The Amendment will implement one of the actions of Clause 21.18 Corio Norlane by applying the Commercial 2 Zone and removing the DDO20 from the Geelong Gateway Homemaker Centre.


Alignment to City Plan

The Amendment supports the ‘Growing our Economy’ strategic direction of City Plan, by consolidating the role and function of the Geelong Gateway Homemaker Centre.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officers involved in this report have any direct or indirect interest In accordance with Sec 80 (c) of the Local Government Act.


Risk Assessment

There are no notable risks associated with implementing the recommendation contained in this report.


Social Considerations

The Amendment is not expected to generate any significant social impacts.


Human Rights Charter

The Amendment will not impact on any basic rights, freedoms and responsibilities as set out in the Charter. Planning legislation ensures an open community consultation process occurs, enabling people to freely express their views and if necessary obtain a fair hearing before an Independent Panel.


Consultation and Communication

The Amendment was exhibited in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987, including direct notification to all landowners and occupiers within the homemaker precinct.


Appendix 1 - Amendment C282 to be Adopted


Planning and Environment Act 1987


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME
AMENDMENT C282
INSTRUCTION SHEET

The planning authority for this amendment is the Greater Geelong City Council.

The Greater Geelong Planning Scheme is amended as follows:

Planning Scheme Maps

The Planning Scheme Maps are amended by a total of 3 attached map sheets.

Zoning Maps

  1. Amend Planning Scheme Map No. 26 in the manner shown on the 1 attached map marked “Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Amendment C282”.

Overlay Maps

  1. Insert a new Planning Scheme Map No. 26EAO in the manner shown on the 1 attached map marked “Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Amendment C282”.

  2. Delete Planning Scheme Map No. 26DDO in the manner shown on the attached 1 map marked “Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Amendment C282”.


Planning Scheme Ordinance

The Planning Scheme Ordinance is amended as follows:

  1. In Local Planning Policy Framework – replace Clause 21.07 with a new Clause 21.07 in the form of the attached document.

  2. In General Provisions – Clause 61.03, replace the schedule with a new Schedule in the form of the attached document.

End of document


Amendment C282 - Commercial 2 Zone
Amendment C282 - Environmental Audit Overlay

21.07

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT

21.07-1

Key issues and influences

14/10/2010
C168

Economic Role and Function

Geelong is the largest regional city in Victoria and the primary service and employment hub for the G21 Geelong Region Alliance.

The City’s infrastructure base includes Avalon Airport, the Geelong Port and major road and rail connections to Metropolitan Melbourne and Victoria’s western regions.

The provision of high quality living, working and recreational environments is critical to attracting and retaining highly skilled people and the businesses in which they work.

Industry

There is a need to provide support for ongoing employment and economic development in the Geelong region.

There is a need to provide a diverse range of appropriately located, well serviced industrial land which meets the needs of a range of industry types and minimises land use conflicts.

Traditional manufacturing industries will continue to be key economic and employment drivers in the municipality, however at the same time the City’s economy will need to focus on emerging industry sectors that underpin economic development, prosperity and employment growth in the new economy.

The changing nature of industrial development means that most industrial development now requires high amenity land that offers a high quality environment for workers and visitors.

There is a need to support industry through the maintenance and improvement of infrastructure including the road, rail, Avalon Airport, deep water port and associated facilities.

The extractive industry operations in the municipality make a vital contribution to the building and construction industries and are of major economic importance to the Geelong region.

Retail

The City of Greater Geelong Retail Activity Centre Hierarchy has been established to articulate the role and function fulfilled by centres of different sizes.

The retail hierarchy supports the primacy of Central Geelong as the focus of retail activity in the region.

There is a need to ensure a mix of commercial uses in activity centres.

The retail hierarchy will be enhanced through high quality urban design and improved pedestrian and public transport accessibility.

There is increasing development pressure for sites located away from activity centres, particularly for bulky goods and other large format retail development types that seek large sites with the capacity for significant car parking.

Greater Geelong exhibits a number of factors that contribute to an increased vulnerability to problem gambling which requires sensitive consideration of their location.

Rural

Agricultural production is modest, but locally important and economically significant for landowners.

There is potential for growth in agricultural production, particularly aquaculture.

Farming activity and the rural landscape are very significant elements to the identity, image and liveability of the City of Greater Geelong.

Farming and rural landscapes form non urban breaks and are a critical element to the settlement strategy, tourism function and lifestyle of the region.

Farming and agriculture are important and valued activities in the northern area of the municipality, particularly in the Anakie area.

Rural land in a number of urban fringe areas accommodates a range of uses and developments which require buffers from residential areas.

The City’s rural areas contain important environmental assets.

Tourism

Tourism is a key part of the economy of the Geelong region. The region includes major tourism destinations such as the Bellarine Peninsula and the coast.

Tourism activities in rural and coastal areas must be carefully managed so as not to compromise the natural environment and/or agricultural activities.

21.07-2

Industry

19/07/2012
C187

Objectives

  • To provide an adequate supply of appropriately located industrial land that meets the needs of different industries.

  • To direct different types of industrial development to appropriate locations.

  • To facilitate well designed and serviced industrial development that provides a high level of amenity for workers and visitors.

  • To minimise land use conflicts.

Strategies

  • Focus new industrial development around major transport routes and infrastructure assets.

  • Protect existing and designated future industrial areas from encroachment by incompatible land uses.

  • Support the development of a technology/business park in the South Western Armstrong Creek Employment Area.

  • Encourage regional and national scale industrial businesses to locate in the southern part of the Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct, and in appropriate locations in the future South Western Armstrong Creek Employment Area.

  • Direct industries which require substantial buffer zones from sensitive land uses to the core of the Industrial 2 Zone in the Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct.

  • Ensure all industrial development incorporates best practice water sensitive urban design and waste management practices.

  • Ensure all industrial development is appropriately serviced by road, drainage, water, sewerage and telecommunications infrastructure.

  • Ensure all industrial development provides high quality urban design and landscaping.

  • Ensure new development in the Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct is configured to minimise the individual and societal risk levels attached to the Shell LPG Storage Facility.

  • Protect identified stone resources for future extraction and potential extraction industry operations from the encroachment of incompatible land uses.

  • Direct materials recycling industries to locations that minimise land use conflicts and impacts on the amenity of surrounding areas.

  • Support the establishment of infrastructure that reduces costs for business and industry.

  • Support an integrated Geelong Transport Strategy, ensuring that industrial areas are well connected to each other and the rail/freeway network.

  • Provide sufficient industrial land to meet a range of industrial needs in Geelong, including small to medium sized industry.

  • Develop the North East Industrial Precinct as a vibrant, new generation, master planned industry and business park that will attract a wide range of users and respond to the changing needs of industry sectors over time, as a key business address in the region and Victoria.

21.07-3

Retail

14/10/2010
C168

Objectives

  • To facilitate the development of vibrant and viable retail activity centres in accordance with the Geelong Retail Activity Centre Hierarchy included at Clause 21.07-8.

  • To ensure all major retail developments, and out of centre developments, provide a clear net community benefit.

  • To avoid the risk of exacerbating problem gambling.

Strategies

  • Ensure that new retail development is directed to activity centres and is consistent with the role and function described in the Retail Activity Centre Hierarchy included at Clause 21.07-8.

  • Ensure Central Geelong remains the primary retail activity centre in the G21 Region and the focus of retail activity in the G21 region.

  • Direct restricted retail (bulky goods) use and development to Central Geelong, the nominated homemaker precinct at Waurn Ponds, the Corio homemaker precinct subject to appropriate re-zoning and other homemaker precincts and activity centres as detailed in Clause 21.07-8.

  • Discourage restricted retail (bulky goods) development in industrial areas.

  • Encourage a mix of retail, office, cafes, entertainment, housing, education and community facilities to locate within activity centres.

  • Support accommodation uses above ground level floor space in activity centres subject to appropriate provision of parking and access requirements.

  • Require that applications for new centres establish the retail need for such use and development and demonstrate that there are no adverse impacts on the operation of the retail activity centres hierarchy.

  • Direct the location of gaming machines to venues that makes gaming accessible but not convenient as detailed in Clause 22.57.

21.07-4

Economic growth sectors

28/01/2010
C129 (Part 1)

Objective

  • To facilitate development in the City’s strategic economic growth sectors.

Strategies

  • Support industry development in the following strategic growth sectors:

    • Knowledge, Innovation and Research.

    • Advanced Manufacturing.

    • Health.

    • Tourism.

    • Small, Micro and Home Based Business.

    • Food and Horticulture.

  • Support the development of the Geelong Technology Precinct located at the Deakin University Waurn Ponds campus, particularly biotechnology industry.

  • Support the development of seafood and aquaculture industries in appropriate locations, particularly in North Geelong, Portarlington and Avalon.

  • Support the development of health and medical industries, particularly in the Medical Health Cluster in central Geelong (as identified on the Central Geelong Structure Plan Map at Clause 21.09), and around the Deakin University campus at Waurn Ponds.

  • Support the development of food, horticulture and viticulture industries in appropriate locations, particularly on the Bellarine Peninsula.

  • Support the development of aerospace industries within the confines of the Avalon Airport site.

21.07-5

Rural Areas

28/01/2010
C129 (Part 1)

Objectives

  • To support the use of the northern, western and southern rural areas for productive agriculture.

  • To ensure that rural areas provide an attractive setting through the preservation of a farmed rural landscape.

  • To protect and enhance the Bellarine Peninsula as a productive rural area with highly significant landscapes based on farming and environmental features.

Strategies

  • Maintain rural land in large and productive parcels, in accordance with the schedules to the farming zones.

  • Minimise non farming land uses in rural areas.

  • Ensure that any non farming land uses will not compromise farming activity in the area.

  • Ensure development in rural areas respects the farmed landscape character, particularly significant landscapes identified through the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study.

  • Ensure that new dwellings do not compromise the productive potential of land and are associated with the productive agricultural use of the land.

  • Encourage agricultural development with export potential and specifically encourage aquaculture and horticulture activities in the rural areas around Avalon Airport.

21.07-6

Tourism in rural areas

28/01/2010
C129 (Part 1)
010

Objectives

  • To support tourism development in rural areas that respects the open farmed landscape of the area, and contributes to the economy.

Strategies

  • Within the Bellarine Peninsula rural areas, support appropriately scaled, high quality, landscape responsive tourism uses that are subservient and complimentary to their rural landscape and environmental setting and are associated with agricultural activity on the land.

  • In all other rural areas support tourism uses and developments in the Farming Zone that are associated with agricultural activity on the land.

  • Support a limited number of larger scale rural based tourism development within rural areas that require rezoning.

  • Direct major accommodation facilities to urban areas.

21.07-7

Implementation

19/07/2012
C187

These strategies will be implemented by:

Using policy and the exercise of discretion

Where appropriate, referring applications for the development of land in the Heales Road Industrial Estate to Worksafe.

Using the Discretionary Uses in Residential Areas Policy at Clause 22.01.

Using the Sexually Explicit Adult Entertainment Venues, Adult Sex Bookshops and Adult Cinemas Policy at Clause 22.02.

Using the Assessment Criteria for Retail Planning Applications Policy at Clause 22.03.

Using the Agriculture, Rural Dwellings and Subdivision Policy at Clause 22.05.

Using the Tourism Development in Rural Areas Policy at Clause 22.06.

Using the Racing Dog Keeping and Training Policy at Clause 22.07.

Using the Materials Recycling Policy at Clause 22.08.

Using the Gaming Policy at Clause 22.57.

Applying zones and overlays

Applying the Rural Activity Zone to major tourism proposals in accordance with Clause 22.06 – Tourism Development in Rural Areas.

Applying Schedule 1 to the Urban Growth Zone to the Armstrong Creek North East Industrial Precinct area in accordance with the North East Industrial Precinct, Precinct Structure Plan, May 2010.

Applying Schedule 1 to the Development Contributions Plan Overlay to the Armstrong Creek North East Industrial Precinct area in accordance with the North East Industrial Precinct, Precinct Structure Plan, May 2010.

Further work

Support the development of a masterplan for the Avalon Airport site.

Implement Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2006).

As a priority, commence an investigation into the future residential and industrial land use needs for Geelong, as a basis for future growth area planning that would include:

  • assessment of the environmental, resource, landscape, development pattern, access, servicing, land use, economic and social constraints and opportunities associated with possible growth areas around Geelong,

  • identification of a preferred growth area or areas, and

  • preparation of detailed growth area plans.

References

Heales Road Industrial Estate Framework Plan, MacroPlan Australia and the City of Greater Geelong, 2007.

Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan, City of Greater Geelong, 2006.

City of Greater Geelong Retail Strategy, Essential Economics and Hansen Partnership, 2006.

City of Greater Geelong Economic Development Strategy, City of Greater Geelong, 2005.

Geelong Seafood Industry Strategy, City of Greater Geelong, 2003 .

City of Greater Geelong Rural Land Use Strategy, City of Greater Geelong, 2007.

Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study, Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2006.

North East Industrial Precinct, Precinct Structure Plan, May 2010.

North East Industrial Precinct, Development Contributions Plan, May 2010

Greater Geelong Gaming Policy Framework, City of Greater Geelong, 2007.

21.07-8

City of Greater Geelong Retail Activity Centre Hierarchy

30/01/2014
Proposed C282

City of Greater Geelong Retail Activity Centre Hierarchy map

 

City of Greater Geelong Retail Activity Centre Hierarchy table

21.07-9

Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct Framework Plan map

 

Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct Framework Plan map



Appendix 2 - Aerial Map of the Geelong Gateway Homemaker Precinct

Aerial Map of the Geelong Gateway Homemaker Precinct

Cr Heagney re-entered the meeting room at 9:15pm


[Back to List]

4. Amendment C270 - Public Acquisition Overlay 4 (PAO4) North South Collector Road and Intersection, Portarlington Road, Jetty Road Urban Growth Area

Portfolio:

Planning - Cr Michelle Heagney

Source:

Planning and Tourism - City Development

General Manager:

Peter Bettess

Index Reference:

Amendment C270

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to consider submissions to Amendment C270 and adopt the Amendment.


Summary

Cr Heagney moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -

That Council, having considered all submissions to Amendment C270 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, resolves to:

  1. Adopt Amendment C270 as per Appendix 6 of this report;

  2. Submit the adopted Amendment C270 with the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval.


Carried.


Background

Amendment C270 is Council-initiated. It seeks to facilitate the future construction of the North South Collector Road and Intersection, Portarlington Road, Jetty Road Urban Growth Area by applying the Public Acquisition Overlay 4 (POA4) on the affected land.

The Public Acquisition Overlay reserves land for a public purpose and ensures that changes to the use or development of the land do not prejudice the purpose for which the land is to be acquired.

The affected land comprises the Curlewis Golf Club at 1201-1419 Portarlington Road and privately owned land at 1421-1423 Portarlington Road. The Curlewis Golf Club is in the Special Use Zone. The private land is in the Rural Living Zone.

The total area of affected land is 0.39ha. The areas of land acquisition are detailed in Appendix 4.

At its meeting on 29 January 2013, Council resolved to prepare and exhibit the Amendment.

On 30 January 2013, Council officers wrote to the Minister for Planning requesting authorisation to prepare and exhibit Amendment C270 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. Authorisation was received on 7 February 2013 (Authorisation No. A02470).

A notice of preparation of the Amendment appeared in the Victorian Government Gazette on 14 March 2013. Notices were also advertised in the Geelong Independent on 8 March 2013 and the Geelong Advertiser on 9 March 2013.

Letters and notices were sent to relevant Government Departments, statutory authorities, and to the affected landowners on 7 March 2013.


Discussion

The exhibition of Amendment C270 resulted in a total of 3 submissions. The two affected landowners made submissions and one statutory authority, being the Department of Environment and Primary Industries.

As of 20 May 2014, the Curlewis Golf Club formally withdrew its objection.

Appendix 5 provides a schedule of submitters.

The owner of the affected land at 1421- 1423 Portarlington Road, Drysdale, did not object to the Amendment but requested confirmation that compensation will be offered by the Council through the land acquisition and compensation process.  

Council officers advise that once the planning scheme amendment is approved, Council will initiate the process of acquisition and compensation when the land is required for construction of the new road. The landowner will be offered compensation (fair and reasonable estimate) for the land acquired. The Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 allows for a response by the landowner (claimant) to the first offer of compensation, whether it be a response to accept or dispute the offer. The private landowner will be informed as to the future land acquisition and compensation process once the Council decides to initiate proceedings.

The Department of Environment and Primary Industries raised no objection.

The Curlewis Golf Club’s objection is no longer before Council to consider as part of the Amendment. Notwithstanding this technicality, it is beneficial to discuss the events between Council officers and the Golf Club that have occurred before and after exhibition of the Amendment.

Curlewis Golf Club

The Golf Club’s key concerns related to the impact of the public acquisition overlay on the playability of several holes, the course rating and rating of the affected holes, safety and security. As part of its submission to the Amendment, the Golf Club also expressed concern about the impact of the North South Collector Road alignment along the Club’s eastern boundary. The Golf Club provided a schedule of estimated costs for course repairs and reinstatement, security, safety and incidentals.

Attached to the Golf Club’s submission was a letter previously submitted to Council on 21 January 2013 by the Club. The letter outlines the Club’s historical concerns about the North South Collector Road alignment and the proposed acquisition area. The letter also included costings and a concept plan, prepared by a specialist architect, outlining the necessary works required as a consequence of the construction of the new road and intersection.

In its submission to C270, the Golf Club acknowledged that Council will undertake negotiations with the Club about compensation for the affected land and improvements. The Golf Club advised that it would be willing to withdraw its submission opposing the Amendment in the event that satisfactory compensation is offered by the Council for the land, course reinstatement, consultant fees, security access and solatium.

Since receiving the Golf Club’s objection, Council officers have engaged in extensive discussions with the Club. Council officers have prepared detailed design drawings for the new road and intersection and concept plans showing potential mitigation measures between the new road/intersection and the Golf Club land. The detailed drawings helped Council officers explain the likely impact of the road construction works along Portarlington Road adjoining the Golf Club. Numerous meetings were also held with the Golf Club during this period.

The Golf Club has endeavoured to express its concerns about this Amendment and the construction of the North South Collector Road in a holistic manner. This resulted in their submission focusing on both planning and land acquisition issues, which are governed by separate legislation. Council officers have consistently expressed to the Golf Club the difference between the two processes.

On 20 May 2014, the Golf Club wrote to Council requesting that its objection to Amendment C270 be withdrawn. In its letter, the Club advised that it is mindful of the fact that this is a two-part process under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986. The letter also included an updated position about potential redesign and costings for land affected by Amendment C270 and the impact of the North South Collector Road alignment. The Golf Club advised that at the time of land acquisition, it will be pursuing compensation for both the land and the loss attributable to disturbance and other factors. Prior to commencing the acquisition process, it will be necessary for Council officers to undertake a review of the Golf Club’s schedule of costings for works and associated plans.

The Amendment will result in a good planning outcome and will lead to the initiation of the land acquisition and compensation process once Council requires the new road and intersection to be constructed.


Environmental Implications

The construction of the North South Collector Road and intersection will result in the loss of vegetation. Prior to the construction of the new road and intersection, a survey will be undertaken of the affected land to confirm the species and quality of vegetation. Where possible, it is the intention to retain established tress along the alignment of the new North South Collector Road, thus, forming an attractive entrance off Portarlington Road.


Financial Implications

The Jetty Road Stage 1 Development Contributions Plan (DCP) includes the cost of the land to be acquired by Council for the new North South Collector Road and intersection. The cost for the land will be collected from the Stage 1 landowners/developers.

DCP Infrastructure Item R002 - North South Collector Road Part A- Land Acquisition has an established project cost of $294,800 to acquire the land. (The project cost is expressed in July 2011 dollars and is based on a land valuation undertaken in 2011. When Council formally engages in the land acquisition process, the affected area will be re-valued to provide an updated cost for the land.) The capital cost assigned to the land acquisition relates to the area covered by the existing PAO and that which is proposed by Amendment C270.

The capital costs for the construction of the North South Collector Road and Intersection are $1,210,900 and $1,559,000 respectively. These figures were confirmed at July 2011. The DCP allows for a contingency of 10% for construction of both these items.

The DCP funds only cover the value of the land to be acquired. Associated costs such as legal fees, conveyancing fees etc. are not included in the DCP project cost. Council has been advised by its DCP consultants that legal costs cannot be included when preparing a DCP.

The Golf Club provided Council with two schedules of estimated costs- a schedule for the Land acquisition, course repairs and reinstatement and a schedule for the North South Collector Road. The schedules include items such as course realignment and reinstatement works, landscaping, irrigation, new vehicular access point, security fencing and consultant fees. Collectively, the costing schedules amount to $188,196.00. Council will need to consider the relevant claims as part of the land acquisition and compensation process for the land to be acquired from the Golf Club. The detailed design and construction of the North South Collector Road adjoining will also need to consider to the existing arrangements at the Golf Club such as vehicular access, fencing and landscaping. The contingency of 10% for the construction of the road and intersection will allow for a level of comfort in terms of any additional works that may be necessary in this area adjoining the Golf Club land.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

Amendment C270 is consistent with relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

It is consistent with the provisions of the Jetty Road Urban Growth Plan (Adopted June 2007; Amended September 2008) in so far as reserving land for the future construction of the North South Collector Road and Intersection.

The planning scheme amendment is being carried out in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987.


Alignment to City Plan

This report aligns with City Plan’s Strategic Direction- Sustainable Built and Natural Environment- Priority: Advocate for and promote sustainable design and development. The Amendment will facilitate the use of the Jetty Road Urban Growth Area for residential purposes in so far as providing suitable access arrangements to the designated growth area from Portarlington Road.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officers involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.


Risk Assessment

There are no notable risks associated with the implementation of the Public Acquisition Overlay 4 (PAO4). The implementation of the POA4 on the affected land will result in a good planning outcome that will facilitate the future acquisition of the same land.


Social Considerations

The Amendment is not expected to generate any significant social impacts.


Human Rights Charter

The Amendment will not impact on any basic rights, freedoms and responsibilities as set out in the Charter. Planning legislation ensures an open community consultation process occurs enabling people to freely express their views. The exhibition of Amendment C270 enabled those parties affected by the Amendment to express their views.

Consultation and Communication

The Amendment has gone through a full planning scheme amendment process, which included formal exhibition. Council officers have considered all submissions to the exhibition of the Amendment. This included discussions with submitters in an attempt to resolve issues.


Appendix 1 Jetty Road Urban Growth Area- Structure Plan

Jetty Road Urban Growth Area- Structure Plan

Appendix 2 Subject Land

Subject Land

Appendix 3 Proposed PAO4 in red outline (existing PAO4 shown in yellow)

Proposed PAO4 in red outline (existing PAO4 shown in yellow)

Appendix 4 Land Acquisition Areas

Land Acquisition Areas

Appendix 5 Schedule of Submitters

No.

Name

Address

Type

Summary of Submission

1.

Curlewis Golf Club

1345 Portarlington Road, Curlewis, VIC 3222

Objection

Objection formally withdrawn on 20 May 2014.

2.

Department of Environment and Primary Industries

State Government Offices Cnr Fenwick & Little Malop Streets
PO BOX 103 GEELONG VIC 3220

Submission

No objection.

3.

Judith E Scarrott C/O Robertson Hyetts Solicitors

386 Hargreaves Street

PO BOX 337 BENDIGO 3552

Submission

Submission on behalf of affected landowner at 1421-1423 Portarlington Road, DRYSDALE VIC 3220.

No objection.

It is the landowner’s assumption that when the amendment is approved there will be a compulsory acquisition process. Following this, the landowner will be offered compensation for the land acquired and if they are not happy with the compensation offered, will have the opportunity to obtain their own valuation as to the value of the land acquired.


Appendix 6 Amendment documents

Amendment documents
Amendment C270 - Public Aquisiton Overlay - Schedule 4

[Back to List]

5. Amendment C296 – Simonds Stadium Signage – Consideration of Panel Report and Adoption

Portfolio:

Planning - Cr Heagney

Source:

Planning and Tourism - Strategic Implementation

General Manager:

Peter Bettess

Index Reference:

Application: C296

Purpose

This report considers the Panel Report on Amendment C296 and recommends adoption of the amendment with changes.


Summary

Cr Heagney moved, Cr Ansett seconded -

That Council:

  1. adopt Amendment C296 in the form outlined in Appendix 3 of this report; and

  2. submit the adopted Amendment with the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval.


Carried.


Background

Council is the proponent for Amendment C296 which seeks to amend the schedule to the Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) to identify the advertising sign category for Simonds Stadium as Category 2.

In 2012 the Geelong Football Club raised with Council the need to obtain a planning permit for signage to be installed on the then impending four new light towers. It was determined that the type of signage proposed was not permitted within the current provisions of the PPRZ.

Simonds Stadium, Kardinia Park is a significant Geelong asset with the capacity to seat approximately 33,500 patrons for AFL and other sporting/entertainment/community events and uses. The installation of light towers at the Stadium is expected to facilitate increased usage by a wide variety of sports/outdoor activities.

Council seeks to generate revenue from the installation of signage on the light towers to meet the costs of providing electricity capacity for the light towers.

The Public Park and Recreation Zone applying to Simonds Stadium, Kardinia Park prohibits the display of promotion and major promotion signs, as advertising signage requirements are in the default Category 4 – Sensitive areas.

The exhibited amendment proposes to amend the advertising signage category applicable to Simonds Stadium Kardinia Park to facilitate the display of promotional signage at the Stadium, which would otherwise be prohibited under the advertising controls of clause 52.05. This change will allow Council discretion to consider a planning permit application for the display of promotion and major promotion signs at this major Geelong sporting/entertainment venue, including on the light towers.

Appendix 1 shows the land subject of the amendment.


Discussion

Amendment C296 was placed on exhibition between 23 October and 13 December 2013. Notices were placed in the Geelong Advertiser, the Independent and sent to all relevant public authorities and prescribed Ministers.

As a result of the exhibition of the Amendment the Council received a total of 7 submissions. Of these, 2 either supported the Amendment or offered no objection, 1 from a sporting organisation seeking involvement in the design and placement of advertising and 4 objected to the Amendment.

The key issues raised in objecting submissions include: impacts on visual amenity of the City, impact on road safety, opposition to any more changes at Kardinia Park, dispute about the operational costs of the light towers and need for advertising, sporting club involvement in the location and design of advertising signs.

The issues raised in the submissions were considered by Council at its meeting on 11 February 2014. Council resolved to refer all submissions to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning.

A Directions Hearing on 3 March 2014 was conducted at Council offices in Geelong. Other than Council, there were no requests to be heard made to the Panel. Consequently an ‘on the papers’ process was adopted which provided the opportunity for written submissions from Council and the submittors, with a right of reply available to Council. This process was conducted over during March and April. On 17 April the Panel requested further information regarding:

Officers responded to this Panel request on 23 April.

The Panel submitted its report to Council on 12 May 2014.

The Panel report recommends that the Amendment be adopted. Its overall conclusions are that:

The Panel recommends including in the schedule to the Public Park and Recreation Zone, a map delineating the Simonds Stadium and associated light towers as the area to which Category 2 advertising controls apply.

Council Officer Response - This is supported and has been included in the amendment for adoption.

The Panel recommends that the Incorporated Document Advertising Sign Guidelines November 1997 should be amended to exclude the area affected by Amendment C296 from the scope of these Guidelines to remove the potential for debate about whether promotion signs can be considered. As the exhibition process for Amendment C296 has enabled relevant issues to be raised and considered, this change should not require further notice or a separate amendment.

Council Officer Response - This is supported and will remove any doubt or ambiguity for Council in its role as Responsible Authority. This change has been included in the amendment for adoption.

The Panel also suggests that perceptions of a conflict of interest in the evaluation of the advertising proposals could be minimised by referring future applications for signs at Kardinia Park (that are visible from outside the Stadium) to a Planning Application Committee.

Council Officer Response - In its role as Responsible Authority, Council deals professionally with planning permit applications from a range of Council departments on a regular basis and has been able to objectively operate and make planning permit decisions. It is considered unnecessary to convene a special Planning Application Committee to evaluate future applications for signage at Simonds Stadium.

A copy of the Panel’s report has previously been circulated to all Councillors. Appendix 2 is the Panel’s Overall conclusions and recommendations section of the Panel’s report.

The Panel’s recommendations are supported and therefore the Amendment with incorporating the changes can be adopted. Appendix 3 is the Amendment recommended for adoption, including the changes recommended by the Panel.


Environmental Implications

The amendment has no environmental implications. It will facilitate a planning permit to be considered for promotion and major promotion signs. The visual impact of any proposed signs will be assessed at the time of consideration of a planning permit application.


Financial Implications

There are no financial implications arsing from adoption of this amendment.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The Panel has supported the amendment including the post-exhibition changes supported by Council. The revision to the Advertising Sign Guidelines 1997 recommended by the Panel will clarify the ambiguity between the proposed amendment provisions and the Guidelines.


Alignment to City Plan

The Amendment supports the Growing our Economy strategic direction of City Plan, in particular the priorities of supporting the growth of Greater Geelong as a leading city for tourism, arts, culture and events and promoting the unique strength of the region such as our world class sporting facilities.

Through the action of completing the Players Stand and associated lighting, and the ongoing management of Simonds Stadium, the amendment will take the next step to enable promotion and major promotion advertising signs to be considered for display at this national sporting and entertainment venue.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council officers have any direct or indirect interest, in accordance with Section 80(c) of the Local Government Act to which this Amendment relates.


Risk Assessment

The adoption of this amendment is considered to be low risk.


Social Considerations

Simonds Stadium, Kardinia Park is a significant Geelong asset with the capacity to seat approximately 33,500 patrons for AFL and other sporting/entertainment events and community uses. The installation of light towers at the Stadium is expected to facilitate increased usage by a wide variety of sports/outdoor activities.

The amendment will enable Council to consider a planning permit application for the proposed signage on the light towers. Elevated signage on the light towers could negatively impact on the natural and built environment of Kardinia Park and the broader Geelong urban area. It will be important that any light tower signage complements the role of Simonds Stadium, the aesthetic of the light towers and does not detract from the quality of the urban environment of Geelong.


Human Rights Charter

The proposal does not impact on any human rights and responsibilities set out in the Charter. Planning legislation ensures an open community consultation process enabling people to freely express their views and if necessary obtain a fair hearing before an Independent Panel.


Consultation and Communication

The Amendment has been exhibited in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act and exemptions provided by the Minister for Planning. All submittors were provided with an opportunity to submit written submissions to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning.


Appendix 1 – LOCALITY PLAN

Locality plan

Appendix 2 – PANEL OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Panel overall conclusions and recommendations

Appendix 3 – AMENDMENT FOR ADOPTION

Planning and Environment Act 1987


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME
AMENDMENT C296
INSTRUCTION SHEET

The planning authority for this amendment is the City of Greater Geelong.

The Greater Geelong Planning Scheme is amended as follows:

Planning Scheme Ordinance

The Planning Scheme Ordinance is amended as follows:

  1. In Zones – Clause 36.02s, replace the Schedule with a new Schedule in the form of the attached document.


End of document


 

SCHEDULE TO THE PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION ZONE

07/03/2013

 Public land

Use or development

Conditions

 

Ocean Grove Park, 73-87 Presidents Avenue, Ocean Grove

Use or development in accordance with the Ocean Grove Park Development and Management Strategy June 2000 prepared by Ocean Grove Park (Ingamells) Inc.

Must be in accordance with the conditions included in the Ocean Grove Park Development and Management Strategy June 2000 prepared by Ocean Grove Park (Ingamells) Inc.

 

Armstrong Creek East Precinct

Use or development in accordance with the Armstrong Creek East Precinct Structure Plan

None specified

 

Armstrong Creek West Precinct

Use or development in accordance with the Armstrong Creek West Precinct Structure Plan

None specified

 

 Land

Advertising Sign Category

 

 Ocean Grove Park, 73-87 Presidents Avenue, Ocean Grove

Category 3

 

 Land at the sports stadium at Kardinia Park including the light towers up to a height of 20 metres above natural ground level as shown on Map 1 below

Category 2

 

 Map 1
Map 1 to the Schedule to the Public Park and Recreation Zone

The area of the sports stadium and light towers at Kardinia Park, South Geelong as shown on the map below are excluded from the scope of these Guidelines.

Map 1

[Back to List]

6. Sale of Land Draper and Asbury Streets, Ocean Grove – Consideration of Submissions

Portfolio:

Finance – Cr Lyons (Mayor), Cr S Kontelj & Cr E Kontelj

Source:

Corporate Service – Property Management

A/General Manager:

Michael Kelly

Index Reference:

Land Sales

Purpose

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider submissions to the notice of intention to sell land at 77-79 Draper Street and 128-130 Asbury Street East, Ocean Grove (‘the land”). It is recommended that Council sell the land.


Summary

Cr Farrell moved, Cr Fisher seconded -

That Council in relation to the land at 77 and 79 Draper Street and 128 and 130 Asbury Street East, Ocean Grove, having given public notice of its intention to sell all the land and considered all submissions received:

  1. Calls for expressions of interest from not for profit providers of supported accommodation for people with disabilities (“the intended purpose”) to take ownership of the land at 77 and 79 Draper Street as follows:

    1. The land will be transferred to a provider without consideration.

    2. A s173 Agreement will be attached to the title specifying that:

    3. That the expressions of interest process be appropriately defined through a terms of reference including the decision making process and selection criteria approved by Council.

    4. That the contract of sale and s173 Agreement contain other appropriate terms and conditions.

  2. Proceeds to sell the land at 128 and 130 Asbury Street East on the market by a public process through an agent as follows:

    1. That the price will be no less than a certified valuation which is made not more than 6 months prior to the date of sale;

    2. That the contracts of sale contain the appropriate terms and conditions.

  3. Notifies in writing each person making a submission of the Council’s decision and reasons for that decision.


Carried.

Division Requested:

For: Crs Ansett, Nelson, Ellis, Fisher, Harwood, Macdonald, Richards, Heagney, Farrell, Irvine

Against: Crs S Kontelj, E Kontelj, Lyons


Background

The Council is the owner of land at 77 79 Draper Street and 128 130 Asbury Street, Ocean Grove (“the land”). The land consists of four residential lots zoned PPRZ which have been used for two netball courts and a club room and was previously occupied under licence from the Council to the Ocean Grove Sporting Club Incorporated.

A new facility has been constructed at the Shell Road Recreation Reserve and it is proposed to rezone the old courts and sell the land (refer to Attachment 1).

The land consists of four residential sized allotments each of which are or are capable of being provided with separate titles. The lots are fully serviced.

At its meeting on 27 August 2013 Council resolved to give notice of its intention to sell the land, and notice under s189 of the Local Government Act was given in City News on 13 and 14 September 2013. One written submission had been received at the close of the submissions period.

All persons making a submission to the planning amendment C299 were advised of the notice of intention to sell the land and invited to make a sale of land submission under the Local Government Act. As a result of this advice two additional submissions were received and two further submitters appeared at the hearing

Council’s decision to given notice of intention to sell the land is based on commitments given in the following reports which were well publicised and involved public consultation processes.

The land is currently the subject of amendment C299 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme to rezone the land from PPRZ to General Residential Zone. The Planning Panel has heard planning submissions and has submitted its report recommending that the rezoning proceed. At its meeting on 8 July 2014 Council resolved to:

  1. Adopt Amendment C299 as outlined in the report; and

  2. Submit the adopted Amendment together with the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval.


Discussion

The Submissions Review Panel met to hear submissions on 3 June 2014. The Panel consisted of Councillors Heagney (Chair), Farrell, Fisher and Ellis. Submitters appearing at the hearing in support of their submissions are marked with an asterisk *.

The following is the response to written submissions received both prior to and at the hearing.

  1. Bernadette Peterson

  2. Kim McGough*

  3. Anne Treble Ocean Grove Tennis Club Inc

  4. Evan Hardie*

  5. Jane Thomas* and Robyn Bradshaw (Karingal)*

    Submission. There is a need for supported accommodation in Ocean Grove where specialist housing is provided for people with disabilities to live semi independently. A flat site is being sought with access to community facilities. If land can be made available an organisation will be formed to take ownership and raise funds for construction and operation of the facility.

    Response. Refer to Attachment 2 and the Conclusion and Recommendation section below.

Consideration of Submissions by the Submission Review Panel

The minutes of the Submissions Review Panel are in Attachment 2 to this report.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Following consideration of all submissions and the hearing of submissions it is recommended that the Council proceed with the sale of all 4 lots on the market.

The Council has adequately addressed the submissions seeking that the land should be retained for open space through the provision of sufficient open space in the general area, and proposed improvements to the adjacent Memorial Reserve. The use of the land for residential purposes has been supported through the planning amendment process by both the Planning Panel and the Council acting as the responsible planning authority. The Submissions Review Panel also supports the residential use of the land and its eventual disposal.

The sale of the land is established through the planning for and implementation of significant new sporting infrastructure for the township at the Shell Road Reserve. Both 2005 and 2010 reports anticipated the sale of the land to offset the cost of construction of major sports infrastructure, and both reports were widely communicated and enabled public input at the draft report phase.

Once the new multi use pavilion is completed in 2015 a total of $11.9m will have been spent at the Shell Road Reserve since 2010, 38% of which will have been funded directly by the Council with the balance coming from government grants. The earlier construction cost of the soccer grounds and indoor pool at the same reserve are in addition to the more recent expenditure. This is a significant financial commitment to the provision of high value recreation and sporting infrastructure which will contribute to community wellbeing into the future. The sale of the land completes this commitment.

While the Ocean Grove Tennis Club is using courts in other locations to satisfy demand, the current provision of public courts in Ocean Grove more than meets the required standards, and the use of alternative facilities is a normal and adequate means of satisfying demand.

It is recognised that demand exists for supported accommodation for people with disabilities not just in Ocean Grove but around the municipality and, in the past, the Council has sold land to a provider for this purpose. If providers want to purchase the land they have been able to approach the Council up to now or can participate in the pubic sale process in future. Providing financial support for housing is not a strategic priority for the Council.


Environmental Implications

It is proposed to obtain a preliminary environmental site assessment of the land in relation to its apparent historic use as a Council depot.

There is no significant native vegetation on the land.


Financial Implications

Under the former occupancy licence the Ocean Grove Sporting Club paid total annual fees of $359. Income from the sale of the land is expected to exceed $1,400,000.

The proceeds from the sale of the land will be non recurrent income for which provision has been made in the 2014-2015 Budget. If the property is either not sold or partially sold, then this would create a funding gap in Council’s 2014-2015 Budget. As property assets are disposed of, the written down value is adjusted on the asset register.

There are unbudgeted costs associated with returning Memorial Reserve to Public open space. These are estimated at $100,000 and would be included as a 2015-2016 Budget proposal.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

Section 223(1)c of the Local Government Act (“the Act”) provides that the Submissions Review Panel is not responsible for making the decision in respect of which the submissions have been made, but must provide a report on its proceedings, including a summary of hearings, to the Council. This report provides the required report from the Panel on proceedings, including the summary, and further provides a commentary on the Panel’s discussion about the sale of the land. The response to the submissions and the recommendation in this report are provided by the management.

Under the Local Government Best Practice Guideline for the Sale and Exchange of Land, the Council is required to ensure that “prior to being offered for sale, property should be appropriately zoned. This will ensure that the ultimate use of the land is determined by that zone and the highest possible sale price is achieved.” Amendment C299 proposes to rezone the land to General Residential prior to sale.

Under the same Guideline land is required to be sold by a public process, the method to be used will be decided in consultation with the appointed agent.

Section 189 of the Local Government Act (“LG Act”) requires that Council obtain a certified valuation dated not more than six months prior to the sale of the land being the date of the contract of sale. Prior to sale a certified valuation of the land will be obtained for each of the lots and the final sale price will not be less than the Council’s valuation.


Alignment to City Plan

The recommendation supports the action priority relating to Responsible and Sustainable Financial Management where the sale of assets no longer required will support the identified progress indicators.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officers or contractors involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.


Risk Assessment

The risks associated with sale of this land are able to be managed following normal management procedures and processes.


Social Considerations

There are no social implications associated with the recommendations of this report.


Human Rights Charter

There are no positive or negative human rights matters associated with the recommendation of this report.


Consultation and Communication

The sale of the land is supported by the Sport and Recreation Department.


Appendix 1

Aerial View of the Land Proposed to be Sold

View of the Land Proposed to be Sold

Appendix 2

Minutes of the Submissions Review Panel

Minutes

SUBMISSIONS REVIEW PANEL

Hearing of Submissions

Notice of Intention to Sell Land at Draper and Asbury Streets Ocean Grove

Report on Proceedings and Summary of Submissions

HELD IN MEETING ROOM 3
COUNCIL CONFERENCE AND RECEPTION CENTRE
CITY HALL, LITTLE MALOP STREET, GEELONG
ON 3 JUNE 2014 AT 5PM

Present: Crs Heagney (Chair), Farrell, Fisher and Ellis

Also Present: A Grant (CoGG Property Adviser)

Apologies: Crs Ansett, Irvine, E Kontelj, S Kontelj and Richards

Declarations of Interest or Conflicts of Interest: Nil

Items for consideration:

Council’s Notice of Intention to Sell the Land

Alan Grant CoGG outlined the Council’s intention to sell the land.

At its meeting on 27 August 2013 the Council resolved to give notice of its intention to sell the land, and notice under s189 of the Local Government Act was given in City News on 13 and 14 September 2013. One written submission had been received at the close of the submissions period.

The land is currently the subject of amendment C299 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme to rezone the land from PPRZ to General Residential Zone. The Planning Panel has heard planning submissions and has submitted its report recommending that the rezoning proceed.

Many of the submissions to amendment C299 objected to the proposed sale of the land. Following the Planning Panel directions hearing the Council was directed to advise all planning amendment submitters of the sale of land process under the Local Government Act to ensure that all parties were aware that the rezoning of land and sale of land are two separate and independent processes. This advice was provided to all planning submitters along with an invitation to make a sale of land submission under the Local Government Act even though the submissions period had ended.

As a result of this advice two additional submissions were received and two further submitters appeared at the hearing. Those submitters appearing at the hearing are marked with an asterisk *.

Summary of Submissions

  1. Bernadette Peterson

    1.1 Submission. Objects to the Council’s intention to sell off open space.

    1.2 Submission. Pending Federal and State Elections will resolve financial challenges associated with the relocation of the netball courts (to Shell Reserve).

    1.3 Submission. The site continues to be used as a pedestrian link to the Memorial Reserve and the neighbourhood shopping centre in Madeley Street.

    1.4 Submission. Retaining the land presents an opportunity to extend the Memorial Reserve in future onto the land.

    1.5 Submission. With increasing population and housing density the land should retained and enhanced to service demand.

  2. Kim McGough*

    2.1 Submission. Has the Council assessed the retention of the land for community or public purposes and has the community been consulted on alternative uses for the land?

    2.2 Submission. What action is the Council taking to address the finding in the 2005 report that there are gaps in categories of open space and poor links.

    2.3 Submission. What action does the Council propose to take to compensate for the significant loss of informal open space at the Shell Road Reserve.

    2.4 Submission. Why hasn’t the Council applied for State funding to assist the construction of the shared use pavilion at Shell Road Reserve?

  3. Anne Treble Ocean Grove Tennis Club Inc

    3.1 Submission:

  4. Evan Hardie*

    4.1 Submission. Is the Bellarine Recreation and Leisure Study 2005 still relevant?

    4.2 Submission. Are the survey results (of that Study) still relevant and accurate?

    4.3 Submission. Is the sale of the land based on short term budget consideration?

    4.4 Submission. Is the (2005) survey potentially misleading to the Planning Panel?

    4.5 Submission. Has the need for informal open space been underestimated?

    4.6 Submission. Were the guidelines in the Ocean Grove Sporting Infrastructure Plan 2010 not adequately appreciated by the Planning Panel?

    4.7 Submission. Other sources of funding should be found to fund infrastructure.

  5. Jane Thomas* and Robyn Bradshaw (Karingal)*

    5.1 Submission. There is a need for supported accommodation in Ocean Grove where specialist housing is provided for people with disabilities to live semi independently. A flat site is being sought with access to community facilities. If land can be made available an organisation will be formed to take ownership and raise funds for construction and operation of the facility.

Committee Deliberations

The Panel, having heard and considered all written submissions, considers that the land should not be retained for open space use. The Panel recognises the need for supported accommodation for people with disabilities in Ocean Grove and supports offering 2 of the 4 lots for this purpose through a public process which invites providers to make submissions for this purpose. The Panel expressed a preference for the two lots fronting Draper Street to be used for this purpose, with the lots on Asbury Street being sold. The Panel also discussed mechanisms for the lease or transfer of land for this purpose.

Meeting Closed at 6:05pm


[Back to List]

7. G21 Region Public Transport Strategy

Portfolio:

Transport - Cr Richards

Source:

City Services - Engineering Services

General Manager:

Gary Van Driel

Index Reference:

G21

Purpose

To provide an overview of the development of the final draft G21 Region Public Transport Strategy. The report recommends that the Strategy be adopted.


Summary

Cr Richards moved, Cr Harwood seconded -

That Council adopt the final G21 Region Public Transport Strategy.

Cr S Kontelj left the meeting room at 10:16pm

Cr S Kontelj re-entered the meeting room at 10:20pm

Carried.


Background

In January 2013 G21 commenced preparation of a G21 Region Public Transport Strategy to replace the G21 Integrated Public Transport Strategy which has largely been implemented.

A comprehensive strategy development process including data analysis and extensive stakeholder consultation in each local government area of the G21 region has been undertaken by AECOM, the consultants appointed for the project, working under the oversight of a project steering committee comprising representatives of each Council, G21 and Public Transport Victoria.

The G21 Transport Pillar has been briefed three times, and the G21 Board also briefed, during the course of the project to keep members informed and to shape the strategy development process.

The state government through Regional Development Victoria recognised the need and importance of this study and has supported the project with a grant of $100,000. Each municipality also contributed both cash and in kind support towards the project.

Timelines

Key milestones in the project have been:


Discussion

The G21 Region Public Transport Strategy has been developed through a rigorous process. The key steps have been:

The G21 Region Public Transport Strategy is aligned with the Transport Integration Act, the Regional Growth Plan and the Implementation Plan.

The core of the Strategy addresses the tradeoffs inherent in public transport planning.

There was strong support (upwards of 80 percent) for the four Themes of the Strategy:

Specific actions that benefit City of Greater Geelong that are included in the Action Plan are:

Following review of submissions by all members of the Project Steering Committee, the final Strategy has now been recommended for adopting by Councils.

Additions to the document include:

A copy of the submissions register with recommendations to Accept, Amend or No change is attached. Where possible all submitters will be acknowledged for their feedback.


Environmental Implications

The G21 Region Public Transport Strategy recognises the environmental value of public transport. Its key environmental measure is to support increased public transport mode share through network improvement initiatives such as increased service frequency and availability. A number of supporting measures are targeted at facilitating public transport access by sustainable modes such as bicycles.


Financial Implications

The G21 Region Public Transport Strategy does not commit Council to specific financial expenditures, however it includes actions to enhance bus stop infrastructure under Council management and control without specific timeframes. The action identifies that this should be done through an evidence-based prioritised bus stop improvement program developed in conjunction with Public Transport Victoria. Council will manage its future financial outlays in line with normal Council budget processes.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The G21 Region Public Transport Strategy is an advocacy document, explicitly aligned with the Transport Integration Act framework for the development of transport strategy and policy in Victoria. The stakeholder engagement process was undertaken in accordance with the principles of the Act and is considered to be a good example of community engagement approaches.

The policy implications of the Strategy are considered to be positive.


Alignment to City Plan

The G21 Region Public Transport Strategy aligns with the City Plan themes of Community Wellbeing, Growing our Economy, and Sustainable Built and Natural Environment. These themes are addressed by identifying a public transport network strategy that supports increased public transport use to access employment and community services.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

Officers involved in the development of the Implementation Plan or the preparation of this report do not have a direct or indirect interest in this matter.


Risk Assessment

There are no notable residual risks associated with the report recommendation or G21 Region Public Transport Strategy.

Stakeholder risk has been mitigated throughout the process by a documented and transparent public engagement process, and by inclusion of key State government agency Public Transport Victoria in the project steering committee.

Social Considerations

The G21 Region Public Transport Strategy recommends extensive improvements in the availability and quality of public transport and explicitly recognises that the social objectives of public transport services in Regional Victoria are critically important. The first Theme of the Strategy “Access for All” addresses social inclusion through disability access improvements and enhancements to service availability generally.

The Strategy advocates for PTV to develop and implement policy to provide a minimum level of service to all townships in the G21 Region.


Human Rights Charter

The G21 Region Public Transport Strategy enhances a number of human rights considerations including: freedom of movement, through a focus on improved public transport services and active transport linkages; freedom of expression and taking part in public life, by providing a range of opportunities for the community to view, inform and make comment on the Plan; right to privacy by protecting confidentiality or release of personal information received through submissions or feedback.


Consultation and Communication

The strategy development process placed community engagement central to the process, and delivered a structured and staged process. The key elements were:

The final document shall be published for distribution to stakeholders and will be launched by the G21 Transport Pillar.


[Back to List]

8. Norlane Child and Family Centre

Portfolio:

Community Development – Cr Fisher

Source:

Community Services – Family Services

General Manager:

Karen Pritchard (Acting)

Index Reference:

Subject: Planning and Strategy / Family Services Planning

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to recommend to Council the future governance and operational arrangements for the new Norlane Child and Family Centre.


Summary

Cr Fisher moved, Cr Farrell seconded -

That Council directly manages the Norlane Child and Family Centre and advise relevant parties accordingly.

Cr Harwood left the meeting room at 10:24pm

Cr Richards left the meeting room at 10:24pm

Cr Richards re-entered the meeting room at 10:25pm


Carried.


Background

The development of the Norlane Child and Family Centre has been designed to replace and augment existing children’s service facilities in Norlane-North Shore to meet the needs of local children and their families.

The Centre will use a partnership-based, integrated service delivery model that seeks to deliver a range of services to local children and their families. It will ensure that there is a single point of entry to all centre-based services, with children linked into a co-ordinated program of education and support. A specific focus of the service will be on engaging the most vulnerable children within the local area with universal services and, where needed, targeted support services.

The new centre will bring together a range of services for children, including:

A key focus of these services will be on the proactive engagement of families in supporting children’s learning/development, the early identification of vulnerabilities within families and the creation of informal support networks for local parents. Consideration will also be given in the future to the establishment of an occasional care service that would support parents into training and employment.

Over 31 per cent of children in Norlane-North Shore are developmentally vulnerable in one or more developmental domains. This is almost twice the rate for the children of the City of Greater Geelong, who, as a whole, fare equal to or better than the state and national averages in all areas of development contained in the AEDI. In addition, research consistently links childhood poverty with adverse cognitive, verbal and behavioural outcomes for children.

For this reason, a strong community engagement model would be utilised by centre staff, with proactive engagement of vulnerable or socially excluded families through community networks, primary schools and other local community services. An outcomes based approach to measuring the impact of the centre upon children and families would be used, drawing upon a range of agreed educational, social and health measures.

A number of Victorian Government strategies highlight the importance of early and coordinated action by services as being crucial to ensuring that vulnerable children receive timely and optimal support to meet their developmental and well-being needs. For instance, one of the key goals of Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Strategy 2013-22 is to intervene earlier in families where vulnerabilities are identified, recognising that the needs of vulnerable children are often the result of developmental factors identified in the very early years of life. In fact, research indicates that Intervening early in the lives of children with vulnerabilities by identifying factors that can create problems, and strengthening those that can promote resilience, is likely to produce better learning outcomes for children. Integrated children’s centres are ideally placed to offer a range of targeted, ‘joined up’ early childhood support services to children and families with vulnerabilities.

In order to achieve this cohesive and integrated delivery of services at the Norlane Child and Family Centre, it is essential that effective and efficient governance and management arrangements for the Centre are established.

A range of potential governance and management options for the operation of the new Centre have been examined as background to the recommendations contained in this report (see Attachment 1). In considering the merits of the various alternative options available, this report proposes that the City of Greater Geelong assumes responsibility for the governance and management of the Norlane Child and Family Centre.

Council is already a registered kindergarten cluster manager and is also responsible for the existing Maternal and Child Health service which is to be incorporated into the new Centre. Council successfully manages six long day care centres, two standalone kindergartens and the new integrated children’s centre in Ocean Grove. The Boorai Centre Ocean Grove commenced operation at full service capacity in January 2014 and has already begun to establish a new benchmark in the delivery of integrated early childhood services in the City of Greater Geelong. From January next year, Council will also be operating the new integrated children’s centres in Barwon Heads and Leopold.


Discussion

The principles on which the new Norlane Child and Family Centre have been developed reflect a strong commitment to providing high quality, integrated early childhood services that will improve outcomes for local children. This will ensure:

Research indicates that effective centre governance and management is essential to the achievement of these outcomes.

The centre will provide a service to the local community between the core hours of 9.00am to 5.30pm from Monday to Friday. Some programs (e.g. parenting information sessions, counselling services) may be offered in the evenings and on weekends, dependent upon the needs of children and their families.

The following annual service utilisation is estimated for the new centre:-

Governance Options

In recent years, the concept of integrated governance and service delivery has gained wide-spread currency, especially in the field of early childhood service provision and related government policy.

The work undertaken by the Centre for Community Child Health in the ‘Evaluation of Victorian children’s centres: Framework to support the establishment and operation of children’s centres’ established a number of indicators of a governance structure that is able to effectively manage and operate an integrated early childhood service and that has a clear community mandate. These are:

The effectiveness and speed with which these aspects of service governance have been able to be implemented at the Boorai Centre has been a direct result of the unified, centralised governance structure that has resulted from the centre being a Council managed service. The positive impact of this structure is evidenced by the following achievements:

The three governance options available for the Norlane Child and Family Centre are:

Each of these governance options has advantages and disadvantages that are identified within the options matrix in Attachment 1. Within each of these options, Council would retain responsibility for the management of the Maternal and Child Health service, and responsibility for overall building management.

Council is a registered kindergarten cluster management agency and has strong strategic planning foundations that are well aligned with key objectives associated with achieving integrated service development within early childhood services and approaches to broader local community building and social planning prioities. Council also has well developed, robust and transparent governance, management, financial and reporting systems that are subject to public scrutiny and internal and external checks and balances.

As the lead agency for the Norlane Child and Family Centre, Council would be responsible for ensuring that services and activities are delivered in accordance with key objectives and community requirements, including financial accountability, quality of service provision, integrated services and management, as well as meeting the targets set out in performance management frameworks and individual service contracts.

Council is uniquely placed to bring together the various stakeholders and key agencies to ensure effective delivery of services through good planning and implementation. For example, Council is currently the leader partner and fund-holder for the Corio-Norlane Best Start Partnership, a partnership of local organisations, Government agencies and community groups that shares a commitment to co-ordinating services so as to improve outcomes for local children.

Council has successfully delivered early childhood services and programs over a long period and has strong community confidence and support. Council also has significant experience of delivering these services within communities where children and their families are more likely to be experiencing a range of social/financial challenges and/or vulnerabilities. A Council operated service will ensure that proactive engagement strategies are used to target children for participation in kindergarten programs and maternal and child health services that will build their emotional and physical resilience, as well as strengthening parenting capacity within their families.

Regular consultation with the local community, parents and partners will ensure local needs are met and resources are used effectively, both throughout the implementation and service delivery phases. For example, local parents, service providers and community stakeholders will be invited to participate in an advisory group for the centre that will provide advice to management in relation to service delivery and ongoing development of the centre.

Negotiation will be required with the existing kindergarten Committee of Management and the Geelong Kindergarten Association in relation to the successful transition of children (who are currently enrolled at the Norlane-North Shore Kindergarten) and their families to the new centre, subject to Council endorsement of the recommendation contained in this report.


Environmental Implications

The Norlane Child and Family Centre meets the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.


Financial Implications

As indicated in Table 1 (below), it is expected that the Norlane Child and Family Centre will generate income of approximately $89,000 in 2014-15 in its initial six months of operation, increasing to $182,000 in subsequent years. The projected income estimates have been conservatively calculated, based on 48 children attending the kindergarten program and approximately 110 children using one or more of the programs available at the centre.

The maternal and child health service will continue to be funded in accordance with existing arrangements.

 

Income

Expenditure

Cost to Council (incl. MCH)

Cost to Council (excl. MCH)

2014-15

$89,000

$161,000

$72,000

 

From 2015-16

$182,000

$346,000

$164,000

$146,000

Table 1: Estimated Annual Budget for the Norlane Child and Family Centre (excluding depreciation)

Total consolidated expenditure across all Council programs and services operating from the Norlane Child and Family Centre is expected to be $161,000 in the initial six month financial year period 2014-15, increasing to $346,000 in subsequent years.

The additional costs to Council (subtracting the costs for which Council already contributes to the existing maternal and child health service) is expected to be $63,000 in 2014-5 and $146,000 subsequent years.

It is estimated that as many as 110 children and their families will be supported by the centre each year. At a net cost to council of $146,000 per annum, this amounts to $1327 per child each year.

This ongoing cost to Council is attributable to a number of factors, including:

It is possible that the operation of an occasional care services at the centre in the future may reduce the overall cost to council.

International economic research clearly demonstrates that the cost-benefit return on public investment in high quality childhood education is substantial.

Future budget proposal.

The budget proposal for the operation of the Norlane Child and Family Centre by Council has been included in the adopted 2014-15 budget.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The provision of integrated service delivery is supported by State and Federal Government policy initiatives and international evidence.

Local government has an intrinsic role in building the capacity and responding to the needs of children in their communities. Council’s role in supporting engagement and participation of vulnerable children and families into universal early childhood and education services is consistent with local government requirements stipulated under Section 3E (a) and (b) of the Victorian Local Government Act 1989 and also the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

The provision of early childhood services is regulated by a range of legislated requirements and service standards including the following:

The planning role of Local Government in relation to the provision of services for the community is legislated in the Victorian Local Government Act (1989), Planning and Environment Act (1987) and the Health Act (1958).


Alignment to City Plan


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officers or contractors involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.


Risk Assessment

There are a number of inherent risks with a project of this nature. These risks are being mitigated through various control measures, and include financial, operational, and potential implications for Council’s reputation.


Social Considerations

There are a number of demand pressures on Council relating to the provision of family and children’s services in Norlane that will be addressed by completion of the new Norlane Child and Family Centre.

In addition, and as outlined above, there is significant research demonstrating the effectiveness of integrated children’s centres in delivering positive health, wellbeing, learning and development outcomes for young children.

There is also extensive Australian literature that demonstrates the benefits of high quality early learning services for children:-

Evidence that family characteristics (e.g. level of income, emotional support provided by parents) can be stronger determinants of childhood development outcomes than the quality of education programs clearly indicates that the provision of early intervention and support to families (that reduces the negative impact of these characteristics) can make a positive difference to children’s development.

Supporting children in the years before school also greatly increases their chances of a successful transition to school and better learning outcomes whilst at school.


Human Rights Charter

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) requires governments to take all appropriate measures to “render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities”.

The United Nations CRC, in conjunction with the Human Rights Charter, upholds the rights of children to receive appropriate support and assistance, which protects their welfare, health, and well-being.


Consultation and Communication

Council has undertaken extensive community consultation in relation to the location and development of the Norlane Child and Family Centre. This has included the establishment of a Project Reference Group comprising representatives from a number of community service organisations, local community groups and the current kindergarten committee of management.

Council is currently embarking on a community consultation process with children, parents and relevant community stakeholder to guide the establishment of a children’s centre that is responsive to local community needs, values and diversity.


Attachment 1: Governance Options Matrix

The following summarises a range of potential options under which integrated children’s centres could be managed. Not all the options referred to in this table would necessarily result in successfully achieving effective integrated outcomes or governance.

Model Structure

Description

Example

Advantages

Disadvantages

Preferred Option Rating

Direct Council Service Management

Council would assume responsibility for governance and management.

Service users, sub-contractors, and parents would have input through ‘advisory groups’ and sub-committees.

Currently Council directly manages 6 long day care centres with integrated kindergarten programs and 2 stand alone kindergartens.

Council directly manages The Boorai Centre, Ocean Grove, which is an integrated children’s centre.

Council is also responsible for the direct management of the existing Maternal & Child Health (MCH), School Holiday Programs, occasional care, and Out of School Hours Service (OSHC) services.

Provides clear and cohesive governance.

High level of credibility and community support.

Statutory framework and accountability.

Strong management and established support systems

Direct control over quality and service management.

Capacity to sub-contract as required.

Large flexible workforce.

History of sound business management.

Driven by non commercial community interests.

Maintains mix economy of local service provision.

Ensure cohesion between property and service management.

Would not require redeployment, transfer, or redundancy of existing workforce.

Imposes additional responsibility on Council.

Increases Council’s liabilities and potential short term costs.

Limits direct community involvement in service management.

Net cost to Council is estimated at $146,000 per annum ongoing

1

Establishment of new Incorporated Association

Requires the establishment of a separate legal entity, incorporated association or a limited liability company that Community Service Organisations (CSO’s) can also become members of.

This model increases the accountability of members to each other and legally — either through the Associations Incorporation Act 1981 or the Corporations Act 2001.

This structure can provide for contracts to be entered into, property and employment of staff.

Increased burden of responsibility for ‘committee or Board’ members, including ensuring compliance with all necessary legal requirements and liabilities.

Neighbourhood houses and kindergartens generally operate on this model.

Removes one control of Council or one CSO (lead CSO) as fund holder.

Defrays costs and liabilities from Council and individual CSOs.

Stronger reporting lines for funded positions and staff to a Committee of Management (COM).

Stronger lines of reporting and financial accountability.

In-kind support and real costs of partnership are exposed.

Encourages community ownership and participation.

Supports broader range of organizational interests.

Provides opportunities for building social capital within local community.

Potential reduction in cost to Council

Burden of responsibility focused on members of COM.

Increased reporting and administrative duties for COM.

Increasing difficulty recruiting skilled COM with sufficient skills and capacity.

Can be subject to individual interests and completing priorities

Lack of continuity for strategic planning.

Could not assume capacity of all service components e.g. MCH.

Would require redeployment of existing staff or subcontract arrangement back to Council.

Does not eliminate Council liabilities and potential costs.

Council remains responsible to ensure delivery of quality requirements.

2

Contract Lead Agency or Multi-agency Agreement

This model would provide for the opportunity to ‘out source’ the governance and management of the centre and service delivery to an established independent provider or consortium of providers.

Would possibly require implementation of a tender process to select preferred provider/providers.

Vines Road; Geelong Family Relationships Centre

Reduced liability as lead agency take all responsibility.

Clearly defined lines of reporting and accountability.

Control over quality and service management subject to contract arrangements.

Would possibly still require financial maintenance arrangements for Council to compensate for any shortfall in funding.

Arrangement would be subject to selective tender process.

Favours larger well resourced organisations – dominant providers

Potential reduction of costs to Council.

Reduced community and Council involvement.

Diminished control by Council over service quality and management.

Reduced local influence on operation of centre.

Smaller groups and organisations may have difficulty in negotiating access or be subject to unreasonable costs.

Integration requirements are likely to be subject to other financial and operational priorities.

3

[Back to List]

9. International Communication Project - Supporting people with communication disabilities

Portfolio:

Community Development - Cr Fishier

Source:

Community Services - Aged and Disability Services

Act/General Manager:

Karen Pritchard

Index Reference:

Subject: Disability

Purpose

To provide a background on the International Communication Project 2014 and the opportunity for Council to sign the pledge, confirming its support for the rights and needs of people with communication disabilities.


Summary

Cr Fisher moved, Cr Farrell seconded -

That Council support the International Communication Project 2014 and sign the pledge.

Cr Nelson left the meeting room at 10:27pm

Cr Macdonald left the meeting room at 10:28pm

Cr Harwood re-entered the meeting room at 10:29pm

Cr Nelson re-entered the meeting room at 10:29pm

Cr Macdonald re-entered the meeting room at 10:31pm

Carried.


Background

An international coalition of speech and language therapists from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom, and United States, has joined forces to create the International Communication Project 2014. The project seeks to draw attention to the range of communication disabilities experienced by people across the globe and the need for early intervention.

The data on communication disorders indicate for example that 40 million people in the United States are estimated to have communication disorders.

Nearly one third of employed people in Canada who have hearing difficulties report that their conditions limit the amount and/or kind of work that they can perform.

In the United Kingdom, speech, language, and communication needs are the most common type of need among students in the English special educational system in state-funded primary schools. At a more local level more than 1.1 million Australians have difficulty communicating.


Discussion

Communication is the most fundamental of human capacities. People need to be able to communicate to fulfil their social, educational, emotional and vocational potential. Barriers to communication impair an individual’s ability to relate to and interact with others; understand; learn, share and apply knowledge.

It also impacts on a person’s ability to achieve and maintain good physical and mental health and to participate appropriately and safely in purposeful occupations and/or leisure activities. Further, the inability to communicate well, impacts on a person’s ability to have fair access to the justice system and other public services.

The goals of the ICP are to ensure that communication disability receives deserving and appropriate attention and action from all relevant bodies and systems including: legislators and policymakers; funding bodies and insurers; medical, health, education, disability, aged and community sectors; consumer and advocacy groups; social care, justice and public services; and the media.

To this end the ICP is encouraging the public to sign a pledge, the Universal Declaration of Communication Rights, that outlines the effects of barriers to communication and pledges public support for the millions of people worldwide who experience them. In addition, the ICP urges individuals, communication professionals, and organizations to exchange information and share their experiences with communication disorders on the project website.

Council’s signing of the pledge is consistent with its current activities as outlined in the Disability Action Plan 2014-17. Already Council is providing web information in an accessible format that is W3C compliant. Further there is a commitment by the organisation that all customer service centres and their staff will, by 2017, have received the training and will have met all the requirements to have the Communication Access symbol installed. By signing the pledge Council will indicate its support to the millions of people around the world who have communication disorders that prevent them from experiencing fulfilling lives and participating equally and fully in their communities.


Environmental Implications

The signing of the pledge will not impact on the environment in any way.


Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the signing of this pledge.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

Signing of the pledge would be consistent with Council’s activities (section 8.1) as outlined in the 2014-17 Disability Action Plan.


Alignment to City Plan

Signing of the pledge would be consistent with Council’s City Plan with regard to the health and wellbeing of all residents and visitors to the City of Greater Geelong.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council staff involved in this report have any direct or indirect interest in this matter other than in their role as an officer of Council. This good news story should also be promoted via social media.


Risk Assessment

No risks have been identified with Council signing the pledge.


Social Considerations

Council is already working towards reducing barriers to people with communication disabilities as part of its Disability Action Plan. Signing the pledge would further state that Council is supportive of all residents and visitors to the municipality having full access and inclusion to community life.


Human Rights Charter

The signing of this pledge supports the human rights of people with communication disabilities.


Consultation and Communication

Council is advised that the Disability Advisory Committee has collectively and individually agreed to sign the pledge. Council’s support will be visible to others who visit the ICP site.


[Back to List]

10. Financial Assistance Grants - Indexation Freeze

Portfolio:

Finance – Cr D Lyons, Cr S Kontelj, Cr E Kontelj

Source:

Corporate Services Administration

A/General Manager:

Michael Kelly

Index Reference

inancial Management

Purpose

Advise Council of the potential impact of the Federal Government’s decision to freeze indexation of the Local Government Financial Assistance Grants for three years and seek approval from Council to support the Australian Local Government Association’s campaign to reverse this decision, by writing letters to local Minister’s of Parliament.


Summary

Cr S Kontelj moved, Cr Ansett seconded -

That Council defer consideration of the report.

Carried.


[Back to List]

11. Road Renaming - Western Section of Mandalay Circuit, Armstrong Creek

Portfolio:

Governance - Cr Lyons (Mayor)

Source:

Corporate Services - Financial Services

A/General Manager:

Michael Kelly

Index Reference

Subject/Financial Management - Reporting
Subject/Roads, Footpaths & Streets

Purpose

To seek approval to rename the western section of Mandalay Circuit, Armstrong Creek to Delta Drive, Armstrong Creek and the identifier of the eastern section of Mandalay Circuit to Mandalay Avenue due to the roadways being obstructed.


Summary

Cr Richards moved, Cr Fisher seconded -

That Council approves the renaming of the western section of “Mandalay Circuit, Armstrong Creek” to “Delta Drive, Armstrong Creek” and renaming the identifier of the eastern section from Circuit to Avenue.

Cr Farrell left the meeting room at 10.34pm

Carried.


Background

The current subdivisional construction of Mandalay Circuit is occurring in three separate stages. Stage 1 (eastern section) and Stage 3 (western section) have been constructed. Stage 2 (southern section) is yet to be constructed. This roadway is currently not joined in the middle (southern section) and is not a navigable road from one section to the other. There is a need to rename one section of roadway and alter the identifier on the other section from “Circuit” to “Avenue”.

An Avenue is defined as “a broad roadway, usually planted with trees on each side”. As the original Mandalay Circuit will have Council reserve land on one complete side, it is appropriate to use the identifier “Avenue”.

The Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010 state that when a proposed road is being constructed and the middle section of road is yet to be built, both sections of constructed roadway must have unique names applied.

This is particularly important so that an emergency service vehicle can navigate the entire course of the road from one end to the other. Once Stage 2 (southern section) is constructed, a unique name will be given to that section of roadway.

Council approached the developer to submit a new name for the western section of this roadway. Delta Drive, Armstrong Creek was submitted. A Drive is defined as “a wide thoroughfare allowing a steady flow of traffic, without many cross streets”. Delta Drive will have four cross streets in the finalisation plans.

Letters have been sent to all affected property owners and residents within the western section of Mandalay Circuit advising them of Council’s intention to rename the section of road to Delta Drive, Armstrong Creek.


Discussion

To comply with the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010 one of the sections of Mandalay Circuit requires renaming.

One option is to rename the eastern section. However, the western section would still require renumbering to ensure correct street numbering is in place. If the western section is renamed, the eastern section would not require renumbering. Therefore, it is proposed to rename and renumber the properties in the western section. The current numbering range in the western section is 122-139 Mandalay Circuit.

The suggested renaming complies with the requirement of the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010.

The proposed renaming was advertised in the Independent newspaper on 25 April 2014 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 26 April 2014. As a result, one submission was received. The submission suggested that the current road name and numbering for the western section of Mandalay Circuit be retained and that the eastern section of this roadway be renamed. A letter was sent to the submitter explaining that if this option was chosen, the western section would still require renumbering.

It is therefore recommended to proceed with the renaming of the western section of “Mandalay Circuit, Armstrong Creek” to “Delta Drive, Armstrong Creek” and change the identifier for the eastern section to “Avenue”.


Environmental Implications

There are no environmental issues arising from this report.


Financial Implications

The approximate cost to Council is $1,100. This includes advertising, assistance packages, notification to authorities and street signage.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The Local Government Act 1989, Geographic Place Names Act 1998 and The Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010 have been followed and met.

Alignment to City Plan

This proposal aligns to City Plan with the encouragement of Community Wellbeing.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

There is no Council Officer direct or indirect interest involved in this report.


Risk Assessment

If an emergency situation occurred, Council’s proposal to rename this section of roadway should minimise the risk of failure in being able to locate the property in a timely manner.


Social Considerations

The renaming of this section of roadway will allow for easy identification to the public and utility organisations for service delivery.


Human Rights Charter

It is the right of every resident and property owner for their property to have a unique address in order to receive services and reduce confusion or delay of emergency services.


Consultation and Communication

Correspondence was sent to all adjoining property owners and residents advising them of the proposed renaming of the western section of Mandalay Circuit, Armstrong Creek.

The proposal was also advertised in the Independent newspaper on 25 April 2014 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 26 April 2014. The proposal was published on Council’s Geelong Australia website for 30 days as per the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010.

One submission was received. This submission requested that the eastern section of Mandalay Circuit be renamed instead of the western section. A response was sent regarding this submission.

Subject to Council and The Registrar of Geographic Names approval, the relevant authorities and abutting owners and residents will be notified of the official registration of this road renaming.


Attachment A
Proposed Renaming of Western Section of Mandalay Circuit, Armstrong Creek

Map detailing the Proposed Renaming of Western Section of Mandalay Circuit, Armstrong Creek

[Back to List]

12. Road renaming - Western section of Boundary Road, Mount Duneed

Portfolio:

Governance - Cr Lyons (Mayor)

Source:

Corporate Services - Financial Services

A/General Manager:

Michael Kelly

Index Reference

Subject/Financial Management - Reporting
Subject/Roads, Footpaths & Streets

Purpose

To seek approval to rename the western section of Boundary Road, Mount Duneed to Muir Road, Mount Duneed due to roadway being truncated by the Geelong Ring Road.


Summary

Cr Richards moved, Cr Fisher seconded -

That Council approves the renaming of the western section of “Boundary Road, Mount Duneed” to “Muir Road, Mount Duneed”.

Carried.

Cr Farrell re-entered the meeting room at 10.36pm.

Background

Due to construction of section 4C of the Geelong Ring Road project, Boundary Road Mount Duneed will become truncated.

The Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010 state that when a road becomes disjointed and is not a navigable road from one section to the other, separate road names are required. As the roadway will become disjointed, Council is required to rename a section of roadway. The western section of this roadway was chosen for renaming since this section will cause the least impact on property owners.

Letters have been sent to all affected property owners and residents within the western section of Boundary Road, Mount Duneed advising them of Council’s intention to rename the section of road to Muir Road, Mount Duneed.


Discussion

The continuing construction of section 4C of the Geelong Ring Road project from Anglesea Road to the Surf Coast Highway will cause Boundary Road, Mount Duneed to truncate as Baanip Boulevard will cross over Boundary Road.

Council is proposing to rename the western section of Boundary Road, Mount Duneed which is accessed from Ghazeepore Road. The name “Muir” has been chosen for this section of roadway which comes from Council’s recently compiled list of ANZAC names in honour of Lance Bombardier Muir who was of Aboriginal decent. Council has obtained written consent from the Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation to use the name of “Muir Road” for this road renaming.

Leo Maxwell Muir served in Vietnam with the 12th Field Regiment and attained the rank of Lance-Bombardier. During his service with the Army he was a Physical Instructor for the soldiers. After the war, Leo was instrumental in establishing the Geelong Vietnam Veterans Association. He completed further studies and became a Panel Beating teacher at the Geelong East Technical School. He passed away unexpectedly at the age of 42.

The suggested naming complies with the requirement of the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010.

The proposed renaming was advertised in the Independent newspaper on 23 May 2014 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 24 May 2014. One submission was received from Mr Muir’s widow showing her gratitude in using her late husbands name for this proposal.


Environmental Implications

There are no environmental issues arising from this report.


Financial Implications

The approximate cost to Council is $1,100. This includes advertising, assistance packages, notification to authorities and street signage.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The Local Government Act 1989, Geographic Place Names Act 1998 and The Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010 have been followed and met.


Alignment to City Plan

The proposal aligns to City Plan with the encouragement of Community Wellbeing.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

There is no Council Officer direct or indirect interest involved in this report.


Risk Assessment

If an emergency situation occurred, Council’s proposal to rename the western section of Boundary Road, Mount Duneed could minimise the risk of failure in being able to locate the property in a timely manner.

Social Considerations

The renaming of this section of roadway will allow for easy identification for the public, enable utility organisations and emergency services to locate the property.


Human Rights Charter

It is the right of every resident and property owner for their property to have a unique address in order to receive services and reduce confusion or delay of emergency services.


Consultation and Communication

Correspondence was sent to all adjoining property owners and residents advising them of the proposed renaming and invited submissions.

This proposal was also advertised in the Independent newspaper on 23 May 2014 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 24 May 2014. The proposal was published on Council’s Geelong Australia website for 30 days as per the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010.

One submission was received. This submission was from Mr Muir’s widow in favour of the proposal.

Subject to Council and The Registrar of Geographic Names approval, the relevant authorities and abutting owners will be notified of the official registration of this road renaming.


Appendix 1
Road renaming – Western section of Boundary Road, Mount Duneed

Map detailing the Road renaming – Western section of Boundary Road, Mount Duneed

[Back to List]

13. Sale of Land - 5 Coolidge Street, Corio

Portfolio:

Finance – Cr Lyons (Mayor), Cr S Kontelj & Cr E Kontelj

Source:

Corporate Services - Property Management

A/General Manager:

Mike Kelly

Index Reference:

Land Sales

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Council give notice of its intention to sell land at 5 Coolidge St, Corio.


Summary

Cr Fisher moved, Cr Farrell seconded -

That Council:

  1. commence procedures to sell the land at 5 Coolidge Street, Corio (“the land”) on the following terms and conditions:

    1. price being not less than the certified valuation to be obtained;

    2. conduct an EOI process seeking interest from community housing providers;

    3. sell the land by listing with an agent;

    4. obtaining the Commonwealth Minister for Education’s consent to sell the land;

    5. Other appropriate terms.

  2. commence the procedures under section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 (“the Act”) to sell the land and that public notice of and the right of a person under section 223 of the Act to make a submission in relation to the proposed sale be given in the Geelong Advertiser and Geelong Independent;

  3. appoint the Submissions Review Panel to hear and report to the Council on any submissions in relation to the proposed sale;

  4. sell the land if no submissions are received;

  5. authorise the General Manager – Corporate Services to execute the Contract of Sale;

  6. sign and seal the Transfer of Land.

Cr Heagney moved, Cr Farrell seconded -

That consideration of the report be deferred.

Cr Irvine left the meeting room at 10:36pm

Cr Irvine re-entered the meeting room at 10:40pm

Carried.


[Back to List]

14. The Esplanade, Indented Head - Proposed Footpath and Kerb and Channel Construction - SRC 338 - Intention to Declare

Portfolio:

Infrastructure – Cr Lindsay Ellis

Source:

City Services - Engineering Services

General Manager:

Gary Van Driel

Index Reference:

Special Rates and Charges; The Esplanade, Indented Head

Purpose

This project has been before Council at its meeting of 13 May 2014 with a resolution to proceed. Due to affected property owner concerns, this scheme is being re-presented as a two scheme proposal with amended levy charges. The original scheme was subsequently postponed. Referred to as Sub Scheme 1 and 2, the separation of schemes provides more clarity and transparency in the breakdown of cost components for the project as a whole. This report seeks a resolution by Council to consider an intention to declare a Special Charge Scheme to:

  1. Sub Scheme 1 - Partially fund the construction of a footpath along the west side of The Esplanade between No 270 The Esplanade and Walpole Avenue, Indented Head. (See plan – Appendix 4).

  2. Sub Scheme 2 - Partially fund the construction of new kerb and channel and vehicle laybacks between No’s 270 and 274 The Esplanade, Indented Head.


Summary

Cr Ellis moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -

That Council:

  1. Rescind its Resolution of 13 May 2014 being Item 11 of that agenda, titled The Esplanade, Indented Head – Proposed footpath construction – SRC 338 – Intention to Declare, and substitute the following resolution; and

  2. Gives notice of its intention to declare a Special Charge Scheme consisting of two Sub Schemes in accordance with Section 163 (1A) of the Local Government Act 1989 (The Act), as follows:

    1. The Special Charge is declared for a period of five (5) years commencing upon completion of the works and scheme finalisation.

    2. The Special Charge be declared for the purpose of defraying any expenses incurred by Council in relation to the construction of the footpath and kerb and channel on The Esplanade between No 270 The Esplanade and Walpole Avenue, Indented Head which project:

      1. b1) Will provide:

        Sub Scheme 1 - proper pedestrian access, improved intersection layout, improved pedestrian safety and enhancement to the general amenity for each of the properties included in the scheme;

        Sub Scheme 2 – proper vehicular access including improved drainage and vehicular safety

      2. b2) Council considers is or will be a special benefit to those persons required to pay the special charge (and who are described in succeeding parts of this Resolution); and

      3. b3) Arises out of Council’s function of planning for and providing infrastructure for property owners.

    3. The total cost of project for Sub Scheme 1, be recorded as $133,530. The total cost of project for Sub Scheme 2, be recorded as $9,753.94.

    4. It be recorded that, for the purposes of Section 163 (2A) of the Act, the special charge proceeds will not exceed the amount calculated in accordance with the prescribed formula (R x C = S), the:

      1. d1) ‘benefit ratio’ (R) being calculated at 0.34 for Sub Scheme 1 and 0.53 for Sub Scheme 2 represents the special benefits to all persons liable to pay the special charge (Schedule B);

      2. d2) ‘total cost’ (C) of performing the function described in part 1 (b) of this resolution based on estimated cost be recorded as $62,651 for Sub scheme 1 and $7,654 for Sub Scheme 2; and

      3. d3) ‘maximum levy’ (S) be recorded as $21,484 for Sub Scheme 1 and $4,018 for Sub Scheme 2.

    5. the following be specified as the area for which the special rate is so declared:

      1. e1) the area within municipal district of Council highlighted in the plan attached to this Resolution (Appendix 4).

    6. the following be specified as the land in relation to which the special charge so declared:

      1. f1) land within the area shown on the plan.

    7. the following be specified as the criteria which form the basis of the special charge so declared:

      1. g1) ownership of any land described in Part 1(e) of this Resolution.

    8. the following be specified as the manner in which the special charge so declared will be assessed and levied:

      1. h1) Each lot receives a primary access and amenity benefit;

      2. h2) The maximum levy is divided:

        Sub Scheme 1 - 50% on access and 50% amenity on a frontage share basis;

        Sub Scheme 2 – on a frontage share basis

      3. h3) The special charge will be levied by sending a notice to the person who is liable to pay, pursuant to section 163(4) of the Act.

    9. having regard to the preceding parts of this Resolution but subject to Section 166 (1) of the Act, it be recorded that;

      1. i1) the owners of the land described in column 3 of Schedule C to the resolution are estimated liable for the respective amounts set out in column 8 of Schedule C; and

      2. i2) such owners may, subject to any further resolution of Council pay the special charge in the following manner;

        1. i2a) the charge will become due and payable within one month of the issue of the notice requesting payment pursuant to Section 167 (3) of the Act;

        2. i2b) interest will not be charged for six months after the issue of the notice provided the person liable makes timely payment in accordance with any repayment arrangements that may be agreed on by Council; and

        3. i2c) in accordance with Section 172 of the Act, the interest rate payable on the special charge which has not been paid by the specific date is set at Council’s overdraft rate, reviewed every three months (provided that it shall not exceed the rate fixed by the Governor in Council by Order for the purposes of Section 172 (2A) in which case the rate of interest shall be the maximum rate fixed by the Governor in Council by Order for the purposes of this section).

  1. Council’s Chief Executive Officer be authorised to levy the Special Charge in accordance with Section 163 (4) of the Act.

Cr S Kontelj left the meeting room for the evening at 10.43pm

Carried.

Background

In 2009/10 Council facilitated the Northern Bellarine Walkability Study where extensive consultation with the local community of Indented Head including the Locomote Walking Group was carried out. The method of consultation included public advertising, resident surveys and community meetings.

The study identified the priority pathway networks of which The Esplanade was listed as a high priority for construction. It is considered that the proposed new footpath will provide the missing pedestrian link between Pigdon Street and Walpole Avenue, Indented Head and become a valuable community asset.

Due to the Walkability Study as the driving mechanism for this footpath link, the traditional survey to affected property owners has not taken place on this occasion. It is anticipated that detailed correspondence will be sent to all affected property owners should Council make its intention to declare a Special Charge Scheme.


Discussion

This project has been separated into two sub schemes as follows:

Sub Scheme 1

This part of the project involves the proposed construction of 200 metres total length of 1.5 metre wide footpath. It is expected to be a safety improvement for pedestrian traffic and fulfil part of the footpath priority obligations of the Northern Bellarine Walkability Study.

Another aspect of this project is the intersection modification of Pigdon Street and The Esplanade. This intersection is being re-aligned to ‘square up’ the intersection to slow traffic turning movements as a safety initiative. It is proposed that this work will be funded by Council as an intersection safety initiative. An exception to this is the proposed new vehicle crossing laybacks which will be funded by property owners as 100% beneficiaries.

Cost apportionment for Sub Scheme 1 has been divided into access and amenity benefits. It is considered that all abutting properties with direct frontages to the proposed new footpath, regardless of size and shape, receive the same access benefit. An exception to this rule is corner properties with dual frontages where a reduction of the access benefit has been applied.

In this case 50% of the total benefit has been apportioned to access. The access benefit includes the provision of an all weather sealed surface that reduces the risk of accidents caused by uneven and slippery surfaces. In simple terms, it is considered that a new footpath improves accessibility for all abutting properties.

The remaining 50% of benefit is attributed to amenity and this can best be described as the benefit the pathway provides to an abutting property by way of improved aesthetics, enjoyment, and comfort and property value. The amenity benefit is based on the actual footpath frontage to a property when existing driveways and footpath extents are taken into consideration. This is known as the apportionable frontage and is shown at Column 5 of Appendix 3.

It is evident that one of the affected properties within this scheme is occupied by the property owner on a full time basis. Due to the lack of permanency the vehicle driveways, although in place, have sunken slightly and been substantially overgrown by the local nature strip grass. Should the footpath be constructed, a level discrepancy between the new footpath and driveway will most likely result. For this reason, Council will reinstate the driveway levels with compacted crushed rock to match the new footpath levels at its cost.

The section of The Esplanade between Pigdon Street and Walpole Avenue is relatively flat and the footpath construction should not pose any difficulty for the selected contractor.

Sub Scheme 2

A 40 metre section of road way north of Pigdon Street is also proposed to be constructed. This work involves the widening of the road pavement, new kerb and channel and new vehicle crossovers. It is proposed that the road widening work will be funded by Council but the new kerbing cost will be shared and vehicle laybacks will be fully funded by benefiting property owners.

Cost apportionment for Sub Scheme 2 is based on frontage alone for kerb and channel works and a fixed charge for vehicle laybacks of $420 per layback. Whilst Council is sharing the cost of kerb and channel in accordance with the Benefit Ratio calculation, the cost for laybacks is 100% property owner funded due to the direct benefit the layback provides.


Environmental Implications

The provision of a sealed pathway surface provides a permanent and safe means of pedestrian access. During the course of construction and the manufacture and procurement of materials, energy is expended resulting in some greenhouse gas emissions. This ceases when construction is complete.

The project does not create waste with the exception of some excavated material. The proposal does not affect any natural habitats. The proposal will require some nature strip shrubs removal.


Financial Implications

The project is a one off capital cost and there will be minimal ongoing maintenance costs. If approved, the project could proceed early next financial year.

Financial details are as follows:

Sub Scheme 1 - footpath

Maximum scheme levy to property owners (income)

$21,484

Scheme levy to Council

$41,167

Direct funding by Council to reinstate gravel driveway, construct new kerb and channel for intersection modification at Pigdon Street and reinstatement of asphalt pavement.

$70,879

Total cost Sub Scheme 1

$133,530

Sub Scheme 2 – Kerb and channel and laybacks

Maximum scheme levy to property owners (income)

$4,018

Scheme levy to Council

$3,636

Direct cost to property owners for vehicle laybacks

$2,100

Total cost Sub Scheme 2

$9,754

Total Project Cost

$143,284

From the table above, the total net cost to Council for this project is estimated to be $115,682


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The two Sub Schemes have been prepared in accordance with the Special Rate and Charge provisions of the Local Government Act 1989 along with the 2004 ministerial guidelines and Council’s Special Rates and Charges Policy.


Alignment to City Plan

This report aligns with the City Plan as follows:

Sustainably Built and Natural Environment


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council Officer involved with this process has any direct or indirect interest in the properties.


Risk Assessment

Provision of a sealed pathway will provide safer walking and cycling conditions for pedestrians and cyclists by minimising the risk of personal injuries through conflict with vehicles and the elimination of uneven and slippery surfaces.

There are no identified risks for Council in making its intention to declare the scheme.


Social Considerations

The provision of properly sealed and drained pathways is aligned to Council’s City Plan as described above and provides improved connectivity and safety for pedestrians and cyclists. It is further considered that the footpaths will enhance the general amenity of the area.

The provision of the modified intersection layout and road widening works will provide safety improvements for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic and provide overall amenity improvements for the area.


Human Rights Charter

In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any adverse human rights issues.

It is further considered that the construction of the footpaths upholds the right to freedom of movement (Section 12 of the Human rights Charter) by enhancing a person’s ability to move freely within the area they choose to live.

Consultation and Communication

Community consultation for the proposed footpath construction was carried out during the 2009/ 2010 Northern Bellarine Walkability Study. Consultation with the Locomote Walking Group was included during this study and is ongoing.

Letters postponing the current scheme were sent to all affected property owners on 26 May 2014. Further correspondence to the affected property owners and the Locomote Walking Group including a revised public notice will be sent should Council make its intention to declare a Special Charge Scheme.


Appendix 1 - SCHEDULE ‘A’

The works for the construction of footpaths in The Esplanade, Indented Head which consist of excavation, footpath, kerb and channel, road widening, reinstatement of nature strip and driveways, miscellaneous construction works, legal advice and professional services associated with survey, engineering design, drafting, supervision and administration of the project all as included in the cost estimate shown below.

COST ESTIMATE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FOOTPATH – THE ESPLANADE, INDENTED HEAD

SUB SCHEME 1 COST ESTIMATE - FOOTPATH CONSTRUCTION

ITEM

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

RATE
$

AMOUNT
$

1.00

GENERAL

 

 

 

 

1.01

Initial site establishment and set up, decamping and site cleanup and other fixed costs up to time of completion of works.

1.0

ITEM

$6,317.00

$6,317.00

1.02

Traffic management costs.

1.0

ITEM

$3,000.00

$3,000.00

1.03

Setting out of works.

1.0

ITEM

$540.00

$540.00

1.04

Service / Cable locations

1.0

ITEM

$700.00

$700.00

1.05

Internal supervision fee (COGG construction)

1.0

ITEM

$3,340.00

$3,340.00

2.00

EARTHWORKS & DEMOLITION

 

 

 

 

2.01

Excavation and disposal of all materials to limits of work as indicated on plan, including trimming for new road pavement, excavation of soft spots and removal of concrete.

57.9

m3

$60.00

$3,476.13

2.02

Trimming / Removal and disposal of shrubs as indicated on plan.

1.0

ITEM

$1,000.00

$1,000.00

3.00

DRAINAGE

 

 

 

 

3.01

Adjust existing Junction Pit lid to match finished surface level.

1

No.

$770.00

$770.00

4.00

CONCRETE WORKS:

 

 

 

 

 

KERBING

 

 

 

 

4.01

Concrete pram crossing 1.5m wide, including fine crushed rock bedding.

4.0

No.

$250.00

$1,000.00

 

PAVING

 

 

 

 

4.02

75mm concrete paving with SL62 mesh including crushed rock bedding and reinstate nature strip.

193.3

m2

$105.00

$20,295.45

4.03

125mm concrete paving with SL62 mesh including crushed rock bedding and reinstate nature strip.

78.6

m2

$110.00

$8,649.30

4.04

Tactile Ground Surface Indicator Tiles, supplied and placed.

3.0

m2

$250.00

$750.00

5.00

LANDSCAPING

 

 

 

 

5.01

Top soiling and seeding nature strips.

265.2

m2

$8.00

$2,121.60

6.00

SIGNING AND LINE-MARKING

 

 

 

 

6.01

Relocate existing permanent sign and post as per plan.

1.0

No

$250.00

$250.00

SUB-TOTAL

$52,209.48
10% CONTINGENCY
Design
Project administration

$5,220.95
$3,132.57
$2,088.38

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

$62,651.38

SUB SCHEME 2 COST ESTIMATE - KERB AND CHANNEL AND VEHICLE LAYBACKS

ITEM

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

RATE
$

AMOUNT
$

1.00

GENERAL

 

 

 

 

1.01

Initial site establishment and set up, decamping and site cleanup and other fixed costs up to time of completion of works.

1.0

ITEM

$941.00

$941.00

1.02

Traffic management costs.

1.0

ITEM

$500.00

$500.00

1.03

Setting out of works.

1.0

ITEM

$70.00

$70.00

2.00

EARTHWORKS & DEMOLITION

 

 

 

 

2.01

Excavation and disposal of all materials to limits of work as indicated on plan, including trimming for new road pavement, excavation of soft spots and removal of concrete.

5.4

m3

$60.00

$321.30

2.02

Saw-cutting of concrete and/or Asphalt paving.

22.4

m

$10.00

$223.50

2.03

Saw-cut of concrete kerb and channel

1.0

ITEM

$10.00

$10.00

2.04

Removal and disposal of 125mm thick concrete as per plan.

4.2

m2

$60.00

$251.40

3.00

CONCRETE WORKS: `

 

 

 

 

 

KERBING

 

 

 

 

3.01

B2 Barrier kerb and channel 450mm wide, including fine crushed rock bedding.

24.3

m

$136.00

$3,302.08

3.02

Concrete layback for vehicle crossing 3.0m - 3.75m wide, including bedding & formwork.

5

No.

$350.00

$1,750.00

 

PAVING

 

 

 

 

3.04

125mm concrete paving with SL62 mesh including crushed rock bedding and reinstate nature strip.

6.9

m2

$110.00

$759.00

SUB-TOTAL $8128.28

 

10% CONTINGENCY
Design
Project administration

$812.83
$487.70
$325.13

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

$9,753.94

COUNCIL FUNDED INTERSECTION WORKS

ITEM

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY

UNIT

RATE
$

AMOUNT
$

1.00

GENERAL

 

 

 

 

1.01

Initial site establishment and set up, decamping and site cleanup and other fixed costs up to time of completion of works.

1.0

ITEM

$6,182.00

$6,182.00

1.02

Traffic management costs.

1.0

ITEM

$500.00

$500.00

1.03

Setting out of works.

1.0

ITEM

$390.00

$390.00

1.04

Service / Cable locations

1.0

ITEM

$300.00

$300.00

1.05

Internal supervision fee (COGG construction)

1.0

ITEM

$3,000.00

$3,000.00

2.00

EARTHWORKS & DEMOLITION

 

 

 

 

2.01

Excavation and disposal of all materials to limits of work as indicated on plan, including trimming for new road pavement, excavation of soft spots and removal of concrete.

105.8

m3

$60.00

$6,349.53

2.02

Saw-cutting of concrete and/or Asphalt paving.

278.1

m

$10.00

$2,781.30

2.03

Saw-cut of concrete kerb and channel

34.0

ITEM

$10.00

$340.00

3.00

PAVEMENT WORKS

 

 

 

 

3.01

150mm compacted depth Class 1 20mm crushed rock, supplied, spread and compacted.

39.4

m3

$120.00

$4,725.72

3.02

200mm compacted depth Class 3 40mm crushed rock, supplied, spread and compacted.

52.5

m3

$100.00

$5,250.80

3.03

100mm compacted depth Class 1 20mm crushed rock, supplied, spread and compacted.

11.8

m3

$120.00

$1,420.32

3.04

30mm compacted depth 10mm nominal size type N Asphalt spread and compacted including emulsion prime & grit using a paver.

262.5

m2

$35.00

$9,188.90

4.00

DRAINAGE

 

 

 

 

 

PIPE

 

 

 

 

4.01

Connect existing household storm water to kerb and channel. Including excavation, supply and placement of kerb adapters.

6.0

No.

$250.00

$1,500.00

4.02

100mm dia Sub-Soil drains including excavation, supply, placement and provision of approved backfill.

100.0

m

$48.00

$4,800.00

 

PITS

 

 

 

 

4.03

900mm x 600mm SEP, less than 1.5m deep with Gatic type cover, supplied and placed including excavation, placement of approved fine crushed rock bedding and back-filling with approved material.

1.0

No.

$1,400.00

$1,400.00

4.04

Modify ex 900mm x 600mm SEP to 900mm x 1200mm SEP, less than 1.5m deep with Gatic type cover, supplied and placed including excavation, placement of approved fine crushed rock bedding and back-filling with approved material.

1.0

No.

$1,400.00

$1,400.00

4.05

Tap into existing drainage pit or pipe.

1.0

No.

$385.00

$385.00

5.00

CONCRETE WORKS: `

 

 

 

 

 

KERBING

 

 

 

 

5.01

B2 Barrier kerb and channel 450mm wide, including fine crushed rock bedding.

52.2

m

$136.00

$7,101.92

5.02

Concrete layback for vehicle crossing 3.0m - 3.75m wide, including bedding & formwork.

1

No.

$350.00

$350.00

6.00

DEMOLITION

 

 

 

 

6.01

Remove and dispose existing SEP and abandon ex 300mm dia RCP backfill with approved materials as per plan.

1

No.

$1,200.00

$1,200.00

7.00

SIGNING AND LINE-MARKING

 

 

 

 

7.01

Line-marking

1.0

ITEM

$500.00

$500.00
SUB-TOTAL :

$59,065.49

10% CONTINGENCY : D
Design
Project administration

$5,906.55
$3,543.93
$2,362.62
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

$70,878.59


Appendix 2 - Benefit Ratio (Sub Scheme 1) – Schedule ‘B’

A

Purpose

 

To construct a footpath in The Esplanade, Indented Head to provide all weather pedestrian access for property owners and the wider community. The project also includes intersection modification works to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety.

 

B

Coherence

 

 

The works will provide a physical pathway connection between Pigdon Street and Walpole Avenue and will provide a special benefit to adjoining and remote properties.

 

C

Total Cost C

 

 

Total Estimated cost of works
Direct funding by Council to reinstate gravel driveways, new kerb and channel for intersection modification at Pigdon Street and asphalt pavement reinstatement

$133,529.96
$70,878.59

TOTAL SCHEME COST of Footpath Construction

$62,651.37

D

Identify Special Beneficiaries

 

 

10 properties with frontages to the proposed footpath are considered to receive access and amenity benefits.

 

E

Properties to include

 

 

The 10 abutting properties receive both access and amenity benefits. Therefore:

Total Special Benefits (in) is apportioned to 10 properties

There are no Council owned properties in the scheme. Therefore:

Total Special Benefits out of the scheme TSB (out) = 0

 

F

Estimate of Total Special Benefits

 

 

For this scheme it is considered that the greater proportion of benefit is for pedestrian access given the purpose of the scheme. Therefore it is estimated that 80% of the benefits relate to access and 20% to amenity. Estimated pedestrian use of the paths is 80% for the wider community and 20% for abutting property owners. Amenity benefits are based on frontage with 87% of the footpaths fronting benefiting properties and 13% within Council's road reserves. TSB (in) is therefore calculated as follows:

TSB (in) = 80% X 20%(access) + 20% X 87% (amenity) = 33.4%

 

G

Estimate of Total Community Benefit -TCB

 

 

It is considered that people in the community will receive a benefit from the works as the pathway is used to access other areas considering the walkability study for the area. There are no amenity benefits considered for the wider community. TCB is calculated as follows:

TCB = 80% X 80% = 64%

 

H

Calculate "Benefit Ratio" - R

 

 

Benefits Ratio =  TSB (in) / (TSB (in) + TSB (out) + TCB) = 33.4 / (33.4 + 0 + 64) = 0.343

 

I

Maximum Total Levy (S)

 

 

Maximum Total Levy S = R X C
Council Contribution to Special Charge Scheme

$21,484.15
$41,167.22


Appendix 2 - Benefit Ratio (Sub Scheme 2) – Schedule ‘B’

A

Purpose
 

To construct kerb and channel including vehicle laybacks in The Esplanade, Indented Head to provide a wider pavement and improved vehicular access for property owners.

 

B

Coherence

 
 

The works will provide the missing link in road pavement construction between No 270 The Esplanade and the Pigdon Street intersection. Two properties at No 273 and 274 The Esplanade will also receive new vehicle laybacks.

 

C

Total Cost C

 
 

Total Estimated cost of kerb and channel works including vehicle laybacks
Direct funding by property owners for vehicle laybacks

$9,753.94
$2,100.00

Total cost for kerb and channel work

$7,653.94

D

Identify Special Beneficiaries

 
 

5 properties with frontages to The Esplanade are considered to receive access and amenity benefits. The community will also receive benefit by way of a wider road pavement, improved road drainage and safety.

 

E

Properties to include

 
 

The 5 abutting properties receive both access and amenity benefits. Therefore:

Total Special Benefits (in) is apportioned to 5 properties

There are no Council owned properties in the scheme. Therefore:

Total Special Benefits out of the scheme TSB (out) = 0

 

F

Estimate of Total Special Benefits

 
 

For this scheme component it is considered that the benefit is for vehicular access and property amenity. It is estimated that 50% of the benefit relates to access and 50% to amenity. Estimated use of the wider road pavement is 95% for the wider community and 5% for abutting property owners. Amenity benefits are based on frontage with 100% of the new kerb and channel and laybacks fronting benefiting properties. TSB (in) is therefore calculated as follows:

TSB (in) = 50% X 5%(access) + 50% X 100% (amenity) = 52.5%

 

G

Estimate of Total Community Benefit -TCB

 
 

It is considered that people in the community will receive a benefit from the works as the new road pavement is used to access other areas and provides improved safety. There are no amenity benefits considered for the wider community. TCB is calculated as follows:

TCB = 95% X 50% = 47.5%

 

H

Calculate "Benefit Ratio" - R

 
 

Benefits Ratio = TSB (in) / (TSB (in) + TSB (out) + TCB) = 52.5 / (52.5 + 0 + 47.5) = 0.525

 

I

Maximum Total Levy (S)

 
 

Maximum Total Levy S = R X C
Council Contribution to Special Charge Scheme

$4,018.32
$3,635.62

Appendix 3
SCHEDULE ‘C’
SPECIAL CHARGE SCHEME FOR FOOTPATH CONSTRUCTION
THE ESPLANADE, INDENTED HEAD

COLUMN 1

COLUMN 2

COLUMN 3

COLUMN 4

COLUMN 5

COLUMN 6

COLUMN 7

COLUMN 8

Prop Key

Address

Legal Details

Apportionable frontage

Footpath Cost

Kerb costs

Layback costs

Total Cost

311634

270 The Esplanade, Indented Head

Lot 1 PS435184

10

$1,947.98

$1,736.09

$420.00

$4,104.07

311635

271 The Esplanade, Indented Head

Lot 2 PS435184

8.74

$1,861.77

$1,605.34

$420.00

$3,887.11

311636

272 The Esplanade, Indented Head

Lot 3 PS435184

7.66

$1,155.99

$676.89

$420.00

$2,252.88

250791

273 The Esplanade, Indented Head

Lot 9 TP827456

12.96

$1,518.62

 

$420.00

$1,938.62

250792

274 The Esplanade, Indented Head

Lot 1 TP1408

16.76

$2,410.51

 

$420.00

$2,830.51

250793

275 The Esplanade, Indented Head

Lot 10 TP827456

16.76

$2,410.51

 

 

$2,410.51

250794

276 The Esplanade, Indented Head

Lot 1 TP118689

16.76

$2,410.51

 

 

$2,410.51

250795

277 The Esplanade, Indented Head

Lot 11 TP827456

16.76

$2,410.51

 

 

$2,410.51

250796

278 The Esplanade, Indented Head

Lot 12 TP827456

24.4

$2,933.24

 

 

$2,933.24

250797

279 The Esplanade, Indented Head

Lot 1 TP14712

26.2

$2,424.51

 

 

$2,424.51

Appendix 4 - Plan

Plan showing properties included in the proposed footpath scheme, location of proposed footpath, properties proposed to receive new layback and location of proposed kerb and channel

Attachment 1

PROCESS CHART
SPECIAL CHARGE PROJECTS – (Section 163 – Local Government Act 1989)
THE ESPLANADE, INDENTED HEAD

Stage

Status

Description

Approval to prepare scheme

✓

Decision made to prepare scheme following consideration of surveys of residents and feed back from the community via the Northern Bellarine Walkability Study. Council may then place the project in the budget system or proceed immediately to prepare a scheme. Scheme preparation involves survey, design and preparation of an apportionment of costs.

Intention to Declare Scheme

 ✓

Report to Council providing information on scheme including advice of impending advertising of scheme and declaration of charge. Seeks Council approval by resolution to proceed with process.

Advertisement

 

 The scheme is advertised in the local newspaper and all allotted property owners are notified by mail. This advertisement indicates Council’s intention and notification to ‘declare’ a scheme in a month’s time.

Submissions

 

From the time of advertising property owners have 28 days (as set down by the Local Government Act) to lodge submissions, either in support or opposition to the scheme.

Submissions Review Panel Hearing

 

A Submissions Review Panel is convened (quorum of three Councillors) and meets to consider submissions. Some submissions are written only, and other submitters may wish to be heard before the Panel. The Panel makes a recommendation to Council regarding the scheme.

Declaration Report

 

Any time 28 days after advertising the scheme and after the Submissions Review Panel has met and considered submissions, Council considers a report and may proceed to “declare” the charges in accordance with its advertised intent.

Subsequent to this the Finance Manager issues the levy notices and there is a formal charge placed on the property.

This is the final step in the process for Council to make a decision on the scheme.

Appeal

 

Property owners may lodge an application for review with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) within one month of issue of the levy notice. An appeal is listed, heard and determined by the Tribunal and this process generally takes three to four months. Decisions made by VCAT are binding on all parties.

Construction

 

Council may then proceed to construct the works. Invoices are issued seeking payment of the estimated cost within one month of commencement.

Final Cost

 

Report At the completion of the works the scheme is “finalised” taking into account actual costs incurred and payments are adjusted accordingly.

[Back to List]

15. BIO SCIENCE USA TRIP REPORT – NOVEMBER 2013

Portfolio:

Enterprise Geelong – Cr Harwood

Source:

Enterprise Geelong

General Manager:

Dr Russell Walker

Index Reference:

Subject: Biotech Industry


Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a summary of Cr Bruce Harwood’s trip to the USA in November 2013 as part of a Bio Science delegation. The delegation travelled to Manhattan, Kansas and Athens Clarke County, Atlanta.


Summary

Cr Harwood moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -

That Council notes Cr Harwood’s Bio Science USA Trip Report (Appendix 1).

Carried.


Background

Previous delegations to North Carolina and attendance at the World Bio Science conference in Atlanta, Georgia USA provided extensive information in relation to the importance of bio science developments within the world and the opportunities for the Geelong region.

The visit to Atlanta greatly assisted in strengthening Bio Geelong and Council’s commitment to bio science as a future industry. This is reflected in Council’s partnership with AAHL, CSIRO, Deakin University and the realisation of the Geelong Centre for Emerging Infectious Disease at Barwon Health.

The invitation to return to Atlanta Georgia in November 2013 again strengthens Council’s commitment to the bio science industry and willingness to partner with other regions offering genuine commercial development opportunity.

The Mayor of Athens Clarke County, Georgia, Nancy Denson had also put forward a proposal to consider a sister city relationship with the City of Greater Geelong. This resulted in Council raising the issue of a stronger commitment with a Memorandum of Understanding built around the premises of start up business being actively encouraged between the two cities. This was discussed between the two cities and agreed that this presented the best way to be outcome focused


Discussion

The intent of the delegation was to travel together to strengthen and support the growth of the bio-technology industry in Geelong by utilising varying contacts and opportunities presented in the USA.

The purpose of the meetings was to build relationships and knowledge in the bio science industry sector. This presented a great opportunity for Council, as Atlanta is a world renowned region for bio science and advanced manufacturing with a number of start up companies being created. This intent was clearly achieved with critical personnel met and extensive knowledge exchanged. The visit to Atlanta is extensively covered in the ‘CSIRO Biosecurity Flagship – GCEID – UGA Biodevelopment Report’ (Attachment 1).

Since the establishment of BioGeelong, Council has developed a successful formula to promote and attract significant biotechnology industry investment. This is evidenced with the establishment of the Geelong Centre for Emerging Infectious Disease (GCEID). The GCEID proved to be a valuable asset when discussing bio tech opportunity and the potential for start up industry to come to Geelong. The initial GCEID application for Federal Government funding was completed by the Economic Development Unit of the City Of Greater Geelong. There was significant input from other stakeholders but the city completed the document that was ultimately successful in gaining more than a $3M commitment from the Federal Government.

This is the much need catalyst towards the future development of the One Health Concept that will be the driving force of research into the connection between the health of animals in the wild crossing over the domestic animals and ultimately to humans. The study of Zoonotics is universally recognised as one of the most important areas of health research that we can engage in. But the infrastructure and facilities required are at the highest level of security given the toxicity of the diseases that vaccines are being sought to control.

Already Geelong is experiencing interest from industry and investors from Atlanta, Georgia. The intent being to generate high interest in the bio science industry from all sectors with a view to Geelong presenting high yield potential opportunity. The ultimate goals that the Geelong region becomes world leaders in areas of bio science such as counter measures and vaccines that lead to full commercialisation. This will lead to greater industry and employment opportunity with high yielding jobs and substantial opportunity for growth in these markets. Geelong is well placed to pursue these opportunities.

Geelong is extremely well placed to be a world leader in the field of zoonotics. The growth of the GCEID and our medical precincts will ensure great opportunities. The City of Greater Geelong through Bio Geelong will continue to ensure that all stakeholders are engaged and communicating to take advantage of every opportunity that ultimately leads to commercialisation of medical products.


Environmental Implications

There are no identified environmental implications relevant to this report.


Financial Implications

The cost of attending the delegation in November 2013 was approximately : $5,300.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

Councillor attendance is governed by the Councillor Expenses and Facilities policy.


Alignment to City Plan

This report aligns with City Plan’s ‘Growing the Economy’.


Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

There is no direct or indirect interest held by Council officers in the preparation of this report.


Risk Assessment

There are no identified risks associated with this report


Social Considerations

The delegation was aimed at further promoting and enhancing Geelong’s Bio Technology industry which will lead to enhanced social and economic outcomes for Geelong with the potential for new job creation and sustainable economic growth.


Human Rights Charter

Bio technology is intended to improve the quality of human life.


Consultation and Communication

As stated in Council report dated 22 October 2013, outcomes of the USA delegation will be the subject of a report to Council.


Appendix 1 - Page 1

BioGeelong logo

CITY OF GREATER GEELONG

REPORT RE: DELEGATION TO MANHATTAN, KANSAS & ATHENS CLARKE COUNTY, ATLANTA
NOVEMBER 2013

The intent of the delegation was to travel together to strengthen and support the growth of the bio-technology industry in Geelong by utilising varying contacts and opportunities presented in the USA.

The purpose of the meetings was to build relationships and knowledge in the bio science industry sector. This presented a great opportunity for Council, as Atlanta is a world renowned region for bio science and advanced manufacturing with a number of start up companies being created. This intent was clearly achieved with critical personnel met and extensive knowledge exchanged.

Since the establishment of BioGeelong, Council has developed a successful formula to promote and attract significant biotechnology industry investment. This is evidenced with the establishment of the Geelong Centre for Emerging Infectious Disease (GCEID).

The GCEID proved to be a valuable asset when discussing bio tech opportunity and the potential for start up industry to come to Geelong. The initial GCEID application for Federal Government funding was completed by the Economic Development Unit of the City Of Greater Geelong. There was significant input from other stakeholders but the city completed the document that was ultimately successful in gaining more than a $3M commitment from the Federal Government.

This is the much need catalyst towards the future development of the One Health Concept that will be the driving force of research into the connection between the health of animals in the wild crossing over the domestic animals and ultimately to humans. The study of Zoonotics is universally recognised as one of the most important areas of health research that we can engage in. But the infrastructure and facilities required are at the highest level of security given the toxicity of the diseases that vaccines are being sought to control.

Outcomes

Previous delegations to North Carolina and attendance at the World Bio Science conference in Atlanta Georgia USA, provided extensive information in relation to the importance of bio science developments within the world and the opportunities for the Geelong region.

The first component of the visit to the USA was to Manhattan, Kansas. This is the site of new National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility. A very similar high secure facility to the Australian Animal Health Laboratory where the extensive research of Zoonotics in undertaken.


NBAF Project update

Extensive meetings between the Geelong delegation and the following members of the University of Kansas State were as follows -

  • Met with Ralph Richardson, Dean, College of Veterinary Medicine; Walter Renberg, Professor and Director of CVM International Programs; and Frank Blecha, CVM Associate Dean for Research – 101 Trotter Hall

  • Met with Carol Shanklin (remotely), Dean, Graduate School; Maria Beebe, Associate Director, International Student and Scholar Services; T.G. Nagaraja, Professor, Microbiologist, and Chair, Pathobiology Graduate Group; and Randall Tosh, University Liaison for Australia Initiatives, KSU – 112 Trotter Hall

  • Met with Marcelo Sabates, Associate Provost for International Programs, Kristine Young, Assistant Provost for International Programs - Academic, and Marcellus Caldas, Director of International Research and Faculty Collaboration – Office of International Programs – 304 Fairchild Hall

  • Meetings with University President Kirk Shultz, Dean Ralph Richardson, Ron Trewyn, Vice President for Research; and Frank Blecha – Konza Room, K-State Student Union

  • Met with Ron Trewyn; Scott Rusk, Building Director, Biosecurity Research Institute (BRI); Bob Rowland, Virologist and Professor Department of Diagnostic Medicine/ Pathobiology; Jishu Shi, Immunologist and Professor Department of Anatomy and Physiology; and John Edwards, Education Officer, BRI – Pat Roberts Hall

  • Attend the CVM All College Seminar – Overview of the U.S. China Center for Animal Health – Jishu Shi – Mara Conference Center, Trotter Hall

  • Met with Manhattan Council members.- Mayor Wynn Butler , Mayor Pro Tem Karen Mc Culloch and City Manager Ron Fehr.

  • Meeting with Drs. Ralph Richardson, Frank Blecha and Bob Rowland.
Delegation

The second component of the visit was to the University of Atlanta Georgia.

This visit is extensively covered in the ‘CSIRO Biosecurity Flagship -GCEID-UGA Biodevelopment report’ (Attachment 1). This report was compiled by Dr Andrew Bean, Dr John Lowenthal in collaboration with Cr Bruce Harwood.

The visits to Manhattan, Kansas and Atlanta, Georgia greatly assisted in strengthening Bio Geelong and Council’s commitment to bio science as a future industry.

This is reflected in Council’s partnership with AAHL, CSIRO, Deakin University and the realisation of the Geelong Centre for Emerging Infectious Disease at Barwon Health.

The invitation to return to Atlanta Georgia in November 2013 again strengthens Council’s commitment to the bio science industry and willingness to partner with other regions offering genuine commercial development opportunity.

Potential benefits and opportunities sought:

Already Geelong is experiencing have high interest from industry and investors from Atlanta, Georgia. The intent being to generate high interest in the bio science industry from all sectors with a view to Geelong presenting high yield potential opportunity. The ultimate goals that the Geelong region becomes world leaders in areas of bio science such as counter measures and vaccines that lead to full commercialisation. This will lead to greater industry and employment opportunity with high yielding jobs and substantial opportunity for growth in these markets. Geelong is well placed to pursue these opportunities.

Ralph A. Tripp, Ph.D. Professor and GRA Chair in Vaccine and Therapeutic Development Dept. Infectious Diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine, comments:

"We at the University of Georgia (UGA) have a Venture Labs program where new companies are formed from UGA-based research... Other Georgia universities have similar programs and entities. Much of this is driven by the Georgia Research Alliance (GRA).

“In my discussions with folks I know who are CEO/CSOs and several have expressed interest to know more about the padsite and availability in Geelong.”

There is also extensive activity within Deakin University continuing to explore the potential of a bio science curriculum that has students from Manhattan (Kansas) , Athens Clarke County (Atlanta) and Geelong (Victoria, Australia.) completing a degree that encompasses study components at all three universities. This would potentially produce students with a vast experience of the world's best practice in the study of zoonotics in the world's best facilities.

Geelong is extremely well placed to be a world leader in the field of zoonotics. The growth of the GCEID and our medical precincts will ensure great opportunities. The City of Greater Geelong through Bio Geelong will continue to ensure that all stakeholders are engaged and communicating to take advantage of every opportunity that ultimately leads to commercialisation of medical products.

The Mayor of Athens Clarke County, Georgia, Nancy Denson had also put forward a proposal to consider a sister city relationship with the City of Greater Geelong.

This resulted in Council raising the issue of a stronger commitment with a Memorandum of Understanding built around the premises of start up business being actively encouraged between the two cities. This was discussed between the two cities and agreed that this presented the best way to be outcome focused.

Dr Russell Walker - Executive Director Enterprise Geelong, The Mayor - Cr Darryn Lyons, Deputy Mayor and Chair of Bio Geelong - Cr Bruce Harwood and Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County, Georgia: District 8 Commissioner - Andy Herod, (Mayor Pro Tempore 2011 and 2012) at the signing of the MOU in Geelong in February 2014.

[Back to List]

16. Consideration of Tender Submissions for supply & delivery of bulk fuels

Portfolio:

Infrastructure, Parks & Gardens – Cr. Ellis

Source:

City Services – Parks and Support Services

General Manager:

Gary Van Driel

Index Reference:

Procurement Australia Bulk Fuel Tender – 1601/0106

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval to enter into a contract for the supply and delivery of bulk fuel to various Council operations centres.


Summary

Cr Ellis moved, Cr Harwood seconded -

That Council:

  1. accept the tender submission from Scotts Agencies Pty Ltd, trading as Scott Petroleum, as a result of the tender process undertaken by Procurement Australia, acting as Tendering Agent on behalf of Council, for the Supply & Delivery of Bulk Fuels for the period ending on the 31st of October, 2016 which includes options for two contract extensions, each of twelve months duration; and

  2. delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to sign the agreement with Procurement Australia which allows Council to access the contract with the aforementioned supplier.


Carried.


Background

Public tenders were advertised in the Melbourne Herald Sun, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Adelaide Advertiser and the Hobart Mercury for the Supply and Delivery of Bulk Fuels for the period ending on the 31st of October, 2016. The tender also included a provision for two contract extensions, each of twelve months duration, after the initial contract term expires in October 2016.

At the close of submissions, the following tenders were received for the supply and delivery of bulk fuels to the City of Greater Geelong:

Tenderer

BP Regional / Reliance Petroleum
Caltex Australia Petroleum
Eagle Fuels
Maxi Tankers

I.A. McLennan Electrical
National Biodiesel

Scotts Agencies Pty Ltd trading as Scott Petroleum
United Petroleum

Council engaged Procurement Australia to act as its Tendering Agent for the Supply and Delivery of Bulk Fuels tender. Procurement Australia undertook the initial assessment of tenders.

The following Council officers were involved in the evaluation of tender submissions associated with this supply service:

Bruce Harper

Co-ordinator Fleet

Craig Plummer

Inventory & Purchasing Supervisor

Tony Kerr

Coordinator Procurement Services


Discussion

Tender submissions were assessed based on the respondent’s performance or tender response in the following areas:

Criteria

Weighting

Financial Assessment

50%

Compliance with specification

20%

Customer Focus

12.5%

Contractor Performance

10%

Corporate Social Responsibility Profile

7.5%
 

100%

At the conclusion of the evaluation the tenderers were ranked in the following order in accordance with the above criteria:

Tenderer

Rank

Scotts Agencies Pty Ltd trading as Scott Petroleum

1

Eagle Fuels

2

Maxi Tankers

3

BP Regional / Reliance Petroleum

4

United Petroleum

5

Caltex Australia Petroleum

6

National Biodiesel

7

I.A. McLennan Electrical

8

At the conclusion of Procurement Australia’s evaluation of the tenders, the tenders were reviewed by Council to ensure that they met the requirements of Council.

At the conclusion of the evaluation process, the evaluation panel determined that Scotts Agencies Pty Ltd, trading as Scott Petroleum, was the highest ranked and lowest priced tender, which represented best value to Council.

Scotts Agencies Pty Ltd, trading as Scott Petroleum, demonstrated compliance in terms of safety of delivery, capacity and ability to deliver optimum quantities to each of Council’s operations centres.

An inspection of all of Council’s operations centres, which have bulk fuel storage facilities, was undertaken with a representative from Scott Petroleum to ensure that Scott Petroleum could safely and effectively undertake deliveries of bulk fuels to each of the operations centres.

The base cost price of fuel is governed by global oil pricing and is not directly controllable by Council. It is recommended that Council should accept the tender from Scotts Agencies Pty Ltd, trading as Scott Petroleum, in order to take advantage of the most effective and competitive tender for the supply and delivery of bulk fuels.


Environmental Implications

Any environmental implications associated with this contract will arise from the execution of these works. It is considered that these are the responsibility of the Contractor and will be managed through the contract documentation.


Financial Implications

This is a schedule of rates tender whereby services will be drawn from recurrent budgets throughout the term of the contract.

The estimated budget for the supply & delivery of bulk fuels is approximately $1,400,000 per annum over the term of the contract.


Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The requirements of Section 186 of the Local Government Act have been complied with for this tender. There are no other policy, legal or statutory implications associated with this tender process.


Alignment to City Plan

The proposed contract aligns with the “Responsible and sustainable financial management” priority within the “How We Do Business” strategic direction in Council’s 2013 – 2017 City Plan.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officers involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.


Risk Assessment

There are not considered to be any risks associated with the acceptance of this tender that cannot be managed through the contract conditions.


Social Considerations

There are no social implications that will arise from the acceptance of this tender.


Human Rights Charter

There are no anticipated impacts on human rights which will result from the adoption of the recommendations contained in this report.


Consultation and Communication

There are no communication issues that will arise from the acceptance of this tender.


[Back to List]

17. New Major Event opportunity for Geelong

Portfolio:

Tourism & Major Events - Cr Nelson

Source:

Projects, Recreation & Central Geelong

Act/General Manager:

Paul Jane

Index Reference:

Geelong Major Events - General

Cr Farrell moved, Cr Irvine seconded -

That the report be debated in open Council.

Lost.

Cr Macdonald moved, Cr Harwood seconded -

That in accordance with Section 89 (2 )(d) of the Local Government Act 1989, this matter be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.

Carried.

[Back to List]

Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Notice of Motion



City of Greater Geelong