Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre - City Hall on 12 August 2014, commencing at 7:00pm.
Edith Vasle
Michale Garvey
Greg McHenry
Toni Sincock
Geoffrey Kenyon
Jan Pearce
Helen Tinning
Sam Tucker
Cr D Lyons (Mayor)
Crs:
T Ansett
L Ellis
J Farrell
K Fisher
B Harwood
M Heagney
J Irvine
E Kontelj
S Kontelj *(7:05pm)
R Nelson
A Richards
D Frost (Acting Chief Executive Officer)
J Brown (Acting General Manager Corporate Services)
P Bettess (General Manager Economic Development, Planning and Tourism)
G Van Driel (General Manager City Services)
J McMahon (General Manager Community Services)
S Cavanagh (Acting General Manager Projects, Recreation and Central Geelong)
D Chiller (Co-ordinator Communication & Marketing)
A Paterson (Mayoral Advisor)
The Mayor declared the meeting open at 7:00pm.
Council acknowledges Wadawurrung Traditional Owners of this land and all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People who are part of the Greater Geelong community today.
R Macdonald
Cr Richards moved, Cr Ellis seconded -
That Leave of Absence be granted to Cr Harwood from 30 July to 15 August, 2014, and Cr Fisher from 18 October to 4 November 2014.
Carried.
Cr Ansett moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 22 July 2014 be confirmed and signed.
Carried.
Cr Richards declared an Indirect Interest by Close Association in Agenda Item 14 – Heavy Vehicle Restriction Central Geelong – Review of Trial, in that he is close friends with two current residents and participate in external activity weekly with one of these two people. They have made their views known to me and I believe, as such, I have a Conflict.
Question Time is an opportunity for questions to be addressed to Council and while the minutes record the general content, they do not purport to be a transcript of what was said by individuals. Likewise Councillor or Officer verbal responses are in summary form only. Views expressed may not be the views of Council.
Council's practice is to provide a separate document on its website setting out questions and responses including any more detailed written responses which may be provided subsequent to the meeting.
Edith Vasle asked Council for a long term solution to the re-routing of Heavy Vehicles travelling along McKillop Street?
The Mayor responded the question would be addressed during debate of the item.
* Cr S Kontelj entered the meeting room at 7:05pm
Michael Garvey addressed Council as follows re Heavy Vehicle Restriction Central Geelong:
It is my understanding that Council’s long term solution to East/West traffic problems rests on heavy traffic bypass the City Centre to the south. Could Council advise what level of priority it has managed to negotiate with VicRoads for the funding of this project and does the project appear in the priorities the RACV announced today it is presenting to government and opposition as its country priorities?
Gary Van Driel responded that Council is having discussions with VicRoads in relation to the next part of the trial. There are estimates in the order of between $25-40million for works to identify plans to secure trucks to move south. Funding has not been secured but VicRoads is reviewing costings associated with such works.
Greg McHenry asked:
What will be happening to the disused Alcoa site and associated infrastructure? We, the public, have not been advised: Will it be restored to its former state? Will there be a clean up of the environment? Will the defunct power pylons between Point Henry and Anglesea be removed?
The Mayor responded the question would be taken on notice and advised Alcoa is presently working on helping those staff who have lost their jobs into securing alternative employment.
Gary Van Driel responded Alcoa are aware of their clean up obligations.
What is happening with the funds that have been collected from the ‘water dispensing’ machines that are all around Geelong? I think it is on behalf of Cotton On/Unite Geelong and was/is to be for programs for young people in the northern suburbs?
The Mayor responded he would have the question followed up with Cotton On who has the responsibility for this program and not Council.
Cr Ansett added this is not a Council issue but that of Cotton On.
Toni Sincock advised her concern that Stage 2 of the truck ban only seeks to restrict trucks on Ryrie and McKillop Streets, leaving Myers Street as the only east west street not planned as part of the ongoing trial. I am bewildered as to why this may be, particularly given the presence of Matthew Flinders High School, St John of God Hospital, Geelong Hospital and residential properties primarily to the east of Swanston Street. We have noticed trucks using Myers Street, and are concerned that any ban on trucks in Ryrie Street and McKillop Street will bring substantial numbers of trucks to Myers Street as it would remain the only option for east west truck traffic other than Fyans Street! Is it deliberate to leave Myers Street open to a significant increase in trucks? Would it not make more sense to extend the ban to Myers Street if the desire was to relocate truck traffic to Fyans Street and the Breakwater Bridge? Council could close Myers Street to trucks without VicRoads consent, why is this not proposed?
Gary Van Driel responded definitely – as part of negotiating Stage 2 we will certainly be ensuring Myers Street is identified and reflected in those discussions in relation to the format we’re looking for. In relation to the current trial we are also undertaking quite extensive traffic monitoring including Myers Street. What we are seeing is higher truck numbers probably because of St John of God – we will monitor this.
Geoffrey Kenyon advised he believed Boundary Road was wrongly advertised as Mt Duneed, not Armstrong Creek, in that section of the road. Between Surfcoast Highway and Ghazepoore Road I also believe that the creek to the west behind the caravan park as in my letter, also runs through Armstrong Creek not Mt Duneed as you have replied in your letter I received this morning. Also no correspondence has ever been sent to us on these matters. Listed as adjoining land owners. So where is it, or when will it arrive. These things are like advertising, north, south, east or west, they all have different postcodes. If you are doing something in the east, then advertise it in the west, is that how it works, or vice versa. The Shire should know which suburbs they are talking about. Maybe this is why they only had one submission at the time.
There is still no mention in your letter today about the unsold land which fell over with the developers in the area, or the over valued land rates issues, and do we get a reduction in our rates because of this?. No reply as yet on this matter.
The Mayor took the questions on notice and was prepared to set up a meeting with the Mayor and Peter Bettess, General Manager Planning and Tourism.
Jan Pearce addressed Council as follows in relation to the Geelong West Bowling Club:
At the Council Meeting of 22 July the site of the Geelong West Bowling Club was rezoned from General Residential Zone 1 to Residential Growth Zone 2, thus allowing more intensive larger scale building when the site is sold as proposed by the Club:
Why was the site rezoned?
Peter Bettess responded the land was rezoned and was actually contrary to what the officer’s recommended. Main reason was to give greater certainly as to what happened to the land.
Before any sale is finalised, would Council initiate a public discussion about the use of the land? This land was originally a public asset, and one option still possible would be to retain it for use as parkland through, for example, a State Government purchase?
Peter Bettess advised the land is privately owned by the Bowling Club and not a matter Council can dictate as to how or what they do with the land.
Helen Tinning asked the following in relation to the Geelong West Bowling Club – Removal of Covenant:
We feel very alienated from our Council and very concerned about the way in which the rezoning of the Bowling Club land has taken place.
We are also concerned about the lift of the covenant over this land. The original land for the Bowling Club land was purchased between 1911 and 1913 by donations from residents and the Geelong West Council. Presumably the covenant was placed over the land sold by the Council to the Club in 1986 because the sale for $48,000 was greater under value.
Will you reconsider your vote at the last Council meeting to label this section of land in a Heritage Overlay Area to allow 10.5 metre buildings despite assurances in a Councillor’s delivered letter, Councillors and Council officers at public meetings and despite the fact that the panel, Council officers and your own motion on March 25 stated that development in Heritage Overlay area should not exceed 9 metres in height?
Also, are you prepared to facilitate a proper community consultation with the residents directly involved to discuss what has happened and the future use of this land including ways in which we could all work together to save this green space for future community use?
Cr Heagney responded that the report relates to the removal of a covenant from the land which is privately owned by the Bowling Club. The covenant does not apply to the whole Bowling site.
The Mayor took the questions on notice.
Sam Tucker asked Council to not remove the covenant, and resolve not to take any further action on the site until Council has conducted a comprehensive public submissions process, engaging all interested parties on the future of this site including future usage of the site, and all potential means of supporting of potential options including support from State and Federal Governments?
If the covenant is removed this evening, that Council conduct a comprehensive public submissions process, engaging all in interested parties on the future of this site before any planning process is undertaken, and that the deadline for the Expression of Interest be extended until at least 26 September 2014, to allow this to happened and give time for the proper consideration of all options?
The Mayor responded the questions will be addressed during debate of the item.
Nil.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
Copyright CoGG 2012
Last Update: 19 August 2014