Minutes of the Community Focus Council Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Belmont Bowls Club, 16-36 Reynolds Road, Belmont on 10 July 2018, commencing at 7:12pm.
Susan Hartnett
Peter Watson
Pamela Slaney
Rick Whitworth
Tim and Nicole Lord
Jason Hartnett
Barry Stokes
Michael Thomas
Nick Johnson
Chris Morrissy
Claude Eagles
David Spears
Keith Rodda
Russell Devlin
Jennifer Bantow
Councillors:
P Murrihy (Acting Mayor)
A Aitken
S Asher
K Grzybek
E Kontelj
S Mansfield
J Mason
P Murnane
R Nelson
M Cutter (Chief Executive Officer)
J van Slageren (Acting 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 People and Organisation Development)
R Leonard (Executive Manager Governance and Legal Services)
The Chair declared the meeting open at 7:12pm.
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.
Councillors
B Harwood (Council business)
T Sullivan (Leave of Absence)
Councillor Mansfield moved, Councillor Kontelj seconded –
That the Minutes of the Community Focus Council Meeting held on 12 June 2018 be confirmed.
Carried.
Nil.
The following questions were submitted and asked in relation to the Japara Aged Care Facility located on 297-307 Roslyn Road, Belmont. Councillor Murrihy provided the following response to those questions as follows:
All issues raised regarding the Residential Aged Care Facility will be considered as part of the Planning Permit process. The application is currently under review and is scheduled to be heard by a Planning Committee on 23 August 2018. Objectors will have the ability to present to the Planning Committee and raise their concerns.
A letter will be sent to all objectors and the applicant advising them of the date, time and location of the Planning Committee as well as details of how the Panel will operate.
Susan Hartnett asked the following:
Are you aware of the devastating impact to the neighbourhood character of the surrounding residential area, if the proposed Japara Aged Care Facility on 297 - 307 Roslyn Road goes ahead?
The Planning Officer's recommendations for the proposed Japara Aged Care Facility on 297 - 307 Roslyn Road refer to 35 staff onsite for the peak shift in relation to decisions made on the impact to traffic and adequate onsite parking. Does this number include nursing and other medical staff, administration and management staff, maintenance staff, kitchen staff, cafe staff, cleaning staff, gardeners, salon staff, library staff, cinema / chapel staff, wellness centre staff? Does it also take into account that at each shift change, the parking requirements and road usage effectively doubles?
Peter Watson asked the following:
What is the express purpose of the rear pedestrian gate as proposed?
The car parking analysis/report fails to consider 3/4 of Remony Avenue (where the pedestrian gates is located), all of Keram Crescent and also fails to recognise the Aged Care will have 'overlapping' shifts which translates to twice the number of staff will require car parks for the period of the overlap. Why hasn't the Council planning staff recognised these basic and obvious shortcomings of this report?
In an old, very quiet and peaceful part of residential Highton why hasn't the Council recognised the huge negative impact the sheer grand scale of this 3-4 story building will have on the single storey homes along three of its boundaries. In Remony Avenue alone this super-sized building will dwarf its single storey neighbours and will be only 6-10 metres off the boundary.
Pamela Slaney asked the following:
I reside at 8 Remony Avenue which is classified as Zone 2 general residential, this encourages more low density building on larger blocks of land, yet less than 200 metres away will be an imposing 4 storey building. Why is it that the Ryman development in South Valley Road has taken this issue into consideration with a 4 storey building only in the centre of the development, then further buildings staggered down in height to complement the surrounding neighbour’s homes? Yet we are powerless when faced with the proposed 4 storey Japara development looming over our privacy. What is wrong with a two storey development?
Rick Whitworth asked the following:
Will the scale/size and design of this proposed Aged Care Development be appropriate to provide adequate off street parking and traffic flow arrangements to accommodate the number of Aged Care residents, including the family and friends who need to visit those residents, and to meet all service and delivery traffic needed to operate the centre?
What will be done in the future to ensure that such off-street parking and traffic flow facilities operate and are properly used after its construction?
Tim and Nicole Lord asked how many Councillors have physically visited Remony Avenue to gained a full appreciation of the impact of the proposed three storey building and impact of the removal of the trees?
Could the Planning Officer please explain how he has come to the conclusion that this excessively large three storey development which decimates trees and crowds the narrow roads fits in with the neighbourhood character objectives?
Jason Hartnett asked the following:
Can the same floor be a basement in one part and a storey in another part, or should the whole be regarded as a storey if a part protrudes more than 1.2 meters above ground level?
On the eastern elevation plan, what does the red dotted line represent and what does the black dotted line represent?
As you move from left to right across the eastern elevation plan (towards the north) the ground floor protrudes further above ground level and is eventually wholly above ground level. It is of course well over the 1.2 meter threshold at the northern end, meaning the floor is not a basement. Yet the applicant regards it as a basement and says it does not count as a storey (and there is a limit of 3) and the Council officer agrees.
Clause 72 of the Planning Scheme says a basement is a storey below ground level, or that projects no more than 1.2 meters above ground level.
The applicant claims that where the ground floor height is more than 1.2 meters above ground level, there are no more than 2 stories above it.
How can the same floor be a basement at the southern end but not at the northern end? Even if this interpretation is permitted, the 1.2 meter threshold appears to be exceeded in parts where there are 3 further stories above. The plans are not sufficiently detailed to be certain.
Pages 31 to 32 of the recommendation report refer to the Special Building Overlay and the minimum floor level of 61.15m AHD.
In the planning report by Planning and Property Partners, quoting the SBO, the critical measure is stated as being the Minimum floor level and we are referred to Appendix D. However, Appendix D gives the minimum flood level. What is the difference? What is the minimum floor level, which is the one that the maximum height is to be measured from?
How could the minimum flood level be so high anyway? The maximum permitted height based on the claim to measure from the minimum flood level, is patently inappropriate for the area.
Did the applicant pay for the footpath recently constructed along the frontage to the property and beyond, or undertake to refund the council for the cost, or will it be required to refund the cost?
Councillor Murrihy responded to question 3 as follows: Construction of the footpath in Roslyn Road is being delivered by Council. Funding of the works is a shared cost between Council and all abutting property owners. The total estimated project cost of $268,714. Council contribution to the scheme is $147,625 and property owners contribution of $69,471. The owner of 293-307 Roslyn Road is required to pay their share of the cost totalling $8,028.18.
Barry Stokes advised the meeting a pavement has been absent for forty years and suddenly we have one in front of the Aged Nursing Home?
Michael Thomas asked if Council has engaged with the school community and teachers. If not, could that occur before 23 August?
Nick Johnson asked his question in relation to public consultation and communication. Japara released a press release on 12 September 2017, which included an artist’s impression. As they are one of Australia’s largest providers in the industry, why can’t they look at a lower scale retirement village? I am not against development, but want an appropriate development.
Chris Morrissy asked if the 23 August Planning Committee meeting will be a negotiation/approval process?
Joanne Van Slageren responded that it is a decision making forum.
Are only objectors allowed to speak?
Joanne Van Slageren indicated that people attending are generally only objectors. Council will receive objections up until the decision is made.
Claude Eagles asked how is Council going to pick up our rubbish in the street? In my estimation the facility is relying on 75 car parks in the street outside the unit.
David Spears asked what measures are in place for destroying the footpath with heavy plant and equipment?
Keith Rodda asked about sustainability into the future - have ambulance call outs during the evening been addressed by the applicant?
Russell Devlin submitted a statement in relation to the noise issues which sited 14 individual air conditioning units placed on the roof of the proposed building five of these are close to his property. Mr Devlin was also concerned about the existing four Cyprus trees on the south boundary which are proposed to be retained and are centred approximately 8.5 m from his sunroom wall on the north side of his property. He was also concerned about the effects on his television reception due to black spot reception, interference due to air conditioning units, lift operation or other electrical equipment, including x-ray equipment in the building.
Councillor Asher reminded objectors that the Planning Committee will allow only three minutes per person to state their objection to the development and advised those participating that great care be taken in the way in which they present.
Jennifer Bantow asked the following question in relation to Agenda Item 1, Amendment C359:
Frederick Dalgety established his business here in 1857. Edward Harwood Lascelles, aged 16 years joined his Uncle Charles John Dennys, a wool broker, in early 1860’s in Geelong.
We need to make these people, their business establishments and associated placed, household names in Geelong’s history, as well as James Strachan, Hugh Murray Strachan and Charles Shannon.
As the Geelong Woolstores Industrial Heritage Precinct conservation area, is one of remarkable coherence and integrity in height and scale, unequalled elsewhere in Victoria, and represents an important aspect of the process of settling the land in Victoria, and this important heritage area is at risk of being eroded, brick by brick, would Council please especially consider providing the resources needed for the urgent implementation of one of the Panel’s Further Recommendations on Page 26?
The Further Recommendation is:
Council should consider reviewing the Woolstores Industrial Heritage Area and design policy to ensure that design response to development is best practice and avoids facadism..
Response: supported subject to budget and work program capacity.
The Chief Executive Officer responded he was unable to make any commitment, but would review resources in relation to the matter.
Nil.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
