Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Portarlington Cricket and Football Club on 20 October 2015, commencing at 7:00pm.
Therese Stefek
Kate Warby
David Marshall
The Mayor (on behalf of Melanie Renison)
Priscilla Pescott
Dr Russell Walker
Dennis More
Jennifer Bantow
Lex Chalmers
James Pettit
John Pettit
Colin Wallace
Councillors:
D Lyons (Mayor)
T Ansett
L Ellis
J Farrell
K Fisher
B Harwood
M Heagney
J Irvine
E Kontelj
P Murrihy
R Nelson
A Richards
K Spiller (Interim 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)
P Jane (Acting General Manager Projects, Recreation and Central Geelong)
J Brown (Manager Administration and Governance)
T McDonald (Acting 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.
Peter Murrihy took the Oath of Office and was welcomed to Council as the new Kildare Ward Councillor.
Councillor:
R Macdonald (Council Business)
Cr Richards moved, Cr Fisher seconded –
That Leave of Absence be granted to Cr Heagney from 1 – 17 January 2016, inclusive.
Carried.
Cr E Kontelj moved, Cr Irvine seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 15 September 2015 be confirmed and signed.
Carried.
Cr Heagney declared a Direct Interest in Agenda Item 19 – Consideration of Tender Submissions for Tender T1500004 – Electrical Services in that she is a shareholder of QA Electrical who tendered for the work.
Cr E Kontelj declared an Indirect Interest due to a Conflicting Duty in Agenda Item 18 – Consideration of Tender Submissions for Tender T1400001 – Corio Landfill Rehabilitation Stage Two Works in that the tender applicants are significant customers of the company Cr Kontelj is employed by.
Cr E Kontelj declared an Indirect Interest by Close Association in Agenda Item 10 – 2016-17 Community Sports Infrastructure Fund Submissions in that the President of Geelong Soccer Club is assisting him with a development. Geelong Soccer Club is being considered 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.
Therese Stefek asked when will objectors be advised of whether the planning application, made by Aurecon, for the construction of a 36.5 meter Telecommunication Tower at the Western Cemetery, 93-95 Minerva Road, Herne Hill, has been ‘called in’ and put forward to a Councillor’s Planning Meeting?
Peter Bettess responded the matter has been called in by Cr E Kontelj and anticipate the application will be presented to the Planning Committee on 17 November. Notices will be sent out to all objectors two weeks beforehand.
Kate Warby (on behalf of Nick Warby), asked how well informed are the Councillors that there is widespread concern regarding the almost 37 meter tall telecommunication tower application that is within close proximity to high residential area, kindergartens, playgrounds, schools and sporting facilities?
Cr E Kontelj responded that Councillors are reasonably aware. Council’s newly appointed Kildare Councillor is also aware of the issue and was one of the first things he has been briefed on.
David Marshall submitted a question but was not present at the meeting. A written response will be provided.
The Mayor (on behalf of Melanie Renison) asked the following:
In regards to the application to compulsorily acquire a building located at 28 Malop Street to demolish the existing building and create a laneway. Why is the laneway three doors down not simply reopened?
The application states that two buildings are viable for redevelopment but 28 Malop Street holds less street appeal to the second building which has stood vacant for two years. Why force a thriving business out in a town that has more empty buildings than it has people?
Geelong is currently in the grip of a drug epidemic and Guf provides a safe haven for Geelong’s youth. When you force Guf to close and attempt to relocate will you be providing alternative places to keep the young patrons off the streets and out of trouble? Will you also be providing alternative places for disability groups who use the space provided by Guf?
Paul Jane responded that the acquisition of a property in Malop Street is part of a process to deliver an important pedestrian connection in the CBD and an opportunity to change the way the city works. In relation to the Internet Café, Council will be considering reasonable compensation and will be working with that business to provide a suitable alternate site.
Cr Heagney advised the laneway was closed by the owner of that particular piece of land. In discussions with the Central Geelong Task Force on this issue, we talked about opening as many laneways as possible to get people flowing through. That particular building was the right one to choose and it would not be Council’s intention to force Guf out of the CBD, but rather relocate to a similar site. Cr Heagney indicated she was happy to have further discussions if Ms Renison would like to follow up.
Priscilla Pescott asked:
In 2010, The City of Greater Geelong endorsed The Victorian Local Government Women’s Charter, with the three principles of gender equity, diversity and active citizenship. So on behalf of the Women in Local Democracy Group, I would ask the Mayor, what steps have you taken to implement this Charter and what is proposed for the future?
Linda Quinn responded on the following steps to implement the VLGWC:
Establishment of the Women in Community Life Advisory Committee:
Council provides resources to support his Committee;
Support the organisation of International Women’s Day events and Women in Community Life Award;
Vision for equality, inclusion and respect for women in greater Geelong.
Establishment of a Employment Diversity Strategy and supporting working group, which will include looking at leadership of women in the organisation.
Organisation Development are undertaking a gender pay equity review in Council;
Council will also consider development of a Gender Equity Framework in the 2016/17 budget process.
Does the City of Greater Geelong have any guidelines on the use of the Council Coat of Arms and Mayoral Robes and Chain? Is, could I have a copy of them?
The Interim CEO responded that Council does not have a formal Policy on the wearing of the Mayoral Robes and Chain. Officers in relation to this matter are presenting information for consideration and adoption.
Dr Russell Walker directed his question to the Mayor:
Given that the Mayor, Cr Darryn Lyons, is on record as stating that he takes ‘no responsibility’ for the culture exposed by the recent City Hall Bullying -
Does this mean the Mayor has had neither witnessed, participated in or had any cause to be aware of any sexism, abuse, foul language, bullying or intimidation whatsoever during his nearly two years as Mayor?
Given that there still appears to be some uncertainty as to how the correspondence from psychologist Gary McMullen, which triggered the probe, actually came to the attention of the Geelong Advertiser, is the Mayor concerned that additional evidence or testimony may appear at some stage that contradicts his claims?
The Mayor responded that as previously been publicly released by Council in February of this year there has been six allegations of inappropriate behaviour made against Councillors. I encourage people who feel their interactions with the Council are less than satisfactory to raise the issues via the numerous avenues available.
I won’t be saying anything that may prejudice the Council or any individual.
Dennis More asked questions in relation to Managing Development in Rural Areas – Planning Policy Review:
Knowing what Council are trying to implement could be unlawful. Is there a contingency plan to handle possible litigation?
Peter Bettess responded that what Council is proposing is not illegal and therefore there is no requirement for a contingency plan as you alluded to.
Residential Tenancies Act – It does not sit comfortably with me that our Council want to bring in a policy that will deny some of those most vulnerable in our community a basic right of ‘having a roof over their head’ no matter how humble it may be. To bring in this policy has the potential to make hundreds of these people ‘homeless’. Do Council have a policy that will assist these people when they are displaced?
Peter Bettess responded there is nothing in the changes that contravenes the Tenancies Act.
Jennifer Bantow asked:
Could Council please advise whether the following two issues have been decided:
Laneway between Little Malop Street and Malop Street –
The proposed purchase by compulsory acquisition, and then demolition of a small two storey building at 28 Malop Street occupied by ‘Guf’ an internet café which is a thriving business in the city CBD, to create a laneway.
Why is this proposed when there’s a laneway a few doors east, McLarty Place, which used to be an open walkway between Little Malop and Malop but now has the Malop Street end closed off. There are several businesses in the McLarty Place vicinity which would benefit from opening this laneway. Why can’t this laneway which is already there be compulsorily acquired?
Extension of Johnstone Park in the north east corner, across Mercer Street to take in the triangle of land bordered by Mercer, Gheringhap and Corio Streets for carparking to service the new Library and Heritage Centre.
When La Trobe Terrace was a side street, Mercer Street was the original entrance to the town, hence the grand pillar gateway entrance to Johnstone Park, opposite the Police Station.
Would this idea of extending the park bring Malop Street to a ‘T’ intersection at Gheringhap Street and Close the southern end of Mercer and would the buildings within the triangle, which have heritage overlays, be demolished?
A written response to the above questions will be provided.
Lex Chalmers, as a member of the Geelong Branch of the National Trust, will be attending a heritage conference in Adelaide soon. Part will be based at the old Adelaide Gaol, and I hope to bring back information about its conservation and Management. I also understand that they have traditional trade demonstrations. I believe that Councillors have visited the recently refurbished Bendigo Gaol. Did they gain any information relevant to the Old Geelong Gaol there?
Cr Richards responded as part of the Bendigo Festival he looked at the facility and it is quite impressive. Cr Richards recommended to his fellow Councillors if they find time over the next few months to have a look.
Cr Ansett added there has been $35million injected into the refurbishment of the Bendigo Gaol. There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes in regard to the Old Geelong Gaol.
James Pettit addressed Council as follows:
I am a full time farmer living and working on the property of Wooloomanata. This heritage listed property at the foothills of the You Yangs adjoins a property to the north that has lodged an application with Council for a 82ha sand mine. I view this application to be a significant change of land use that will do permanent damage to the recreational and visual quality of the surrounding You Yangs area. There are a number of issues with this application that will effect the wider community.
The proposed site for this sand mine is in a area zoned Farming and has a significant landscape overlay. The SLO was introduced in 2010 and one of the decision guidelines is ‘the containment of the extractive industry to ensure that development and subsequent reclamation are carried out without detriment to the recreational and scenic value of the surrounding area’.
Why did Council decide that it was not necessary to advertise this application in the Geelong Advertiser and felt that it was simply sufficient to exhibit the application on a fence where few if any people could see it, despite the obvious implication of the proposed sand mine for the local communities of Lara and Little River, and wider relevance to Victoria’s tourism?
Council has failed to recognise the wider community interest and concern regarding this proposal to establish a mine on the proposed site given the long term impacts on the landscape, impacts on farming, the environment and wildlife in this region, impacts on water, at the site, on Hovells Creek, and downstream, including outflows to the RAMSAR site of Limeburners Lagoon, impacts on tourism and recreation in one of our most visited regional parks, impacts of increased heavy truck movements through the centre of Lara and Little River.
Only now are people becoming aware of the implication of what is being proposed, despite the much larger ramifications.
Will Council now take action to advertise this proposal through the media, and request broad community consultation between Council, the proponent and all interested stakeholders so that all are aware of what is being proposed?
Peter Bettess responded the Planning and Environment Act does not require Council to advertise this particular application and will therefore not be advertising though the media.
John Pettit asked questions in relation the Quarry application prepared for L Bisinella Investments on farming land at 405 Sandy Creek Road on the western side of the You Yangs.
Are Councillors aware that Lascelles Dam has dried up twice in the past 15 years creating stress to the mature Red River Gums, and is almost dry at present;
Are Councillors aware that Grants from the Department of Conservation and Environment have been spent on protective fencing for Hovells Creek and Lascelles Dam;
In view of the inadequacy of the Biodiversity report submitted to the Planning Department by Bisinella ignoring totally any off site assessment, will Council commission its environmental officers or other experts to prepare a report on the impact this proposal will have on the surrounding biodiversity?
The Mayor took the questions on notice for a written response.
Colin Wallace asked questions, but did not wish to leave his details.
Cr Murrihy presented a petition containing 244 signatures from concerned residents in relation to the proposed Telecommunications Facility and associated infrastructure.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
