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 25 February 2020, commencing at 7:00pm.
Helen Pownall and Nerisse Davis
Louie Hehir
Mark Spronken on behalf of Lukas McVey
Terri Spronken
Dean Smith
Cheryl Scott
Jim Haigh
Jennifer Bantow
Tina Thorburn
Erica Hunt
Pam Clark
Councillors:
S Asher (Mayor)
A Aitken
K Grzybek
B Harwood
E Kontelj
S Mansfield
J Mason
P Murnane
P Murrihy
R Nelson
T Sullivan
M Cutter (Chief Executive Officer)
B Luxford (Director Economy, Investment and Attraction)
G Smith (Director Planning, Design and Development)
M Dugina (Director Customer and Corporate Services)
R Stevens (Director Community Life)
R Leonard (Director Governance, Strategy and Performance)
K Phyland (Director People and Culture)
The Mayor 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.
Nil.
Councillor Grzybek moved, Councillor Mason seconded –
That Leave of Absence be granted to Councillor Aitken from 28 February and including 9 March 2020, inclusive.
Carried.
Councillor Sullivan moved, Councillor Grzybek seconded -
That the Minutes of the Community Focus Meeting held on 12 November 2019 be confirmed.
Carried.
Councillr Kontelj declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Item 9 – Tender T2000018 Supply and Delivery of Quarry Materials and Associated Products in that some of the tender respondents are customers of a company of which he is a Director.
Helen Pownall and Nerisse Davis submitted questions prior to the meeting which will be responded to in writing.
James Collins asked about the recent community grants:
It seems that two of the largest grants went to sporting clubs which enjoy significant revenue from poker machines. While not prohibited we are told that this is not in accordance with the guidelines of the scheme. Would you please confirm if large payments in the region of $300,000 have been offered to clubs in Bell Park and Lara? We would also like to understand the selection and approval process to see how such a funding decision could be made?
Michael Dugina responded that in 2019, 30 organisations across the municipality were successful in receiving community infrastructure funding including:
$228,200 for Bell Park Cricket Club to upgrade and relocate their hard wicket training facilities;
$350,000 for Lara Football Club to upgrade the lighting for Oval 1 at the Lara Sporting Club; and
$350,000 for Lara United Football Club for the installation of sporting ground lights to facilitate training sessions on the soccer pitches at Lara Recreation Reserve.
Under the guidelines, “facilities designated for electronic gaming machine operations”, are not eligible and would not proceed to the assessment phase. The guidelines also state that “proposals for funding where the recipient organisations receive revenue from electronic gaming machines will be given a lower priority”.
The approval process is as follows:
Begins with an eligibility check, assessment and ranking by City officers;
The applications are then assessed by an external panel of community members who provide Council with a final funding recommendation for endorsement; and
Councillors receive a report that includes the organisation details, a brief description of each project and funding recommendations for endorsement.
All stages of the process are informed by the grant eligibility and assessment criteria and ensure fairness, transparency and accountability. All guidelines are published on Council’s website.
We note that the Council has allocated roughly $100m towards the new Civic Centre, but that the total cost is about $200m. We would like to know who is paying the additional amount and what each party is getting for their money. In other words, is the distribution proportionate to the contribution and are the ratepayers being fairly represented in the arrangement. Ratepayers Geelong would also like an assurance that there will not be any additional burden placed on ratepayers into the future and that future workplace needs have been taken into account.
Michael Dugina responded a key goal has been to deliver the Civic Precinct without an increase in costs to our ratepayers. Not only have we achieved that, we are expecting to deliver this project ‘rates positive’ with a cashflow return of $1.2m from rental returns, reduced energy costs and rates yield from Quintessential Equity’s new commercial building within the precinct.
The City and Quintessential Equity have agreed to a guaranteed maximum price of $94m for the delivery of the City’s new building which will be tenanted out until required for City office expansion, future-proofing the City’s workplace needs in the one building for the next 20 years. This takes the City’s total cost to $102.5m. without any extra cost to the ratepayer.
Louie Hehir asked:
When will Council take responsibility and declare a climate emergency?
The Mayor responded this item is being considered this evening as part of the report on the Sustainability Framework.
The hospitality and retail industries are riding in Geelong, what is Council doing about this?
Brett Luxford responded the strength and growth in the region’s tourism industry has and continues to support the hospitality industry in the region. The City of Greater Geelong invests and supports the tourism industry through the activities of Tourism Greater Geelong and Bellarine. Visitor numbers are at an all-time high with greater than 5 million visitors annually with an expectation to grow over 7.5 million visitors in the next few years. This increase in visitation will support both the hospitality and retail sectors. Through the Geelong Major Events Committee the City of Greater Geelong continues to invest in the attraction and procurement of major events to the region.
In 2006 Geelong hosted the national transplant games a great sporting event. Is there the possibility of the Mayor or a representative submitting a request to host these games in 2022?
Brett Luxford responded the request has been passed to the Geelong Major Events Committee, who have the responsibility for attracting and procuring major events to the region.
Mark Sproken asked the following on behalf of Lukas McVey in relation to Amendment C372:
Taylors, the owners consultant and delegated representative met with the residents in December 2018. The question was asked what are our biggest concerns and a very clear point was made around block sizes. Taylors explained that to be consistent with adjoining amenity, density and block sizes the development would not be profitable. Given the development is 23 HA, 85% dedicated to lots, we have 19.55 hectares available for residential lots. Assuming an average of 2000m2 blocks and a conservative sale price of $500,000 each, a revenue of $47,500,000 would be realised. Current development cost at market rate, confirmed with the principles of two similar size developments, locally, verified with 3 different consulting engineers, is conservatively in the order of $130,000 per block.
Considering the purchase price of the land (happy to adjust if purchase price confirmed), and rates, but not including agistment revenue, tax concessions and allowing for a very conservative holding cost of $20,000, the total development cost per block would be in order of $150,000. This gives a total development cost of approximately $14,250,000.
Total before tax revenue of sales of blocks equates to roughly $33,250,000. The residents were happy to walk away with this approach 4 years ago and evidence clearly supports a development in line with current amenity, consistent with block sizes and maintains a clear commercial viability is feasible I ask the Councillors why they would accept this rezone?
Gareth Smith responded the development costs and profits of different density development are not relevant planning considerations.
Personally, I have raised for 6 years the issues around this development regarding a number of matters which must be resolved before rezoning can occur, these include, but not limited to, Boral Blast zones and contaminated land issues, only to have matters continually brushed aside or glossed over. It was interesting to note it took an independent panel to finally agree development could not occur in a blast zone and take the time to actually check this before dismissing and in fact not dismissing. Can Councillors, not Council employees, commit to meeting with an EPA contaminated land auditor to understand what needs to be done before rezoning occurs regarding determining the contaminated land status of the proposed development site? Not one verification soil sample has been taken yet it is bounded by two of the largest contaminating sources of infrastructure being a train line and a major sub-station. Such facilities have known PCB use, PFAS use and asbestos along with possible historical agricultural chemical use on the adjacent land. It was clearly pointed to the panel the die back which occurs during rain events (including photographic evidence) and a site history has not reflected the very risk actual present. Can council please meet with an EPA contaminated land auditor to discuss what needs to be done to ensure you are 100% certain you are not going to approve land for development which is contaminated?
Gareth Smith responded Council officers required an area of 250m from the Boral land to be subject to further approval, it wasn’t the panel that suggested this.
The permits include conditions dealing with soil contamination. “Prior to the commencement of any works …. an Environmental Assessment must be submitted, which must include an assessment of the land by a suitably qualified environmental professional detailing the level and location of any contamination”.
Terri Spronken asked:
Is Council aware that "all lots contained within stages 6,7,8 & 9 affected by the 250m extractive industry buffer as shown on the endorsed plan shall not be developed without the further written agreement of the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions", essentially making half of the subdivision unable to be built upon until the buffer is removed?
Gareth Smith responded Council is aware that this restriction is included in the planning permits.
Are Councillors aware that another study regarding noise emissions from the Powercor site needs to be conducted as noise emissions are already above acceptable levels, and also a reassessment of predicted noise levels from the Geelong Ring Road and Baanip Boulevard which "must include dwellings along the Geelong Ring Road, dwellings along Baanip Boulevard and dwellings along Hams Road with a line of sight to the Geelong Ring Road" needs to be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant?
Gareth Smith responded Council is aware that this and other noise related conditions are in the proposed planning permit for 35 Hams Road as recommended by the panel.
Why is a reworded section 173 agreement preventing the lots fronting Hams Road from being further subdivided or having more than one dwelling constructed on each lot as recommended by the Independent Panel Report still not included in the DDO45, which is part of the City's report being considered for adoption even after I received correspondence from Council's officers stating that it would be considered for inclusion?
Gareth Smith responded that the version of the DDO45 recommended for adoption is the same as that in the panel report. It requires residential lots fronting Hams Road must have a minimum lot size of 800 square metres and a minimum frontage to Hams Road of 25 metres. Hence, further subdivision would not meet this requirement and wouldn’t be allowed.
Dean Smith asked:
Is Council aware that there will be no pedestrian crossing across Ghazeepore Road. One of the busiest roads in Waurn Ponds, thus making the intersection of Hams, Sugargum and Ghazeepore Road’s a safety risk. Most of the kids in the local area must cross that road to gain access to the train station and bus stop area for local transport and also to and from school. And with the expansion of the railway station and the proposed subdivision the traffic will only get worse. Do you think that a dedicated crossing should be added as part of the proposal?
Gareth Smith responded that a pedestrian crossing is proposed and required as part of the roundabout at the corner of Hams Road and Ghazeepore Road. This is a requirement of the DDO and planning permit.
The process around C372 has been in favour of the proponent from the start. The timing of all consultation and information to the public, community meeting, Council meeting and any public event has been around Christmas, Easter or public holidays. This does not allow the community to organise themselves, digest information and get ready for each step of the process, a process which they are largely unaware of. Councillor Harwood attended one of the events organized by the proponent to address concerns of the residents and he witnessed what a sham it was, with the proponent not giving a presentation but electing just to stand around and expect the community to ask the same question multiple times. Do you think that this was the correct way of organizing such a proposal with a fair process for all parties?
Gareth Smith responded the amendment and permit have been subject to the usual public exhibition process and independent panel hearing. This has provided opportunity for people to raise their concerns.
We the local residents have grave concerns regarding the human safety of this site. Have the Councillors been given the information that was put to the panel re the possible contaminated land around the existing substation and cattle spray race? There does not appear to be any of these documents in the current agenda provided to Councillors to be able to make a correct decision regarding the rezoning of this land.
Would the Council refrain from making a decision until an independent soil test be completed on this area of land? As we, the residents, are highly concerned in relation to the extent of contamination which we believe to be evident. If not, will the Council be prepared for the possible medical issues regarding PCB’s, PFAS (fire-fighting foam) and other chemicals from the cattle race on land owners and their children in the future?
Gareth Smith responded the permits include conditions dealing with soil contamination. “Prior to the commencement of any works … an Environmental Assessment must be submitted which must include an assessment of the land by a suitably qualified environmental professional detailing the level and location of any contamination”.
Cheryl Scott asked if Councillors were aware of the Osborne Park Association’s position with regard to the recommendations of Agenda Item 4 – Osborne House – Sustainable Development Plan?
Councillor Kontelj thanked the Osborne Park Association and all the key stakeholders that have been on this journey for decades, in fact over 20 years. Thank you for continuing to guide us in the right direction, and because of you we are here determining the future use of Osborne House.
Jim Haigh asked the following regarding Amendment C372:
Will the Council please listen to the resident’s concerns and vote no to this proposal?
The Mayor responded that Councillors have to approach their decision-making with an open mind. Because of this we are happy to have heard your submission, but cannot provide answers that prejudges the outcome of this evening’s debate.
Jennifer Bantow re Osborne House – Sustainable Development Plan:
This question is put on behalf of the Geelong and Region Branch National Trust: With reference to the diagram in Attachment 2, does Council agree that, as this proposed process unfolds, consideration should be given to consolidating the title and applying the new 2020 Plan to all of Crown Allotment 56, that is 56A, 56B, 56C, 56D and 56E, so there is understanding of the original heritage uses of all these areas, and names which describe the early use should be added. The Philip Russell Polo Field name has already been accepted.
The following to be added: Philip Russell Private Cricket Ground (also known as the Keith Barclay Oval), Philip Russell Horse Training Track. Also, Heritage Overlay 1999 Vietnam Veterans Avenue of Honour, and Heritage Overlay 2000 Osborne Park Entrance Gates would then also be part of the new 2020 Plan ?
Robyn Stevens responded that any decision on this should await the preparation of the Sustainable Development Plan. The parcels of land 56D and 56E are crown land and the titles are not vested with Council. The need for any consolidating of titles across 56A, B and C (Osborne House) will emerge from the preparation of the Sustainable Development Plan and whether or not the consolidating of these titles facilitates a more preferred outcome on the site. There is no name change proposed for Keith Barclay Oval.
This question is put on behalf of the Geelong and Region Branch National Trust:
Could a Norfolk Island Pine urgent, high priority, remedial process please be added to the Conservation (Repair) and Maintenance List, and could Council please ensure that only specialised expert contractors work on the conservation of Osborne Park heritage buildings, trees and landscapes ?
Robyn Stevens responded officers are already undertaking a detailed investigation of the Norfolk Pine by a qualified arborculturalist. City of Greater Geelong has committed to pursue options for ensuring the health of the tree is maintained and enhanced, If possible.
As an operational matter, commitment to this action continuing and to provide confidence to the community, a letter from the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) can be provided by the CEO to both detail what is being done, a commitment to look at options that maintain the trees health, as far as practicable and confirm the City of Greater Geelong will use appropriately qualified experts in all aspects of heritage maintenance, where necessary.
This question is put on behalf of the Geelong and Region Branch National Trust. Does Council interpret the intent of 11.2.1 and 11.3.2 to mean that there will be on-going use of some parts of the buildings by the Osborne Park Association cultural groups who have been tenants for many years?
Robyn Stevens took the question on notice for a written response.
Tina Thorburn asked several months ago Mayor Asher answered a question for the public about green space throughout the municipality by quoting from the COGG Planning Scheme – which basically said 10% green space is a minimum requirement unless developers pay Council a fee, in which case they can dispense with the green space altogether. This is a huge concern. If you take that particular section of the planning scheme and apply it on a macro scale to the entire planet – you are saying that there is no problem with destroying 90% of the planet as long as 10% remains. Unless someone “pays a fee”, in which case we can completely destroy the planet. On a micro scale is it tantamount to telling someone to survive with 10% lung capacity – or expecting a person with 90% burns to their body to thrive. It sounds ridiculous – it’s absolute madness, yet that is what you are allowing to happen in our municipality. Ideally, Council would halt all of the wholesale land development/destruction it has already approved and is planning for in the future until it has implemented clever and creative sustainable solutions. Given the likelihood of that happening is virtually zero, I propose that Council introduce a mandatory minimum of 20% green space, with no payoff allowed, and additionally include wildlife corridors connecting all future developments.
Will Council take action to preserve our diminishing green space?
Gareth Smith responded that an open space contribution of 10% of residential land for primary recreation is Council’s adopted standard within the Planning Scheme for subdivision of 10 or more lots. Geelong’s growth areas must provide a minimum of 10% primary recreation open space on residential land. Additional open space is also provided for the protection of fauna and flora, flood and drainage, utilities, heritage conservation, etc. that also offer a secondary recreation function. If a subdivision is occurring in an established area (infill) where there is sufficient existing open space Council may opt for the open space contribution to be made in cash, so it can be used in acquiring additional open space in areas of lower provision or upgrading existing open space to sustain higher levels of use. Many ‘infill’ developments open space contribution, if taken in land, will be too small to contribute meaningfully to the open space network, and in this instance cash contribution is preferred. Council is currently undertaking an open space strategy network, and in this instance cash contribution is preferred. Council is currently undertaking an open space strategy that will propose new open space provision standards. The draft strategy will be released for community feedback later in 2020.
Erica Hunt asked for an update on the National Climate Emergency Summit?
The Mayor thanked Ms Hunt for the question and responded that Council will be discussing the subject later in the evening.
Pam Clark asked questions relating to the Social Housing Plan:
Councillor Murnane responded he is familiar with the issues and would like to contact Ms Clark to further discuss her issues.
Councillor Asher presented a petition containing 830 asking for the Prevention of Demolition of the Geelong Cement Silos.
Councillor Asher presented a petition from concerned residents in relation to charges relating to the proposed Ocean Grove Principal Pedestrian Network Scheme.
Councillor Nelson presented a petition from Stuart Grimley MP – Member for Western Victoria asking Council to fund a speed hump on Marshalltown Road, Grovedale, adjacent to Grovedale Primary School.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
