Minutes of the Community Focus Council Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre in City Hall, 57 Little Malop Street, Geelong commencing at 7:00pm.
Sanja Van Huet
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)
R Leonard (Director Governance, Strategy and Performance)
The Chair declared the meeting open at 7:00pm.
Council acknowledged Wadawurrung Traditional Owners of this land and all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People who are part of the Greater Geelong community today.
Nil.
Councillor Murrihy moved, Councillor Mansfield seconded –
That the Minutes of the Community Focus Council Meeting held on 14 April 2020 be confirmed.
Carried.
Councillor Kontelj declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Item 2 - Review of Hard Waste Services in that one of the parties mentioned in the report are a customer of the Company of which I am a Director.
Councillor Nelson declared an Interest in Agenda Item 11 - Proposed Sale of Various Properties.
Councillor Murnane declared an Interest in Agenda Item 11 - Proposed Sale of Various Properties.
Sanja Van Huet asked the following questions:
Question 1:
In regard to Council’s reply to my questions dated 28 April 2020, I am not satisfied with your reply. Your answers were blanket comments with no real addressing of the issues brought to your attention. Also, there is no indication that Council actually was advised and contributed to answering these questions as all three replies were from City of Greater Geelong Planning, Design and Development.
Original Question 1: When will the breaches be addressed? When will real action be taken by Council against the developers, including retrospective breaches?
Response: Thank you, Sanja, for your questions. Officers have responded and will continue to respond to any complaints in relation to compliance with the Planning Permit.
Further Quetion: Why is it necessary for residents to report these breaches but not have any feedback on how these matters are being dealt with? This does nothing to reassure residents that anything tangible is being done. Also, the ‘dealt with’ doesn’t hasn’t halted any breaches which have been ongoing. How many breaches have the company been responsible for?
Response:
Thank you, Sanja, for your question.
While Council undertakes inspections of subdivisions to ensure construction is undertaken in accordance with permit requirements, Council also investigates any reports of breaches by the community.
Based on the resident reporting, Planning Enforcement Officers have responded and will continue to respond to any complaints in relation to compliance with the Planning Permit.
Question 2:
Is Council aware that the developer in question, David Blanche and his Company, have no contact details listed publicly. Not via Linkedin, White Pages, Google search etc. While I assume Council would have direct contact with the developer through the planning permit, there is no ability for the public to have any direct contact how do we know that this is occurring. This ‘protection’ of contact details for a proprietary limited company is not reassuring in terms of transparency with this land development.
Original Question 2: Will Council revisit sunset clauses in view of the remaining significant areas in the whole municipality?
Response: There is no mechanism for Council to revisit past planning approvals to reflect current day best practice. At the time of the rezoning and associated planning permit, Council and the State Government assessed the proposal against the relevant permissions of the day. Applications are assessed on their merits against the relevant requirements of the day. There are no sunset clauses. If a planning permit was to expire, a new application would need to be lodged and it would be assessed against the current day requirements.
Further Quetion: Victorian Planning permits generally have a 2-3 year expiration date. If this expired, it would have been renewed in 2017 then again 2020. If a longer permit had been granted – what were the conditions regarding this? Were current merits taken into consideration?
Response:
Thank you, Sanja, for your question.
Planning Permit 1059-2013 was issued on the 22 January 2014 that allowed a Staged Multi-Lot Subdivision and Removal of Native Vegetation. Condition 77 relates to the expiry of the permit. The permit expires if the first stage of subdivision is not certified within 2 years of the date of the permit.
Stage 1 was certified on the 28 July 2014 therefore the permit condition has been met and the permit is still live.
Question 3:
Original Q3: When will City of Greater Geelong Council show they are actively opposed to these breaches, in all regions of the municipality and take legal steps to prosecute developers who breach planning regulations? Obvious land banking must be stopped.
Response: Each alleged breach of the planning scheme or breaches of condition on permits and endorsed plans across the municipality are investigated by our Planning Investigations officers who assess the breach and respond accordingly. Applications to rezone land to accommodate residential development are assessed on their merits at that time.
Further Quetion: So, although the land in question is considered significant – there is no mechanism for Council to work with the developer to ensure that this project protects known biodiversity sites- regardless of Council’s advertised ‘words’ regarding sustainability. Even though Council acknowledge that breaches have already occurred. How will Council view their dealings with granting permits for the same area, and how are these going to be viewed in terms of the past permits but current knowledge of the DWELP overlay? Why is the relevant CEMP not available to the public, as advised by [name withheld] to [name withheld] 28th April this year?
Response:
Thank you, Sanja, for your question.
Planning permission has been granted for removal of native vegetation associated with the subdivision and removals to date have been in accordance with the endorsed plans.
There are areas of remnant native vegetation to be retained on-site and fenced off for protection during and after construction works. One of these areas is the offset site for the vegetation permitted to be removed.
Any future planning permit applications must be assessed on their merits and in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements including any updated best practice at that time.
A CEMP (Construction Environmental Management Plan) is a working document that forms part of both the Planning and Building Permit condition. As it is not an endorsed document under the Planning Permit, it is not a document Council is prescribed to make public in accordance with Section 70 of the Planning and Environment Act.
Councillor Murrihy presented a petition from residents objecting to the types of trees and the location of which they are being planted in and around St Helens.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
