Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre in City Hall, 57 Little Malop Street, Geelong on 27 March 2018, commencing at 7:00pm.
Anne Preston
Srechko Kontelj
Darren Keiller
Paul Russell
Danielle Thompson
Judith Fraser
Bronwen Baker
Leanne Rupene
Brian Young
Michelle Macnaughtan
Andy Meddick
Vickii Darah
Dr Tamasin Ramsay
Councillors:
B Harwood (Mayor)
A Aitken
S Asher
K Grzybek
E Kontelj
J Mason
P Murnane
P Murrihy
R Nelson
T Sullivan
K Spiller (Chief Executive Officer)
K Walsh (Director Planning and Development)
B Luxford (Director Investment and Attraction)
G Wilson-Browne (Director City Services)
L Quinn (Director Community Life)
P Anderson (Director Finance & Strategy)
A Keen (Executive Manager)
R Leonard (Executive Manager Legal Services & Governance)
The Chair declared the meeting open at 7:00pm.
Council acknowledged Wadawurrung Traditional Owners of this land and all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People who are part of the Greater Geelong community today.
The Mayor welcomed Mayor, David Bell and Chief Executive Officer, Keith Baillie from the Surf Coast Shire.
Councillor S Mansfield (maternity leave).
Cr Kontelj moved, Cr Asher seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 27 February 2018 be confirmed.
Carried.
Cr Mason moved, Cr Grzybek seconded -
That the Minutes of the Special Meeting held on 27 February 2018 be confirmed.
Carried.
Cr Murrihy moved, Cr Asher seconded -
That the Minutes of the Special Meeting held on 13 March 2018 be confirmed.
Carried.
Nil.
Anne Preston submitted several questions in relation to the General Local Law 2005 – in particular the issuing of permits.
Ms Preston also asked if she could arrange a meeting with the Melbourne Drone Group in the next three weeks.
Kelvin Walsh responded he will have the twenty-eight questions responded to tomorrow and indicated he would be happy to meet with the Melbourne Drone Group.
Srechko Kontelj asked the following questions in relation to the State Government appointed Monitors:
Do Councillors believe that they need the Monitors?
The Mayor responded he was unable to answer except to say it is the position we now find ourselves in and we will respect that position.
Does Council intend to request the removal of the Monitors ahead of the State Election?
The Mayor responded there are no plans at the moment.
Since its election in October to date, what has been the cost to Council of having the Monitors in place.
The Mayor responded costs for Jude Munro November to March was $25,800, and Peter Dorling November to March was $7,645 – a combined total of $33,445.
Darren Keiller asked why don’t Council have a snake catcher on their books, as it stands the system fails the public to find one for the case that snake/s were on Council land. As some other Councils pay snake catchers to remove from houses. I have three bills now in your system that snakes were on public land and still fighting your system to get paid from 28 October 2017.
Cr Nelson left the meeting room at 7:10 pm.
Guy Wilson-Browne advised that he had spoken with Mr Keiller and that the City has agreed, on this occasion, to pay the invoices, and has outlined to Mr Keiller the City has a preferred supplier process in place and to be able to invoice the City for his services he needs to be contacted by an officer to instruct him to undertake works on the City’s behalf. Mr Keiller is encouraged to apply to be one of the City’s preferred suppliers.
Cr Nelson re-entered the meeting room at 7:12pm
Paul Russell asked the following:
Inadequate notice. Officers have reservations that VCAT would cancel the permit on the basis of material mis-statements in public notices because “the detail on the notice was adequately and sufficiently clear in regards to the use”. “It is not the function of the notice to describe in detail the permit being applied for”. The Council notice reads, “use and development of land for intensive animal husbandry (goat farming) milk processing plant and creation of an access to a road zone 1. “I suggest that any reasonable person (including executives of Australian Wool Handlers) would read this to simply mean a goat farm with 300-400 animals plus a milking plant similar to many dairy farms.
If we look at the supposed detail – Intensive Animal Husbandry (Goat Farming)” intended to describe a goat farming unit measuring 214 metres by 139 metres housing 4500 goats. This is as long as three Airbus 380 passenger jets parked nose to tail “Milk Processing Plant” intended to describe a plant as tall as an 11 storey building. The tallest and newest building in Geelong (Worksafe) is only three storeys higher. Officers state “not the function of the notice to describe in detail”. In fact the description is so lacking in any detail that it is worthless. It is vague and intentionally or unintentionally misleading. I suggest that there are sufficient grounds for an objection to be raised by Council in regards to this notice.
The Mayor responded the officer’s advice to Council is that there are insufficient grounds for an objection to be raised by Council in regards to this notice.
Observations regarding the Second Basis – inadequate notice Point 2) Officers believe that it could not be argued that notice was inadequate. 252 notices were issued to both owners and occupiers of neighbouring and nearby properties etc. The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning has put out a guide styled “A Guide to the planning system”, which in part states this guide is designed to help professional planners, local Council and referral authority officers, Councillors, students, people applying for a planning permit. I refer to Section 3 Planning Permits Page 26, third last para, which reads if a responsible authority considers that a proposal is likely to be of interest or concern to the broader community, it may itself give notice it considers appropriate. This would be in addition to any further notice given by an applicant or the responsible authority in accordance with section 52(2). It could include publicity in the media, public meetings, newspaper articles, letterbox drops or any other appropriate method. Why did Council officers not consider that there was sufficient cause to notify a broader community given the impact on the township of Lara?
Kelvin Walsh responded that the Planning and Environment Act sets out how community consultation is to be undertaken. It states that notice must be given to owners and occupiers of lots adjoining the land to which the application applies. As part of broader notification, notice were also placed in the City News section of the Geelong Independent and Saturday Geelong Advertiser. Local media coverage also raised awareness of the application.
Danielle Thompson asked the following:
I notice that Peter Dorling, one of the three Administrators who approved the Nuchev proposal, is currently a State appointed Monitor tasked with implementing recommendations from the Commissioner’s Enquiry. Can you confirm that he played no part in this review given his previous role?
The Mayor responded he can confirm that Peter Dorling played no role in the preparation of the advice to the Council Meeting of 27 March 2018 in relation to the Nuchev petitions.
As the State Government appointed Administrators made the decision to proceed with the Nuchev proposal if the Council do proceed with an objection could the Council seek recover costs from the State Government?
The Mayor responded that the advice from officers is no.
Judith Fraser asked the following:
Officers Report on Nuchev Petition - This report hides behind legalities and selective information, it’s not the full picture. In the FAQ’s, there is frequent reference to ‘compliance with the Act’ in response to questions about notification and consultation.
Yet, on page 4 of the Officers report is says “There is a legitimate public interest in the fair operation of the planning laws’. It is not ‘fair’ that Officers hide behind ‘compliance’ to the Act and then proclaim that fairness should apply to planning laws. I live within 1.5 km of the proposed site and have never received one copy of the Geelong Indy, nothing about it on social media until after the VCAT approval. How are the recommendations of this report fair to me, my neighbours, and the hundreds of people who purchased land or property after Council approved the permit in 2016? Councillors need to be fair to the hundreds if not thousands of people in the Lara and Corio community, and if that negatively impacts one business that, according to their planning permit, will only employ 12 full time equivalent employees, then so be it. However, if Councillors confidently accept the recommendation of the report, what will they do to help us get fair treatment and adequate protection from harm and an unpleasant environment?
Council Report on Nuchev Petition - FAQ 17 – The question is about who is monitoring
QFever. The answer talks about the need for Nuchev to provide a plan, and that the plan must be used. Previous versions of the plan have stated there will be biannual reporting to Council by Nuchev, and any outbreak in the interim periods would be subject to notification. The EPA have already publicly stated that they are not involved in this matter as the heard will be under 5000 heads. This sounds like that there will be no independent authority validating the newly submitted plan or monitoring adherence to it. Is this correct – if not, who will Council be relying on to validate the plan, and who will be monitoring it?
Question 18 – You state that you have relied on specialist advice from DHHS. Yet in Q15 – you point out that DHHS are reliant on the plans supplied by Nuchev. In the VCAT ruling "DHHS is not a referral authority for this particular proposal or indeed to any planning application for intensive animal husbandry. So, whilst it provided comments on the planning application to Council in this case, it is not recognized in the planning scheme as a referral authority or even as a relevant authority. " So why does Council rely on DHHS advice about Nuchev, when the information relied on by DHHS is supplied from Nuchev?
The Mayor responded that some of the questions asked will be discussed during debate later this evening.
Kelvin Walsh took the questions on notice.
Bronwen Baker asked:
In relation to the planning permit granted for 240 Forest Road South, Lara, two objectors appealed to VCAT against the granting of the permit. Unfortunately one objector was forced to withdraw due to serious health problems. The other objector, Mr Rob Leonard, proceeded unrepresented to a compulsory conference held at VCAT where he was persuaded by Nuchev's lawyers to withdraw this appeal. I have had lengthy conversations with Mr Leonard, who does not feel as though he reached agreement, as is the aim of a compulsory conference. He felt inappropriately pressured when Nuchev's lawyer raised the possibility of City of Greater Geelong taking enforcement action against him for not having permits for some things on his land, naming a shed and an office as examples. Rob felt that this knowledge, which could only have come from CoGG sources, was raised as a threat designed to encourage him to consent to withdraw his objection, which, alone with no legal advisor present, and under tremendous pressure, he reluctantly did.
This highly inappropriate, if not downright unlawful, conduct by Nuchev's lawyer, took place while CoGG's lawyer sat silently and allowed it to happen. In allowing this threat to be made, does this Council believe that the behaviour of the City's lawyer in this case, was in line with CoGG's responsibility as a model litigant?
Mr Leonard has adamantly advised that if he had not felt threatened in this way, he would never have agreed to Nuchev's terms, and the matter would have proceeded to hearing at VCAT, as did the Moorabool appeal. Does this council therefore agree, that Mr Leonard along with other Lara residents who were not aware of the proposed development at the time, deserve the opportunity to have our case heard?
The Chief Executive Officer responded Council is not in a position to make comment about Mr Leonard.
The Mayor also indicated he was unable to respond to the questions and thanked Ms Baker for her comments.
Leanne Rupene asked:
With Lara residents being concerned about becoming guinea pigs to a unprecedented risk of Qfever in a high Qfever risk industry involving foetuses and placentas from 4,500 breeding dairy goats, can you tell us where else in Victoria is an intensive animal husbandry, of this nature, been permitted in such close proximity to urban areas? Is Geelong the only council to permit a development like this?
The Mayor responded Council, as Responsible Authority, must assess all planning applications in line with obligation set out in the Planning and Environment Act and against policy set out in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. Each planning application is unique and must be dealt with on a case by case basis and assessed on its merits. No two sites nor proposed uses and developments are the same.
There are no protocols in Victoria for dealing with a Qfever outbreak. The planning report talks about the cost to COGG of mounting an appeal, but what cost do they put on the safety and health of Lara residents?
The Mayor outlined that responses provided in the FAQ attachment to the Council report provide further information regarding QFever. It is important to note that QFever is a notifiable disease. Any outbreak at the site would be reported to the DHHS and managed by the Principal Medical Adviser to the Chief Health Officer; and a DHHS Communicable Disease Officer would lead the investigation and Council would provide assistance where required.
Brian Young asked if the Chair will honestly answer the question as to whether Council members have been involved in discussions with the Planning Department and others, been given correct information re QFever etc., had open access to all the submitted emails from residents on which to base their decision and vote – and the burden of responsibility they will carry if there is a future outbreak – or are they just going to vote as they have been instructed to?
Cr Grzybek responded that the correspondence you are referring to has been received and readily available to all Councillors who will make their own decision. They have not been told how to vote.
Michelle Macnaughtan asked:
The risk of Qfever is an issue relevant to both applications before us. Professor Wilks’ Risk Management Plan identifies various matters that can impact upon the risk beyond the boundaries of this site. We do not support the proposal for detailed conditions to give effect to an Infection Control Management Plan, whether in a works approval or the planning permit, in this case.
The intention of this is to create a new regulatory regime to control the Qfever risk arising from this proposal through a ‘Review Panel’. DHHS seeks this level of control. Given we do not support this control being established through planning permit conditions, the various agencies and Nuchev will need to consider alternatives to achieve the rigorous compliance regime.”
What is the alternative plan that will ensure adequate regulatory monitoring, reaction and response to Nuchev’s operations and the evident QFever risk?
Kelvin Walsh took the question on notice for a written response.
Andy Meddick addressed Council as follows:
Having read through the documentation released by Council under FOI, and also reviewing at length some of the technical parts of the application, a number of questions rear up relating to the original question before both Council and the Planning Department, that is, was the original approval process at some point corrupted, either by lack of relevant information, or the lack of probity on Council’s part?
My first question relates to Council’s assertion that residents were informed of the application by Council, by means of a mail out. Upon viewing the map supplied under FOI it is obvious that even a perfunctory view of the surrounding properties tagged in the Council supplied map as being those that were informed, reveals them all to be either land with no dwellings, that is farm land or paddocks, or properties dedicated to industrial use. Not one residential property. Are Councillors aware of this, as that clearly shows residents were denied consultation? And, did that therefore form part of the planning department’s recommendation both recent and prior?
In relation to this fact, are Councillors aware that the planner is only under obligation to inform bordering properties, in this instance those that I have described above, and that informing any other property inhabitants is at the planner’s discretion, therefore either deliberately or incompetently, excluding residents from the process?
Are Councillors aware that the applicants main odour and dust mitigation measure, the mechanical blind apparatus, were never inspected in a functioning operation, and in fact were deemed appropriate based upon the applicant submitting a brochure from the manufacturer that describes a product much smaller than intended for use in Lara, and as stated never observed in situ by any appropriately qualified scientist or person as to being appropriate for the use intended? Does Council not find this a serious flaw in the consideration of the approval process, given that the health of the residents is to rely on a completely theoretical mitigation proposal?
We have been informed throughout this process that the only avenue open to all residents, and to Council, was to prove that the planning approval process was somehow corrupted or incomplete. Does Council agree that the above questions quite obviously prove that that is the case?
This Council was elected on the promise that it was a new age for Council, a fresh beginning free of the bullying, corruption and ward favouritism that plagued its predecessor. During that time the residents of the northern ward of Windermere were disadvantaged in favour of those in the more economically upscale wards. This Council tonight, has a chance to prove that it stands behind all its residents, even if it believes that a court or appeals tribunal will not rule in its favour, because the residents have to believe that their elected representatives will stand with them because it is their moral responsibility, even if it costs the Council money.
Will this Council do the right thing by its northern constituents, or will we see a decision made because this proposal is not located in the land just to the west of the more economically advantaged suburbs?
The Chief Executive Officer responded that the process was in accordance with legal requirements and was not corrupted.
Vickii Darah asked regarding the Lara Goat Factory to be decided on this evening, how much confidence do Councillors have in the recommendations of Director of Planning, Kelvin Walsh, given that it will result in Lara residents being bitterly opposed to Councillors, perhaps for many years, yet Mr Walsh has resigned, leaving Councillors to bear responsibility for this planning mess?
The Chief Executive Officer responded he had full confidence in the Director of Planning and Development that he has handled the matter properly.
Dr Tamasin Ramsay asked what will Council do if/when the Lara community experience direct and/or indirect harms (QFever, QFever fatigue syndrome, etc). Are they sufficiently insured and/or willing to offer compensation?
International science repeatedly and unequivocally demonstrates that animal industries cause more harm to our land, air and waterways than any other harmful industry including mining, transport and fossil fuels. Environmental considerations may be sufficient for CoGG planning permit but are insufficient according to international science. How will you ameliorate the significant environmental harms caused by the goat factory that are not sufficiently addressed in the plan?
Nuchev’s plan states that the risk of the goat factory bringing QFever to the Lara community is no greater than that posed to the general public outside of Lara. Yet serious outbreaks have occurred overseas as a direct result of goat industries.
The Chief Executive Officer responded that the Principal Medical Officer is the person who will be dealing with these issues.
Nil.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
