The following questions were addressed to the above meeting. Some questions were adequately responded to at the meeting, however others required a more detailed response in writing.
This document includes both verbal and written responses. In this instance, no written responses were provided as issues were adequately addressed at the meeting.
Alena Kralova asked if Council had an opportunity to look into the desperate situation with Bus No 24? In three weeks I am in Geelong I found the situation much worse than I indicated at the last meeting. Is there anything Council can do to help?
William Tieppo responded he will be addressing the concerns regarding the bus drivers driving past patrons at bus stops directly with Public Transport Victoria, and noticed that there have been some minor timetabling changes in the last 3 weeks, however this should not impact the service in the future. He also indicated he was happy to facilitate this issue on Ms Kralova’s behalf.
A subsequent written response was provided by the General Manager City Services in the following terms: |
Thank you for taking the time to attend the Council Meeting last night and the questions that you have submitted regarding the timetabling of Bus No. 24 and the efficiency of this service.
After our discussions prior to the Council meeting, I advise that I will be addressing your concerns regarding the bus drivers driving past patrons at bus stops directly with Public Transport Victoria.
I note that there have been some minor timetabling changes in the last 3 weeks, however this should not impact the service in the future.
I have attached for your convenience a number of bus schedules for this particular service, which I hope will assist you with future connections.
If you would like further information or assistance with timetabling please do not hesitate to contact my office directly on 5272 4317.
Bec McHenry submitted a question prior to the Council Meeting, but as she was not present a written response will be forwarded.
Bill Votsaris asked his question in relation to the Central Geelong – Declaration of Special Rate:
Who gets the benefit and who pays this levy, the landlord or the tenant?
Brett Luxford responded that it is considered on a case by case basis between the landlord and the tenant and what has been written into the lease arrangements. Both parties receive benefit and both are responsible.
The following residents of Townsend Road, Whittington expressed their deep concerns regarding the traffic volume and speed in Townsend Road and the Roundabout at Boundary Road intersection:
Colleen Lukey;
Romy Ducusin;
Cliff Grinter;
Jacqueline Grinter;
Joan Mellords;
Jennifer Terrington;
Rosemary Jones;
Alfred Jones;
William Tieppo, General Manager City Services, will provide a written response as follows:
A subsequent written response was provided by the General Manager City Services in the following terms: |
Thank you for taking the time to attend the Council meeting on Tuesday 16 February and presenting your questions to Council.
Since that meeting I met with residents, Cr John Irvine and Christine Couzens, Member for Geelong at the St Albans Football Clubrooms to hear first hand the issues raised.
The outcomes from the meeting resulted in a number of tasks for Council, including: • Extend traffic counts to between Wilsons and Boundary Road and if possible turning movements at the roundabout; • Assess the heavy traffic volumes for time of day with potential for a night time curfew; • Provide an observer onsite at the school crossing and investigate possible relocation; • Assess signal phasing on Townsend Road.
Residents were encourage to continue liaising with Christine Couzens who would assist with wording for a Petition for Parliament.
The City has recently undertaken traffic counts in Townsend Road with the results shown below. The comparative volumes show an increase in volume of 5% per annum which could be equated to the growth that is occurring in the region. The actual increase in commercial vehicles (rigid trucks and larger) is 1.6% or 0.4% per annum. The average speed has reduced and shows compliance with the posted speed limit of 60 km/h.
Feb 2016 Feb 2012 Average number of vehicles per day 13,720 11,414 Average speed (85% speed) 59.4 km/h 61.6 km/h % commercial vehicles (class 3+) 6.7% 5.1% The City is the responsible road authority for Townsend Road from Boundary Road through to Moolap Station Road. VicRoads is the responsible road authority for Breakwater Road, Fellmongers Road and Boundary Road.
The original project to duplicate Breakwater Road was to provide better connections between the local suburbs of Belmont and Moolap.
East west connections are important to linking Geelong and the Bellarine, and the City in conjunction with VicRoads has recommended improvements to routes south of the Central Geelong including, Carr Street, Fyans Street, Breakwater Road, Barwon Heads Road and the future Bellarine link. Improvements also include intersection treatments on Latrobe Terrace estimate $8M and in particular the Boundary Road / Fellmongers Road roundabout which has been estimated at $10M.
On your behalf, the City shall be writing to the Minster for Roads & Road Safety seeking support for these infrastructure improvements. Should you have further enquiries regarding this matter please contact Ms Vicki Shelton, Manager Engineering Services on telephone 5272 4348 or email [email protected].
Brian Donovan asked if Council was aware of the impact of making sale of land at Ocean Grove on lifelong carers of people with disability in that community?
Cr Harwood responded, ‘yes – Council is aware’.
A subsequent written response was provided by the General Manager Community Lifein the following terms: |
Thank you for your question put to Council at the City of Greater Geelong Council meeting on 16 February 16 2016. I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Mayor.
Your question queried “If Council was aware of the strong support of the community for this project, and you sought to clarify the relevance of a recent funding announcement by the Commonwealth Government regarding housing for people with disabilities”.
As you know the decision was made to sell the land at nil cost to Karingal, conditional on this organisation providing appropriate specialist accommodation for people with disabilities.
The decision of Council was influenced by the knowledge that there is currently an inadequate supply of housing for people with disabilities within the municipality. We understand that many people with disabilities are either living with ageing parents or in inappropriate aged care facilities and that there need to be more quality options for people. Council has also been advised that the sale of the land to Karingal will not preclude Karingal from seeking other funding opportunities.
We trust that this project will result in a great outcome, a positive future for the residents and their families and a demonstration for housing providers locally.
Thanks again for taking the time to attend and address Council.
Joyce Schroeter asked if Councillors were aware –
that the funding Sarah Henderson referred to in today’s paper is not available to NDIS trial sites?
of the strong support for this project in the community, particularly in Ocean Grove?
Cr Harwood responded Councillors are aware and further discussion and debate around this item will be heard later this evening.
A subsequent written response was provided by the General Manager Community Life in the following terms: |
Thank you for your question put to Council at the City of Greater Geelong Council meeting on 16 February 2016. I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Mayor.
Your question queried “If Council was aware of the strong support of the community for this project, and you sought to clarify the relevance of a recent funding announcement by the Commonwealth Government regarding housing for people with disabilities”.
As you know the decision was made to sell the land at nil cost to Karingal, conditional on this organisation providing appropriate specialist accommodation for people with disabilities.
The decision of Council was influenced by the knowledge that there is currently an inadequate supply of housing for people with disabilities within the municipality.
We understand that many people with disabilities are either living with ageing parents or in inappropriate aged care facilities and that there need to be more quality options for people. Council has also been advised that the sale of the land to Karingal will not preclude Karingal from seeking other funding opportunities.
We trust that this project will result in a great outcome, a positive future for the residents and their families and a demonstration for housing providers locally.
Thanks again for taking the time to attend and address Council.
Ingrid Hindell asked that young people with disabilities should be housed in better facilities?
Cr Fisher added that young people need more food in nursing homes and also their therapies are different from the requirements of the elderly.
Cr Harwood agreed with the need for better facilities for the young disabled.
Nathan Oakes asked questions in relation to Amendment C262 –
Is Council aware of any support for this proposal beyond those with direct financial interest in the project?
Cr Harwood responded that Councillors have a very open mind to the options and will be discussing during debate of the item later this evening.
Peter Bettess responded that in 2011/12 there was a lot of work done on Vision 2 – one of the principles being to open laneways and linkages. That was then put into the planning scheme and has been there since 2013.
Is Council aware of the extreme irony of both the timing of the strategy given that McLarty Place as being blocked at this time and that this proposal is in the National Year of Digital Inclusion given the effect on such an inclusive digital business?
Cr Harwood thanked Mr Oakes for his comment.
A subsequent written response was provided by the General Manager Planning and Development in the following terms: |
Thank you for submitting written questions at the 16 February 2016 Council Meeting.
I respond as follows: Question Is Council aware of any support for this proposal beyond those with direct financial interest in the project? ANSWER: As outlined in the Council Report for Amendment C262, Dennys Place has long been identified in the planning policy framework as a strategic pedestrian connection in the retail core of Central Geelong.
Exhibition of the Amendment resulted in two supporting submissions; one from the Central Geelong Taskforce, the other from the landowner of 26 Malop Street.
The State Government is also supportive given the existence of a funding agreement to deliver the laneway connection.
Follow-up question Is Council aware of the extreme irony of both the timing of the strategy given that McLarty Place was being blocked at this time and that this proposal is in the National Year of Digital Inclusion given the effect on such an inclusive digital business? ANSWER: Progression of Amendment C262 to apply a Public Acquisition Overlay to 28 Malop Street is a prerequisite to separate processes under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act. The timing of the delivery of these actions is in line with Council’s budgetary and funding agreements.
The land at 34 McLarty Place is in private ownership and Council has no legal ability to require or force public access through the property. The old, informal access way has been gated for some 6 years now. Council officers and the landowner’s representative have been in discussions with no agreement.
There is no relationship between this project and the fact that it is the National Year of Digital Inclusion. It has always been Council’s strong desire is to work collaboratively and actively support Guf Games relocation within Central Geelong.
If you have any further questions please contact Peter Schembri, Snr Strategic Planner responsible for Amendment C262, by email: [email protected] or telephone 03 5272 4496.
