Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at the Highton Bowls Club, corner Roslyn and North Valley Roads, Highton, commencing at 6:00pm.
Leighanne Crocker
Sonia Silva
Ian Rabone
Ruth Cole
Andrew Keen
Fred Imhoff
Sue Davies
Philip Davies
M Silvan
Jim Demetrious
Kristie Miles
Philip Peatfield
Mercedes Drummond
Ben Cornwell
Leanne Owen
Dave Lean
Drysdale Clifton Springs Curlewis Association
Anne Brackley
North Bellarine Aquatic Centre Advocacy Group
Melissa Cadwell
Patricia Hollis, Ben McLennan
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)
M Dugina (Director Customer and Corporate Services)
R Stevens (Director Community Life)
I Hick (Manager Social Planning and Investment)
S McKew (Manager Governance)
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.
Councillors Harwood, Nelson and Moloney provided the gallerin with a snapshot of some of the activities and projects happening in the Kardinia Ward.
Nil.
Councillor Grzybek moved, Councilolor Harwood seconded -
That Leave of Absence be granted to Councillor Ron Nelson from 9 June to 16 June 2021, inclusive.
Carried.
Councillor Mason moved, Councillor Sullivan seconded -
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 23 March 2021 be confirmed.
Carried.
Councillor Grzybek declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Item 10 Tender T2100013 Building Better Bike Connections Project – Southern Corridor – Stage 1, in that Councillor Grzybek is an employee of the TAC who are funders of the bike paths.
Leighanne Crocker, Sonia Silva, Ian Rabone, Ruth Cole, Andrew Keen, Fred Imhoff, Sue Davies, Philip Davies, M Silvan, Jim Demetrious, Kristie Miles, Philip Peatfield, Mercedes Drummond, Ben Cornwell, Leanne Owen, Dave Lean, Drysdale Clifton Springs Curlewis Association, Anne Brackley, North Bellarine Aquatic Centre Advocacy Group, Melissa Cadwell, Patricia Hollis, Ben McLennan submitted questions prior to the Council Meeting. A written response will be provided via email.
The Mayor advised the following in relation to Public Question Time:
Bellarine Pool – Scope and Design:
Members of the public are welcome to ask questions in relation to North Bellarine Pool scope and design, however Councillors will not be able to provide you with an answer, as this item is being discussed for a decision tonight.
Proposed Motorcross Track:
Councillors have requested that the planning application be called in to be considered by Councillors at a Planning Committee Meeting. Objectors will be notified of the date and process for this meeting.
As this matter is to be considered by the Planning Committee, we cannot pre-empt a decision, and the Planning Committee Meeting is the appropriate time for objectors to voice their concerns to Councillors.
Questions are still welcome, however if they are in relation to the use and development of a motor cross facility, we will not be able to provide you with an answer tonight as it may prejudice the decision.
Fred Imhoff asked the following questions in relation to The Discovery Bike Track in Barwon Heads:
When does The Discovery Bike Track in Barwon Heads begin?
Will the Discovery Bike Track be built with local teenagers?
We have a group of kids who want to be involved. How can we help?
Thank you for your questions, Fred.
The draft master plan will be open for community feedback for a six-week period from 30 April and we encourage you to provide feedback once it's open.
The City will be seeking whether there is support for the various initiatives proposed and will include those in the final plan. The final plan then becomes a blueprint for future investment.
The Bike Discovery initiative is well suited to partnering with local teenagers and the community and is something the City would be interested in considering if it is broadly supported.
The final funding, timing and ultimate method of delivery of various projects will need to be determined after the final plan is endorsed by Council.
We look forward to your further feedback and the Project Manager will email you once the Have Your Say page has been launched.
Melissa Cadwell asked:
My question is to the Mayor and all Councillors. Does COGG have any written policy, procedures, guidelines, rules, or any other document that sets out how COGG Councillors, and/or staff, and their immediate families, are protected from members of the public who seek to harass, intimidate, or bully Councillors, and /or staff, and their immediate families? Is the policy the same for both Councillors and staff?
Thank you for your questions, Melissa.
The City has an Occupational Health and Safety Policy which commits to providing a safe and healthy workplace which applies to all of Council’s operations. Many of our employees have also undertaken training on dealing with difficult people in order to support them to perform their role.
The City operates under a Customer Service Charter, available on the Geelong Australia website, which sets out the standard of service we aspire to deliver, as well as an understanding that staff can ask a member of the public to leave, cease a conversation, or contact police if their behaviour is considered hostile, threatening or abusive.
The City has recently implemented the Raising an Employee Related Concern guidelines, allowing staff to raise any issues relating to inappropriate behaviour, bullying, harassment or any other issue they face. Each concern raised will be appropriately dealt with on a case by case basis.
The Geelong Australia website also contains information about how members of the public can make complaints, and the steps that will be followed when they do: register a complaint.
The City has detailed complaints processes and deals with each matter appropriately in accordance with these.
As outlined above, there are processes in place for staff and members of the public to raise their concerns. These can relate to Councillors and staff. Both complaints processes set out the steps that will occur once a complaint has been received and allow for matters to be appropriately dealt with on a case by case basis.
Further, does COGG have any written policy, procedures, guidelines, rules, or any other document that sets out how COGG Councillors, and/or staff and their immediate families should be protected from members of the public who seek to harass, intimidate, or bully Councillors, and /or staff, and their immediate families, when they are not actually at work, especially given that all Councillors and some staff are residents of the COGG? Is the policy the same for both Councillors and staff?
As outlined above, both the Raising an Employee Related Concern Guideline and the Register a Complaints processes can be utilised to raise issues that occur both when at work, and outside of work. Each matter will be dealt with on a case by case basis.
If Councillors or Employees feel as though they require protection from a member of the public, they are able to utilise these avenues to raise their concerns and they will be dealt with accordingly. Action taken will be tailored to the particular circumstances and may include support provided by management in dealing with a customer, a consideration by the City as to whether a particular ratepayer should be restricted from corresponding directly with a particular employee and/or department, up to and including supporting the Councillor or employee to make a decision about whether the behaviour needs to be reported to the police, and supporting that process.
Does COGG have a responsibility, whether legal or otherwise, to protect its Councillors, and/or staff and their immediate families from members of the public who seek to harass, intimidate, or bully Councillors, and /or staff, and their immediate families? If so, what is it? And can you explain it in detail?
The City has a responsibility to ensure the health and safety of our Councillors and employees is protected.
Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act the City has a responsibility to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employee’s and other persons at work.
The Occupational Health and Safety Act is referenced in the City’s relevant policies relating to the health and wellbeing of employees while at work.
Anne Brackley representing North Bellarine Aquatic Centre Advocacy asked:
On behalf of the North Bellarine Aquatic Centre Advocacy Group I would like to thank you for the progress that has been made on gaining aquatic facilities for the North Bellarine over the last 12 months. Our group has invested thousands of hours communicating about this need in our community. In December 2020, we asked State Government for funding to enable the planning for the whole site to be planned during 2021 so that we could be shovel ready when other funding becomes available to build any other part of complex. In the last 7 days I have written to all levels of government giving them all our Position Paper and asking for financial support for the project. We are still receiving responses to this correspondence.
My question is to Mayor Asher and the Councillors: How can the North Bellarine Aquatic Centre Advocacy Group assist Council to build another goal of the Council listed in the Social Infrastructure Plan the Warm Water Exercise Pool at the same time as the covered heated year round 50m pool?
Thank you for your questions, Anne.
The pool being considered at the Council meeting on 27 April is in accordance with the previous Council reports on this matter, the consultation to date and the funding agreement of the Federal Government, which have all contemplated the delivery of a 50-metre outdoor pool. In doing so, Council has always been cognisant of the need to accommodate any potential further expansion of the facility to fulfil emerging needs of the north Bellarine community should the funding become available.
Council will be keen to work with the North Bellarine Aquatic Centre Advocacy Group to look at opportunities for further funding to deliver on the other aquatic needs of the community into the future.
Sue Davies asked the following in relation to the proposed Motor Cross Track:
I am strongly opposed to the planning application regarding the Motor Cross track at Fyansford. My concerns are predominantly based on the unsuitable proposed location and the significant impact this facility will have on residential properties in Highton. It is not unreasonable that the City of Greater Geelong should support and contribute to a community facility for Motor Cross Activity. Location! Location! Location!
Thank you for your questions, Sue.
What definitive action has CoGG and Councillors and Council Officers taken to work with the Motor Cross stakeholders to identify a permanent location for this proposed facility that is removed from residential subdivisions in order to eliminate resident concerns and the significant impact on the enjoyment of our homes?
It is noted that the application for the use of the land for a Motorcross facility has recently completed the public notice period and Council has acknowledged all objections received. The planning process from here is that Council must make a decision on this proposal; alternative locations are not part of this application.
Has there been: a comprehensive and independent feasibility study with appropriate community consultation to review all options available for a permanent Motor Cross track in the Greater Geelong area: - a defined scope of works for a feasibility study that ensures all stakeholders to actively contribute to: - a comprehensive end-state concept plan - year on year budget document for that development - a governance and operational management plan for the end state of the facility as opposed to the deceptive 'foot in the door' approach of the current planning application being considered?
At this point in time Council is only considering the current planning application before it (PP-12-2020) for the use of the land for a motocross facility at 275 Hamilton Highway. Council is required to make a decision on this application. There are no other locations currently before the City’s planning department to assess. In late 2016 a G21 Motocross Land Suitability Assessment was completed following the closure of McAdam Park. The assessment considered the functional needs of motocross riders and the land-use requirements for a regional facility. The report looked at other options to provide a home for motocross given it is often a hard to locate sport due to noise and other amenity issues it generates close to other incompatible uses. A number of potential properties were identified, with the best prospects in private ownership. The City and G21 identified that the placement and funding of a facility required a joint approach including neighbouring regions, best led by the State Government.
The planning application screams a deceptive 'foot in the door' approach, with multiple documents all varying the nature of the development, the extent of the proposed facilities and the usage that is intended. What is the plan for the City of Greater Geelong to provide strong and decisive oversight, governance and management of any planning permit conditions related to this facility?
Council considers all information associated with the proposal prior to determining whether to support or refuse the proposed application. The decision-making process involves a detailed assessment against the Planning Scheme and any decision must accord with the regulatory requirements of the Planning and Environment Act. With respect of any planning permit issued - it is noted there are specific conditions of permit that run with the land; failure to appropriately comply with the conditions of permit can result in enforcement action through Council and/or VCAT.
Philip Davies asked the following:
City of Greater Geelong, Barwon Water, VicRoads, Estate developers and residents have all made financial, emotional and lifestyle commitments to the development of the parkland, picnic, bike and walking trails along the Barwon River from Buckley Falls Park to the Geelong Ring Road. The ongoing development of this community parkland in line with the longstanding Master Plan for this area is in direct conflict with a noisy, dusty, inappropriately located Motor Cross Track. The enjoyment of this public open space would be significantly compromised if the Motor Cross track proceeds.
Thank you for your questions, Philip.
How much money has the City of Greater Geelong already contributed to the development of this public open space and what funds are proposed in the upcoming 3 year Capital Works Program to continue to develop and enhance this public open space?
We acknowledge that the comments relate to the Planning Permit Application for the use of the land for a motocross facility. The comments and objections raised are taken into account as part of the decision-making process for the planning application.
The City has contributed to the development of the open space between Buckley Falls and the Ring Road however would require further time to clarify the extent of open space referred to and over what time frame to adequately respond.
The recreational amenities on the Highton Estate are minimal and the bulk of development is being directed towards the Barwon River Linear Park. The ability to connect our parks and paths to access the entirety of the Barwon River Trails on both sides of the River is a real feature of Geelong and adds considerably to the enjoyment of our homes and the outdoor, relaxed, quiet lifestyle Geelong offers.
How is a motor cross facility considered to be compatible with the lifestyle we sought when we purchased our homes if it is located directly opposite our estate and we can see and hear the endless screaming of motor bike engines in use from our loungeroom windows?
All objections and submissions to the City in relation to this application will be taken into account as part of the decision-making process for the planning application for the use of the land for the Motorcross.
The documents presented in the planning application lack cohesion and consistency. As the submissions have been varied, altered and watered down I find it confusing to understand the full extent of the intended usage, the intended stakeholders, the extent of full development and the proposed end state of the facility. This leads me to believe the application is deceptive and incomplete in its detail and intent, evasive to some degree. It appears to me that this proposal is 'stage one' of many and the development will creep/grow/morph into a larger, louder, unruly facility with extended informal use and poor overall management.
What actions has the City of Greater Geelong made to sit down with the applicant and all stakeholders to develop a comprehensive masterplan for the site so we can all be assured that the application is full and honest in its content?
The planning application before Council for the motocross facility has been undertaken by a private company; the current proposal does not include a masterplan for the site. The City has not met with the proponents to develop a masterplan for the site.
Philip Peatfield asked the following in relation to the Motor Cross Track:
Thank you for your questions, Philip.
Would Council look to have an independent sound assessment at the Use and Development of part of the land for Motor Racing Track (Motorcycles) and Earthworks at 295 Hamilton Highway, Fyansford?
As part of this application the applicant submitted an acoustic assessment by a qualified professional. The City has also had the acoustic assessment peer reviewed by another qualified professional. The details of the sound assessment and the peer review will be included in the assessment and consideration of the planning application.
The current sound report did not take into account the line of sight aspect of the sound impacts on the residential areas further up the hill and surrounding areas e.g. all along Stoneleigh Crescent.
Why was this not taken into consideration and those residents notified directly by the Council, either my mail or other means about this proposal?
As part of this application the applicant submitted an acoustic assessment by a qualified professional. The City has also had the acoustic assessment peer reviewed by another qualified professional. The details of the sound assessment and the peer review will be included in the assessment and consideration of the planning application.
The proposed Development is to allow for more Dirt bikes/Motorcross to "train" over more weekends and or weekdays than normal Motor sport raceways that run race meets in a month and those raceways are generally further away from residential areas. e.g. Avalon raceway. This includes up to 30 bikes at any one time. The surrounding Berns do not stop sound currently with the 5 or so bikes that use the area now. McAdam Park (Motorcross racing track) in Barrabool was closed down some time ago (situated in a highly rural area) due noise complaints and at it was 8 kms from the current proposed area which is as little as 300 meters from residential homes.
How is this allowable, considering the proximity to residential homes and the negative impacts on housing values (Rates indicator) due increased sound, dust issues and liveability of the area?
Council in its assessment must take into account the details and objections as part of the planning process. At this stage it is not considered appropriate to comment on the specifics of the application. This information will form part of the planning process to determine the application.
Question relating to the method used for resident notification of the proposal was taken on notice for a written response.
Ben Cornwell asked the following regarding the proposed Motocross "training" facility in Highton:
There are a number of existing motorsport facilities located at Avalon, arguably making that area a vastly superior location for further development of a similar nature. Was Avalon considered as a site for the development of a motocross 'training' course, and if so, why is it not the preferred option?
Was land at Connewarre, a remote area located below an active airport flight path, considered for the development as a motocross 'training' facility, and if so, why is this property considered an unsuitable location for the facility?
If development goes ahead there is a foreseeable precedent that there will be a substantial increase in illegal motorcycle activity in public recreation areas and on walking trails in the immediate area. What assurance and on-going controls will be in place to ensure illegal riding does not occur as a result of the proposed development?
Thank you for your questions, Ben.
At this point in time Council is only considering the current planning application before it (PP-12-2020) for the use of the land for a motocross facility at 275 Hamilton Highway.
Council is required to make a decision on this application.
With respect of any planning permit issued - it is noted there are specific conditions of permit that run with the land; failure to appropriately comply with the conditions of permit can result in enforcement action through Council and/or VCAT.
Leanne Owen asked:
Thank you for your questions, Leanne.
There are some concerns regarding the accuracy of the noise assessment and other supporting technical information submitted as part of the 295 Hamilton Hwy proposal (motocross track). Recommendations differ greatly from earlier noise assessments and the location referenced is Province Blvd and there are now houses much closer to the proposed location than that. Will an independent review be conducted on the noise assessment and other technical information submitted? If yes, can the community have any input into such as review such as locations of noise assessments?
A peer review of the acoustic assessment was undertaken as part of the review and assessment of the application. The peer review has been undertaken by a qualified person to assist Council in its decision-making process.
Are other locations being considered for the motocross track that are not close to a residential estate?
As this is a current planning permit application, Council is required to make a decision on this application. No other locations are currently before Council’s planning department to assess.
In discussions among community members and in completing the petition, it became apparent that 95% of the community were not aware of the motocross proposal even though such as development will have a huge impact on our Highton community. What communication was carried out in the community?
Council undertook the public notice requirements in accordance with the regulations under the Planning and Environment Act, where Council is required to advertise applications to adjoining and adjacent property owners and occupiers. In total 253 letters were sent to property owners and occupiers plus an advertisement was placed in the newspaper and a planning sign was erected on the site to inform people.
Jim Demetrious representing the Geelong West Business Association asked:
In the wake of COVID-19 challenges and at a time of increasing shop vacancies, why do Greater Geelong City Council Officers and Councillors continue to ignore the repeated requests from ‘mum and dad businesses’ and local business associations to reduce the unfair burden of the most uncompetitive differential rate imposed in the State of Victoria; and significantly higher than any of Council’s G21 partner municipalities – for example in 2020 struggling businesses were forced to pay a differential rate 2.23 times and 2.44 times the residential rate for commercial and industrial zoned properties, respectively?
Thank you for your question, Jim.
The difference between the residential and commercial rate differential has been the result of successive rating strategies of Council, that have focused on maintaining a low residential rate and bringing the industrial rate into line with commercial.
The impacts of COVID-19 have specifically been considered in Council support packages supporting commercial business and community during the last 12 months. As a part of drafting Council’s next 4-year budget, Council has considered the impact of its future rating strategy and has identified a new approach which carefully balances the impact of the rating differential relativities for each impacted group within the municipality. Council will be releasing the Budget for community consultation on 27 April 2021; feedback and submissions are welcome (with more information available on the Geelong Australia website).
Generally rating differentials are not directly comparable with other municipalities across Victoria due to differences in services, valuation of property and differences in the mix of residential, commercial, industrial, farm and other types of properties. All councils however are required to comply with the State Government rate capping requirements for 2021-2022; this cap is set at 1.5%.
Ken Mansfield representing the Highton Bowls addressed Council as follows:
Mr Mansfield thanked Council for the installation of the new carpark at the Highton Bowls Club, and now asks when they can expect accompanying lighting to be installed to complete the project and to ensure the car park is a safe space for members to walk to their cars in the evening.
Guy Wilson-Browne (Director City Services) took the question on notice.
Councillor Nelson presented a petition containing approximately 500 signatures from residents opposing the development of a Motorcycle Racing Track proposal in Highton.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
