Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Portarlington Cricket and Football Club on 28 April 2015, commencing at 7:00pm.
Andrew Kelly
Mark Sproken
Dean Smith
Mick Robinson
Rhys Booth
Michael Williams
Michael Exton
Jodie Henner
Colin Wallace
Jennifer Bantow
Councillors:
D Lyons (Mayor)
T Ansett
L Ellis
J Farrell
K Fisher
B Harwood (*7:22pm)
M Heagney
J Irvine
E Kontelj
R Macdonald
R Nelson
A Richards
G Miles (Chief Executive Officer)
D Frost (General Manager Strategy and Performance)
P Bettess (General Manager Economic Development, Planning and Tourism)
W Tieppo (General Manager City Services)
L Quinn (Acting General Manager Community Services)
J McMahon (Acting General Manager Projects, Recreation and Central Geelong)
J Brown (Manager Administration and Governance)
R Bourke (Governance Co ordinator)
J Merlo (Senior Media Officer)
A Paterson (EO – Mayor)
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.
Councillor:
S Kontelj
Cr Irvine moved, Cr Ellis seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 14 April 2015 be confirmed and signed.
Carried.
Cr Nelson declared an Indirect Interest by a Conflicting Duty in Agenda Item 4 – Sale of Land to Roman Catholic Trust – Peninsula Drive, Drysdale in that during his election campaign he had a regular and close association with the school listed in the report.
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.
Andrew Kelly asked questions in relation to Amendment C276 as follows:
If there was not enough information upon which to refer this planning amendment to a panel hearing on 28 October 2014, what has changed in the last six months to make the Councillors so sure it is the right decision tonight?
Peter Bettess responded the decision before Council tonight is whether or not to refer the Amendment to an Independent Panel, not to have everything squared away, and that is what the Councillors will be considering.
As this site does not fall within the Armstrong Creek Western Precinct Structure Plan where there is an abundance of housing diversity with some 22,000 dwellings approved for Armstrong Creek at an average density of 15-18 dwellings per/ha plus the opening of new estates to the north and east of the Hams Road site – why simply default to more of the same?
Peter Bettess responded once again it should be submitted to the Panel.
Do Council planning staff believe the traffic numbers and flow as detailed in the Traffic Impact Assessment Report and what traffic calming measures do Councillors believe to be satisfactory to overcome the 100% plus increase in traffic along Grange Park Drive and Brentwood Way in order to avoid catastrophic injury to a local resident making their way to or from buses or public transport by foot, skateboard, bike or stroller given the current amenity (no footpaths)?
Cr Richards responded there are a number of measures to be taken in order to deal with traffic generation. A report on transport infrastructure in Waurn Ponds was presented to Council on 14 April, but deferred. That report will be re-presented in two weeks time.
Mark Sproken asked –
Why won’t Council abandon Planning Scheme Amendment C276 due to excessive traffic impacts and the adverse affect on area amenity, when Council have previously refused an application in the same estate based on inappropriate traffic levels and area amenity? Reference Permit number 1501/2007 Lot 20-22 Grange Park Drive.
Peter Bettess responded this rezoning was outside of the estate. The Management Plan required is part of the planning overlay which specifically addresses the minimizing of traffic.
Are Councillors aware that in the strategic justification section of their report pertaining to Planning Scheme Amendment C276 Council officers have noted the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan states that the section of land, quote ”be considered for future residential and/or recreational zoning”. What constitutes recreational zoning and surely if officers don’t consider this area to be a loss of significant farming land why has it not been considered for recreational zoning or
Peter Bettess responded the reason being the alignment of the Ringroad wasn’t determined. The designated open space is on the other side of the railway line.
Jim Haigh asked if Council would consider rejecting the proposal to rezone this land based on this one simple premise or could Council move for an amendment for real, tangible traffic solutions prior to if the recommendation is to go to a panel hearing?
Peter Bettess responded the concerns about traffic flowing south will be tested by the Panel who have the ability to scrutinize the evidence.
Cr Richards added the Waurn Ponds Traffic Study will be presented to Council in the next two weeks.
* Cr Harwood entered the meeting room at 7:22pm
Dean Smith addressed Council as follows:
A petition with over 250 signatures was tabled to Council about the C276 Rezoning. These people asking for this rezoning to be abandoned. Do Council consider this petition and the number of residents in opposition to this rezoning and development into account when making their decision or do you continue without considering it and what if any bearing does it have on your decision?
Cr Richards responded that when a Councillor is elected you have to take into account your own personal views and beliefs and also take into account the views of the people who elected you.
Petitions are important as is the number of residents that are present here tonight.
The Mayor added petitions are extremely important.
The proponent has put forward block sizes that do not meet the current character of the adjoining neighbourhood. As I believe the upholding of neighbourhood character forms a strong part of the planning decision making process when considering such redevelopment, I would like to ask if all the Councillors have a strong knowledge of the current neighbourhood character and block sizes within the Grange Park Estate which adjoins the subject site and so feel qualified to make a decision regarding the current amendment and rezoning application?
Cr Richards indicated he was sure that Councillors are aware of the facts, and if they weren’t before, they are now. This matter will be the subject of debate later this evening.
As previously brought to Council’s attention there is a possibility of contaminated soil in the subject site due to an existing spray race and possible PCB contaminated soil from the adjoining Powercor switchyard, however to date there has been no soil testing done to determine whether or not this will impact on the land ability to be further developed. Do Council agree that prior to allowing for development and rezoning of the land that the land should be proved viable for further development?
Peter Bettess responded, ‘yes, we do agree’ and will be addressed in planning requirements.
Mick Robinson asked why are you considering selling the old Geelong Gaol?
The Mayor responded there are certain ways in other cities around the world that heritage is successfully transformed into better heritage sites.
Cr Ansett added there’s also been many developers who buy historical developments that remain undeveloped.
Rhys Booth asked question in relation to the archaeological values and potential of the Old Geelong Gaol:
Is Council aware, that almost certainly, one burial exists on this land?. With the potential of at least five more. I use the term at least because as we saw at Pentridge archaeology often produces surprises, including potential building dating back pre 1854?
Does Council understanding that if any development were to go ahead concerning the construction of buildings on site whether they are of a private or public nature that under the heritage act an archaeological investigation will be required, the costs of which would be substantial?
Is the Council aware of potential subterranean structures inside the grounds of the prison? Archaeologists working for the National Government reported a likely connection suggested a connection of some degree between the old Geelong Gaol and the now demolished Courthouse?
Finally, as we are looking at the past why in the twenty one year’s Council has had control and ownership of the heritage site have they not considered either investing, subsidising or donating the prison? This prison has been neglected as an investment?
The Mayor responded this Council would put a lot of rigour around the Gaol and have passionate people on this Council who understand. It certainly isn’t part of Council’s business to run businesses. Council is aware of the potential of burials on the site.
Michael Williams asked if Amendment C276 is not abandoned tonight and is referred to a panel we will be directly affected. We may be away at the time of a panel hearing. How can we be sure of being notified and participating in the process whilst away?
The Mayor advised participation in the process could be referred to another person appearing on your behalf.
Michael Exton, Principal of St Ignatius College Geelong addressed Council as follows:
Is Council aware that:
a $2 million grant toward a new Year 9 Centre is at real risk if the vacant Council land cannot be acquired? There are no Options B, C or D for additional land?
The Mayor responded he was unaware until this evening.
the long-term use or need of the St Leonards land owned by the local Catholic Parish has not yet been determined, and St Ignatius College is not in a position to accelerate the process?
The Mayor indicated he was made aware of this by Cr Eddy Kontelj. All other Councillors have been briefed.
the Church’s internal processes to determine these issues will take time and if the sale of the vacant Council land is dependent on the sale of the parish land, then there is a considerable risk that the $2 million grant from the Commonwealth Government becomes very, very real?
The Mayor responded, ‘yes, I understand’.
the vacant farm land on the other side of Gilles Road, at the rear of the College, is unsuitable due to environmental reasons to accommodate the College expansion?
The Mayor indicated he was sure all Councillors are.
the stated purpose of the adjoining Council-owned land including the vacant land the College would like to obtain, as specifically zoned in the Council Planning Scheme reads: “To encourage the use and development of the Drysdale Regional Community and Cultural Hub for a range of civic, community, education and recreation activities”, and these are the very activities that the College proposed for the land?
The Mayor responded, ‘indeed’.
the Catholic Parish has committed to continuing dialogue with Council as the parish explores its own long term needs?
The Mayor advised all Councillors are advised now.
regardless of the outcome for the review for the long-term use of the parish land at St Leonards, that land is currently leased to the Department of Education for use by the well-attended St Leonards Primary School and the Parish is extending that lease as the Education Department have advise they have an on-going requirement for that land?
The Mayor advised he is aware.
Jodie Henner asked what can be done to convince Council to not sell the Gaol, because we are passionate about the history?
The Mayor advised this issue will be debated later this evening.
* Cr E Kontelj left the meeting room at 7.52pm
Colin Wallace asked:
On June 24 2014 I asked you, Mr Mayor, to consider if Council’s evident breach of the Ropeworks Section 173 Agreement by not producing the required half-yearly reports was deliberate. Cr Michelle Heagney intervened upon your response, conveying to the meeting the idea that she had obtained some legitimate resolution of the issue of First Street and proper process and consequently there was some justification for a refusal to ever answer the question I put to you. Included in what she said was the mention of her meeting with my wife and me and that we had got a letter.
Since in her reference to meeting with us Cr Heagney did not mention if anyone else was present and would therefore know what had occurred, would you Mr Mayor and other Councillors note that we have had four meetings in total with Cr Michelle Heagney, Mayor Keith Fagg was present at all four meetings and then Acting Manager of Engineering Services Vicki Shelton was present at the fourth one?
Since in her reference to meeting with us Cr Heagney was not specific at all about when it occurred, would you also note that these meetings occurred on 3 December 2012, 4 March 2013, 4 April 2013 and 9 May 2013 and observe that they were all prior to the resignation of Keith Fagg?
Since she was not specific at all about the letter we had got, would Cr Michelle Heagney identify this letter?
In response to Mr Wallace’s questions The Mayor advised that Council has formally advised Mr Wallace that we will not be addressing any further questions in relation to this matter.
* Cr E Kontelj re-entered the meeting room at 7:54pm
Jennifer Bantow asked question in relation to the Old Geelong Gaol:
The National Trust is concerned that the recommendation to sell the Old Geelong Gaol comes from a Finance Committee, no-one from a cultural or heritage point of view was on this committee, giving the impression that there was no consideration of other value, the only consideration was finance? Also that the reference is said to be ‘Sale of Land’, this is not an empty block, it’s what’s on the land that’s of great value!
Cr Farrell responded, that just to be clear, the process around the Submission Panel is that the Panel hear submissions and makes a recommendation to Council. The Panel has no further power.
Nil.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
