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 24 March 2020, commencing at 7:00pm.
Karen Wade
Pamela Pryor
Roman Goeppert
Russell Hawken
Barry White
Michael Helman
Sanja Van Huet
Gary Neil
Jinson Mathew
Jan Calaby
Marc Viner
Janice and Alwyn Trigg
Terri Spronken
Tom Welsh
Mark Cooper
Helen Janner
Nerida and Brad Potter
Mark Spronken
Juanita Mountjoy
Ross Hayward
Mike Allden
Tina Kiss
Luke McVey
Ross Carlson
Barry Mulholand
Jan Carlson
Dean Smith
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.
The Mayor provided the following response to the many questions/submissions submitted for tonight’s Council Meeting, all of which have been responded to via email today:
“We understand that you might be disappointed about not attending in person tonight. Your health and safety, together with the health and safety of our Councillors and the City’s staff, are our priority in these unprecedented times of coronavirus and the City and the Council remain committed to conducting Council business transparently by live streaming our meetings.
I can assure you that the Mayor and all Councillors have received a copy of your question. If your question/submission is about a matter on the agenda tonight, the Mayor and Councillors will take any points you have raised into consideration in their deliberations on the matter tonight”.
Following are submitted questions/submissions and responses.
Karen Wade asked:
I have repeatedly asked for rural roadside management to come and clear both waist-high grass and vegetation from particularly my boundaries of Knights Road and Swan Bay Road, without response. My Knights Road boundary is bush, scrub and dead trees. There has never been any maintenance and the trees for which the Council are responsible have caused extensive damage to my fence.
Supervisor of Tree Management inspected the Knight's Road boundary and, contradicting City of Greater Geelong's Rural Roadside maintenance program of clearing grass and vegetation for fire mitigation, advised me by email on 18 December 2019 that it was basically not the Council's responsibility.
I received an email on the 13 January 2020 in response to further raising my concerns regarding the Council inaction on rural roadside maintenance. None of my boundaries are designated native vegetation areas so any comments regarding such policies are irrelevant. Advice received advised that maintenance was actioned along my boundaries somewhere between the 5 to 8 December 2019. This is not true and I have photos to prove it.
The CFA Roadside Fire Management document states that it is Council responsibility to slash grass to 10cm height and for a width of 3 metres to reduce fuel load in fire prevention and to help suppression and control of a roadside fire.
I then met with Council officers at the property but they did not inspect my boundaries with me, despite my suggestion that we do so. A Council officer advised me in an email on 10 February 2020 that it would investigated as to whether any maintenance had taken place and now says the outcome of the review is unavailable.
I am not only entitled to the annual roadside maintenance that I requested but I am entitled to be advised of when, where and what maintenance was provided. The lack of transparency is simply not good enough and leads me to conclude that no such works were undertaken. I have photos to prove that no maintenance has taken place.
With scientists predicting worsening conditions re fire risk, neglect of rural roadsides by Council places communities such as the Bellarine Peninsula at risk of serious fire events. It is not acceptable for Council to place this in the "too hard basket" as every year of neglect simply worsens the risk of fire.
I work hard to maintain the Council's land along the roadside boundaries, slashing the grass where there is level ground and repeatedly picking up considerable rubbish and yet the Council does not maintain the near impassable scrub for which it is responsible.
So what is Council going to do about maintenance issues raised? I also wish to be advised of the Council officer’s review?
Response:
Thank you Karen for your question.
The City is responsible for approximately 1,100 kilometres of rural roadsides within the municipality, and undertakes fire management works on rural roadsides each year in preparation for the fire season. These works include slashing and woody weed removal to reduce biomass. Roadside trees and shrubs are also pruned to enable safe access for vehicles.
Rural roadside slashing works are programmed in conjunction with our fire prevention program. Slashing works undertaken by Council staff or contractors is scheduled to be completed prior to the commencement of the declared fire season, normally in late November or early December. The roadside slashing program aims, where possible, to control grass to a height of 100mm from the edge of the road to the property owners fence line. Additional slashing works may be undertaken as seasonal conditions alter.
Swan Bay Road Mannerim was slashed by a Council contractor between the 5th and 8th of December 2019. Tree inspection assessing vegetation clearance are conducted in April of each year, with any works required prioritised and programmed for action.
The City will continue to review its annual fire management program on rural roadsides to ensure that necessary works are undertaken to reduce biomass in a way that does not impact adversely on our native plants and animals that rely on these areas for habitat as well safety to the community.
If you would like to make a specific request for service from the Council at any time, please call us on 03 5272 5272, send us an email at [email protected] or use the Geelong City app which can be downloaded from the app store.
Pamela Pryor asked as a volunteer group facilitator (two art groups) at St Leonards Community Space I have deemed it prudent to postpone activities for these two groups, in regard to the Covid 19 crisis ... to review in a month’s time. It has also come to my attention today that the Hoppers Crossing community/Neighbourhood Centres have been closed by their Council. In light of the majority of participants are retired folk 65+ in our Centres across the CGG and amongst our most vulnerable in the community .. would it not be prudent to close these (our) centres?
Response:
Thank you Pamela for your question.
The City is working closely with community groups, such as Neighbourhood Houses, who are tenants in buildings owned by the City to make sure they understand their requirements in responding to Covid-19. In response to the Premier's direction to close non-essential services, Neighbourhood Houses have been advised to suspend their programs. Further information about the City’s response to Covid-19 can be found on the Geelong Australia website.
Roman Goeppert asked if each of the six councillors who voted in favour for the partly demolition of the Malop Street Green Spine, including the bicycle lane and the rebuilding of some car parks, please provide three individual reasons for their decision?
Response:
Thank you Roman for your question.
Please refer to the livestream of the Council meeting of 25 February 2020 where Councillors debated the Notice of Motion relating to the Green Spine.
Russell Hawken asked:
For a detailed explanation of the criteria used by COGG to determine the need for installation of speed humps within its area of responsibility. Also, please provide details of the application of the criteria used to determine?
Response:
Thank you Russell for your questions.
Speed humps are generally installed when there is a history of speeding issues from the general public, that being 85% of drivers. Generally, police enforcement requests and other options such as line marking and signage are trialled prior to the process of installing speed humps, if counts indicate a speed concern. Speed humps can also be installed if an excessive amount of traffic is utilising a local road. Speed hump installation and the need to implement traffic calming goes through a thorough criteria process.
The need for the installation of speed humps on Asbury Street, Ocean Grove, and High Street, Moolap?
Response:
The need for the installation of speed humps on Asbury Street, Ocean Grove? One raised pavement (speed hump) was installed at the intersection due to drainage issues. The water was travelling down Asbury street and causing flooding to a nearby property, the installation of the raised pavement guided the water into the desired drainage pit, stopping the flooding issues.
The need for the installation of speed humps on High Street, Moolap? This was a Black Spot Program which was implemented based on one motorcycle fatality and two serious vehicle crashes (one of these involving a cyclist), the treatment was to reduce the high operating speed of road users. High Street Moolap had a repeated history of speeding by the general public and a road safety audit highlighted safety issues for drivers at high speed.
The need not to install speed humps on Point Boulevard, Point Lonsdale?
Response:
The need not to install speed humps on Point Boulevard, Point Lonsdale Point Boulevard has no history of speeding from the general public and speed counts indicated 85% of drivers are travelling below the 50 km/h speed limit. Point Blvd currently has under 1000 vehicles utilising it per day, local roads of its kind are designed to carry around 2000 vehicles per day.
Barry White asked the following on behalf of Lara residents, the Lara Care Group Inc. and many other interested parties. I refer to the proposed additional fire station to be located opposite Serendip Sanctuary, and the permit application process. This follows my email to Mayor and Councillors last Friday:
“We recognise and respect that we are all entering into an uncertain environment, and with this, Council will be required to deal with many unprecedented community demands.
Unfortunately, we are having to face a difficult situation concerning the CFA decision to proceed in this present environment, with a Permit Application for development of a new additional fire station in Lara.
There are many reasons why this development should not go ahead, certainly at the location proposed – directly opposite Serendip Sanctuary. The implications of a decision to approve this application extend to the Lara and regional community, tourism operators, students and hospitality services and of course, the many thousands of visitors to this internationally acclaimed location and this will have serious impacts on the future operation of the sanctuary.
This is a highly contentious proposal. It is focused on an area of land that has been the subject of many previous zoning and development applications and reviews over the past 15 years. We thought that we finally had in place an agreement by all interested parties (developers, Council, and community) which recognised the sensitivity of the land, resulting in a compromise protection measure. What is now being proposed throws those arrangements out the window.
The Lara community will present its arguments but many residents and other interests were waiting for the CFA to present its case at a Community Information Session last Wednesday. This event was cancelled at the last minute with no notice. (Our TLC Group was in fact requested to advise the community through our networks, which we agreed to do). It is essential that our community has the opportunity to understand all of the issues behind the CFA decision and given the inability for us to arrange public meetings at present and the CFA to conduct information sessions, we respectfully ask that you intervene and defer this Permit Application process until we are able to obtain further public information to assist residents and others to understand all of the issues.
The construction of a new fire station is not an immediate emergency services requirement as the existing CFA fire station will continue to operate – as it has for the past few decades.
Response:
There are significant implications for this development, due to its proposed location, for nearby residents and its impacts on Serendip which will affect the community generally, the thousands of tourists and students who visit this internationally acclaimed site annually, and Lara hospitality and tourism services. The CFA cancelled a community information session at the last moment last week which might have helped inform residents and others about important issues. In view of the inability to hold public meetings (because of COVID-19 related restrictions on public gatherings) which we consider are essential in dealing with this advertised permit application, will council please immediately defer or withdraw this application until the situation improves and the community has had the opportunity to understand all issues to enable them to properly respond? Such a delay will not impact on emergency fire services as the existing fire station will continue to operate.
With regard to deferral of consideration of the proposed new CFA Fire Station application in Lara, Council is under statutory requirements to consider applications and there is no legal ability to defer consideration. If we do not meet our 60 statutory day turn around, the applicant can take the decision directly to VCAT. We will endeavour to work with the applicant and community to ensure there is sufficient consultation.
Michael Helman asked about the current permit application for the CFA fire station opposite Serendip Sanctuary. Nowhere in the document is there any mention of the potential impacts on Serendip Sanctuary and the disturbance to free range wildlife from the operations of a Fire Station operating 24/7. Animals need time every day of their life to find enough food to survive and not be some other animals food, to find a mate and to breed and have young and raise them successfully.
They cannot do this if they feel the pressure of CFA operations and urbanisation. This is especially relevant at night as lighting and noise from CFA operations will prevent them from roosting quietly and safely at night. They will simply leave the area and that will have dire consequences for the future of Serendip Sanctuary. I ask that as a very minimum the CFA proponents of this poorly considered proposal should commission an independent and comprehensive Environmental Impact Study as part of its application. the consequences of not providing this assessment will be devastating to the sustainability of this recognised environmental tourist attraction. Impacts on Wildlife is the very reason this land is zoned RLZ and the Community has fought long and hard to protect Serendip from urbanisation. I know what I am saying to be factual. I was Ranger in Charge of Serendip from 1989 until 2010. Council now needs to do its part and insist on an EIS.
Response:
Thank you Michael for your submission.
We note the application (PP-50-2020) was submitted seeking to use the land for an emergency services facility on land zoned Rural Living Zone. As part of the statutory requirements an Environmental Impact Study is not a pre-requisite for submission of the application, this in accordance with the application requirements under the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.
The City has referred the current application to DELWP (Department of Land, Water and Planning) and Parks Vic to seek their comments with respect of any potential impacts the proposed land use may have on the Serendip Sanctuary. At this stage Council has not received any response, however, this does not preclude that a report could be voluntarily submitted or that Council could require a condition of permit to seek to manage impacts to the surrounding environment.
Sanja Van Huet submitted the following:
Mayor Asher and Council. I hope all your families stay well in this time of stress and uncertainty. However, there are some ongoing issue to address. Congratulations on Council recognition of the Climate Emergency (although this was not made overly clear in the last meeting transcript). However, there are some irregularities to address and inconsistencies which are obvious to outsiders viewing Council voting.
I fully acknowledge that Council stated that public transport is not a Council consideration. However; have Councillors (prior to the current crisis) travelled on public transport consistently as part of their research into the transport problems in CoGG? I particularly ask Mayor Asher, as the Bellarine has perhaps the worst bus service; irregular, route deficient, user unfriendly in terms of timing and destinations. Noted in the Sustainability Framework is the need for a much better CoGG public transport system. Further to this, and in recognition of the retention of the Green Spine – bottle necks along the green spine route could be alleviated by a regular, effective and well promoted ‘Park and Ride’ system.
Response:
Thank you Sanja for your questions.
There is no doubt that public transport in the municipality requires immediate improvement. We are advocating to the Department of Transport to increase frequency of services in line with the G21 public transport strategy.
In reference to the Sustainability Framework, has Councillor Kontelj and other members of Council managed to meet with the City of Darebin, as was discussed in correspondence between Councillor Kontelj and myself in December last year. Further to this, the $2million rescued from the curtailed Green Spine ‘redevelopment’ could be used immediately in the implementation of the Framework recommendations – and not having to draw $200,000 from next year’ budget. The concept of emergency is clearly not being viewed in the spirit of the term, as the majority expenditure is not scheduled until next year.
Response:
On behalf of Councillor Kontelj, we note that the meeting with Darebin is yet to take place but will take place in the near future. Your other comments are noted.
I note that the votes for the motions and amendments related to the Sustainability Framework were under Division request, and yet passed with seemingly close votes. Last September Councillor Aitken was vocal that a close vote did nothing but cause division in the Council – which is why he voted against a climate emergency. However, seemingly there is a change of heart with close votes … and this intimates a background balance of power. The same ‘factions’ always vote together. Does Council recognize that these divisions – especially with close votes – indicate that there must be something wrong? Confidence in Council actions is being sorely tested by the general public. To finish – to quote Mayor Asher (Councillors Column 5 March times news group) she is receiving many ‘positive comments’ from the general public as to decisions such as the proposed demolition of the green spine. In terms of transparency: Who is saying this? What are they specifically saying? Is this in writing or verbally on the street? Council publicly distribute correspondence regarding individuals and their transcripts from Council meetings– but Mayor Asher’s ‘positive comments’ appear anonymous. Also – Mayor Asher – your writing style in the column is full of ad hominin and strawman statements, cherry picked facts, false dilemma fallacies, generalizations and red herrings. Please – stick to the facts and support them.
Response:
Thank you Sanja for your questions which are taken as submissions and no other answer will be provided.
Gary Neil - I work full-time running mobile coffee vans and trailers. Will the registrations be given another 6 months free as we are unable to make an income. Melbourne City Council has done it will Geelong all follow?
Response:
Thank you Gary for your question.
Council is considering a range of measures to assist our community in these unprecedented times. There is a Notice of Motion being considered tonight by the Council about this very issue, particularly as it relates to small business. Please see our agenda online and stay tuned for the live stream to find out more.
Jinson Mathew asked can you please explain about the sanitisation of entire public places and schools of Geelong where more public are being exposed which was done by China and Dubai to reduce the spread of Corona.
Response:
Thank you Jinson for your submission.
The City continues to deliver our streetscape and public amenities cleaning services. This includes street sweeping, cleaning and disinfecting 163 public toilets blocks and in shopping areas footpath scrubbing, wiping down of street furniture and litter removal. We are currently considering what extra measures, if any, could be put in place to protect the public during this pandemic.
Jan Calaby asked about the amount of indigenous vegetation at 120 Russells Road Mount Duneed, the proposed site of the Female Drug Rehab facility. Does Council plan to take its environmental obligations seriously and protect this vegetation from development? Offsets will take time to grow and this vegetation must be protected.
Response:
Thanks Jan for your question.
Your question will be taken into account by the Council in its deliberations tonight.
The proposal involves the removal of some native vegetation. Development plans have avoided the heritage values relating to former uses of the property. Given this constraint, Council officers consider the siting and design of the proposal has adequately minimised vegetation loss, with a revision to the exhibited site plans reducing the car parking area to retain two Sheoak trees. A revised native vegetation removal report is being prepared and will be available for consideration by Council officers and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) before a Panel hearing. Council officers support DELWP’s requests to specify the location and extent of native vegetation removal in the Incorporated Document for the amendment and to require appropriate offsets to be provided prior to vegetation removal.
Marc Viner asked
Is Council is aware that there are no pedestrian crossings on Gazzepore Road or Hams Road. This leaves pedestrians like school children and cyclists in an unsafe condition already, and with the proposed re zoning, will only get worse and can lead to more near death accidents or worst case an accident on the roads.
Response:
Thank you Marc for raising this issue.
Your submission will be taken into account by the Council in its deliberations tonight.
Safety is indeed paramount. The safety of pedestrians will continue to be monitored throughout construction and completion of the C372 development. Currently there is no identified safety concern, however as pedestrian and resident numbers increase this may call for more formal pedestrian crossing infrastructure to be considered along Ghazeepore Road.
Pedestrian infrastructure is being considered at the intersection of Hams Road and Ghazeepore Road as part of the construction of the new intersection undertaken by the developer.
Is Council aware of current traffic levels and are you informed that these numbers only get worse when the train lines stop working and use coaches which park on Hams Road as well as zoom up the street only to turn around and zoom back to the other end. Plus, the surplus of cars that will arrive after the new proposed upgrade of Waurn Ponds Railway Station which already attracts a lot of traffic. If a roundabout was to be implemented the waiting time of getting out of Hams Road will be horrendous.
Response:
The predicted new traffic volumes from the proposed development are within the capacity of the existing road network. The proposed roundabout at the intersection of Hams and Ghazeepore Roads will be designed to cater for the predicted traffic movements in the road network
Janice & Alwyn Trigg asked:
How can Councillors vote to adopt an amendment without first visiting the site and surrounding areas to see the detrimental impact this will have on the surrounding community?
Response:
Thank you Janice and Alwyn for your questions.
Your questions will be taken into account by the Council in its deliberations tonight
We can assure you that ward councillors have visited the area in question.
Are Councillors aware that when VLine trains are disrupted, which is frequently, replacement buses line up in Hams Road making it difficult for residents to access their homes. And also that the Mt. Duneed school bus pick up and drop off point is in Hams Road. How will this impact residents in any new development?
Response:
The Engineering Services team will contact Department of Transport regarding the location of train replacement bus services to minimise impact on residents. New development will consider the location of bus stops in the layout design.
Condition 1 f) of the draft subdivision permit for 35 Hams Road requires: “A Functional Layout Plan must be provided to show the retention of the private school bus parking location in Hams Road (to the west of the substation) and all associated car parking provision.”
Is Council prepared to reduce the impact of traffic from a new estate by putting a restriction on all lots that there is to be no subdivision and only one dwelling to be built per lot?
Response:
The number of lots in the proposed subdivision has been reduced significantly during the life of the amendment. The plan submitted in June 2017 showed potential for 320 lots. The plan now recommended by Council officers for adoption shows 245 lots and Councillors can initiate further restrictions as part of the Council decision making process.
Terri Spronken asked:
I speak in reference to Amendment C372. For the past week there have been 3 sets of traffic counters in Ghazeepore Road. Given the current situation with COVID-19 causing massive closures of universities and public gatherings, how can Council take into account or rely on any traffic data collected during this period? An accurate traffic count was promised by Gareth Smith, but due to circumstances outside of his control this count on Ghazeepore Road will not be accurate.
Response:
Thank you Terri for your question.
Your questions will be taken into account by the Council in its deliberations tonight.
Vehicle classifiers which record traffic volume and traffic speeds have been out on Ghazeepore Road in recent weeks. Whilst the COVID-19 has been impacting the community, officers will assess these traffic volumes in relation to previous data and surrounding traffic volumes.
Do you agree that Council should defer or move the matter of Amendment C372 to a later date when meetings can once again be open to the public given the huge impact this decision will have on the surrounding community?
Response:
The matter will be discussed by Councillors later on in the meeting.
Why won't Council and Council Officers in the Planning and Traffic Departments acknowledge that the issues of the number of lots in the new development and the increase in traffic on Ghazeepore Road are linked? I ask that a restriction or covenant be put on every block in the new development to prevent each lot from being further subdivided or having more than one dwelling constructed on each lot. This will help to reduce traffic movements in the area.
Response:
The number of lots have been considered with regards to the predicted traffic volumes generated from the development in the traffic assessment.
Tom Welsh asked:
I would like to address the Council about an important issue that has been discussed and has been around for a couple of years is the Hams Road Development. The Geelong Advertiser has called this proposal a “Ghetto”. If this proposal is voted in favour, you the Councillors have made a decision without putting the best interest of the Hams Road and Waurn Ponds Community.
The development is not welcomed by nearby residents due to concerns as noise, traffic and overdevelopment on rural land. Hams Road was named after William Ham who owned land on Hams Road and served as a Barrabool Shire Councillor and President (Mayor) for a years. The Hams had a huge involvement in Waurn Ponds and District Community. The proposed land which is believed to be have owned by Geelong Cats Footy Player Polly Farmer. As this issue is going to be voted at tonight’s Council Meeting the following questions are:
Will the Council take an investigation on the amount of traffic on Ghazeepore Road, Waurn Ponds?
Response:
Thank you Tom for your question.
Your submission/questions will be taken into account by the Council in its deliberations tonight.
Vehicle classifiers which record traffic volume and traffic speeds have been out on Ghazeepore Road in recent weeks. Whilst the COVID-19 has been impacting the community, officers will assess these traffic volumes in relation to previous data and surrounding traffic volumes. The predicted new traffic volumes from the proposed development are within the capacity of the existing road network. The proposed roundabout at the intersection of Hams and Ghazeepore Roads will be designed to cater for the predicted traffic movements in the road network.
Does all Councillors understand the impact this proposal will have on neighbouring properties and destruction towards the local environmental which is already under threat from development?
Response:
Councillors have been provided with plans and other information showing the proposed development. City officers do not believe the development will have a detrimental impact as it will include rehabilitation of a degraded waterway and includes a 60 metre wide creek and public open space reserve with wetlands and basins to clean and manage stormwater flows. Officers do not consider the impact of neighbouring properties to be significant and lots facing Hams Road will be large to match the size of lots in the existing housing estate to the north.
If this motion is adopted will Council work with the local community or even amended to reducing the block sizes and the amount of dwellings proposed because Council needs to have that connection to green spaces, for example: parks etc and even the connection to the rural fringe?
Response:
Your points are noted and will be taken into account in the decision of Council tonight.
Mark Cooper asked In reference to Amendment C372, my question is how can Council guarantee the safety of pedestrians and school children trying to cross the already busy Ghazeepore Road? There has been no mention of real safety measures taken to upgrade the situation with increased traffic movements as a result of a new housing development. To inform you of one example: my 13 year old son currently rides his bike to school and he tells us he has to wait up to 10 minutes to safely cross Ghazeepore Road, and my concern is that the waiting time will only increase with this development. I urge Council to demand developers to implement traffic lights at Ghazeepore/Sugargum/Hams Road intersection, as community safety should be paramount.
Response:
Thank you Mark for your submission.
Your submission will be taken into account by Council in its decision making tonight.
Safety is indeed paramount. The safety of pedestrians will continue to be monitored throughout construction and completion of the C372 development. Currently there is no identified safety concern, however as pedestrian and resident numbers increase this may call for more formal pedestrian crossing infrastructure to be considered along Ghazeepore Road. Pedestrian infrastructure is being considered at the intersection of Hams Road and Ghazeepore Road as part of the construction of the new intersection undertaken by the developer.
Helen Janner asked as a local resident I am sure that many wish to know about the traffic management of this proposed development. Council have not address the enormous amount of traffic coming from Armstrong Creek (amongst other new developments), and this proposal will only add to congestion. So what are the proposed plans to elevate the traffic congestion?
Response:
Thank you Helen for your question.
Your question will be taken into account in the Council’s decision making tonight.
Vehicle classifiers which record traffic volume and traffic speeds have been out on Ghazeepore Road in recent weeks. Officers will assess these traffic volumes in relation to previous data and surrounding traffic volumes. The predicted new traffic volumes from the proposed development are within the capacity of the existing road network. The proposed roundabout at the intersection of Hams and Ghazeepore Roads will be designed to cater for the predicted traffic movements in the road network.
Nerida and Brad Potter expressed their concern with the lot sizes. We have chosen to live here for its unique block size. How, as residents, can we be happy with tiny house blocks wrecking our unique lifestyle choice? I am also concerned with the state of Ghazeepore Road, the traffic it already carries and the narrowing of the road near Brentwood Way. During peak times, buses, cars, bikes and trucks are all trying to access it. With roundabouts, speed bumps and/or wombat crossings - how is this going to work?
Response:
Thank you Nerida and Brad for your question.
Your question will be taken into account in tonight’s deliberations of Council.
Vehicle classifiers which record traffic volume and traffic speeds have been out on Ghazeepore Road in recent weeks. Whilst the COVID-19 has been impacting the community, officers will assess these traffic volumes in relation to previous data and surrounding traffic volumes. The predicted new traffic volumes from the proposed development are within the capacity of the existing road network.
The proposed roundabout at the intersection of Hams and Ghazeepore Roads will be designed to cater for the predicted traffic movements in the road network Pedestrian infrastructure is being considered at the intersection of Hams Road and Ghazeepore Road as part of the construction of the new intersection undertaken by the developer. The road width between kerbs does vary on Ghazeepore Road. A proposal to widen the road on one side or install indented parking has been considered.
Response:
The proposed subdivision has a variety of lot sizes including large (minimum 850 square metres lots) along Hams Road and around the permitter. The development of smaller blocks on the Hams Road site shouldn’t impact on the lifestyle of people in areas like Brentwood Way.
The developer is required to construct a new roundabout at Hams Road/Ghazeepore Road intersection to provide safe entry and exit and regulate traffic flows. A contribution of $500,000 is also proposed to improve Ghazeepore Road.
Mark Spronken asked in relation to the C372 proposed over development at Hams Road, Waurn Ponds. The proposed over development of Hams Road, Waurn Ponds will result in loss of amenity for existing residents and an unacceptable and dangerous increase of traffic which is going to impact negatively on the local road network, primarily Ghazeepore Road and Grange Park Drive. This parcel of land in question has two owners, one resides in Western Australia and the other is a foreign overseas investor. Clearly neither has local interests as a concern.
With the majority of local residents from all surrounding areas opposed to this gross overdevelopment of the last parcel of rural land, why would our City of Greater Geelong Council vote in favour of the developers plan and not support the local residents who are opposed to this development ?
Response:
Thank you Mark for your question.
Your questions will be taken into account in the Council’s deliberations tonight.
Officers believe the predicted new traffic volumes from the proposed development are within the capacity of the existing road network. In addition road network improvements will be required from the developer. These include a new intersection at Hams Road and Ghazeepore Road, a pedestrian crossing of Ghazeepore Road and upgrade and widening of Hams Road. Local traffic treatments will also be considered in surrounding streets such as Grange Park Drive.
In relation to the C372 proposed development at Hams Road, Waurn Ponds. To further support the local resident’s concerns, City of Greater Geelong rejected a proposed development for the building of a child care centre situated at 20 - 22 Grange Park Drive. Permit Number - 1501/2007. That parcel of land is just under one acre in size. (Now a residential house block) C372 land that is proposed to be developed is approximately 59 Acres, that's 59 times the impact that the rejected Permit Number 1501/2007 would have created, not more than 250 meters away from the C372 land. In 2008, the C.o.G.G. Reasons for Refusal of Child Care centre at 20 - 22 Grange Park Drive - Point 1. "The proposal would adversely impact on the amenity of the residential area" Point 2.
"The proposed use would generate an inappropriate level of traffic on the adjoining residential road network" Point 4. "Approval of the proposed development would adversely affect the low density residential character of the immediate surrounding area." Point 5. "Approval of the proposal would be contrary to the reasonable expectations of surrounding residents." With the City of Greater Geelong refusing this development in 2007 for these exact same reasons, how can the City of Greater Geelong now approve a development that is 59 times the magnitude of impact at the same location?
Response:
The child care centre was a different decision made under different circumstances on different land 12 years ago. It is not particularly relevant to the proposed subdivision south of Hams Road which has separate access and is not in the Grange Park estate
In relation to the C372 proposed development at Hams Road, Waurn Ponds. Pedestrian safety is also a real concern to the local residents in regard to the safe crossing of Ghazeepore Road. With the drastically increased volume already of pedestrian movements in our area, thanks mainly to the building of the Waurn Ponds Train Station (which is fantastic), the C372 will create a situation whereby a huge increase in pedestrians crossing Ghazeepore Road to access the train station will result in fatalities or serious injuries, as there are no pedestrian crossing points anywhere along Ghazepore Road. How does the City of Greater Geelong propose to address this safety issue and allow the huge volumes of foot traffic, including a large volume of children, to cross Ghazeepore Road safely to access bus stops and the Waurn Ponds train station?
Response:
Safety is indeed paramount. The safety of pedestrians will continue to be monitored throughout construction and completion of the C372 development. Currently there is no identified safety concern, however as pedestrian and resident numbers increase this may call for more formal pedestrian crossing infrastructure to be considered along Ghazeepore Road. Pedestrian infrastructure is being considered at the intersection of Hams Road and Ghazeepore Road as part of the construction of the new intersection undertaken by the developer.
Juanita Mountjoy asked in regards to the proposed redevelopment of Hams Road, C372. There are a number of presenting issues should this proposal go ahead, the most concerning being the increase of traffic in the area and the dangers it would pose to our residence, especially the school children in our community who walk to and from bus stops. The other major concern is the size and amount of the lots proposed. Right now, the estate consists of large spacious properties, giving our community a rural feel. Most of the blocks in this area are 2000+ square metres. This is drastically different from the proposed lots, most being under 500sqm. This proposal is totally out of character with the existing estate. I am asking will Council please listen to the 800+ residents who signed a petition against this development, the 150 residents who formally objected to this proposal and the large number of residents who show to the monthly Council meetings, and who would be here tonight if not for the social distancing rules, and please reject this proposal?
Response:
Thank you Juanita for your question.
Your question will be taken into account by Council in its deliberations tonight.
Officers believe the predicted new traffic volumes from the proposed development are within the capacity of the existing road network. In addition road network improvements will be required from the developer. These include a new intersection at Hams Road and Ghazeepore Road, a pedestrian crossing of Ghazeepore Road and upgrade and widening of Hams Road. Local traffic treatments will also be considered in surrounding streets such as Grange Park Drive.
The proposed subdivision has a variety of lot sizes including large (minimum 850 square metres lots) along Hams Road and around the permitter.
The independent Panel supports the proposed density reflected in the revised Masterplan and does not consider that it will result in an unacceptable impact on the neighbourhood character.
Ross Hayward in relation to Amendment C372 & Permit Apps 662/2017 & 663/2017 - Hams Road Waurn Ponds. I am extremely concerned by the impact of traffic from this proposed development on traffic movements along Ghazeepore Road. Ghazeepore Road is very busy as it is and already carries a significant volume of traffic each day from south of our suburb and return. My question is: Is Council fully aware of the current state of Ghazeepore Road with regard to its width, condition, safety and congestion, and is Council prepared to stand up for residents' rights to a safe and secure access road by denying this proposal?
Response:
Thank you Ross for your question.
Your question will be taken into account in the Council’s deliberations tonight.
Safety is indeed paramount. The safety of pedestrians will continue to be monitored throughout construction and completion of the C372 development. Pedestrian infrastructure is being considered at the intersection of Hams Rd and Ghazeepore Road as part of the construction of the new intersection undertaken by the developer. Currently there is no identified safety concern, however as pedestrian and resident numbers increase this may call for more formal pedestrian crossing infrastructure to be considered along Ghazeepore Road. The road width between kerbs does vary on Ghazeepore Road. A proposal to widen the road on one side or install indented parking has been considered.
Mike Allden asked given the state of the country with the corona virus pandemic, it is a sign of what we can expect to occur into the future. We cannot afford to think this is a one of event and won't happen again for another 20 years. As populations increase this sort of thing will be more frequent. The governments answer is social distancing, yet the policy is for high density housing. A direct contradiction of what is required in pandemic situations. The government is implementing many measures for social isolation and telling us our way of living must change. Why is Council considering yet another high-density development in this area at this time? Surely now is the time to reconsider high density developments with regard to isolation requirements when necessary.
Response:
Thank you Mike for your question.
Your question will be taken into account in the Council’s deliberations tonight.
Corona virus is not a relevant planning consideration, and if it were, human behaviour influences people’s ability to achieve social distancing not the size of the lots in a housing estate. The proposed subdivision is not high density it is conventional residential density.
Tina Kiss asked if this development needs to go ahead could you please consider making the developer come into line with the rest of the Estate and have larger type blocks?
To keep in line with the rest of the estate.
To help with the huge traffic issues on Ghazeepore Road.
This parcel of land is a continuation of the Grange Park Estate, where block sizes average around 2000 square metres. It makes sense to continue these larger type blocks for this parcel of land to the train line. Over the train line which is Mount Duneed, there is an abundance of 400 square metre blocks, for people that want these smaller type blocks. I ask that you please consider these requests, if the development must go ahead.
Thank you Tina for your submission.
Your submission will be taken into account by the Council in its deliberations tonight.
The proposed subdivision has a variety of lot sizes including large (minimum 850 square metres lots) along Hams Road and around the permitter.
The number of lots has been reduced from the 320 lots in the initial C372 application down to 245 lots. The road network has capacity for these additional lots and car movements subject to improvements including new intersections.
The land is south of Hams Road and is not part of the Grange Park estate and doesn’t have to mimic the character of that estate which has unusually large residential blocks.
Lukas McVey asked that given we can no longer represent ourselves at a Council meeting regarding amendment C372 rezoning of Hams Road:
Can you please delay this until such a time our residents group and community can present ourselves in front of Council? Isn't this part of the approval/decision process that community input is important?
Response:
Thank you Lukas for your questions.
This matter has been in the chamber on two previous occasions, and on each occasion the Council has heard from submitters in relation to the development. Your question submitted online will be given the same consideration as if you were in the chamber. The Council takes public participation seriously, and it is only because of the unprecedented situation and required response measures that we have made the important decision not to allow public attendance in person tonight. Our meeting remains open, our processes remain transparent and we take your submissions seriously.
I have not a response to any of my questions asked over this journey. Can you please respond to all these to at least acknowledge you have considered my points/concerns? Points/concerns based on science and engineering which do need to be answered.
Response:
On 25 February 2020 your question/submission in relation to this matter was put to the Council in question time on your behalf by Mark Spronken. We will be in contact with you to discuss any questions that you have not received answers for.
Ross Carlson asked traffic is one of the most major issues with C372, C372 will generate 3000 vehicle trips per day every day on Ghazeepore Road. Ghazeepore Road is under extreme pressure from existing traffic travelling through from the station and Armstrong Creek. Normal event vehicle numbers per day are in excess of 7000 and growing in tandem with already approved current development growth. Mr Gareth Smith of City of Greater Geelong, will have you believe that traffic is not a concern, issue or a planning consideration. He also has in his brief to Council stated "the panel hearing on balance was not concerned about the traffic as such", however the Panel was not in full possession of all the facts, much non-disclosure, mis-information and not supplying negative documents, wtong statements, "the last traffic count was not done in a holiday period". Through traffic increases on Ghazeepore Road is only 30% , it was 300% and rising, this is confirmed by evaluating the 2016 traffic report and comparing it to the 2019 report. My question is:
Why did Council not furnish to the panel all data, documentation, and information to make a totally fair judgement and why was the traffic count times misrepresented?
Response:
Thank you Mr Carlson for your question.
Your submission/question will be taken into account by the Council in its deliberations tonight.
Two traffic experts appeared at the Panel and submitted their analysis and views on traffic and volumes associated with the development. The experts were cross examined by the parties and the Panel. Council officers made a submission covering the issues raised in submission and provided a Council response. Individual submitters also appeared and provided their own traffic information and concerns. As far as officers are aware the two counts undertaken for C372 by the developer’s consultants were not in holiday periods and this was relayed to the Panel. A count undertaken later by CoGG engineers included some holiday periods but this wasn’t part of the panel process.
I have found Council has a habit of not being transparent, and not complying with requests. My requests have gone largely unanswered, data has been denied and not supplied, and what data has been supplied has been sanitised. There are too many examples to mention, In my 250 word allowance I will give one recent exchange. Rossack Drive was to be Armstrong Creeks main access, and was aligned with the freeway exit, for this purpose. Rossack Drive was made a dual carriage way with greater width and fantastic lighting that can be seen for ten kilometres, it was to have an overpass built over the railway line, and carry 10,000 vehicles per day. City of Greater Geelong did not build this connection as recommended by VicRoads. In answer to this, City of Greater Geelong has stated in answer , "The alignment was left up to the former City of South Barwon to do what it wanted, and Rossack Drive was provided to give access to the residential subdivisions in Grovedale and Waurn Ponds. Not our fault, however, the City of South Barwon was disbanded in the mid 1990's, I now refer to Veitch Lister Consulting's report commissioned by City of Greater Geelong in 2008. This report provides consideration for two scenarios. 1. If City of Greater Geelong was to build the Rossack Drive overpass, and 2. If City of Greater Geelong was not to build the Rossack Drive overpass. Clearly the Rossack Road overpass was still on the table in 2008.
Why did City of Greater Geelong not build the overpass and where did City of Greater Geelong expect the 10,000 vehicles per day to go, if it was not built?
Response:
Rossack Drive services abutting residential development. Both Rossack Drive and Ghazeepore Road provide connections to the Waurn Ponds Railway Station. The Geelong Ring Road provided the primary alternate route for south bound vehicles to Mt Duneed and Torquay thus removing the need for Rossack Drive south of Heyers Road to cross the railway line.
VicRoads had major concerns about Ghazeepore Road for safety reasons, Ghazeerpore Road recommendations were put forward by VicRoads. City of Greater Geelong did not adopt any of the recommendations that now has created major problems with traffic numbers on what is a very narrow residential street. Some of these recommendations were:
close Ghazeepore Road off at the railway line, and
close Ghazeepore Road off at Colac Road.
These recommendations were to stop the mass traffic coming from Armstrong Creek through a residential street. City of Greater Geelong did not adopt any of VicRoad’s recommendations, C372 will add yet another 3000 vehicle trips per day, this is totally unacceptable,as Ghazeepore Road is under increasing pressure from the already high traffic numbers. These numbers are to increase with the nearly finished "over 55's resort" creating 2000 trips per day and Armstrong creek development only one third into completion.
What is City of Greater Geelong doing about the current traffic excesses on Ghazerpore Road, and is City of Greater Geelong going to lower the traffic numbers to return our lost amenity?
Response:
Retention of access to Ghazeepore Road refers to the decision for construction of the Geelong Ring Road. Have to take on notice to research this information. As previous advised the capacity of Ghazeepore Road is sufficient to cater for traffic volumes generated by the development of C372. Future development of land on the southern side of the Waurn Ponds Station will provide direct connection to the station for Armstrong Creek / Mt Duneed commuters. Timing of this development is unknown. Vehicle classifiers which record traffic volume and traffic speeds have been out on Ghazeepore Road in recent weeks. Whilst the COVID-19 has been impacting the community, officers will assess these traffic volumes in relation to previous data and surrounding traffic volumes. The predicted new traffic volumes from the proposed development are within the capacity of the existing road network.
Barry Mulholland asked:
What provisions are going to be made for bikes and pedestrians to cross Ghazeepore Road to access station and buses? I am concerned for the people that are going to be coming from this new subdivision and those already living here when going to station by bike or on foot as I believe that all paths from Hams Road to the station and to busses will need to go through the intersection at Hams and Ghazeepore Roads as there is proposed a roundabout, I believe that it will be a nightmare to cross on foot or with a bike. I know that Council said that there will be a pedestrian crossing at the intersection, but a pedestrian crossing at a roundabout is not the answer.
Between the station and Hams Road, if there was a foot path between the rail line and houses along Rail property from the Rail station to Ghazeepore Road, it would be a better outcome and the paths could then be kept away from the busy intersection and cross near the line, where there is better sight distance and less traffic movements and turning.
Response:
Thank you Barry for your submission.
Your submission will be taken into account in the Council’s deliberations tonight.
Safety is indeed paramount. The safety of pedestrians will continue to be monitored throughout construction and completion of the C372 development. Pedestrian infrastructure is being considered at the intersection of Hams Rd and Ghazeepore Road as part of the construction of the new intersection undertaken by the developer. Currently there is no identified safety concern, however as pedestrian and resident numbers increase this may call for more formal pedestrian crossing infrastructure to be considered along Ghazeepore Road.
Infrastructure and vehicle movements - Is Council really going to allow this subdivision to go ahead before the arterial feeder roads are upgraded in Ghazeepore Road and Bluegum Drive they are really substandard for a main feeder roads carrying buses trucks and cars the northern end of Ghazeepore Road is only just over 8 meters between the kerb, and the southern end is just over 9 metres on all of this road if a car is parked then you need to cross the white line to pass it and if a car is turning into a driveway or street all traffic stops behind it. There are busses running both ways with intervals about 20 minutes, I cannot believe that Council believes this is okay for an arterial road. And during the current health crisis traffic counters have gone down in Ghazeepore Road and will again be a farce with no reflection normality with the weekday parking in the rail station car park about half it normally is. Before this new estate goes ahead, Is there going to be access and parking for south of the line at the station without having to go to north via Ghazeepore Road? Because the rail station has no access or parking on the southern side of the line all traffic from Anglesea/Moriac/Winchelsea and all the new subdivisions at Mt Duneed on that side of the line are having to access Ghazeepore Road and Bluegum Drive this really causes lots of anger and frustration mornings and night, I have looked at the rail upgrade at the PT link, and it clearly does not mention parking or access from the South side.
Response:
We acknowledge that the road width between kerbs does vary on Ghazeepore Road. A proposal to widen the road on one side or install indented parking has been considered and is subject to a separate budget allocation. The upgrade of Waurn Ponds station includes duplicate platform and sealing of the carpark with direct access from the Roundabout at Rossack Drive. As noted there is no current provision for parking or access from the southern side of the railway reserve to the platform. Future development of land on the southern side of the Waurn Ponds Station will provide direct connection to the station for Armstrong Creek / Mt Duneed commuters. Timing of this development is unknown. The suggestion to permit access from the south is taken on board and officers have met with DOT and the delivery arm for the project to discuss this proposal.
Sound walls Bannip Blv Rail and Princes Hwy. I am not sure if the requirement for an extra noise evaluation was because of my input to council, and to the independent panel or because someone at council picked up that something was not right. I am concerned that when the project is given the go ahead and the next noise report comes in will council know if it has been done correctly?
Why has all the Geelong Ring Road and Bannip Boulevard had sound walls between it and housing, and there is no requirement here along the Princes Highway and this section has more traffic on it than the rest of the Geelong Ring Road. All of this new estate C372 is subject to noise from PHW and Bannip Boulevard as the roads are elevated above the whole estate not just the perimeter of the estate.
Response:
The draft permit for the western site includes requirements for further acoustic reports to assess noise levels from Geelong Ring Road and Baanip Boulevard. Noise mitigation measures will be determined after the further acoustic assessments and to achieve Australian Standards. The permit is included in the Council agenda on our website. The developer will be responsible for the cost of noise measures.
Jan Carlson asked the City of Greater Geelong uses traffic counts to support its case with C372, but City of Greater Geelong has poor placement of traffic counters that does not count all vehicles on Ghazeepore Road, they have done counts in holiday periods, and has proven to not be trusted with any accuracy, City of Greater Geelong has also been criticised for this in the past. The recent traffic count done on Ghazeepore Road is no different, it has been compromised by the following:
Traffic on Ghazeepore Road is at an all-time low, due to COVID19.
The placement again missed some thousands by poor overall placement. There was no counter south of Monterey Drive, on Ghazeepore Road, by not placing a counter there it misses literally thousands of vehicle trips. All of the Grange park traffic, all Ghazeepore Road residents north of Sugar gum, and the back way vehicles from the station, that use Monterey Drive. Deakin University is in partial shutdown and most of international students are not in attendance. So the latest traffic counts is extremely compromised and is not accurate at all, and cannot be considered or presented to assist the adoption of C372.
Why did Council not furnish to the panel all data, documentation, and information to make a totally fair judgement and why was the traffic count times mis-represented?
Response:
Thank you Jan for your questions tonight.
Your questions will be taken into account by the Council in its deliberations tonight.
Vehicle classifiers which record traffic volume and traffic speeds have been out on Ghazeepore Road in recent weeks. Whilst the COVID-19 has been impacting the community, officers have assessed these traffic volumes in relation to previous data and surrounding traffic volumes. The results of the counts reflect traffic volumes that are similar to past counts between Hams – Muir weekday average 6,500vpd 7-day average 6,200vpd 85th%ile speed 63km/hr between Acacia - Hams weekday average 5,700vpd 7-day average 5,400vpd 85th%ile speed 62km/hr between Monterey – Bourbon Weekday average 7,200vpd 7-day average 7,000vpd 85th%ile speed 63km/hr.
Why has City of Greater Geelong cost the residents of Ghazeepore Road and surrounds their amenity, their peace, and property values, by pumping through non local traffic on our residential street? We on Ghazeepore and surrounds get the traffic and noise and pollution, in huge numbers while Armstrong creek gets the facilities, the parks, the barbeques and the lifestyle at our expense?
Response:
Ghazeepore Road is classified as a category 4 Main Collector Road. It is Supplementary to the arterial road system, it is a Connector between arterial roads and lower order streets, it caters for service and commercial vehicles, it provides access to significant public services (e.g. bus and train).
Dean Smith asked if Council is 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 Roads 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. 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?
Response:
Thank you Dean for your submission and question.
Your submission/question will be taken into account by the Council in its deliberations tonight.
Safety is indeed paramount. The safety of pedestrians will continue to be monitored throughout construction and completion of the C372 development. Pedestrian infrastructure is being considered at the intersection of Hams Rd and Ghazeepore Road as part of the construction of the new intersection undertaken by the developer. Currently there is no identified safety concern, however as pedestrian and resident numbers increase this may call for more formal pedestrian crossing infrastructure to be considered along Ghazeepore Road.
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?
Response:
The permits include conditions dealing with soil contamination, including ”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..”
Councillor Mason presented a petition asking Council to install integrated speed humps and pedestrian crossings (”Wombat” crossings) on Point Boulevard, Point Lonsdale adjacent to the Town Park and Community Centre, and that provision be made in the City of Greater Geelong budget for installation of the “Wombat” crossings during 2020.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
