Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council held at Portarlington Parks Hall, 87 Newcombe Street, Portarlington, commencing at 6:00pm.
Graham Floyd Smith
Ian Rabone
Sarah Roberts
Dean Vella
Gail Layh
Jeremy Klitzing
Robert Kanngieser
Bruce Drummond
Mercedes Drummond
Sue Davies
Ben McLennan
Rowan Kent
Vicki Perrett
Leanne Owen
Lauren Ainsworth
Sally Fisher
Monica Winston
Jennifer Jarrard
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)
R Stevens (Director Community Life)
K Phyland (Executive Manager People and Culture)
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 Asher, Mason and Sullivan provided the gallery with a snapshot of some of the activities and projects happening in the Bellarine Ward.
Nil.
Councillor Sullivan moved, Councillor Mason seconded -
That Leave of Absence be granted to Councillor Stephanie Asher from 7 June to 14 June 2021, inclusive.
Carried.
Councillor Asher moved, Councillor Sullivan seconded –
That Leave of Absence be granted to Councillor Bruce Harwood from 1 July to 30 July 2021, inclusive.
Carried.
Councillor Grzybek moved, Councillor Aitken seconded -
That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 27 April. 2021 be confirmed.
Carried.
Councillor Kontelj declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Item 2, Declaration of Special Rate for Central Geelong Marketing, in that he owns a property in the Central Business District.
Councillor Grzybek declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Item 5, Tender T2100013 Building Better Bike Connections Project – Southern Corridor – Stage 1, in that Cr Grzybek is an employee of the TAC who are funders of the bike paths.
The following community members submitted questions prior to the Council Meeting:
Graham Floyd Smith, Ocean Grove Principal Pedestrian Network
Ian Rabone, Dogs, Ocean Grove Beach
Sarah Roberts, Footpaths - Special Rates and Charges
Dean Vella, Pakington Street Footpaths
Gail Layh, Building Better Bike Connections Stage 1
Jeremy Klitzing, Building Better Bike Connections Stage 1
Robert Kanngieser, Bluff Road, Town Planning, Building Inspectors,
Bruce Drummond, Drysdale Clifton Springs Development
Mercedes Drummond, Newcombe Street, Portarlington Development
Sue Davies, Fyansford Motocross
Ben McLennan, Fyansford Motocross
Rowan Kent, Special Rate Central Geelong Marketing
Vicki Perrett, Vison Report – Climate Targets
Leanne Owen, Fyansford Motocross
Lauren Ainsworth, Fyansford Motocross
Sally Fisher, Climate Change Response Plan Budget
Monica Winston, Climate Change Response Plan Budget
Jennifer Jarrard, Waste-to-Energy Facility.
Jeremy Klitzing asked the following questions regarding Building Better Bike Connections:
Why was the decision taken to defer awarding the contract for the construction of the Southern Bike Link? A related question is whether the same reasons still stand and that the contract might not be awarded at the meeting tonight?
Thank you for your question, Jeremy.
This matter will be considered by Council at tonight’s meeting.
Robert Kanngieser asked the following questions regarding Bluff Road:
How will Bluff Road progress - storm water etc?
Future town planning, for example: car parking?
Need medical clinic, light commercial property. Local building inspectors needed?
Thank you for your questions, Robert.
Council is investigating the queries in terms of stormwater management in Bluff Road and any potential future car parking and other land uses in and around the town centre.
A meeting has been arranged with you to look into these matters.
Bruce Drummond asked about the Drysdale Clifton Springs Development:
It is quite clear that in the last two years there has been an increase in the number of applications for infills in the long-standing Drysdale Clifton Springs precincts. All of which the community is overwhelming opposing, since each one being approved is destroying our unique village, semi-rural characteristics of our township. Never to be regained. If we are to believe that these applications for subdivisions are driven by a shortage of housing lots why is the second stage of the Curlewis precinct not been expedited? This would address a number of issues:
The stance that there is a shortfall of housing allotments?
The construction of Tivoli Drive Boulevard would then be fast tracked since it would be the responsibility of the developers?
Equally significant it would remove the pressure of our limited and much valued semi-rural pockets?
Thank you for your questions, Bruce.
The Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan supports infill development in Drysdale/Clifton Springs and also larger greenfield residential subdivision in the Jetty Road Urban Growth Area (now part of Curlewis).
The landowners and developers of Jetty Road Growth Area Stage 2 are in the process of applying for a planning scheme amendment to rezone Stage 2. This is the equivalent sized area to Stage 1.
Council officers have been working through rezoning and subdivision issues with the proponents for several months. This includes early delivery of the duplication of Tivoli Drive amongst other issues such as drainage and open space.
The City is aware of the need to rezone this area to enable further lot supply. We are expecting the key issues to be resolved in coming months and a report on the amendment will then be put to Council to enable public exhibition.
In relation to the modification of Tivoli Drive we believe that the best long-term result is the inset parking on nature strips.
With respect to your suggestion for inset parking, due to the narrowness of the road reserve and the location of services it is generally not practical.
Mercedes Drummond asked about the Drysdale Clifton Springs Development:
As Council knows, all communities on the Bellarine are concerned at over and inappropriate development.
For that reason, we are anxiously awaiting the full implementation of the Victorian Government's Bellarine Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Declaration.
In that regard, we understand that Council on this Thursday will be determining its attitude towards the issue of a permit for the construction of a five-level residential and commercial complex on the north or bay side of Newcombe Street, Portarlington.
We share the concerns of the Portarlington Community Association about this proposal and we are interested in the views of Council about inviting the State Government to issue interim height controls pending the finalisation of the DAL."
Thank you for your questions, Mercedes.
The City is expecting the State Government to soon release a draft Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) as part of the Bellarine Peninsula Distinctive Area and Landscape (DAL) process.
We expect the draft SPP will deal with settlement boundaries around Bellarine townships and also address planning controls within the townships.
When the draft SPP is released City officers will review it and draft a submission.
A report seeking Council endorsement of the submission will then follow.
It would be premature for Council to form a position on issues such as interim height controls pending release of the SPP. However, we would encourage interested community groups and individuals to make a submission to the DAL process and express your views on such matters.
Sue Davies asked the following in relation to the proposed Motocross Track in Fyansford:
Last meeting, I asked a question about the proposed Motocross track in Fyansford. Council’s response to my question included the statement.
'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.'
Thank you for your questions, Sue.
Can you please advise as to whether G21 identified any sites in Fyansford as suitable sites for a Motocross Track?
No sites in Fyansford were identified as suitable for this purpose.
G21 clearly established a criteria for the assessment of sites for potential Motocross activities. One criteria was the proximity of the facility to residential properties.
Can you please confirm what distance to residential properties was used in the evaluation of suitable Motocross sites in the G21 Land Suitability Assessment?
No distance was prescribed as being a limit of what was acceptable.
The assessment considered a range of distances from 0-0.5 km through to >2 km.
The assessment was weighted in a manner where sites closer to residential properties were less suitable for a regional motocross facility. (Page 52 of report – 63 of 133.)
When G21 was assessing the sites for a Motocross track, consideration was given to 'noise and other amenity issues it generates close to other incompatible uses'.
Can you please outline; What noise levels are generated from such a facility? What are the 'amenity issues' referred to? What are the 'incompatible uses' G21 referred to?
The report referenced work undertaken that suggests that as an approximate guide, of 45dBA Leq (equivalent continuous noise level) at a noise receptor 2 kilometres from the noise source without additional noise controls in place.
The main issues related to motocross are most commonly (but not limited to) dust and noise.
Incompatible land uses would be generally defined as those where dust and noise generated from a motocross facility would have a detrimental impact on enjoyment or use of adjacent land for its defined purpose.
Ben McLennan asked the following in relation to the proposed Motocross Track in Fyansford:
Clause 32, sub-clause (2)(b) of the Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law 2014 states that a Person must not, without a Permit: drive, ride on or otherwise use any Motor Bike or other Motorised Recreational Vehicle outside a Built Up Area on any land other than Council Land or a Road, within 500 metres of a Dwelling; Sub-clause (2)(c) further states that a Person is exempt from the above provided that Person has obtained a written consent: (a) from all adjoining property occupiers; and (b) from all other occupiers of Dwellings within 500 metres of the subject land. I live within 450 metres of the proposed motocross track at 295 Hamilton Highway, Fyansford.
On the morning of 17 April 2021, I was lying in bed, only to be woken by the noise of two dirt bikes on the proposed track.
On 8 May 2021, whilst I sat at my kitchen table, my conversation was interrupted by the sound of a single dirt bike.
I can assure council I have not been asked by the applicant for my consent in writing to their use of the track, nor have I provided such consent.
I am also aware that such breaches were raised at the last council meeting and several complaints of this ongoing breach have been lodged with COGG since.
Thank you for your questions, Ben.
My question is, noting the 15 penalty units per breach of Local Law, what has COGG done to address these breaches and assure the nearby residents that such non-compliance won’t continue?
In the last twelve months our Local Laws Officers have received 7 complaints in relation to this location.
These complaints have been investigated and a Notice to Comply issued in May 2021.
The Local Laws team has not received any further complaints since the Notice to Comply was issued. If an infringement was to be issued this would be for 3 Penalty Units which is the maximum infringement penalty for this offence.
If a matter such as this was to proceed to court the maximum penalty that the court may impose is up to 15 penalty units. A ‘Penalty Unit’ means a Penalty Unit under the Sentencing Act 1991. For Local Laws, a Penalty Unit is currently fixed by the State Government at the value of $100 per Penalty Unit.
Our Local Laws Officers are continuing to undertake patrols of the area and monitor for any further complaints.
In relation to the application PP-12-2020 for the proposed motocross track at 295 Hamilton Highway, Fyansford, which would be situated within 300 metres of the closest residents, several questions were raised regarding the integrity of the submitted Acoustics Reports at the last meeting.
COGG responded to such questions by deferring to a peer review it had commissioned without offering any details regarding the process undertaken or content of the peer review.
My question is, when will the details of the peer review be made available for the public so that residents have an opportunity to consider the contents and address any perceived or actual shortcomings?
Council’s Planning Officer will prepare a report for the Planning Committee to consider whether the proposal is appropriate in the context of all the information that has been provided with the application. All of the planning details, including the assessment and peer review of the acoustic report, will be considered at the Planning Committee and referenced in the officer report which will be available online the week prior to meeting.
Vicki Perrett asked the following in relation to the 2020 Vision Progress Report:
Geelong Sustainability is proud to be a Vision Partner, supporting Council to realise the community’s 30-year vision to become a clever and creative city.
We congratulate Council on publishing the 2020 Vision Progress Report after such a difficult year.
My questions relate to this report. Firstly, in relation to the aspiration for the City to have a fast, reliable and connected transport network. A key performance indicator is for 50% of journeys to work to be made by public transport, walking or cycling. The Progress Report only has baseline data showing 8.75% of journeys to work being made by public transport, walking or cycling in 2016.
Why has this indicator not been updated since 2016?
When will more up-to-date data be published?
What plans does Council have to boost active travel?
Thank you for your questions, Vicki.
The 5-yearly Australian Census of Population and Housing is the main source of data on the journey to work in Australia. The 2021 Census data is due to be released in a staged approach from June 2022 through to mid-2023.
The City recently completed the Western Link of the Building Better Bike Connections project in 2020. The Western Link provides a connection for bike riders from Manifold Heights and Geelong West to Central Geelong. The Southern Link of the Building Better Bike Connections project is underway, with the tender for construction of Stage 1 being considered by Council on 25 May 2021. Detailed design of Stage 2 of the Southern Link will commence soon after.
The City also adopted the Shared Trails Masterplan in 2020 which was an action stemming from the Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2018-21. The Masterplan identifies key gaps in our network, and between existing trails, to support active travel as a means of commuting, recreation and leisure. The draft 2021-22 budget proposes funding for the continued delivery of priority trails across the municipality.
The City’s draft 2021-22 budget also proposes funding for an Integrated Transport Plan, that will consider how all modes of transport are supported into Geelong’s future, particularly for active travel as we continue to strive for the City’s aim of 50% of all travel to work to be made by sustainable transport.
Secondly, the Vision calls for Geelong to become a carbon neutral city-region by 2047. Council recognised the Climate Emergency back in September 2019. However, according to the 2020 Progress Report the City’s carbon emissions are not reducing.
There has only been a 0.47 percent decrease compared to 2017 baseline data. Geelong Sustainability knows that Council is aiming to be carbon neutral by 2025 for its own operations, which is brilliant. However, as they make up only 1% of the region’s emissions, we believe the City should set interim targets to guide faster progress. The state government recently announced its interim targets, which aim to reduce emissions by 28-33% by 2025 and 45-50% by 2030.
Will Council seriously consider adopting Victoria’s interim emission reduction targets in order to encourage and lead the municipality’s transition to a low-carbon economy?
Emissions targets will be an integral component of the City’s draft Climate Change Response Plan, due to be released for public consultation in July this year.
Leanne Owen asked the following in relation to the proposed Motocross Track in Fyansford:
Location of Noise Assessments? The noise report in the proposal references noise assessments being conducted at Province Boulevard. Given homes as now much closer to the proposed facility than Province Boulevard, has/will any independent noise assessment be conducted at locations closer to the facility (such as Majestic Drive) and also other areas (such as along the park land) that will be impacted the most from the development?
Effect on Parks and Nature Reserves? The submission considers noise from the proposed motocross facility against the Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria Recommended Maximum Noise Levels (NIRV RMNLS), the State Environmental Protection Policy (SEPP N-1) and the motor sport case study in the NSW Noise Guide for Local Government. The conclusion drawn in the proposal is that community amenity would not be affected at the determined noise levels however stated in the Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria (NIRV) document in section 2.1 is that about parks and nature reserves not being protected at those recommended noise levels. For any independent noise assessment conducted, will/has the impact on parks and nature reserves in the area be factored in accordingly?
Noise Assessment Methodology? The referenced State Environmental Protection Policy (SEPP N-1) together with the NSW EPA Noise Guide for Local Governments (in Part 2), both state that that noise character such as tone and impulsiveness need to be taken into consideration when assessing noise and outline correction factors that must be applied to accommodate characteristic of noise. The submission however, does not consider noise character or the apply correction factors. For any independent noise assessments conducted, will/has the consideration of noise character been accounted for? Also, in the NSW EPA Noise Guide for Local Government in section 2.3 Measuring Noise, it states “So that noise results can be accurately compared, it is important that noise tests being compared are conducted under the same conditions.” Atmospheric factors that impact noise readings include wind speed, wind direction, rain etc. making it important to compare results under the same conditions. The noise report from Clarity Acoustics (conducted in June 2020) relied on the previous background noise level measurements taken by Marshall Day back in April 2018, meaning they were not taken at the same time under the same conditions.
The Clarity Acoustics Report also didn’t make any reference in their report to atmospheric factors such as wind speed and direction being taken into consideration during their noise assessment. Will/has any independent noise assessment factored in atmospheric conditions?
Thank you for your questions, Leanne.
The acoustic report submitted as part of the planning application process has been peer reviewed and no further report is expected.
Council’s Planning Officer will prepare a report for the Planning Committee to consider whether the proposal is appropriate in the context of all the information that has been provided with the application.
All of the planning details, including the assessment and review of the acoustic report, will be considered at the Planning Committee.
It is noted that the Planning Committee meeting will be open to all submitters to attend and that they will also be invited to speak if they choose to do so. This process will allow parties the opportunity to voice their comments to Council on the evening.
Lauren Ainsworth asked the following in relation to the proposed Motocross Track in Fyansford:
The Mt Brandon Landscape design boasts the staged development of passive recreational facilities with public open space for picnics, viewing/seating areas, playgrounds and informal recreational facilities. Council has committed $1.8 mil for the staged development of these works in its 3-year capital works program.
As a resident of Highton with a young family we currently use the park extensively for family downtime – and look forward to further development and enhanced facilities that will make this family time even more enjoyable. We bought in Highton on this estate due to the plans for Mt Brandon and the proximity to the river for passive enjoyment of a natural environment close to home.
How can Council possibly consider that a Motorcross Track adjacent to this development is appropriate and in keeping with the design intent of the Barwon River Trail?
The Mt Brandon Landscaping is designed to provide sufficient area to protect and improve environmental values along the river. Given the extent of wildlife and native vegetation already identified in this area, how does Council intend to protect and encourage natural growth and development of this space if it is compromised by usage that is not in keeping with the environmental values stated on the masterplan.
With the extensive earthworks recently undertaken, has COGG followed all of the Cultural Heritage Overlay assessments and requirement for this site, for a distance of 500m from the banks of the Barwon River?
Thank you for your questions, Lauren.
The planning application PP-12-2020 - for the use of the land as a motocross facility is not a Council application, it is a private development. As such, the applicant is required to provide all documentation in relation to compliance with the Planning Scheme.
Council will consider the application on the planning merits and the application will be determined at a Planning Committee Meeting consisting of all Councillors.
A Planning Officer will prepare a report for consideration of the Committee which will include the details of the application.
The decision of the Committee will be the decision of Council as the Responsible Authority under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 taking into account the relevant planning controls under the Grater Geelong Planning Scheme.
Jennifer Jarrard asked the following regarding the proposed Waste to Energy Facility at Lara:
Geelong Sustainability has written to all Councillors to raise our concerns about the Waste-to-Energy Facility being proposed at Lara. We’re pleased that the EPA is holding a Section 20B Community Conference to listen to the community’s concerns. Incineration is the most expensive and dirtiest form of energy production, releasing more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere per megawatt-hour than coal, undermining jobs and destroying finite resources while leaving significant amounts of toxic ash requiring secure landfill. The EPA says WtE has a transitional role but the proposal talks about 25 years of operations. This facility seems to be contrary to the City’s waste and resource recovery policy. In their Environmental the Works Approval Application Part 1 Prospect Hill International Pty Ltd state in section 3.1 Page 38 that “The Project does not trigger referral criteria for an EES”. We believe that the nature and scope of a 400,000 tonne Waste to Energy incinerator so close to residents would require an EES.
Thank you for your questions, Jennifer.
Given that the Waste to Energy facility will be located at Lara within the Greater City of Geelong, what, if any, contractual arrangements has the council entered into with Prospect Hill International Pty Ltd?
The Minister for Planning makes the decision on whether an EES is required for any project in Victoria.
What steps including ensuring an Environmental Effects Statement under the Act can the council undertake to ensure the health and safety of residents and workers in Lara?
The City has no waste supply contractual arrangements with Prospect Hill International Pty Ltd.
Nil.
Contents | Next Page: Section B – Reports
