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, commencing at 6:00pm.
Vincent O'Loughlin
Phil Edwards
David Pavia
Sarah Roberts
Virginia Johnson
Giuseppe Stuto
Councillors:
S Asher (Mayor)
A Aitken
K Grzybek
B Harwood
E Kontelj
S Mansfield
J Mason
B Moloney
P Murrihy
R Nelson
T Sullivan
M Cutter (Chief Executive Officer)
G Smith (Director Planning, Design and Development)
G Wilson-Browne (Director City Services)
S McKew (Manager Governance)
E Nicholas (Junior Mayor 2020)
The Mayor declared the meeting open at 6:00pm.
Council acknowledges Wadawurrung Traditional Owners of this land and pays its respects to all Elders past and present and to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People who are part of the Greater Geelong community today.
Nil.
Leave of Absence was granted to Councillor Murrihy from 12-17 April 2021, inclusive.
Councillor Harwood moved, Councillor Mason seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 23 February 2021 be confirmed.
Carried.
Councillor Grzybek declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Item 7 - GMHBA Stadium Stage 5 Development, in that Councillor Grzybek’s direct Manager is a Trustee.
Councillor Grzybek declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Item 19 - Geelong Major Events Committee – Appointment of External Representative 2021-2022, in that the appointee is a colleague at the TAC.
Vincent O’Loughlin submitted a question prior to the Council Meeting. As he was not present at the meeting a written response addressing his concerns has been provided via email.
Phil Edwards (Chairperson Ocean Grove Community Association) asked the following questions in relation to the Ocean Grove Principle Pedestrian Network:
Will Councillors consider the option of Ocean Grove Principle Pedestrian Network being funded in full by Council without a Special Rates and Charges due to the significant community safety issues, the legacy nature of the town’s poor and ineffective footpath infrastructure and the Council’s policy of increased housing diversity in the old Ocean Grove area?
Alternatively, if Councillors are of the view that a Special Rates and Charges should be applied will Councillors apply the flexibility available to them in Council policy and consider the option of setting a Special Rates and Charges contribution of no more than 10% or at worst 20% of the ratepayer cost and that cost be shared broadly as per the Council Officers’ recommendation and supported by the community engagements?
Guy Wilson-Browne (Director City Services) responded:
Thank you for your questions, Phil.
It is noted that the Policy allows flexibility for Council to consider alternative funding models, however, the majority of Council Schemes, including this one, are based on the ‘Contribution Guidelines’.
The ‘Contribution Guidelines’ in the Council Policy on Special Rates and Charges state the “Property owner funding contribution for a footpath Special Charge Scheme shall be in accordance with the BR (Benefit Ratio) calculation or 50% of the scheme cost, whichever is less”.
The initial calculation in the report had indicated a Benefit Ratio of 62% attributed to property owners, which was adjusted in accordance with the Contribution Guidelines to 50%.
In considering the report at tonight’s meeting, Council will determine if this scheme is to follow the Contribution Guidelines in the Policy and to consider, if and how, the project should progress including funding arrangements.
David Pavia asked the following:
Do Councillors believe that any further expansion of the Fyansford landfill operation is appropriate land use based on existing use rights?
Now that the quarry in which the landfill was established is nearly full, the current owners are suggesting that these existing use rights allow them to expand the waste area to the land outside the original quarry towards existing residences and prolonging the life of the landfill for up to 40 years. On the South West boundary of the area owned by the landfill operator are several pieces of land that are zoned Rural Living Zone. In the past year, the landfill operator has undertaken extensive earthworks in this area. Residents are concerned that this is a prelude to landfill operations extending within meters of residential housing.
When COGG planners have been queried about this, the response has been the operator has existing use rights. Legal opinion on this issue varies widely and residents need certainty about what the landfill operator can and can’t do and how far they can expand their operations outside the original quarry.
Having missed the opportunity to establish planning controls over the Fyansford landfill in 2004, will COGG undertake to support local residents in providing certainty about exactly what the existing usage rights (including the boundaries of operation) are, by seeking a ruling from VCAT regarding the Fyansford landfill operations?
In consultation with the landfill operator and residents in 2004, the City planners drafted an extension to the original planning permit with additional conditions. One of these conditions was that “the area beyond the quarry hole is not to be used for tipping any material other than clean fill”. The proposal to extend the planning permit was brought before the Council of the City of Greater Geelong in October 2004. Minutes of the October 2004 COGG Council meeting show that the full council resolved to grant a planning permit subject to strict conditions that were to be finalized by the COGG planning department. At a meeting convened by the City of Greater Geelong in January 2005 with the operator, residents and Councillors, the landfill owner confirmed that the area outside the quarry was only to be used for clean fill for site remediation. There is no record of such a planning permit being granted and local residents only became aware of this in 2012 when a concrete crushing operation was set up outside the quarry area within 100 meters of a residential dwelling. It appears that the COGG planning department never acted on Council’s motion.
Since existing use rights are based on the original planning permit conditions, why is it that COGG planners are unwilling to provide clear details of what these rights are and how far they can extend outside the original quarry site?
Legal advice sought by the City in 2014 advises that when existing use rights are in effect as per Clause 63 of the Planning Provisions, the conditions of the original permit would remain applicable and form the basis upon which enforcement action could be pursued. This advice is in line with legal advice from two specialist planning and environment law firms sought independently by residents and businesses already impacted by the landfill who would be further impacted by an expansion outside the original quarry. Given that back in 2004, COGG appeared to have missed the opportunity to assert planning control over the Landfill operation, many residents feel that COGG has a moral obligation to residents to provide certainty regarding the future operations of the Fyansford Landfill.
Councillor Mansfield responded that this has been an issue during her term as Councillor. What seemed to be a straight-out question about landfill has turned out to be very challenging, and I am very aware of the issue. Councillor Murrihy and myself were on-site with the residents two to three years ago. I understand we are awaiting more legal advice subsequent to some questions that have been raised by residents, yet again, around this and we are hopeful we will receive some clarity one way or another about this issue. It is certainly something we are very aware of, and have been working quite hard to resolve for residents.
Councillor Harwood added that the particular circumstance that has arisen has been by stealth and has caused untold angst and concern within the community. I don’t feel comfortable with any of the responses we are getting in to what actions we have taken to mitigate or eliminate the potential damage that will occur, should the landfilling process continue to the south east, that would undoubtedly be the worst possible outcome we could be involved in. It would be an absolute disgrace on this Council if that was to occur down in Fyansford.
Given what that little precinct in Fyansford represents, and what has happened down there in recent times, and what is occurring now with that landfill is completely incompatible with what we are trying to achieve in a Clever and Creative Geelong.
Council is certainly pursuing this as far as we can, and I will also advocate with my fellow Councillors to see what legal action we can take as a Council, whether it is though VCAT or similar because at the moment it is an unpalatable, unsuitable scenario.
Gareth Smith (Director Planning, Design and Development) responded:
Thank you for your questions, David.
As the Councillors have outlined this issue has certainly been going on for a period of time. The City has put a series of frequently asked questions on our website and shared that with residents as well which actually does provide answers to some of the questions you raise, but as the Councillors noted we certainly continue to further explore those different options where we can assure 100% certainty about how the rights for that landfill site are.
The frequently asked questions we developed were in consultation with the EPA and also some discussion with the operators themselves. Again, more than happy to provide the links to those frequently asked questions to assist you further.
In response to your specific questions, I provide the following information:
The City acknowledges that the Fyansford Waste Disposal and Recycling Centre has the benefit of existing use rights.
The extent of the land that benefits from existing use rights is the same as the land that is covered by the EPA licence. It is not limited to the quarry ‘hole.’
This means that a planning permit is not required to use the land for a landfill, including in the south east part of the land.
Earthworks that have recently occurred in the Rural Living zoned land to the south east, do not, in our view, require planning permission.
The conditions of the 1989 Shire of Bannockburn planning permit are not enforceable in our view. This is because the operator has not relied on the expired planning permit within the last 15 years.
Based on this, the City does not intend, at this time, to make application to VCAT to clarify the extent of existing use rights, however we are certainly further investigating issues regarding future works in that area and we are in the midst of doing that again at the moment.
The City is looking to hold public forums in the future and will be in close contact with the ward Councillors regarding that as well over the coming months.
Council does want to continue to engage with the community in this area – we understand the importance of the area. and we want to resolve it in the best way we can with the community.
Sarah Roberts addressed Council as follows:
Thank you, Councillor Nelson, for your intention to present the Coolabah Drive, Grovedale, Footpath Construction- 2021 petition this evening. I obtained 163 signatures from people who are familiar with the missing footpath links in Coolabah Drive and Allambee Avenue. I did NOT approach the 24 abutting properties of the SRC 357 proposed scheme, because they have been able to comment via Engineering Services' survey.
The Mayor responded:
Thank you, Sarah. We acknowledge receipt of the petition and note your comments.
Virginia Johnson (President Marshall Bluestone Cottage Community Group) asked the following:
The bluestone cottage on the roundabout intersection at Marshall will be demolished due to the duplication of Barwon Heads Road. As President of the Marshall Bluestone Cottage Community Group, formed in December when this news broke, I am representing the view that we are advocating for the cottage to be relocated to the diagonally opposite public parkland. Can the relevant City of Greater Geelong department staff please advise what views they have expressed during their discussions with Major Road Projects Victoria?
Do our elected representatives on Council support our view that the Cottage should be relocated to become an asset for constituent public use and for visitors as a tourist attraction?
Gareth Smith (Director Planning, Design and Development) responded:
Thank you for your questions, Virginia.
The City staff have met and discussed relocation and interpretation options with Major Roads Projects Victoria (MRPV) many times over the last six months. The City supports relocation of the cottage by MRPV if a sustainable future use can be found for the Cottage at a new location, otherwise it will support the proposed deconstruction and interpretation that MRPV’s consultants have been exploring over the last year. From a heritage perspective, the City acknowledges the cottage possesses heritage value as a remnant of Marshall Town and relocation is preferable to demolition, however relocation and reuse will involve major changes to fabric that will impact the significance of the cottage and relocation needs to be nearby if the significant link to Marshall Town is to be retained. Relocation further afield would destroy the significance of the cottage.
We have explored different uses and the City itself does not have a practical and sustainable use for the cottage as a community facility in the Marshall area due to the limitations of its size and layout. The City has concerns over potential impact of relocation of the cottage onto the JF Field Park in respect of its potential to compromise the public open space value of the park and the uncertainty as to how it might be sustainably used and managed.
Giuseppe Stuto asked why do we need to pay six times the amount for a naturestrip the same length as a single property?
Guy Wilson-Browne (Director City Services) responded:
Thank you for your question, Giuseppe.
Your question will be taken on notice for further investigation.
Daniel Garcia asked for the entire Council to record their experience in relation to the March for Justice Rally which occurred last fortnight in Geelong?
Councillor Moloney said she attended and spoke at the March for Justice Rally. It was a very emotional experience for me because I am personally affected by the things that have been happening higher up in government, and feel it is time for us to be reflective on the impact on this really serious issue. I take it very seriously.
Councillor Mansfield indicated she too attended the rally with Councillor Moloney and shared many of her sentiments this evening. We all need to be doing more to address gender equity and gender-based violence.
Councillor Aitken also marched as a male and had the pleasure of talking and marching with Councillor Moloney at that event. He strongly believes in what the movement was asking for at that particular event that a change of behaviour is needed. I think I had a strong responsibility as a male to participate on that day and encourage change of male members of the Australian community.
Councillor Asher echoed all the sentiments expressed and is fully supportive.
Councillor Mason regretted not being able to attend the march but was pleased his wife did attend. I very much support the need for cultural change in our community and I’ll be doing my best to support that change.
Councillor Grzybek expressed her disappointment at not being aware of the event and thanked Daniel for attending the Council Meeting and raising the issue.
Councillor Nelson presented a petition in relation to Coolabah Drive, Grovedale, Footpath Construction 2021. The petition asks for Council to proceed with footpath works along at least one side of Coolabah Drive (plus the remnant footpath section of Allambee Avenue), with amended scheme calculation that reflect the wider community access benefit more accurately, in turn reducing the percentage cost-sharing for the abutting property owners.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
