Council Minutes - Section 1: Procedural Matters - 28 September 2021

Contents | Next Page: Section 2 – Reports

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Geelong City Council Virtual meeting livestreamed on our website, commencing at 6:00pm.



1.1 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.


[Back to Top]

1.2 Apologies

Councillor Asher (Leave of Absence).


[Back to Top]

1.3 Leave of Absence

Councillor Aitken moved, Councillor Mansfield seconded -

That Leave of Absence be granted to Councillor Asher for the period 28 September to 15 October 2021 inclusive.

Carried.


Councillor Murrihy moved, Councillor Kontelj seconded -

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

Carried.


[Back to Top]

1.4 Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Councillor Kontelj Indirect Financial Interest in Agenda Item 2.4 Draft Procurement Policy in that the business of which Councillor Kontelj is a Director responds to Council tenders and conducts business with Council.


[Back to Top]

1.5 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution - Item 1.5.1

Councillor Mansfield moved, Councillor Grzybek seconded -

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 24 August 2021 be confirmed.

Carried.


Resolution - Item 1.5.1

Councillor Mason moved, Councillor Harwood seconded -

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 14 September 2021 be confirmed.

Carried.


[Back to Top]

1.6 Public Question and Submission Time

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

Question 1

With reference to "Pakington Street and Gordon Avenue Urban Design Framework Final UDF August 2021", is the Council aware that the population density of Geelong West is already 32/hectare, significantly higher than other inner suburbs, and why is Council attempting to further increase population density such that the suburb will become unliveable?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Thank you, Maureen for your questions and continued engagement with this important project.

We would also like to acknowledge your submission on the Interim Final Pakington St and Gordon Ave UDF.

Populations densities across the municipality were taken into account when preparing the Greater Geelong Settlement Strategy, adopted in August 2020. Population densities of around 30 people per hectare for an inner-city suburb are considered to be moderate. The Pakington Street North Precinct and Gordon Avenue precincts were identified as Increased Housing Diversity Areas, to support the goal of accommodating 50% of population growth through urban infill.

Question 2

Why is the Framework flexible on heights & there is no mandated maximum so that Pakington Street North will become a high rise wasteland with no limits on heights when it is likely developers will seek to make maximum profit from as many apartments as they can as is admitted in the Framework document?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

The Interim Final UDF proposes medium-rise height limits across all three precincts, including introducing limits where none currently exist. The discretionary aspect of the proposed height limits only apply where it can be proven that additional height (which is capped at 1-2 storeys) will have no adverse impact on amenity (public and private) and heritage, and, in addition, the development offers net community benefit above the minimum requirements. This approach does not guarantee additional height on every site. On the contrary, most sites will not be able to meet the aforementioned criteria because of the other controls proposed in the Interim UDF.

Question 3

Is the Council aware of what heat island effects are and why are 4, 6, 8 and 10 storey buildings being proposed to be built that will have effect of creating a significant increase in temperatures in Pakington Street North because heat will be absorbed by the building fabric and the proposal recommends an 80% coverage along the street which any amount of tree planting won't counteract?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

The City has undertaken research with Deakin University on this very important issue, and the Urban Heat Island Report is available to view on our website.

The majority of sites within the Pakington Street North precinct, directly abutting Pakington Street, have an existing 80% site coverage, whereas the Interim Final UDF proposes reduced site coverage for all major development sites. On top of this, density controls are also proposed in the form of Floor Area Ratios, to further reduce site coverage by breaking up the potential bulk and mass of future potential development. Controls are also in place to ensure that all new developments meet a minimum level of environmental performance in design to reduce energy use and the heat island effect. These controls, together with urban greening and water sensitive urban design, are proven measures for mitigating the potential heat island effect.


[Back to Top]

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

Interim Final Pakington Street (Geelong West) and Gordon Avenue UDF Gordon Avenue and Autumn Street.

With the proposed UDF there will be significant increase in traffic in very narrow local streets. Hope Street is in effect a one car at a time street and was never designed to take high level of traffic flows. The proposed UDF will make current lack of parking much worse – residents and visitors will have no parking.

There will also be significant increase in noise due to increase in traffic and activity resulting in a reduction of our lifestyle quality and enjoyment. With this high-density proposal, I have concerns also for potential reduction in property values due to the change of character and aesthetics of our traditionally Heritage community. This proposed high rise development will directly abut my property with 10 and 6 level buildings towering over all of Hope and Weller Street.

Question 1

How can this scale of development even be considered remotely appropriate for a low-rise heritage area?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Thank you, Shane, for your questions and interest in this UDF.

I note you have also made a formal submission to the process, which I appreciate. In determining the proposed heights for all areas adjacent to residential areas, including those with a Heritage Overlay, a number of considerations are made with regard to the transition in height between existing properties, as well as minimising overshadowing and overlooking. To this end, a range of controls have been proposed, including setbacks, to ensure that new development does not directly abut existing lower buildings; separation between new development, landscape interfaces; density controls to limit how much of a site that can be developed. The areas with proposed 6 and 10 storey height limits, adjacent to your property, will be separated by a laneway and landscaping, in addition to the proposed setbacks.

Question 2

How will the amenity, liveability, solar access and privacy, on street parking and increased traffic flow be maintained and managed for existing residents in abutting and nearby houses / streets?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

The Interim Final UDF includes proposals for streetscape and public realm upgrades, including the creation of new open spaces and enhanced street tree canopy. The Interim Final UDF also includes the requirement for an Infrastructure Capacity Assessment to be undertaken immediately after endorsement, which will identify what infrastructure will be needed to support the proposed development and the contributions required from future development to fund this infrastructure. All proposed developments are subject to the scrutiny of the planning process, and therefore must demonstrate how they will contribute to improved amenity, including mitigating impact on overshadowing, and how they will meet requirements for the provision of car parking, as well as mitigation of traffic impacts on the local road network.

Question 3

How have the direct impacts on abutting properties of the UDF been factored into the building height proposals? The UDF public consultation period should be extended and reopened until such time as all these issues are publicly disclosed, and a traffic and parking plan completed so those directly impacted have the opportunity to provide feedback on the complete plan, rather than the current one which is missing key pieces of critical information.

Response (City Planning & Economy):

In determining the proposed heights, a number of considerations have been made with regard to the transition in height between existing properties, as well as minimising overshadowing and overlooking. To this end, a range of controls have been proposed, including setbacks to ensure that new development does not directly abut existing lower buildings; separation between new development, landscape interfaces; density controls that limit how much of a site that can be developed and to encourage the mass and bulk of a development to be broken up as much as possible.


[Back to Top]

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

My questions relate to the Pako / Gordon Avenue UDF interim final draft, in regard to the issues of disclosure of information and transparency, which has prevented proper public consultation. In terms of disclosure, Mr Gareth Smith stated in the Geelong Advertiser on 13/9/21 that “City has commenced preparation of a parking plan” which is very different to having completed a parking plan. The public has therefore been asked to provide feedback on an incomplete UDF development proposal, with no parking plan, which is a crucial piece of information to be missing and therefore not disclosed.

Additionally, The Strand / Woolworth site has only been disclosed since 6/8/21 when the interim final draft of the UDF was released. It was never included in previous drafts. This has not allowed for the requirement outlined and detailed in Council’s own Community Engagement Policy and I quote “participants to have access to appropriate information and time and space to deliberate". It is inaccurate that Council is claiming that the UDF details have been out in the public domain for the last 18 months. The Woolworths site was publicly disclosed for the first time as a key development site on 6/8/21. Council also only just released the traffic impact assessment report after the close of business on 23/9/21 – less than 24 hours before the UDF public feedback deadline - and on the eve of a public holiday / long weekend. Most people would not even have been aware this had been released let alone have had time to assess and provide feedback with less than a day to comment to meet the public comment deadline. 

There are also questions about the public having access to “appropriate information” given the traffic impact assessment report utilised 2009 Council provided data as the base for modelling for traffic impact purposes, rendering the assessment worthless as it bears no relationship to actual traffic volume conditions. Council therefore has not provided "access to either appropriate information or time and space to deliberate".

Under Council’s own Community Engagement Policy re the form of engagement there is the requirement to use and I quote - "methods to produce the most meaningful feedback". Deciding to release the interim final draft of the UDF on 6th August (the first day Geelong went into the previous lockdown) meant people were focused on other issues, have been unable to gather, hold public or street meetings or interact in the normal way due to Covid restrictions which is not conducive to providing meaningful feedback. Council did not include information about the UDF on its own Facebook page, or put up bench-seat posters in the Pako heritage core (until the 5-week mark of the original 6-week public consultation period). Releasing the traffic impact report with less than 24 hours before the public comment period closed also is not going to provide "meaningful feedback" especially as many people would not have been aware the report had been released.

Given all the above, my questions are:

Question 1

Will Council re-open and extend the public feedback period, and will Council delay voting on the UDF until such time as:

  1. A traffic impact assessment is redone utilising up to date data rather than the 12-year-old data Council provided so as to enable genuine public feedback to be provided; and

  2. Until the parking plan is completed and released to the public for feedback, and until the  community is out of lockdown and public meetings can be held? 

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Thank you for your questions Angela, and for your continued interest and input to the UDF process, including meeting to discuss your views and answer questions with Councillors and officers.

The public consultation period was recently extended from 17 September to 24 September, to accommodate additional feedback and help alleviate impacts of COVID-19 restrictions.

No further extensions are currently proposed to the 30 weeks of formal consultation already undertaken for the draft and Interim Final UDFs.

Question 2

Council said that it had commenced preparation of the parking plan. When will this be completed, and when will Council make this available to the public?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

A draft of the Parking Plan is expected to be released for public feedback in January 2022.

It’s worth noting that the Parking Plan is an expedited action from the UDF, not part of the framework itself.

Question 3

Given the Woolworths site only appeared for the first time in the 6/8/21 interim final UDF draft and was not mentioned in previous drafts, what assurance can the public have that there will not be further never-before-seen additions included in the final draft of the UDF?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

The Final UDF will not include any additional proposals to those already presented in the Interim Final UDF.

The omission of height limits in the planning scheme on the Woolworths/Strand site was identified after the publication of the draft UDF. To rectify this issue, height limits were included in the Interim Final UDF.

Question 4

On what date will Council release the final draft of the UDF to the public for comment and feedback prior to the Council vote so the public knows the full contents of the final UDF that Council will be voting on? And what period of time would a further round of public feedback be open for?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

City officers will evaluate feedback received through the current consultation process and prepare a final UDF for consideration by Council at its public meeting in November 2021.

As part of standard Council meeting processes, the final UDF and officer report will be released to the public in the week prior to the meeting. There is no formal consultation during this period.

As mentioned above, no further extensions are currently proposed to the 30 weeks of formal consultation already undertaken for the draft and Interim Final UDFs.


[Back to Top]

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

Question 1

In relation to the UDF, will the council owned car park in Autumn Street become open space or will be high rise dwellings?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Thank you, Sharon, for your interest in the Pakington Street and Gordon Avenue Interim Final UDF. In answer to your question, the Council-owned public car park on Autumn Street has been identified as a potential future open space in the Interim Final UDF.


[Back to Top]

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

Most residents have at least 2 vehicles per household, if not more, parking is already at a premium in Geelong West, the streets, with few exceptions, are very narrow, and won’t cope with a larger volume of traffic along with more parked vehicles.

Question 1

What is the proposal to alleviate this concern as more often than not parking associated with this sort of accommodation is inadequate, ie. one parking space or garage.

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Thanks for the question Robyn, which I understand is in relation to the Pakington St and Gordon Ave Interim Final UDF.

Each proposed development will be assessed through the planning process and is required to demonstrate how it meets the requirements set out in the planning scheme for parking. These requirements include meeting minimum car park provisions, as well as ensuring that the design and location of car parking is of a high standard and contributes to a safe environment.


[Back to Top]

Andrew Ball asked the following in relation to Community Safety – Road obstructions and litter from construction sites:

Question 1

Who is responsible for public safety in new estates that are open to the public & having new houses constructed in them?

The query is in relation to building compliance particularly relating to temporary fencing being left open across footpaths when trades leave the site and there being lots of general building materials scattered across the footpaths & roads creating a risk to the public.

Response (City Services):

Thank you for your question, Andrew.

The civil construction, building and demolition industries have responsibilities under the Environment Protection Act 2017 to proactively manage the risk of harm to human health including managing waste. These requirements are covered by an Environment Management Plan which is approved by the City prior to the start of a build.

Concerns about compliance can be reported to the City for investigation on 03 5272 5272 or online via our website.


[Back to Top]

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

Question 1

  1. Re:  UDF Geelong West.  I refer to application for 39-45 Gordon Avenue, Geelong West to amend their application to build 8 and 9 storey buildings, within 50 metres of Pakington St, despite the outlined Gordon Street Precinct plans for staggered building height, starting at 1-2 storeys, rising to 10 storeys at Latrobe Terrace.  I have objected to the original proposal of 10 storeys, objected again to this amendment, applied to VCAT and advised COGG.  Please confirm that this development is not to be permitted.

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Thank you for your question, Eve.

The original application for a 12+ storey development at 39-45 Gordon Avenue, Geelong West was refused by Council in February 2021. The proponent appealed the decision to VCAT, and a hearing has been scheduled for 25-29 October 2021. The proponent recently lodged amended plans with VCAT, showing a reduced building height of 8+ and 9+ storeys.

City Planning officers are now preparing for this hearing, factoring in principles from the Pakington St and Gordon Ave Interim Final UDF. The final outcome for this planning matter will be decided by VCAT, not the City or the Council. The UDF consultation and preparation continues as a separate process to this planning application and VCAT proceeding.


[Back to Top]

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

Hello, my name is Ashlee and my home is on Wellington Street about 50 metres from Pakington Street where there are proposed 4 storey apartments to be built. As soon as the afternoon comes, I believe those structures will completely block the afternoon sun to my entire backyard. I bought my home before these proposals were prepared with the expectation a multilevel apartment building wouldn’t be overlooking my backyard.

Question 1

Have you prepared a day by day impact throughout each season of those buildings on existing homes between Wellington and Anglesea Streets to ensure no blocking of sun on gardens or solar panels?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Thank you for your questions, Ashlee.

Solar testing and shadow analysis have been undertaken to inform the Urban Design Framework. Any new development will need to submit a planning application which will be assessed against the planning scheme and will involve further scrutiny of overlooking and solar access considerations.

Question 2

The UDF shows two very small areas of parks proposed for the Pakington north precinct, why only two and why not larger or made into community gardens for apartment residents to utilise as a community garden?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

The Implementation section of the UDF includes actions to investigate infrastructure and open space provisions, including upgrade opportunities for West Park. This will trigger further work to consider additional greening opportunities in the area.

Question 3

If apartment residents exceed your expected vehicle ownership proposal will you restrict parking permits along local streets to ensure current residents have enough on street parking? 

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Private car parking provision for new developments is a requirement that is managed through the Planning Scheme. A Parking Plan is under development to manage public parking provisions in the area over time.


[Back to Top]

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

Question 1

Why change the vibe of Pako? Pakington Street has become the heart of Geelong and is already a unique and fun place to go.

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Thank you for your questions, Hannah.

Urban Design Frameworks provide a mechanism to direct investment and renewal in an area while guiding future development outcomes. The UDF does not propose major changes to the main retail part of Pakington Street other than upgrades to footpaths and opportunities to introduce more greening and street trees. The adopted Greater Geelong Settlement Strategy makes a commitment to direct 50% of future growth in Greater Geelong to existing urban areas that have good access to services and public transport, including Pakington Street.

Question 2

What will happen about parking? I work along Pako and already sometimes struggle to get a park. What will happen to us workers when you take away on street parking?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

The UDF also does not propose making major changes to on-street parking on Pakington Street. A Parking Plan was included as an action in the Draft UDF, and this is currently underway.


[Back to Top]

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

Question 1

Regarding the Traffic Impact Report released by Council on 23/9/21 relative to the Pakington St UDF.

What consideration was given in the traffic assessment report to the Saleyards site with 1300 residents which will cause increased traffic flow entering the northern part of Pakington Street and surrounding areas including Shannon Avenue?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Thank you for your questions, Lisa.

The modelling in the transport assessment has used growth factors for all existing traffic entering and exiting the study area, in addition to the potential traffic generation from future developments within the study area.

Question 2

As a resident living on Shannon Avenue, where traffic is already continuous during the day and gridlocked in peak periods. We DON'T want to see the road reverted back to 2 lanes in both directions. Has this been considered and can Council confirm this is not part of any future traffic management plans? Has a current Traffic impact assessment been undertaken on these major surrounding roads?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Shannon Avenue does not form part of the study area for the UDF, and therefore no consideration has been given to any changes to the street layout.

Question 3

We chose to live in Manifold Heights 20 years ago, simply loving this Heritage area incorporating Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown with beautiful heritage homes and buildings, the proximity to fabulous schools, fantastic specialised shopping, cafes and restaurants in a village environment and central location. We are bound by heritage overlays across this neighbourhood. How is it feasible for Council to consider and approve high-rise developments to this magnitude in this precinct?

I agree that the Rail site is an eye sore and needs redevelopment. Will Council consider low rise residential at this site no more than 3 levels in keeping with the neighbourhood and with specific heritage architecture elements and adequate green space surrounds?

All other high-rise developments proposed in the Geelong West UDF should be moved to perhaps Mercer St or the City Centre where this can be accommodated. The beauty and unique vibe of Pako must be preserved. Will Council give this their consideration?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

The adopted Greater Geelong Settlement Strategy makes a commitment to direct 50% of future growth in Greater Geelong to existing urban areas that have good access to services and public transport, including Pakington St. This will provide new lifestyle and business opportunities for our growing population and contribute to more sustainable development. A low-rise residential development on the railway sidings area would not support population growth, housing diversity and affordability. A new public open space is proposed for this site.

Question 4

I note the Traffic Impact Report was only released by 23/09/2021, 24 hours before the community engagement deadline. This is completely inadequate and doesn't allow time for public review or feedback. Why is the modelling presented in this Report inclusive of 12-year-old traffic data for key intersections and side Streets off Pakington Street? Why hasn't a current full Traffic impact assessment been undertaken with at least early 2020 data pre- pandemic? Where is Council's due diligence?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

The modelling in the transport assessment uses the latest available turning movement counts. A growth factor of 1% per year over 10 years was added to the older data, to establish a base (pre-COVID) 2019 year. The 1% growth factor was determined by reviewing historical data collected by the Department of Transport at signalised intersections in the area. This is an industry standard approach when more recent data is not available.


[Back to Top]

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

Question 1

Having analysed the UDF for the Pakington Street (Geelong West area) and poorly constructed traffic impact - How are you going to avoid another City Council embarrassment like the Malop Street green spine? 

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Thank you for your question, Mitchell.

The outcomes of the Pakington Street & Gordon Avenue Interim Final UDF have been developed in collaboration with the Geelong West community, with formal consultation undertaken over a total period of 30 weeks. Independent traffic engineers have provided recommendations for the management of future traffic growth generated by the proposed development in the UDF, utilising the City’s most up to date traffic and parking data. We will continue to monitor and investigate the impacts of different stages of future development and ensure road network and sustainable transport upgrades are prioritised accordingly.


[Back to Top]

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

Question 1

Re: Pako upgrade. What’s the possibility of residential property owners having the zoning changed to multi story free of charge when they are next to commercial properties when they are getting a free height change or have been allowed to develop multistorey buildings?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Ross, thank you for your question.

Any new development is dependent on current or future landowners lodging a planning application, which will then be subject to more detailed scrutiny and review, which includes needing to demonstrate potential impacts on nearby properties.

Question 2

Will the urban planners come see the properties personally to see the impact the height of buildings will have on their property? Have any developers actually applied for zoning changes pending this development?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

The proposed heights in the UDF are predominantly mid-scale and are being proposed in a way that is responsive to the context and sensitive to the adjacent low-scale residential areas while increasing development potential. Sites for multi-storey developments have been strategically identified due to their locations having minimal impacts on neighbouring properties. Permitted building heights transition in order to be responsive to surrounding residential areas.


[Back to Top]

Louis De Koker asked the following in relation to the City of Greater Geelong - Urban Forest Strategy:

Background: The 2015 CoGG Urban Forest Strategy, delivered by the City's Parks and Gardens Department, through the Tree Management Team, indicates that it ‘expands on the concept of a ‘City in a Park’, which is focused on Geelong's CBD, to enhance the public and private tree population in all of the suburbs and townships across Greater Geelong’.

The Strategy also recognises the importance of the private realm and of all open space in Geelong in contributing to the urban forest. In addition, the CoGG Tree Management 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”.

However, despite the references to private tree populations, the Tree Management Policy protects trees on private property only to the extent that they are subject to protection under the CoGG Planning Scheme. The CoGG Planning Scheme, in turn, only requires permit for the removal of native Victorian trees.

Question 1

What steps have the CoGG taken to ensure that, despite the limitations set out above, the management of all trees in the private realm is integrated into the City's Parks and Gardens Department, and specifically, the Tree Management Team’s remit?

Response (City Services):

Thank you for your questions, Louis.

The City’s Parks and Gardens Department is not responsible for the management of trees on private property.

Question 2

The CoGG Urban Forest Strategy contains detailed maps of the trees in Highton and Whittington with a low useful life expectancy and indicates them using red dots.

  1. How many of the trees associated with red dots on the two maps were removed since 2015?

  2. How many trees were planted in the same locations to replace the trees removed?

Response (City Services):

The City does not maintain records of tree removals for specific planning zone areas. Since 2015 the City has planted a total of 35,690 advanced trees throughout the City; of these, 1,566 were planted in Highton and 782 were planted in Whittington.


[Back to Top]

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

Question 1

In relation to the Pakington Street UDF: Will you be counting any roof top terraces and cooling towers on top of the new buildings as an actual storey? Will you be building underground carparking for residents in these new high-rise buildings?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Louisa, thank you for your question.

Roof top terraces and cooling towers on top of the new buildings are not considered as additional storeys. According to Victorian Planning Provisions, a ‘storey’ is ‘that part of a building between floor levels, or a floor level and ceiling. This can include an attic, basement, built over car parking area, and mezzanine.’

Each new development must meet certain requirements for the provision of car parking, which is the responsibility of the developer in question. Underground parking is strongly encouraged for such residential developments.


[Back to Top]

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

Help save Pako/Geelong West from high-rise development in just over three weeks the petition “Help save Pako/Geelong West from high-rise development” received over 850 signatures and over 80 people registered comments. These comments, as you will see when you look at the petition, which I believe is being tabled at tonight’s meeting, overwhelmingly objected to the village character of Pakington Street, Geelong West being destroyed by such inappropriate high-rise development as proposed in the Interim Final UDF. 

Question 1

My question to Council is: Will Council respect the wishes of petitioners and vote to reduce the heights of buildings in the proposed UDF to ensure that the vibrant character of Pako is protected?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Susanne, thank you for your question.

The Final UDF will take into account the feedback from all stakeholders and has been developed with the intention of maintaining the character and appeal of the Pakington Street precinct. The scale of development proposed in the Interim Final UDF was based on changing economic conditions, the infill requirements of the adopted Greater Geelong Settlement Strategy to meet population growth, housing diversity and housing affordability, as well Council’s Retail Strategy


[Back to Top]

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

I am supportive of development that is sensitive and appropriate. I would like to see development that rejuvenates the Northern end of Pako and Gordon Avenue. However, the proposal outlines wall to wall 4, 6, 8 and 10 storey high-rise buildings that are concentrated at the Northern End of Pakington St (Wellington St to Church St) and along Gordon Ave.

This proposed UDF is not aimed at rejuvenation but at maximising the amount of new residents that can be squeezed into Geelong West in order to limit government expenditure on providing new infrastructure assets. If realised it will increase the population of Geelong West by 50% and make Pakington St one of the most densely populated parts of Melbourne. The scale of the high-rise buildings and the number of new residents will overwhelm an area that is already suffering significant traffic problems and population density. Geelong West already has a much higher population density than other suburbs of Geelong.

The Traffic Network Impact Assessment document that was released less than 24 hours before the end of the public consultation period (23/9/21 and commissioned by COGG) shows that the population of Geelong West will increase by 51%, with the addition of 5,400 new residents concentrated in North Pako and Gordon Ave. This huge increase in the density of the population will disproportionately affect Pakington Street, particularly at its Northern end and along Gordon Ave.

This huge increase in the density of the population will disproportionately affect Pakington Street, particularly at its Northern end and along Gordon Ave. This will significantly impact the amenity of existing residents. It also has major implications for local infrastructure. Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of this type of failed approach in many Melbourne suburbs. It would be a dreadful shame for the same fate to befall Pakington St. Melbourne’s failed policies should not be replicated in Geelong West.

Question 1

The UDF currently allows for high-rise buildings ranging in height from 4-10 stories. Within the UDF there is also the possibility of heights being increased by a further 1-2 storeys. These building heights are way too high and out of proportion with the surrounding low-rise businesses and residences. Will Council reduce the building heights contained within the UDF by more than 50% so that they fit with the existing character of the Pako surrounds?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

Jane, thank you for your question.

The Final UDF, including proposed height limits, will be informed by the feedback from all stakeholders. 

Question 2

Please explain what the process and timeline will be to allow proper public feedback and consultation in response to the final UDF.

Response (City Planning & Economy):

The public consultation period was recently extended from 17 September to 24 September, to accommodate additional feedback and help alleviate impacts of COVID-19 restrictions. No further extensions are currently proposed to the 30 weeks of formal consultation already undertaken for the draft and Interim Final UDFs. The Final UDF will be made available to the public in the week prior to the Council Meeting in November.

Question 3

How will existing landlocked Schools in the Pakington North area cope with increased enrolment demand due to the increased population density in Geelong West?

Response (City Planning & Economy):

The need for additional schools based on current population and future projections will be considered by Community Infrastructure Planning Unit in collaboration with the Department of Education.


[Back to Top]

Jeanne Nel asked the following in relation to the City of Greater Geelong - Urban Forest Strategy:

The CoGG web site indicates that the Urban Forest Strategy is delivered by the City's Parks and Gardens Department, through the Tree Management Team. It also indicates that certain aspects of the Plan rely on other Council departments to take an urban forest approach in their work and consider how their day-to-day operations can positively influence the City’s urban forest.

Question 1

Is the City's Parks and Gardens Department specified as a referral authority in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme?

Response (City Services):

Thank you for your questions, Jeanne.

External referral authorities only are specified in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme (clause 66).

Question 2

Since January 2019, how many applications, relating to Highton, under the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme were referred to the City's Parks and Gardens Department?

Response (City Services):

There have been 20 referrals since June 2019 to Parks and Gardens.

Question 3

Of these referrals, in how many instances did the Parks and Gardens Department indicate that they were supportive of the application and how many not?

Response (City Services):

Twelve of the 20 referrals were supported.


[Back to Top]

1.7 Petitions

Councillor Mansfield presented a petition containing approximately 850 signatures from Angela Mangan and Susanne Wong regarding the Urban Design Framework (UDF) for Pakington Street (Geelong West) and Gordon Avenue.

Councillor Sullivan presented a petition containing 10 signatures on behalf of Councillor Asher from Hal Bisset requesting the Sealing of Asbury Street West, Ocean Grove.


[Back to Top]

Meetings Fixed by Council

In accordance with Rules 3.4 and 3.6 of the Governance Rules, Council advises that the October and November Council meetings fixed to be held off-site will be held in accordance with COVID-19 Directions in place at that time. Notice of the meeting location will be published on Council’s website and advertised in local newspapers.


[Back to Top]

Contents | Next Page: Section 2 – Reports

City of Greater Geelong