Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 27 March 2018
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
Reports tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday date held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre in City Hall, 57 Little Malop Street, Geelong.
State Government of Victoria – Country Football and Netball Program
Tender T1770865 – Provision of Painting Services (Confidential)
Source: |
Planning & Development |
Director: |
Kelvin Walsh |
Index Reference: |
Proposed Nuchev Development – 240 Forest Road South, Lara |
Following receipt of petitions received at its meeting on 27 February 2018, Council has requested Officers’ advice addressing Council’s ability to make an application under section 87 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Act) to cancel planning permit 1204-2015 granted in respect of a proposed intensive goat farm and milk processing plant at 240 Forest Road South, Lara. Having considered all relevant matters, this report recommends that Council not proceed with such an application, and the reasons why.
There has been significant community interest in planning permit 1204-2015 and the City is aware of the strong objections of a number of Lara residents in particular to the continuance of this permit. At its meeting on 27 February 2018, more than 200 community members attended the Council meeting to voice their concerns about the operation of an intensive goat farm and milk processing plant pursuant to planning permit 1204-2015.
Over the past weeks, the City has received more than 250 items of correspondence from community members expressing concern about planning permit 1204-2015, and requesting the intervention of Council. The community has also raised a broader range of questions in relation to planning permit 1204-2015, the intensive goat farm and the milk processing plant. The questions have generally been recorded in Attachment 2, together with the City’s response to those questions.
The Planning Permits and VCAT
Nuchev is an Australian-based company specialising in goat milk products, and more specifically sells a range of goat infant formula products globally. Nuchev intended to expand its Victorian operations across two separate sites in the City of Greater Geelong, with a breeding facility already in operation outside this municipality.
Nuchev applied for two planning permits as follows:
Planning permit application 32-2015 for the proposed use of the land at 715 Ballan Road, Moorabool for Intensive Animal Husbandry (Goat Farming), Associated Buildings and Works including Earthworks and Caretakers Dwelling (Moorabool Operation).
Planning permit application 1204-2015 for the proposed use and development of the land at 240 Forest Road South, Lara for the use and development of Land for Intensive Animal Husbandry (Goat Farming), Milk Processing Plant and Creation of an Access to a Road Zone 1 (Lara Operation).
Both planning permit applications were considered at a Planning Committee Meeting of Council on 25 July 2016.
With respect to the Lara Operation, notice of the application was undertaken as follows:
A public notice was sent by Council to 252 owners/occupiers of neighbouring and nearby properties to the Lara Operation site (Attachment 3). The application was described as:
USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND FOR INTENSIVE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY (GOAT FARMING), MILK PROCESSING PLANT AND CREATION OF AN ACCESS TO ROAD ZONE 1
According to a Statutory Declaration made by the permit applicant on 19 October 2015, notices were erected at the proposed Lara Operation site on 1 October 2015 and maintained in good condition for 14 days from that date.
A notice of the application was inserted in the City News section of the Geelong Independent and the Geelong Advertiser headed “Notice of an Application for Planning Permit”. The notice appeared in one edition of the newspapers (Attachment 4).
In response to the notices, 56 objections were received. An application was filed with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) by two objectors regarding the proposed planning permit for the Lara Operation. That application was the subject of a negotiated compulsory conference on 20 February 2017 following which a permit for the Lara Operation was issued at the direction of VCAT. Of important note, VCAT made the statement that: “(b)ased on the information available to the Tribunal, (it) consider(ed) it (was) appropriate to make these orders.”
An application was also filed with VCAT regarding the Moorabool Operation which was heard over 13 hearing days. On 10 January 2018, VCAT handed down its decision, denying both the planning permit and the EPA works approval for the Moorabool Operation. VCAT described the Moorabool Operation as being “unique” and as being at an intensity that “does not currently exist in Victoria or elsewhere in Australia.” and stated that the site in question was not incapable or unsuitable of being used for intensive goat farming. Specifically, it said:
“We are unable to approve this proposal in its current form and intensity. However, our decision to refuse both applications should not be taken to mean that this site is completely unsuitable for use as a goat dairy. It may be that our key concerns are matters of detail able to be addressed so that this site can be used for this purpose albeit in a modified lesser format and intensity.”
The petitions and submissions to Council
At its meeting on Tuesday 27 February 2018, the following petitions were received by Council:
a petition of nearly 700 residents from around the Lara area: “opposing (the development at “240 Forest Road, Lara”) (sic) for the risk of QFever, public health, the close proximity to suburban developments, traffic, smell and the confined cruel conditions provided for the goats.”
a Change.org petition containing approximately 1770 names from the Geelong area, Australia and world-wide requesting to: “stop the inhumane goat farm and spread of Q virus to our children”
a Change.org petition containing approximately 2112 names from the Geelong area, Australia and world-wide requesting to: “(p)lease help and protect the residents of Geelong and surrounds as well as other communities in the state from inappropriate intensive factory farms and ensure that suitable buffer zones are included and owned by the proponents and that the lifestyles, amenity and health of people is protected.”
These petitions were accompanied by a letter from Neil Longmore, Planning Lawyer, dated 20 February 2018 requesting Council make an application under section 87 of the Act to cancel the permit granted for the Lara Operation on three grounds. They are, as quoted:
A material change of circumstances has arisen in that VCAT in Knol v. EPA & Greater Geelong City Council [2018] 33 extensively reviewed the identical QFever risk management measures for a similar intensive goat breeding proposal by Nuchev at Moorabool and found them inadequate (the First Basis);
For a proposal with health implications for a large number of Lara residents, serious doubts exist as to whether the notice required under section 52 of the Act was adequate (the Second Basis); and
There are continuing disturbing suggestions circulating that unlawful pressure may have been applied to the sole objector at the compulsory conference in Leonard v. Greater Geelong City Council [2017] VCAT 282 to induce that person to withdraw their objection, leading directly to the grant of the permit which foreclosed on all opportunities for a thorough independent VCAT examination of the risks of QFever. As the Tribunal was able to conduct a proper review of QFever risk management for the Moorabool facility leading to a refusal to grant a permit, the conduct that resulted in consent orders in Leonard may well, at its most charitable, constitute a material mistake in relation to the grant of the Lara permit under section 87(1)(c) of the Act, if not something more serious.” (the Third Basis)
(the Longmore Letter).
Technically, the petitions themselves make no request of Council to make an application under section 87 of the Act. Only the Longmore letter specifically makes that request which Mr Longmore says is made “on behalf of No To Nuchev”, an unincorporated association. Despite the inconsistency between the Longmore Letter and the requests contained in the petitions submitted to Council, Officers have taken the requests made in the Longmore Letter as representing the wishes of all petitioners.
A further letter from AWH Tailored Logistics Solutions (AWH) dated 20 February 2018 was also handed to Council at its 27 February 2018 meeting requesting Council make an application to VCAT under section 87 of the Act in respect of the Lara Operation. AWH is located at 250 Forest Road South, Lara and is directly adjacent to, and shares a 600 metre boundary with, the proposed Lara Operation site. The grounds upon which AWH make their request to Council are identical to the grounds outlined in the Longmore Letter. Officers advise that AWH were notified of the application during the notice period. Council’s records show that AWH did not submit an objection at that time.
Principles
The cancellation of a planning permit by VCAT is a serious step which should not be taken lightly. Previous decisions at VCAT uphold the certainty of permits and the persons acting in accordance with them and highlight the reluctance to use cancellation proceedings as a forum to reopen debate about the decision to grant the permit in the first place. The City understands that VCAT must strike a balance between the unfairness to a permit holder which would result from the cancellation of a permit and the public interest in the cancellation. In Koutroubas & Ors v. Melton Shire Council [2002] VCAT 917, VCAT stated:
“..it must be acknowledged that according fairness to the permit holders itself satisfies a public interest. There is a legitimate public interest in the fair operation of the planning laws. There is a legitimate public interest in the preservation of vested rights and the operation of planning provisions in a way which promotes consistency and the ability of persons in the position of the permit holder to know where they stand.”
VCAT may cancel or amend a planning permit under section 87 of the Act if it considers that there has been, of relevance –
A material misstatement or concealment of fact in relation to the application for the permit; or
Any material mistake in relation to the grant of the permit; or
Any material change of circumstances which has occurred since the grant of the permit or
Any failure to give notice in accordance with the Act.
Observations regarding the First Basis - material change of circumstances
The essence of the First Basis stated in the Longmore Letter was that the conclusion reached by VCAT in its decision regarding the Moorabool Operation should have also applied to the matter regarding the Lara Operation if that matter were properly heard and determined.
The Officers advise that VCAT decisions subsequent to a granting of a permit may constitute a ‘material change of circumstances’ in the exceptional case and only where the decision concerned is a guideline decision, rather than a decision which largely turns on its specific facts.
It is the Officers’ view that VCAT is unlikely to direct the cancellation of the planning permit for the Lara Operation site on this ground because:
As noted above, VCAT was clear in its reasons for decision that the refusal of the planning permit relating to the Moorabool Operation did not mean that the site was completely unsuitable for use as an intensive goat farm, stating that: “It may be that our key concerns are matters of detail able to be addressed so that this site can be used for this purpose albeit in a modified lesser form and intensity.”
VCAT’s decision in respect of the Moorabool Operation was not a decision that should generally apply to other cases and was decided upon the particular facts of the Moorabool Operation (“We are unable to approve this proposal in its current form and intensity”). Further, VCAT described the Moorabool Operation as “unique.” There is no comment made by VCAT as to the weight to be given to the decision in future cases.
Observations regarding the Second Basis – inadequate notice
The Officers have reservations that VCAT would cancel the permit on the basis of material misstatements in public notices because:
The detail on the notice was adequately and sufficiently clear in regards to the use and identification of the site. It is not the function of the notice to describe in detail the permit being applied for. Previous VCAT decisions have indicated that the function of a notice is to alert people to the fact that an application has been made and its general nature. The onus is on those given or seeing the notice to investigate and ascertain if they are affected by the application and whether they wish to lodge an objection.
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. Two signs were placed on site and notices were placed in two newspapers. The Officers believe this exceeds the requirements for notice under section 52 of the Act. Apart from the formal notice, the issue was publicised through social media and newspaper articles.
Observations regarding the Third Basis – undue pressure
The essence of the Third Basis outlined in the Longmore Letter is that Mr Leonard, the sole objector at the VCAT Compulsory Conference regarding the planning permit for the Lara Operation site, may have had undue pressure applied to him. The allegation does not point out who allegedly applied pressure to Mr Leonard nor how the pressure was applied. It is impossible for the City to provide any further comment.
Be that as it may, the Officers do not believe that VCAT would cancel the planning permit for the Lara Operation site based on a material mistake in relation to the granting of that permit arising out of the way the compulsory conference was conducted based on the following facts:
Mr Leonard volunteered to participate in the compulsory conference;
The compulsory conference was overseen by a Tribunal appointed mediator;
Mr Leonard reached a compromise with Council and Nuchev; and
The Tribunal was satisfied that it was ‘appropriate to make [the] orders”.
Legal and other Costs
The Officers have been informed that the cost to the City to run the section 87 application to hearing at VCAT would be no less than $30,000. This does not include the cost of any expert witnesses that may be required. If the application fails and the City is ordered by VCAT to pay Nuchev’s legal costs, these are estimated at no less than $30,000. The City has been informed that such an application would also tie up considerable City resources.
If VCAT is persuaded to cancel the permit based on a material change of circumstances or misstatement or mistake, the City would be required to pay Nuchev and any other “person who has incurred expenditure or liability for expenditure” compensation. This is impossible to quantify. Given that the Lara Operations permit was granted in February 2017, the costs that have been expended by others with “vested rights” in the planning permit could be considerable.
Conclusions
Taking all matters into account and on balance, the Officers recommend that Council not proceed with an application under section 87 of the Act in respect of the planning permit for the Lara Operation site.
If the petitioners include persons who objected to the grant of the permit, those persons are empowered by the Act to seek a cancellation of the planning permit at VCAT if they remain dissatisfied with Council’s decision provided they are able to satisfy the criteria set out in section 89 of the Act.
Councillor Grzybek moved, Councillor Aitken seconded -
That Council:
acknowledges and welcomes all investors who choose the City of Greater Geelong as a place to create employment opportunities and especially those with export potential and this applicant currently has a legally approved planning permit;
acknowledges that although this planning process on the evidence currently presented before Council appears to have been legally issued and approved, the local community and those Lara residents in particular not formally notified during the original process wish some mechanism to allow their genuine concerns to be considered;
proceed with an application under section 87 of thePlanning and Environment Act 1987 to cancel planning permit 1204-2015 at 240 Forest Road South, Lara; and
write to N. Longmore, B. Baker and AWH Tailored Logistics Solutions advising them of the outcome of Council’s consideration of the petitions.
Carried.
For: Crs Aitken, Grzybek, Kontelj, Nelson, Sullivan, Asher
Against: Crs Murrihy, Mason, Murnane, Harwood
There are potentially significant financial implications to Council if it chooses to proceed with the section 87 application. Council would be liable for its own legal costs (which have been estimated conservatively at $30,000) and also potentially the costs of all other parties that become involved in the application. In addition, the Tribunal may seek an undertaking from Council to pay compensation. Given that the planning permit was issued in February 2017, Officers cannot determine what losses the permit applicant has incurred since that time which may be claimable against the Council should VCAT cancel the permit.
Council consulted with the community in accordance with the requirements of the Act by providing direct notice to 252 owners/occupiers of neighbouring and nearby properties to the Lara Operation as part of the planning permit application process. In addition, relevant notices were erected at the Lara Operation site for 14 days and notice of the application was inserted in the City News section of the Geelong Independent and the Geelong Advertiser. In response to that notification, Council received 56 objections to the proposal from the community.
Concerns regarding community health and amenity have been raised by the community with Council through questions, letters and emails, petitions and submissions. The matters raised by the community were also considered in the application process for the planning permit for 240 Forest Road South, Lara.
The legal implications of making an application under section 87 have been set out in this report. In addition, the Council is subject to the model litigant guidelines in relation to any legal proceedings it participates in.
Not applicable.
There are no known conflicts of interest in the preparation of this report. This report has been authored by Council officers not involved in the original assessment and subsequent VCAT appeal process.
The risks of proceeding with an application under section 87 of the Act have been set out in this report. The risks associated with the planning permit were considered at the time of the permit application and subsequent VCAT compulsory conference.
There are no environmental implications arising from Council’s decision to accept the recommendations that are the subject of this report.
Where did Council receive its advice in preparing the report in response to the No Nuchev petition?
Council sought advice from one of its panel lawyers with expertise in planning matters and applications under section 87 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act).
Historically, how successful have section 87 proceedings been at VCAT?
Section 87 applications are legal and technical in nature and each proceeding is based on its own merits according to known legal tests. Accordingly, the number of successful/unsuccessful applications brought before VCAT in the past will have no bearing on the outcome of any future section 87 applications.
In any event, on our research, since 2000, there are no known applications where VCAT has heard and determined to cancel a permit under section 87.
Is the site properly zoned for an intensive goat farm and milk processing plant?
The site is zoned for farming, which aims to provide for the use of land for agriculture and encourages the retention of employment and population to support rural communities.
A goat farm and a milk processing plant are permitted uses in the Farming Zone, provided there is a planning permit issued for those uses and the permit holder meets any conditions imposed through the permit.
Council as the responsible planning authority, is required to consider all applications for a planning permit that are made to it, and this includes an assessment of the application against the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.
The Lara Structure Plan clearly shows that the Industrial 2 Zone further to the south is for potentially polluting industries. The buffer zone between is intended to keep the township of Lara and its residents healthy. Is it reasonable to put a goat farm here?
The Lara Structure Plan nominates 240 Forest Road South to be within an area to be used as a buffer of ‘non-sensitive land uses’ between the Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct and the Lara township.
The buffer nominated in the Lara Structure Plan does not preclude applications being considered that are allowable in a Farming Zone.
The assessment of whether a goat farm is reasonable from a public health perspective was considered as part of the planning permit application, with advice sought from the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). DHHS was satisfied, that as long as the proposed risk management plan was implemented, there would be no increased risk of QFever in the community from the use.
If this development goes ahead, doesn’t it set a precedent for industrial operations to be placed on any farming zoned land in the City of Greater Geelong?
The Greater Geelong Planning Scheme sets out uses and activities that are allowed without a permit, that require a permit or that are prohibited on all land in Greater Geelong.
Any land use that requires a permit is assessed on a case by case basis, on its merits and consistent with the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. Accordingly, this development would not set a precedent for this type of use in a farming zone.
Broadly speaking, residential uses go into residential zones, industrial uses go into industrial zones, commercial uses go into commercial zones and farming uses into farming zones.
All planning permit applications are assessed on their suitability for the zone.
The use of a goat farm is defined in the planning scheme as “intensive animal husbandry”, with the use being more broadly included under “rural industry”. This use is considered appropriate in a farming zone with a planning permit.
Similarly, the land use “milk processing plant”, is defined as “rural industry”, and is considered appropriate in a farming zone with a planning permit.
It’s not uncommon for rural industry uses to be located in a farming zone.
How can an intensive farming and milk processing facility be approved for a location so close to the residential area of Lara?
In considering the application for a planning permit, Council must take into account the zoning of the site and relevant planning policies.
A milk processing plant is required to be located at least 300 metres from land in a residential zone or education centre.
The location of a processing plant at 240 Forest Road South meets this required distance.
Council’s assessment of whether the land use was appropriate in terms of its location took into consideration matters such as odour, noise and traffic.
The conditions of the planning permit outline requirements in relation to QFever management, odour control, noise levels, delivery hours and hours of operation for management activities associated with the use.
Why isn’t the goat farm located somewhere else, like the Golden Plains Food Production Precinct?
Council must respond to, and assess, each application it receives on its merits in line with the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, on the site it is being proposed on. Planning permits attach to the land which is the subject of the permit.
Council cannot direct an applicant that a particular land use would be better located somewhere else as part of assessing the planning permit application.
It is not mandatory that all intensive agricultural land uses in the region be located in the Golden Plains Food Production Precinct.
What is being proposed for the site?
The planning permit allows for use of the site for milk processing and goat farming.
The planning scheme definition for this use is “intensive animal husbandry” and “rural industry”.
A purpose-built building to house goats is proposed, measuring 214 metres by 139 metres, with an open side and a height of 7.5 metres.
A milk processing plant is also proposed to be built which will have a maximum roof height of 27 metres. This building includes four 13 metre high refrigerated milk silos and a connected office building.
Are the buildings too big and dominating for the site and the local area?
The buildings have been assessed against the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, which includes design and siting issues under the Farming Zone.
The planning scheme does not have prescriptive guidelines on the size of buildings in the Farming Zone.
A planning assessment, which considered the surrounding area, the location of the buildings and proposed landscaping to provide a screen along the boundary, determined that the proposed buildings were reasonable for the site.
When will the goat farm and milk processing plant operate?
The conditions of the planning permit allow for:
Management activities associated with the use to only occur between 4:00am and 11:00pm.
Deliveries to and from the site to only occur between:
6:00am and 10:00pm, Monday to Saturday
7:00am and 6:00pm, Sunday
Was the Lara community notified about the original planning permit application for 240 Forest Road South, Lara?
Council wrote to 252 landowners and occupiers about the application, notices were placed in the City News section of the Geelong Independent and Saturday Geelong Advertiser (as well as being made public on Council’s website) and two signs were placed on the site, one on Forest Road South and one on Broderick Road.
Local newspapers ran a number of articles about the application prior to any decision being made.
56 people submitted objections to the planning application.
How could so many people be so unaware of the original planning application?
Public notification of the application complied with the Act.
There were a number of articles published in the local media about the proposal prior to the Council making a decision.
The number of objections submitted indicates that there was knowledge of the applications within the surrounding community.
Was the community consultation of the original planning application inadequate?
Community consultation was adequate and complied with the requirements of the Act.
The 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.
The City’s consultation, including advertising and sending and displaying notices, was undertaken in line with the requirements of the Act.
On Saturday 20 May 2015, Nuchev undertook its own community consultation, which was prior to lodging the application with Council.
Two open house events were held by Nuchev at the Lara Community Centre and Anakie Community House to share proposed plans and hear from the locals.
Local media coverage also raised community awareness of the application.
Did Council and the Administrators have all the information and experience needed to make an informed decision on the Lara planning application?
The Administrators made a decision on the planning permit application for 240 Forest Road South on 25 July 2016.
A detailed planning report was prepared by the City’s officers, with input from DHHS, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and others. This was provided to the Administrators to inform their decision.
The report provided an assessment of the planning permit application in line with the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. The Administrators had all of the relevant information required for them to make a fully informed decision.
Objectors’ concerns, including the risk of QFever, were considered as part of the original application and on review through a subsequent VCAT appeal process.
At a VCAT compulsory conference on 20 February 2017 it was agreed between all parties, including objectors, that the planning permit be granted with some variations to the permit conditions.
These variations included a requirement that a risk management plan for QFever, to mitigate the risk and manage QFever if detected, must be approved by the EPA and DHHS prior to submission to Council.
Why don’t VCAT’s concerns about QFever risk management at Moorabool apply to Lara?
A Works Approval from the EPA was required for the Moorabool operation as it proposed to accommodate more than 5,000 goats.
Given the proposed intensity of the Moorabool operation, the DHHS required an Infection Control Management Plan to be incorporated within the Qfever risk management plan under the EPA Works Approval.
It was determined through the VCAT hearing that the Works Approval would not have ongoing obligations once the farm was established and that no licence was required under the EPA. The only approval which had ongoing obligations would be the planning permit.
In making its decision the tribunal noted that the Moorabool site may well be appropriate for the proposed use but not at the proposed scale of 14,000 goats. VCAT’s decision regarding the Moorabool operation was made on facts specific to that operation.
VCAT’s decision does not set a precedent for other similar cases.
Is the Lara community being exposed to an unacceptable risk of QFever if the Nuchev goat farm goes ahead?
The City relies on the expertise of the DHHS for management of disease such as QFever. The application was referred to the DHHS for its comment.
DHHS requested that the applicant prepare a revised QFever risk assessment for 240 Forest Road South, Lara.
A DHHS report concluded that if adopted “the risk management measures proposed are expected to ensure that the risk of operating on these sites presents, at worst, no higher risk of human infection in the surrounding area that the current background level within the state”.
The DHHS was satisfied that that there would be no increased risk of QFever in the community as long as the risk management plan was implemented.
How will the risk of QFever be managed on site?
A risk management plan is required to be submitted as a condition of the planning permit for the site at 240 Forest Road South.
The condition requires that the risk management plan must have been approved by the EPA and the DHHS before it’s submitted to Council.
As a condition of the planning permit, the applicant will be required to meet a range of risk management measures in order to ensure ongoing management of Qfever.
The condition on the planning permit also requires biannual reporting to Council on the implementation of the risk management plan.
Who will be monitoring QFever at the Lara goat farm?
A QFever risk management plan is required to be submitted to Council for endorsement as a condition of the planning permit.
The plan must be approved by the EPA and the DHHS.
The planning permit condition requires that the use must at all times be conducted in accordance with the endorsed risk management plan to the satisfaction of Council.
The condition on the planning permit also requires biannual reporting to Council on the implementation of the risk QFever management plan.
It is reported that QFever can be fatal to immune-suppressed residents and vaccinations have high egg protein and are not recommended for children under 15. How can residents be confident they will be safe?
Council has relied on specialist advice from the DHHS in relation to the assessment of the Qfever risks associated with the planning permit.
The advice provided to Council from the DHHS, was that the department was satisfied that there would be no increased risk of QFever in the community as long as the risk management plan was implemented.
What happens if Qfever breaks out on the site?
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.
A DHHS Communicable Disease Officer would lead the investigation and Council would provide assistance where required.
VCAT rejected the Moorabool proposal on the grounds of undue risk of potential Q-fever transmission (and wastewater issues), why didn’t it reject the Lara goat farm?
The Moorabool proposal was not rejected on the grounds of undue risk of potential Qfever.
An appeal was lodged at VCAT by objectors (a joint application which included six objectors) against Council’s decision to support the proposal for 240 Forest Road South.
At the VCAT compulsory conference on 20 February 2017 it was agreed between all parties (applicant, objector, residents and Council) that the planning permit be granted with some variations to the permit conditions.
The variations to the permit conditions strengthened the conditions to require that the QFever risk management plan must be approved by the EPA and DHHS prior to submission to Council.
Won’t the goat farm be smelly?
The planning permit requires that an odour model be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the operation commencing.
The odour model requires that odour does not impact on the residential area to the north.
Any odour must be contained within the surrounding land zoned Industrial, Special Use and Farming.
Council will investigate any alleged breaches and undertake enforcement of planning permit conditions as required.
Won’t the goat farm create too much traffic for the local roads?
The traffic generated by the goat farm is expected to be absorbed within the existing road network.
VicRoads, as the roads authority for Forest Road South, has provided conditions which are included in the planning permit in relation to access to and from the site on Forest Road South, including the provision of turning lanes.
Source: |
Community Life - Social Planning & Investment |
Director: |
Linda Quinn |
Index Reference: |
Sport & Recreation Grants & Funding - Incoming |
To seek Council endorsement to develop an application to the state government’s Country Football and Netball Program (CFNP).
Each year, the state government allocates funding for sport and recreation projects through a number of grant programs.
The Country Football and Netball Funding Program (CFNP) aims to improve football and netball facilities in rural, regional and outer metropolitan areas through funding for infrastructure developments.
Applications opened on 24 January 2018 and must be submitted to Sport & Recreation Victoria (SRV) by 12 April 2018.
Sport & Recreation Victoria has presented Councils with a second opportunity for funding support which reflects the tight deadlines for submission.
Following an assessment of the five (5) Expressions of Interests received, the upgrade to the Grovedale Football Netball Club change rooms, located at Burdoo Reserve Grovedale, is the recommended project for submission to SRV. This project has the greatest alignment to Council priorities and the CFNP funding criteria.
As the recommended project is requesting a contribution of $100,000 from the funding program, only one application will be submitted by Council.
The total project cost is $390,000 and the project will require a Council contribution of $260,000, with the Grovedale Football Club contributing $30,000.
This project has been given priority as it was able to demonstrate the need for the facility upgrade in order to support female participation in football. The club has recently expanded to include four female teams in season 2018, and at present the facility does not provide suitable change facilities to support continued growth in women’s participation.
An assessment of the projects submitted identified this project as being most aligned with the G21 and AFL Barwon Regional Strategy. Both strategies have been endorsed by Council.
Councillor Murnane moved, Councillor Nelson seconded -
That Council:
endorses the development of a submission to Sport & Recreation Victoria’s Country Football and Netball Program for the upgrade to the Grovedale Football Netball Club change rooms;
refers the proposed Council contribution of $260,000 to the 2018/19 Budget for consideration. Noting that should this application be unsuccessful, Council contribution will not be required.
Carried.
The Country Football and Netball Funding Program (CFNP)
The Country Football and Netball Funding Program (CFNP) opened on 24 January, 2018 and closes on 12 April, 2018.
Only rural, regional and outer metropolitan councils can apply for the funding, so clubs and associations must submit an Expression of Interest on their projects to Council. The maximum grant amount available is $100,000 per Council. Council is eligible to submit up to three (3) applications that total the maximum funding amount.
Information on the Country Football and Netball Program can be found at: http://sport.vic.gov.au/grants-and-funding/our-grants/country-football-and-netball-program. The CFNP guidelines are included at attachment 2.
Over the years, Council has submitted a number of applications to this fund for consideration. In the past five years, four out of five applications have been successful. The details of the last four successful applications are;
2014/15
Leopold Memorial Reserve – netball change rooms
CFN - $100,000, External contributions - $600,000, Council - $455,000
2016/17
Anakie Reserve – unisex umpire change rooms
CFN - $100,000, Council - $1.077M
2017/18
Winter Reserve – unisex change rooms
CFN - $100,000, External contributions - $702,000, Council - $348,000
2018/19 (Round 1)
Richmond Crescent Reserve – unisex umpire change rooms
CFN - $100,000, Council - $331,000
Grovedale Football Netball Club Stage 1 Change Room Upgrade
The project that has been identified as the preferred application with greatest community benefit and chance of success is the Grovedale Football Netball Club Stage 1 change room upgrade.
This project will deliver Stage 1 of the change room upgrade at Burdoo Reserve. The project will provide modern, welcoming and gender neutral change facilities. This facility upgrade will support 500+ participants currently engaged at the Club along with their growing female football membership base Female football at the Club has grown to include four teams in season 2018, and at present the facility does not provide suitable change facilities that can support this growth. This development will assist in delivering a facility that aligns with the AFL facility guidelines for unisex use and is supported by the G21 and AFL Barwon Regional Strategy which rates the current condition of the change facility as 3/10 (poor to very poor) .
Should the funding submission to SRV be successful, Council will be expected to make a commitment to the project in the 2018-19 financial year. The minimum funding ratio for this program is $1.5 State: $1 Local.
2018-19 Budget – total Council contribution required $260,000.
Proposed income:
Funding Source |
Confirmed |
Amount |
Country Football Netball Program |
N |
$100,000 |
Council contribution 2018/19 |
N |
$260,000 |
Grovedale Football Netball Club |
Y |
$30,000 |
Total income/total project cost |
|
$390,000 |
Following the state government opening the grant applications on 24 January, 2018 Council advertised and opened an Expression of Interest (EOI) which called on submissions from all football and netball clubs within the municipality. Football and netball clubs were contacted directly advising them of the new funding round. The EOI process ran from Friday 9 February, 2018 to Wednesday 21 February, 2018. Five (5) Expressions of Interest were received and evaluated.
During the evaluation process, EOIs were assessed against the CFNP Guidelines (Attachment 2) along with Council’s budget drivers and the Our Future Community Indicators. Alignment to supporting strategies such as the G21 AFL Barwon Strategy were also considered. Discussions were held with local SRV and AFL Barwon representatives to ensure both had a level of comfort with the proposal. The assessment of applications can be found at attachment 3.
The proposed project will support growth in female football across the municipality and within the Grovedale Football Netball Club. The current facility cannot accommodate female participation due to being outdated and not aligning with modern standards and expectations. This project will provide a gender neutral facility that is compliant and appropriate for females.
There are no legislative or legal ramifications associated with the adoption of this report.
The recommended project aligns to the City Plan’s priority of Community Wellbeing along with the City’s Clever and Creative vision through the Inclusive, Diverse, Healthy and Socially Connected Communities. This project will encourage healthy lifestyles and connected communities through active recreation and participation in sport.
No officer has any known indirect or direct conflict of interest in the preparation of this report.
There are no immediate risks associated with this report. A component of the project will entail relevant risk management and Occupational Health & Safety assessments.
There are no foreseeable environmental implications associated with this report. Environmentally sustainable design initiatives will be incorporated into the design where practicable.
Source: |
Governance & Legal Services |
Executive Manager: |
Rebecca Leonard |
Index Reference: |
Delegations |
To appoint Council officers as authorised officers under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the P&EA).
Council officers are appointed as authorised officers to exercise statutory powers under various Acts and Regulations. Appointments as authorised officers are to individual staff members.
The P&EA regulates enforcement and is reliant on authorised officers acting on behalf of the Responsible Authority (Council).
Where there is a specific power within an Act, Council should appoint authorised officers pursuant to that Act. This is the case for the P&EA.
Planning staff members have recently been employed by Council and are required to be authorised under the P&EA.
Attachment 2 sets out the Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation under the P&EA and lists the staff members to whom this authorisation applies (the instrument).
Councillor Asher moved, Councillor Kontelj seconded -
In the exercise of the powers conferred by section 224 of the Local Government Act 1989 and the other legislation referred to in the attached instrument, Greater Geelong City Council (Council) RESOLVES THAT THE -
members of Council staff referred to in the instrument be appointed and authorised as set out in the instrument;
instrument comes into force immediately upon the common seal of Council being affixed to the instrument, and remains in force until Council determines to vary or revoke it;
instrument be sealed.
Carried.
There are no financial implications arising from the subject of this report.
Relevant Council managers have been consulted regarding this recommended appointment and authorisation.
There are no social equity implications arising from the subject of this report.
The recommended appointment and authorisation of these staff members complies with the relevant provisions of the P&EA and the Local Government Act 1989.
The recommended appointments and authorisations of these staff members supports the delivery of Council planning services.
No Council officers or contractors who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a conflict of interest regarding the matter under consideration.
There are no significant or high risks associated with the subject of this report.
There are no environmental implications arising from the subject of this report.
Source: |
Finance and Strategy |
Director: |
Kelvin Walsh |
Councillor Nelson moved, Councillor Kontelj seconded -
That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1989, this contractual matter be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.
Carried.
Source: |
Finance and Strategy |
Director: |
Peter Anderson |
Councillor Nelson moved, Councillor Kontelj seconded -
That in accordance with Section 89 (2)(h) of the Local Government Act 1989, this matter which the Council considers may prejudice the Council or any person, be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.
Carried.
Source: |
People and Organisation Development |
Executive Manager:: |
Andrew Keen |
Index Reference: |
Subject: CEO Recruitment |
Councillor Nelson moved, Councillor Kontelj seconded -
That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (a) of the Local Government Act 1989, this personnel matter be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.
Carried.
Source: |
Governance and Legal Services |
Executive Managerr: |
Rebecca Leonard |
Index Reference: |
Audit - CG - Internal |
Councillor Nelson moved, Councillor Kontelj seconded -
That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (h) of the Local Government Act 1989, this matter which the Council considers would prejudice the Council or any person, be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.
Carried.
Source: |
Finance and Strategy |
Director: |
Peter Anderson |
Index Reference: |
Tender T1770865 |
Councillor Nelson moved, Councillor Kontelj seconded -
That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1989, this contractual matter be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.
Carried.
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
