Council Minutes - Section 1: Procedural Matters - 24 August 2021

Contents | Next Page: Section 2 – Reports

Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council Livestreamed on our website,, commencing at 6:00pm.



Present

Councillors:


[Back to Top]

In attendance:


[Back to Top]

Acknowledgement of Country

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.


Acknowledgement

Councillors Mason and Kontelj acknowledged the situation in Afghanistan and the impact it is having on our multicultural community.


[Back to Top]

Apologies

Nil.


[Back to Top]

Leave of Absence

Councillor Sullivan moved, Councillor Mansfield seconded -

That Leave of Absence be granted to Councillor Mason for the period 15 October 2021 to 14 November 2021 inclusive.

Carried.


[Back to Top]

Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Councillor Grzybek declared a conflict of interest in Agenda Item 2.5 GMHBA Stadium Stage 5 Redevelopment, in that her manager is a trustee of the Kardinia Park Stadium Trust.


[Back to Top]

Confirmation of Minutes

Councillor Sullivan moved, Councillor Grzybek seconded -

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 27 July 2021 be confirmed.

Carried.


[Back to Top]

Public Question and Submission Time

The following questions were submitted prior to the Council Meeting. A written response will be provided via email:

  1. Angela Mangan - Urban Design Framework (UDF) for Pakington Street (Geelong West) and Gordon Avenue.

  2. Susanne Wong - Urban Design Framework (UDF) for Pakington Street (Geelong West) and Gordon Avenue.

  3. Louis De Koker - Geelong Planning Schemes – Waste Collection.

  4. Jeanne Nel - Geelong’s Urban Forest Strategy 2015 – 2025 and Geelong’s Tree Management Policy for trees on public land.

  5. John McArthur - Traffic risks in the Highton Primary/Bellaire Primary vicinity on Roslyn and South Valley Roads.

  6. Vanessa Whittem - Council Planning Decisions.

  7. Rhonda Goodman - Closure of Geelong Saleyards.

  8. Claude Eagles - Flooding risk in the Kardinia Creek Catchment.

  9. Serafino De Simone (on behalf Sea-Change Village Nominees) - Draft Bellarine Peninsula Statement of Planning Policy.

  10. Doctor Jane Mooney - Urban Design Framework (UDF) for Pakington Street (Geelong West) and Gordon Avenue.

Angela Mangan asked the following in relation to the Urban Design Framework (UDF) for Pakington Street (Geelong West) and Gordon Avenue:

I live in the area that will be most seriously affected by the Interim Final Pakington Street North UDF. I would like to make a brief statement followed by two questions.

I live in one of the four heritage overlay streets located immediately to the east of proposed 4-storey building development on Pakington street (Pako). These are Wellington, Maitland, Anglesea and Waterloo Street, which have predominantly Victorian and Edwardian dwellings. The village style amenity of these streets is threatened also by the proposed 6, 8 and 10 storey development of the railyards site to the north, and the 8 storey Strand site to the west. Unbelievably, we are exposed on two sides to largescale development more appropriate to a CBD than a quiet, low-rise residential area with heritage charm! The negative impacts on our streets, among the narrowest in Geelong, are:

I know what the impact of the Pakington Street North UDF will be like, I have first-hand experience of a Melbourne council’s terrible urban planning. My partner and I escaped to Geelong West three years ago and have been delighted by our experience, what is now being proposed in Geelong West looks to us like a nightmare. The proposed building heights are even taller, and the predictable impacts will be even greater than we experienced in Melbourne. Unless Council listens and significantly reduces building height allowances, the amenity which residents currently enjoy will be a distant memory. Geelong, don’t make even bigger mistakes than what have been made in suburban Melbourne!

My questions are:

  1. Taking into account all of the above issues and impacts, will Council further reduce the permitted building heights to 50% of what was included and detailed in the revised August 2021 Interim Final Draft Pakington North UDF? That is: Will Council minimise the impact on Wellington, Maitland, Anglesea and Waterloo Streets by reducing the maximum Pako building height from four storeys to two storeys in this section?

  2. Will Council extend the Pakington Street Heritage Core from Wellington street so as to include Maitland, Anglesea and Waterloo street given the heritage overlay and period houses within these streets?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Thank you, Angela, for your questions and the important points you have raised. We also note and thank you for the detailed submission made to the Interim Final UDF. Your questions and submission will, together with all submissions made during this round of consultation, be considered in preparing the final UDF to be presented to Council later this year.


Susanne Wong asked the following in relation to the Urban Design Framework (UDF) for Pakington Street (Geelong West) and Gordon Avenue:

Where is the traffic plan for the Pakington St UDF? The City of Greater Geelong is not sincere in asking the community to provide feedback on its Interim Final Pakington St and Gordon Ave Urban Design Framework (UDF). If the city were sincere it would have released the traffic management plan at the same time as the UDF.

The number of extra cars driven and parked that will need to be managed, will depend on the numbers of people moving around the area. The numbers of people, and therefore the number of cars, will be determined by the heights of the new buildings that may be constructed. A 10-storey building can be expected to result in twice the number of cars as a 5-storey building. Unless the community knows what provision will be made for cars, we cannot form sensible opinions about building heights.

The community engagement period should be extended, and definitely no final vote taken by council, until the UDF is complete, i.e. until it includes a traffic management plan. Otherwise the city’s request for feedback is mere tokenism. 

  1. Will Council extend the community engagement period until the traffic management plan is available to the community for scrutiny? And will Council guarantee that there will be no final vote by Council until the community has had a chance to consider the traffic management plan in the context of the proposed new design framework for Pakington Street north and Gordon Avenue?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Thank you for your question, Susanne.

We are currently preparing a Traffic Network Assessment, which will be made public in advance of the final UDF being considered by Council later in the year. The outcomes of this assessment will inform the final UDF. The City does not currently plan to extend this phase of consultation.


Louis De Koker asked the following in relation to Geelong Planning Schemes – Waste Collection:

Private waste collection: It has come to my attention that it’s not uncommon for the Geelong Planning Division to allow residential developments with private roads that are too narrow or not appropriately designed to be serviced by Council waste collection services.

Narrower roads enable developers to increase the number of units on a block and maximise short-term gain. The practice compels the residents/owners of units in such developments to secure and pay for a private waste removal service for the development. The costs of such a service over the lifetime of the development undermine housing affordability. In addition, the duplication of waste collection services increases environmental impact and undermine Geelong’s commitment to sustainable development.

The practice contradicts the values and principles reflected in the City of Greater Geelong Sustainability Policy, the Sustainability Action Plan 2020-2022 and the Sustainability Framework and flies in the face of Geelong’s One Planet Council - Australian Excellence status.

  1. Are there provisions in the Geelong Planning Scheme that can be applied by the City of Greater Geelong Environment and Waste Services to require developments to be designed to facilitate Council waste collection, unless there are compelling reasons to develop non-standard roads?

  2. If not, what are the steps you have taken, or will take, to ensure that the Geelong Planning Scheme supports public waste collection?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Thank you for your questions, Louis.

For the majority of sites Council waste collection is the standard process.  However, on occasions it may not be practical for the Waste Services Department to collect waste and a private contractor may be required.

Clause 55 of the Planning Scheme (a statewide policy) requires that waste enclosures should be located for convenient access by residents; it does not specifically require for waste to be collected by public or private means.

As part of a planning application, where medium-large multiple dwelling applications are proposed, officers work with the applicant to determine if waste collection will be undertaken by private or public contractors.


Jeanne Nel asked the following in relation to Geelong’s Urban Forest Strategy 2015 – 2025 and Geelong’s Tree Management Policy for trees on public land:

We support Geelong’s Urban Forest Strategy 2015 – 2025 and Geelong’s Tree Management Policy for trees on public land. The CoGG Tree Management Council Policy recognises that trees form an essential part of a healthy urban environment. It also states that “urban ecology applies to the genes, species and communities of all species within the municipality including trees and plants indigenous to the local area, Australian natives and introduced tree species”.

The policy however only protects trees on private property to the extent that they are subject to protection under the City of Greater Geelong planning scheme. The Planning Scheme, with the exception of the overlay that applies to Ocean Grove, only requires permit applications for the removal of native Victorian trees.

While the Victorian Planning Provisions allow for the protection of significant and exotic vegetation, non-native trees, regardless of their value to the community, receive next to no protection in Geelong. With this in mind, could you provide the following information:

  1. From January 2015 to July 2021, how many trees did the City of Greater Geelong plant each year in RGZ2 and from December 2020, GRZ4 in Highton?

    Response (City Services):

    Thank you for your questions, Jeanne.

    Between 2015 and 2020 a total of 13,824 trees were planted throughout the City. Of these, 120 trees were planted in the Highton area zoned RGZ2 and GRZ4 between 2015 and 2021. An annual breakdown is supplied.

    Planting totals for GRZ4 and RGZ2 Highton

    Plant Year

    Total

    2015

    11

    2016

    43

    2017

    24

    2018

    5

    2019

    9

    2020

    23

    2021

    5

    Grand Total

    120

  2. From January 2015 to July 2021, how many trees on public and private land were felled each year in RGZ2 and from Dec 2020, GRZ4 in Highton: a. by the Council; and b. as a result of development permits that were granted in terms of the Geelong Planning Scheme?

    Response (City Services):

    1. The City does not maintain records of tree removals for specific planning zone areas. In line with the goals of the Urban Forest Strategy we aim to have a net gain of trees planted each year. Between the years of 2015 to 2020 this net gain has increased from two trees planted for every tree removed, to three trees planted for every tree removed.

    2. No tree removals have been approved in Highton as part of the Geelong Planning Scheme.


John McArthur asked the following in relation to Traffic risks in the Highton Primary/Bellaire Primary vicinity on Roslyn and South Valley Roads:

We are concerned about increasing traffic risks in the Highton Primary/Bellaire Primary vicinity on Roslyn and South Valley Roads, including the bus stops at Morven Ct/Cobden St.

  1. The Geelong Advertiser reported on 21 May 2021 assistant principal Ben Raidme of Belaire Primary School calling on authorities to urgently upgrade a South Valley Road crossing to avoid accidents (Calls made to upgrade South Valley Road school crossing in Highton after many near misses): “There have been a lot of near misses where drivers fail to see the crossing and have driven straight through it, causing crossing supervisors and parents to act quickly. In some recent examples, parents have had to physically pull their child back and jump out of the way.” However, VicRoads was reported as refusing to address concerns because they say most of the pedestrian traffic is “school related”;

  2. It is increasingly dangerous to enter South Valley Road from side streets during peak hours (e.g. Shoubra Dr, Morven Ct, Vanessa Ave), especially when legally parked cars block sight lines of motorists; and

  3. Children cross South Valley Road after disembarking from school buses. We see an increasing number of children taking risks crossing the road.


Question 1: How can Council and VicRoads collaborate more effectively to urgently ensure a higher level of road safety in Roslyn and South Valley Roads?

Response (City Services):

Thank you for your questions, John.

The City is aware of the matter raised regarding the upgrade of the existing school crossing on South Valley Road. On 17 August, Department of Transport representatives and City staff met with school representatives and the Belaire Primary School principal regarding the issue.

Question 2: What is a reasonable timeframe to address the risks faced to pedestrians, motorists and bus passengers in Roslyn and South Valley Roads?

Response (City Services):

The Department and the City are working with the school to assess improvement options and will be providing an update to the School Council in coming months.

Vanessa Whittem asked the following in relation to Council Planning Decisions:

I am aware of two recent applications for planning permits that Council failed to decide within the prescribed time, requiring the applicants to seek a review of the Council’s failure to grant a permit:

  1. Arc26 Pty Ltd v Greater Geelong CC [2021] VCAT 201 (10 March 2021) (4 Taylor Court, Highton)

  2. Arc Townhomes Pty Ltd v Greater Geelong CC VCAT P408/2021 (2 Morven Court, Highton)

  3. Failure to decide the application within the prescribed time limits the Council’s control over primary planning decisions and burdens residents who have to commit time and resources to meaningfully participate in VCAT proceedings. 

Question 1: What is the Council doing to ensure that there is sufficient planning capacity and resources to enable it to decide permit applications within the prescribed time?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Thank you for your question, Vanessa.

Under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, councils (statewide) are required to determine planning applications within sixty (60) statutory days, irrespective of their complexity.

Whilst an applicant can appeal to VCAT to have the decision determined by VCAT where councils do not meet this time frame, a council has the opportunity to advocate to VCAT what its decision would have been. Therefore, this does not limit the council’s ability to advise of its position.

In the last financial year (20-21) Council received 2,147 planning applications; only 5 applications or 0.23% of all applications were appealed to VCAT for failure to determine.


Rhonda Goodman asked the following in relation to the Closure of Geelong Saleyards:

In August 2018 the Geelong Saleyards were shut down by the administrators for the COGG leaving hundreds of people without a place to buy and sell their stock, travelling to Ballarat, Colac, Mortlake, etc put an enormous cost to transport for the small farmer and also the Stock carriers. How sad to learn that the truck wash is the next blow for the livestock industry.

Yes, I agree that the position is not ideal but please leave the wash where it is until another can be built. Surely that is not too hard considering the amount of Livestock Carriers and others, including COGG street sweeper using this wash daily. Bio security is a high priority in animal welfare and clean transport vehicles are a must. Please do this industry a favour, leave the Truck Wash where it is until another facility is built.

Response (City Services):

Thank you for your question, Rhonda.

The City has engaged an independent consultant to undertake an options study to inform future decisions regarding the livestock truck wash at the former Geelong sale yard site. Through the study, truck wash users have been engaged including Goodman’s.  A report on the truck wash will be considered at the 26 October Council meeting.

The City street sweepers no longer use the truck wash facility.


Claude Eagles asked the following in relation to Flooding risk in the Kardinia Creek Catchment:

We are concerned about flooding risk in the Kardinia Creek Catchment area linked to known problems with the main water drainage system, summarised as follows in the 2014 Report on the Highton Drainage/Flood Study commissioned by the CoGG: “The majority of the problems relate to the characteristics of the catchment (topography, development density and age). The removal of the natural waterway and the installation of various main drains (typically built prior to the 1980’s) has resulted in limited capacity in the underground pipes, whilst a lack of clear overland flow paths results in surcharge and excess flows through private property.” Council adopted the report in 2015 but, instead of remedying the problems, it imposed Special Building Overlays on a number of Highton properties. These provide little protection to existing properties and increase insurance premiums.

Development in the area exacerbated flooding risks. In January 2016 waist-deep flooding occurred in the area again. A key property (2 Morven Court) with marshy ground and a dam that retained flood water, is now subject to an application for a development permit for 27 townhouses. The development will impact on the flow and velocity of flood water.

Question 1: What caused the failure of drainage-related infrastructure in Highton leading to the 2016 flooding of Vanessa Avenue and Morven Court?

Responses (City Services):

Thank you for your questions, Claude.

Following a significant rainfall event in 2016, the stormwater overtopped the basin flowing overland east towards the low-lying properties within Vanessa Avenue and Morven Court. 

Question 2

How will flood damage to existing properties in that area be prevented in future?

Responses (City Services):

The outlet grill on the retarding basin was replaced with a tubular grill arrangement to enable leaf litter to either pass through or build-up in a location that did not block water flowing from the basin into the drain. Building and planning controls are in place to ensure that flood risk is not increased by new developments and ongoing monitoring of the drainage network ensures its optimal function for flood protection.


Serafino De Simone (on behalf of Sea-Change Village Nominees) asked the following in relation to Draft Bellarine Peninsula Statement of Planning Policy:

Please confirm that Phase-1 consultation in 2019 for the Bellarine DAL process considered “Public Engagement related to understanding the environment, landscape and lifestyle values the community want to protect” and that Phase-2 consultation in 2020 related to “Seeking feedback on a draft 50-year vision statement and draft policy approaches” and that neither of these consultation phases provided an opportunity to comment on specific details such as proposed changes to Settlement Boundaries at a property level as these were only published in reports released on June 29 2021.

Under the DELWP process, affected landholders and other interested parties, are being invited to make Submissions, which can be Private or Public, without any published commitment to how these Submissions will be reviewed. This is an unjust starting point. The Surfcoast DAL used an Independent Review Panel and Greater Geelong constituents are being subjected to an unknown and much lower standard of internal DELWP review.

We wish to address Council to provide context before formally requesting an answer in relation to our two questions that relate to item 2.9 of the Council agenda.

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Question 1

Thank you for your questions, Serafino.

Yes, this was the consultation program delivered by DELWP.

Question 2

Please confirm that Council's normal fair and just approach is to have an Independent Review Panel as part of the process to review and change Settlement Boundaries.

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Yes, when the City undertakes a planning scheme amendment the submissions are generally referred to a planning panel in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act.

In this case, the City is responding to the process put forward by the Minister for Planning and the option remains for the Minister for Planning to refer any or all submissions to the standing advisory committee.

The City’s adopted settlement strategy says: ‘the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes the most appropriate process to determine long term boundaries for the Bellarine’.

We agree that a robust, transparent and consultative process is an important part of planning processes. The officer’s recommendation calls for DELWP to provide a public response to submissions and changes made to the SPP. The Minister referring the matter to an advisory committee does not automatically result in more transparency around the reason for the final decision by the Minister. There is no requirement for the Minister to make the advisory committee reports public.


Doctor Jane Mooney asked the following in relation to Urban Design Framework (UDF) for Pakington Street (Geelong West) and Gordon Avenue:

Letter to Council. Geelong West and Pakington St (Pako) are very special places with a unique Village Vibe surrounded by heritage homes. It is these elements that give the suburb its charm. As such it is a place that residents and visitors highly value. Council have a genuine opportunity to rejuvenate the Northern end of Pako. This should be embraced sincerely and result in development that is thoughtful and sensitive which enhances resident’s enjoyment and liveability.

Unfortunately, the current Geelong West and Gordon Ave (Final Interim) urban design framework (UDF) (Aug 2021) (and henceforth, referred to as the proposed UDF) contains proposals for inappropriate building development that are ridiculously high (ranging from 4 – 10 stories) that would be deemed inappropriate in Melbourne suburbs let along Geelong West. The proposed building heights should be decreased by at least 50%. Furthermore, the “Woolies development” has only appeared on the latest plan and was buried on 1 map within the 150-page Plan. This 8-story development covering approximately half of the Pakington Strand site is enormous.

Residents have no knowledge of this proposal and have been denied the opportunity to consider the impact of this on local amenity. Pakington St already carries a lot of traffic. The northern end of Pakington St also has 2 primary schools nearby, which also add to traffic.

There is already development of high-rise apartment buildings on nearby Mercer St. Moreover, the council has identified the area around Geelong Train Station as suitable for the development of multiple high-rise apartment buildings. Both areas - Mercer St and around the train station have much better transport access (road and train).

High rise development is better suited to these areas. This would remove the deleterious impact high rise developments would have on residents and their houses in period suburb of Geelong West. This proposed over development will cause a myriad of problems for local residents, including:

  1. Will Council respect Geelong West residents and divert the building development proposed for the Northern end of Pakington St to more appropriate alternatives such as Mercer St and the area surrounding Geelong train station?

  2. Will Council decrease the proposed building heights in the Pako UDF by more than 50%?

  3. Will Council find a more appropriate location for the proposed Woolworths high rise development and will Council extend the public consultation period for this proposed development given it has only just appeared on the latest version of the UDF (Aug 2021)?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Thank you for your questions, Jane.

The site you have identified is currently zoned as mixed-use, however, there are no height controls in the planning scheme to guide future development. It was therefore deemed prudent to address this gap in the UDF. Your questions will, together with all submissions made during this round of consultation, be considered in preparing the final UDF to be presented to Council later this year. 


[Back to Top]

Petitions

Nil.


[Back to Top]

Contents | Next Page: Section 2 – Reports

City of Greater Geelong